Martin Ball says he's not solipsistic

[Wilhelm44]

13 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Questioner: How should you treat others? 

Ramana: there are no others, there is only yourself. 

Implication: everything is part of the same One Sentient Self. 

Conclusion: solipsism is bs. 

Im not saying solipsism is true, but I dont quite see how this reasoning proves solipsism to be false either ? "There is no others, there is only yourself" sounds very much in line with solipsism also.

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Im not saying solipsism is true, but I dont quite see how this reasoning proves solipsism to be false either ? "There is no others, there is only yourself" sounds very much in line with solipsism also.

Ramana is saying to treat others as yourself. If you can only treat with yourself, then you can only treat with sentience, since you're a sentience itself. That's where solipsism crumbles. 

Solipsism believes only you're sentient and everything else is the projection of your subconscious mind. Nonduality means the mind of God is playing all the characters all at once. 

Solipsism implies there is only one perspective called "your puny life". Whereas nonduality implies there are infinite perspectives and you are all of them all at once. Same infinite conciousness experiencing itself from infinite angles. 

Solipsism implies your will is the ultimate will (yet they self evidently can't control anything). Nonduality implies God's will controls everything, a portion of that will is manifesting through you and other portions of that same will is expressing through other life forms. 

In the end it's just one will like there is just one hand but that one will has many fingers. Each finger has its own function.  Whereas solipsism believes a finger is in control of the universe, even tho it's self evidently not true, yet they will continue to cling to that position despite all the evidence. 

Edited May 31 by Salvijus

[Breakingthewall]

10 hours ago, Nemra said:

@Breakingthewall, let's not make this complicated.

Please, prove that I'm actually experiencing stuff.

What you would eventually understand is that you cannot prove it, because it would require you to directly experience what I experience, which means you should become me.

But if you become me, then the proof will remain unproven, because all you would experience is my experience and not others'.

Well, why should you experience it in order to be able to prove it?

Because you only understand what experience is by experiencing stuff.

I don't need anything of that to prove that other exist, it's enough with understanding about what experience is. Experience is change, any change must be relative , any relationship implies two or more separated points. If there is something separated, there are others. 

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

How should we treat others? 

There is no you, who could treat others.

Nahm has entered the chat.

Could be.

We can see that the matter is a bitch. I guess we need some enlightenment experiences. 

[Nemra]

21 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I don't need anything of that to prove that other exist, it's enough with understanding about what experience is. Experience is change, any change must be relative, any relationship implies two or more separated points. If there is something separated, there are others. 

You are saying you don't need proof while trying to prove me otherwise. Cool.

Are there two experiences happening?

No.

Experience is absolute, because there is no other experience that you can compare it to at the moment.

You can compare your current experience with the memory of another experience.

Also, saying that there are forms in your experience doesn't prove that those forms have inner experience.

You are just ignoring what it means to experience things.

[zurew]

1 minute ago, UnbornTao said:

Could be.

Im not even trying  to challenge what Maharshi said -  I dont think by "you" he meant the same thing as what solipsists mean on this forum.

The term "you" can be indexed to God and it can be indexed to this limited dream character.

I suspect Maharshi indexed it to God and he would agree that indexing it to this limited human dream character would be a mistake and might even say that its a category error, because its conflating duality with nonduality.

[Salvijus]

2 minutes ago, Nemra said:

You are saying you don't need proof while trying to prove me otherwise. Cool.

Are there two experiences happening?

No.

Experience is absolute, because there is no other experience that you can compare it to at the moment.

You can compare your current experience with the memory of another experience.

Also, saying that there are forms in your experience doesn't prove that those forms have inner experience.

You are just ignoring what it means to experience things.

You can prove that your will is not ultimate. The fact you can't bend reality at your will is the proof you're not the sole maker of the dream. 

[Nemra]

13 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

You can prove that your will is not ultimate. The fact you can't bend reality at your will is the proof you're not the sole maker of the dream. 

I don't know what bending my whole reality would mean.

