Martin Ball says he's not solipsistic

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, kavaris said:

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?

You can make your will manifest to certain extent. But because there are parts of the reality that your will has no influence over, it shows you're not the ultimate maker. God is the ultimate maker, and he manifests a portion of his will through you. And other parts of his will through other life forms. 

[Salvijus]

21 minutes ago, Nemra said:

First of all, recognize that your experience is all there is.

The fact that you can't control reality to your will entirely shows that you're not the only manifestation of God's will. You're just a part of God. That automatically implies God is manifesting his will through other parts of himself aswell. Like a hand with multiple fingers. Therein is solipsism debunked. 

Edited May 31 by Salvijus

[UnbornTao]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

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.

Yeah, you could say there's you and there's your self - a more sober way to think about it. Eventually, we reach a point where we have to admit that we don't really know what either of those are -- unless you do grasp it, though that's not very common. The chatting is fun, though.

Ramana would slap us in the face.  

2 hours ago, zurew said:

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.

It's a misnomer. Experience is indirect, whereas awakening is direct... but what does direct even mean here? It isn't an interpretation or perception, nor is it mediated by mind activity. Interpretation comes after the fact, so to speak. It is inconceivable and yet true, from what I've been told.

Bringing up authentic individuals, such as Ramana, probably the "best" teacher, is useful because it points to a real case and possibility - although an incredibly rare one. Pedestrians like us, on the other hand, love to talk! 

Quote

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.

Yeah, the very existence of self is what the existential loneliness is based on.

Maybe your nature is Nothing, absolutely. It is, Now, and is Consciousness itself. But hoopla like this means nothing unless it comes from a direct realization -- which it isn't in this case. We don't even know it's true. Maybe we are clouds, or a pencil. What do we make of that?

I could speculate more but it'd be better to just "awaken" already. I mean, we are going to die relatively soon, so better get busy with that.

Edited May 31 by UnbornTao

[zurew]

Just now, UnbornTao said:

Ramana would slap us in the face.  

Thats the right move 

[RendHeaven]

51 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

You're just a part of God.

But only because a Solipsistic Singularity renounced its Infinitude and condensed into a handicapped ignorant limited being - you.

[Salvijus]

3 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

But only because a Solipsistic Singularity renounced its Infinitude and condensed into a handicapped ignorant limited being - you.

Yes, and that places you in a position where you're no longer the sole maker of the universe. You're just a finger expression of infinity. And there are infinite fingers just like you. 

Edited May 31 by Salvijus

[RendHeaven]

4 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Yes, and that places you in a position where you're no longer the sole maker of the universe. You're just a finger expression of infinity. And there are infinite fingers just like you. 

For now.

[Salvijus]

2 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

For now.

Mm, more likely God is going to individuate itself infinitely more and more. So I don't see it ending. 

[Nemra]

46 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

The fact that you can't control reality to your will entirely shows that you're not the only manifestation of God's will. You're just a part of God. That automatically implies God is manifesting his will through other parts of himself as well. Like a hand with multiple fingers. Therein is solipsism debunked. 

You will be lost in beliefs if you deem direct experience as false.

[Salvijus]

2 minutes ago, Nemra said:

You will be lost in beliefs if you deem direct experience as false.

It's your direct experience that your will is not ultimate. The following conclusion comes naturally after that. 

Edited May 31 by Salvijus

[Nemra]

Just now, Salvijus said:

It's your direct experience that your will is not ultimate.

I don't know that yet.

If my experience is all there is, then I would have to understand what that actually points to. I haven't contemplated that yet.

However, you just haven't bothered to understand your experience. It's that simple.

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

If my experience is all there is, then I would have to understand what that actually points to

Just imagine a lucid dream where you can do whatever. It means you could control the universe like you can control the fingers on your hand. 

[Salvijus]

6 minutes ago, Nemra said:

However, you just haven't bothered to understand your experience. It's that simple.

Said a person who doesn't understand what will is. You really paid alot attention to what makes your experience indeed 👍

[RendHeaven]

12 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Mm, more likely God is going to individuate itself infinitely more and more.

Yes, but that doesn't negate, deny, or invalidate Absolute Oneness.

You seem to have a bone to pick with an individuated fragment trying to claim solipsism. I agree, that would be wrong.

But when the actual Whole claims solipsism, you don't have much room to complain because it is what it is.

The problem is, whenever a human reports solipsism, to you it looks like an individuated fragment is talking.

So yes, don't believe humans. But also, don't dismiss the possibility of you personally merging with the Whole so thoroughly that you actually fully become it. Maybe that is possible.

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

Yes, but that doesn't negate, deny, or invalidate Absolute Oneness.

You seem to have a bone to pick with an individuated fragment trying to claim solipsism. I agree, that would be wrong.

But when the actual Whole claims solipsism, you don't have much room to complain because it is what it is.

The problem is, whenever a human reports solipsism, to you it looks like an individuated fragment is talking.

So yes, don't believe humans. But also, don't dismiss the possibility of you personally merging with the Whole so thoroughly that you actually fully become it. Maybe that is possible.

The reality where everyone shares the same conciousness and where God's will is manifesting in everything and everyone, if that is your definition of solipsism, then I have no problem with that. I'm not sure you can still call a reality like that solipsism tho. It's true from one perspective, but it is lacking the relative perspective. The word solipsism alone fails to describe reality in its fullness imo. 

Edited May 31 by Salvijus

[Nemra]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

Said a person who doesn't understand what will is. You really paid alot attention to what makes your experience indeed 👍

Said a person who can't understand that it doesn't have to do anything with what I was saying.

It doesn't hurt to know the truth. Or maybe it does for you.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Interpretation comes after the fact, so to speak

Yes, and hence why there is an open issue with interpretation.

Every time someone talks about it, he/she relies on their memory  (unless the claim is that they go through the same awakening live every time they talk about it). 

[Salvijus]

10 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Said a person who can't understand that it doesn't have to do anything with what I was saying.

I wasn't trying to adress what you were saying. I was giving you an argument why solipsism is bs. 

[Nemra]

2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I wasn't trying to address what you were saying.

That is what I was telling you.

2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I was giving you an argument why solipsism is bs. 

No, you didn't.

But good luck believing you did.

[Salvijus]

3 minutes ago, Nemra said:

No, you didn't.

But good luck believing you did

Jesus christ. In case you've missed it here it is again. In your direct experience your will is not ultimate, therefor you're not the sole maker of reality. 

Ggwp. Solipsism debunked.