Carl-Richard

I know. It's just not the main deal imo.

I saw.

I'm a jerk and we're a cult. What a great combo. You ran out of points 5 responses ago.

Complete submission to the supreme Teacher! Alleoh uakbar! ? Let him guide us into linguistic transcendence! ??? It's an unwanted part which you want to limit, and in this case it's very overcomeable: just don't use the word.

This forum is not a closed community where all the members accept 100% of what Leo says uncritically, so no.

We use words to communicate concepts in an understandable way, and if our use of words is incongruent with the larger context, our communication will break down. Instead of being inflexible with your use of words, try to communicate the concepts in a way that is appropriate to the situation. To use the word "solipsism" to describe the primacy of consciousness on a forum like this is not appropriate, as evidenced by the sea of confusion spawned by Leo's video on the topic and by responses such as @michaelcycle00 and @Someone here.

Great. So again, an actual solipsist would believe that some sense perceptions that they have identified as themselves are the only things that truly exist. They do this based on how their own body and mind seems to relate to the environment and other bodies within it. When I say "mind", I'm referring to the predominant Western conception of "mind", which is a collection of sense perceptions. So let me repeat: the body and the mind are sense perceptions; what you call objects, sounds, shapes, colors, sensations. Now, to say that "consciousness" is the only thing that truly exists, is not the same thing as solipsism. Yes, consciousness is what you fundamentally are, and this "you" is the only thing that truly exists, but it has nothing to do with your body, your mind, or how the environment or other bodies relate to it.

Can anybody answer what is the difference between a sense perception and pure consciousness?

Answer the question.

Do you know the difference between a sense perception and pure consciousness?

Imagine that you're auditioning for a play. You're sitting in the audience with the other auditionees while watching each person go up on stage and performing their rendition of the character. You're all very good actors and have practiced your lines very well. You all know the same lines and you understand the emotional appeal of the character and how the actor needs to feel during the act. You go up on stage and deliver your rendition of the character. After you're done and the audience gives their applause, you sit back down again with the other auditionees who just delivered their act. You talk to some of them and you say: "ah, now I understand how you guys felt up there! I was very nervous in the beginning, but when I got to the very emotional part, I remembered your guys' delivery and it seemed like I managed to pull it off as well". Some of them answer: "yeah, didn't that part feel amazing once you were able to get into the zone and deeply express the pain and sorrow of the character?" And you answer: "oh yes, it was very moving". Now, out from those experiences, what on earth would indicate that it was only you who experienced the emotional depth of the character, or that it was only you who experienced other people delivering their rendition of the character? I believe that solipsism can only be a result of being so stuck inside your intellectual mind that it overshines any obvious clues from other dimensions of life, i.e. the more social and emotional dimensions. You have to deny all your experiences of deeply connecting with people and understanding their thoughts and feelings. Again, if this is not what you mean by solipsism, you should drop the term.

Cessation is just another term for the pure consciousness mystical experience, or ego death, or samadhi, or awakening, where all sense perceptions disappear. There exists neural correlates for this (the Default Mode Network is a very good one). No. I think it's nonsensical. To call yourself a solipsist, you have to conflate sense perceptions with pure consciousness. Pure consciousness is in its most fundamental form devoid of all qualities, and all qualities arise within it. To look at an other person and think "that person is nothing like me" is such a juvenile way of approaching reality, it's ridiculous. You are not the person you think you are. The person is just sense perceptions. To think that you are the only person that truly exists is ludicrous. If this is an inaccurate characterization of your views, stop using the solipsism term to describe your views.

Largely correct, but you're projecting an expectation onto Leo of being the usual spiritual teacher (and maybe that is largely on him for not making that clear, which most of my critiques of him are about). The psychonaut doesn't have to care much about gradually unwinding the ego. It's mostly tangential to their mission. Also, the point about friction creating the reaction to the experience is partially true, but the state itself does have an inherent quality to it. That is why you hear spiritual teachers talk about your absolute nature being happiness, peace or bliss, and why spiritual teachers act differently at all from normal people. The friction can indeed make it overwhelmingly blissful, but that is partially because it reflects the quality of the state. If you instead experience a supremely hellish state of consciousness, that will not feel like bliss.

What — a person collapsing? That is why you need to watch sports in general. This has always been a thing.

Proves what wrong?

Ask people who claim to know what it means. You don't actually have to go outside the forum though. Just ask @michaelcycle00 The Western notion of "mind" (and "self") is flimsy, and most people are not able to distinguish between perceptions and consciousness.

Then you're complicit in the cultural appropriation. Ask any person outside of this forum what solipsism means.

So what is telepathy? What is empathy even? How can you pick up on people's internal experiences and experience something as if you were them? Is that just a hoax your brain performs for no reason, or are you actually getting a taste of how it's like to be them?

He actually agrees with me. The problem is that he culturally appropriates the term, giving it a different meaning than most people are familiar with. That is partially why he took down the solipsism video and stopped talking much about it, because he experienced such a huge backlash from many people on the forum. The word "solipsism" is overwhelmingly associated with a Western idea with Western assumptions, and it's blatantly obvious when looking at the amount of confusion about what Leo really means. It's socially irresponsible to culturally appropriate a well-established word in this way, especially something like solipsism which is an existential minefield.

@Tyler Robinson Chill.

Solipsism is thinking that the perceptions you associate with your human experience are absolute and that there is nothing beyond them. But there is something beyond your perceptions: it's consciousness. The solipsists thinks: "there are some perceptions present: my body, which feels like it's at "the center"; an environment, which surrounds my body; and some other bodies in that environment. No other bodies can be at the center, because that is how it appears". That is a mistake. The feeling that your body is "at the center" is an illusion. You can prove this by witnessing your current body disappear and remaining as pure consciousness. Then, "the center" is just seen as pure infinite void. You can also smoke salvia and become a window, or have various types of out-of-body experiences. So if "the center" can be decoupled from your body, then you can't attribute "the center" to your body in the first place. In reality, all bodies are at the center (and not at the center at the same time).

Experience the cessation of all perceptions, of the "center" of consciousness falling away, and see through the illusion of solipsism.

You would take a lethal shot, but your skin would fly off your face before that

I would like to know the reasoning the university uses.

Not true.