I'm just saying that your experience is all there is. And to say that others are having inner experiences contradicts that your experience is absolute.

[Salvijus]

10 minutes ago, Nemra said:

 

I'm just saying that your experience is all there is. And to say that others are having inner experiences contradicts that your experience is absolute.

Your experience is a taste of the absolute, not the end of the absolute. If you think there's nothing more to God than your puny experience, then you embarrassingly underestimated infinity. 

Edited May 31 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

8 minutes ago, Nemra said:

I don't know what bending my whole reality would mean.

It means controlling a dream like a lucid dream.

Edited May 31 by Salvijus

[Nemra]

2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Your experience is a taste of the absolute, not the end of the absolute. If you think there's nothing more to God than your puny experience, than you embarrassingly underestimated infinity. 

It's not puny at all.

You just have miserably failed to recognize that.

[Salvijus]

3 minutes ago, Nemra said:

It's not puny at all.

You just have miserably failed to recognize that.

All experience is magnificent in itself, but no experience is the end of God's greatness. 

Edited May 31 by Salvijus

[Nemra]

52 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

It's magnificent in itself, but God is infinitely more greater than that. 

Instead of saying God this, God that, understand what your experience is.

Edited May 31 by Nemra

[Salvijus]

3 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Instead of saying God this, God that, understand what you experience is.

You experience a taste of infinity. Not the end of infinity. Infinity is evermore greater than any taste of infinity you have right now or ever will have. 

Edited May 31 by Salvijus

[zurew]

44 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

We can see that the matter is a bitch. I guess we need some enlightenment experiences. 

I wouldnt be so sure that you can solve the issue with having experiences.

There is a possibility that it comes down the interpretation issues, not lack of enlightenment experiences.

 

So for example, notions like "aloneness" only make sense if there is an identity. If the pure infinite consciousness dissolves all identity (it doesn't have any identity), then aloneness doesn't make much sense.

Edited May 31 by zurew

[Breakingthewall]

It very obvious. Now your experience is determined by a form, like any other possible experience. Without any form there is no change, then there is no perception. Imagine a frame without change. You simply can't imagine it, it's out of the experience.

Then, if the experience is limited by a form, it could be limited by a different form. when? You could answer: after this form I will experience another. Then you are confusing the form with your nature. "You" is the form , your nature is the source of any form. When you think: I'm going to experience another form, this "I" is this form, you can't experience another form because you are this form . That the point of spirituality, detachment of the form, no confusing the form with god

[Nemra]

34 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

You experience a taste of infinity. Not the end of infinity. Infinity is evermore greater than any taste of infinity you have right now or ever will have. 

Taste or whatever doesn't matter.

You are not focusing on what I'm saying.

We are talking about people having inner experiences, which are imaginary since yours is all there is.

[Salvijus]

9 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Taste or whatever doesn't matter.

You are not focusing on what I'm saying.

We are talking about people having inner experiences, which are imaginary since yours is all there is.

If reality was a product of your imagination, you'd be able to imagine things as per your will. Since you can't, it proves you're not the sole maker of the dream. 

Edited May 31 by Salvijus

[kavaris]

10 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

If reality was a product of your imagination, you'd be able to imagine things as per your will.

lol. Phrase it in the other direction, asking, "If reality wasnt a product of your imagination, would you 'no longer' be able to imagine things as-per your will?" What im gettin you to see is that, it actually doesnt make sense to even say what you are saying—albeit, i understand what you are tryina say, and i dont blame you. Its a logical thing to want to say. but itll get ya thinkin in a more accelerated form.

Edited May 31 by kavaris

[Nemra]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

If you were the one doing the imagination, you'd be able to imagine things as per your will. Since you can't, it proves you're not the sole maker of the dream. 

I'm not claiming that I can will anything in my experience. I don't know that.

However, it doesn't prove anything here.

First of all, recognize that your experience is all there is. Then understand that others cannot be experiencing things with you because of what it means to be experiencing things.