Jacobsrw

Hahaha ? Dive into your experience the truth is there to be known. No words our conceptual frameworks can supersede it. Once concepts and thoughts diminish you answer will arise.

Found this kinda funny

Yep. But where does solipsism exist? A mind. The mind collapses when consciousness is realised. As there remains no mind for activity to occur. Solipsim believes in its own reality, not an ultimate reality. Just like the movie on the screen. The movie character believes it’s own reality is what it perceives but ignores the screen from which displays it. The screen is consciousness and solipsism is nothing but a movie playing on it.

Exactly. However, just because something is imaginary doesn’t mean it has no reality to it. It’s just not an ultimate realty. Eg. A wave cannot explain the ocean but it is still made up of it.

Dude, it’s completely different don’t you see? Just because solipsism asserts one mind doesn’t mean it is synonymous with consciousness. This one mind relies on a personal self. There is no self in consciousness. When the “me” stops existing all realities from which a self creates do as well, this includes solipsism. No self, no solipsism. It’s very simple. “Me” is a concept that doesn’t exist for consciousness, it has no personification. Really we shouldn’t use it when referring to consciousness it causes confusion. I’ll leave it there I feel we are on two different band widths here. Appreciate your contributions.

Completely agree. In fact, I don’t even really condone diagnosis. I also resent pharmaceutical companies additionally. I was simply using it as an example of severity. If the DSM-5 is willing to provide a spectrum for it, there must be some consideration for its concern. Irrespective of that. It’s clear what unhealthy behaviour it creates. Just observe our youth. Highly stimulus dependent, short attentive spans, neurotic mood swings, emotional deregulation, addictive impulses and so on. This did not exist before the capitalisation of media.

There is no contradiction. It’s a problem of context. Do you not see the delusion of solipsism in your above statement? If all self’s are expressed through consciousness but then ultimately collapse as one, how can solipsism exist? There’s no self left to create its solipsistic reality. From a relative finite perspective, solipsism seems correct, from an ultimate perspective it is completely delusional. Solipsism is completely dependent on a seperate mind. The mind disappears into consciousness once it realises it’s ultimate nature. No self = no solipsism = consciousness. Have a mystical experience and you will see the fabrication of solipsism.

Precisely the point. If you collapse the ego, the “I”, solipsism ceases to exist. That’s the difference. Solipsism requires a mind to exists where consciousness does not. If “I” dissolves for a solipsist so does their reality. If “l”dissolves for consciousness it remains pure and untainted, it remains as reality itself. See the major difference here? Sollipsim is codependent. Consciousness is independent. This difference can be observed once your ego dissolves there won’t be are you left to contend with. You seem to be stuck in concepts.

No they are still quite different. Solipsism is predicated on an I, me, an ego self. Non-duality is predicated on consciousness, an infinite impersonal field. The main difference is this, solipsism claims perspectives are only one dimensional. Where non-duality states consciousness is multidimensional, expressed through many different perspectives (infinity). Infinity doesn’t exist for the solipsist. When there is no ego self there is no solipsism. Consciousness remains irrespective of an ego self. I feel you may be confusing Mind with Consciousness. Mind is the activity of consciousness.

Tell that to the mental healthcare system which now has media app and gaming on a spectrum of diagnosable disorder for an increasing multitude of people.

They aren’t the same. The difference is that solipsism presumes an existence made up of one mind experienced by a single ego. Where non-duality presumes existence is impersonal but experienced through a multiplicity of minds. Solipsism doesn’t allow for the expression of mind to be expressed different to itself. Where Non-duality accounts for the multiplicity of minds that inevitably arise from it in varying expressions.

Yes. He asserts that consciousness is the primacy from which all arises and all that arises is but merely a temporary activity of mind.

@Someone here Watch this, it may be helpful.

Realise awareness is impersonal, beyond all “I’s” and you will realise solipsism is a delusion. You do not require the dualism of mind to do this.

Haha dude he still hasn’t understood it. He continues to interrogate this inquiry through more thinking. Read above comments. Thinking cannot be validated by more thinking.

Good distinction. That’s why Ken Wilber distinguished “lines of development” to discern the quality of ones integration at any a particular level.

good work You will grow a lot more through open mindedness. Big tip: Be open to the very thing that threatens you. This is exactly what prevents ones development. They stay comfortable in their positions since this protects the ego from any form of dissolution. Once you are open to threat, you will inevitably continue to evolve since the ego won’t be holding you down to lower stages.

Well allow yourself to be consumed by it then tell me of your growth. I almost guarantee you will be become more deluded as a result. People don’t understand the level of mind manipulation apps of the sort produce. They are simply indoctrination machines for neuroticism.

It would be a good stage to move through regarding purifying the mind, since most of us are deluded by it. However, it’s important to remember that Buddhism is limited and only provides part of the Absolute. The rest lies far beyond it. One would have to eventually abandon Buddhism and allow reality to inform them of the entire picture.

Good work man! I would suggest one reason being, that the levels in which big picture meta thinking occur are only around stage yellow. And since the world is dominated by blue and orange, very few develop beyond, it’s too threatening otherwise. Unless one has the ability to exercise aspects of yellow they are likely remain at lower levels. Most levels below yellow are inherently attached to the means of serving an ideology. Ideology begins to crumble at yellow. This is what’s required to move up the spiral.

You are still assuming a mind prior to the awareness that created it. Fundamentally, there is no mind. To solemnly belief there is, is to grant the solipsistic paradigm, which is just pure illusion equivalent to each precipitating thought. Go to your direct experience and ask these questions. Continuing to interrogate this inquiry through conceptualising is of little good. It’s just using thinking to validate more thinking.

Hahaha you’re aren’t very good at taking your own advice One attempts to hint an important pointer you then attack them while naively assuming you know already what they have pointed to, interesting display of hypocrisy there. Consider adopting more humbleness. Clearly you have much to improvement in regards to producing in productive discussion. You are yet to realise the one you are have been critiquing the the entire time is in fact yourself (full circle). I recommend you integrate the work, it is clear you are stuck in conceptualsation from what has been displayed in your rhetoric here. I wish you well moving forward.

@The observer I understand they are pointers, you continue to ignore my responses regarding that. The crux is this, consider avoiding blanket statements that overlook what I am in fact pointing to. Simply naming pointers is not the same as realising those that exist already existing in front you.

@nistake In essence, I agree with this. Ones state of being should stem from this understanding but equally reflect in action so as to create powerful change in presence. Problems do not exist. All there is are simply matters of survival. Whether something either impinges upon it or supports it, that’s the only criterion. And even this is but pure bias and subjectivity. The only trap one must be careful of, is to not rationalise the primacy of Now as a justification to behave mindlessly. The Now has a crucial responsibility to it. Far greater than most spiritual circles give it credit. The Now is not a happy place of escape nor a sad place of demise. It is the fundamental place from which all places are hallucinated.