Martin Ball says he's not solipsistic

[Nemra]

6 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

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. 

You cannot even prove others' inner experience, as it's impossible, and yet you believe others have will.

You make some huge leaps in faith. Don't jump too far, because you might fall.

I'm also matching your energy. Don't blame me.

[Salvijus]

 

4 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

But Infinite Consciousness can always liquefy all of this. That's what you call death. When you die, the whole known universe will evaporate with you. But while you're alive, we're real.

I saw this in another thread. This is not true. The individuated part of conciousness that you are right now was never in full control of creation. So when that part dissolves in infinite, the rest of creation continues. 

[aurum]

25 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

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. 

No, not solipsism debunked.

When you assume your will is not ultimate, you assume a separate, finite self. And yet you cannot prove the existence of such a self.

[Salvijus]

12 minutes ago, Nemra said:

You cannot even prove others' inner experience, as it's impossible, and yet you believe others have will.

I'm also matching your energy. Don't blame me

You make some huge leaps in faith. Don't jump too far, because you might fall.

 

It's not a leap of faith, it's a natural conclusion. Once you realize things are behaving indipendantly from your will, that proves you're not the maker of the show. If you were the maker of the show, you could control reality like a lucid dream but x infinity times more crazier than that. Now you can only conclude to be a small manifestation of God's will only, and that too proves there must be other parts out there. Again a counter argument against solipsism. 

Edited May 31 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

14 minutes ago, aurum said:

No, not solipsism debunked.

When you assume your will is not ultimate, you assume a separate, finite self. And yet you cannot prove the existence of such a self.

I don’t need to prove a finite self. I need to prove that an infinite self has individuated itself like a hand with fingers. Each finger being a manifestation of God's hand that performs a certain will of god. Once you realize a single finger is not in charge of everything but all fingers of God combined together are in charge of everything. That places you in a position of a single manifestation of God rather than the center of the show. That debunks solipsisms. 

Edited May 31 by Salvijus

[Nemra]

10 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

It's not a leap of faith, it's a natural conclusion. Once you realize things are behaving indipendantly from your will, that proves you're not the maker of the show. If you were the maker of the show, you could control reality like a lucid dream but x infinity times more crazier than that. Now you can only conclude to be a small manifestation of God's will only, and that too proves there must be other parts out there. Again a counter argument against solipsism. 

No. Try again.

You don't understand that I'm not talking about forms behaving without my control.

I'm talking about those forms having inner experiences, which is impossible because of what experience is.

That difference is lost on you.

[aurum]

4 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I don’t need to prove a finite self. I need to prove that an infinite self has individuated itself like a hand with fingers. Each finger being a manifestation of God's hand that performs a certain will of god. Once you realize a single finger is not in charge of everything but all fingers of God combined together are in charge of everything. That places you in a position of a single manifestation of God rather than the center of the show. That debunks solipsisms. 

You can’t prove that either.

Where are the other shows?

[Salvijus]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

Where are the other shows?

There is only one show but because you're not in control of that show, it means you're just a small manifestation inside that show rather than a sole maker of it. 

[aurum]

6 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

There is only one show but because you're not in control of that show, it means you're just a small manifestation inside that show rather than a sole maker of it. 

Then you’ve just circled back to your original problem.

When you say you’re not in control, you assume yourself as finite. But you’ve never proven that.

[Salvijus]

14 minutes ago, aurum said:

Then you’ve just circled back to your original problem.

When you say you’re not in control, you assume yourself as finite. But you’ve never proven that.

I don’t assume to be finite. I assume being part of infinity. Where a certain amount of God's will is manifesting through this form. Every part is one with infinity. And also individuated at the same time. 

Edited May 31 by Salvijus

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, aurum said:

When you say you’re not in control, you assume yourself as finite. But you’ve never proven that.

You take your finite human self to not be finite?

If you take it that there is a difference between being in God mode vs not being in God mode , then there will be a bunch of contentious questions about ontology there.

When it comes to the idea of you collapsing epistemology and ontology - "Only the things im aware of exists" - when we invoke that , are we talking about being in God mode or not being in God mode? Because I assume that you want to make it so that there is no difference between the two, but whats the argument that establish that the same "Only the things im aware of exists" principle applies in both cases?

Edited May 31 by zurew

[Salvijus]

27 minutes ago, Nemra said:

No. Try again.

You don't understand that I'm not talking about forms behaving without my control.

I'm talking about those forms having inner experiences, which is impossible because of what experience is.

That difference is lost on you.

Whether people have experience or not is irrelevant really. To make the claim that you're the sole maker of the show you need to have full control of the show. Unless you have that, you can't claim solipsism to yourself. Lack of control is what proves that you're just a piece in a game not the maker of it. And with that goes down the solipsism. 

Edited May 31 by Salvijus

[Nemra]

Just now, Salvijus said:

Weather people have experience or not is irrelevant really.

You believe they have, which is not the case. So, it's relevant.

[Salvijus]

3 minutes ago, Nemra said:

You believe they have, which is not the case. So, it's relevant.

If I'm wrong, then solipsism is still debunked. That's why it's irrelevant. 

Edited May 31 by Salvijus

[aurum]

4 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I don’t assume to be finite. I assume being part of infinity. With partial will of infinity. Every part is one with infinity. And also indovoduated at the same time. 

Only at this level of consciousness does that appear to be the case.

Any “part” or individuation of infinity you suppose is actually Infinity as a Whole. That’s what it means to be infinity. It’s fractal in nature.

You’re not really a “part” at all.

It’s just the Infinite Mind of God, which is your Mind. That’s what is Absolutely  True. Which is what solipsism is about.

[UnbornTao]

22 hours ago, zurew said:

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). 

It sounds like you are thinking of it as something perceived - like a state. But interpretation doesn't apply to the realization itself; it's a direct consciousness of your nature. Like being aware your body is breathing - no mind required. If someone is being authentic (which isn't guaranteed), there's no doubt about what they became conscious of. It's a function of the consciousness itself, not conviction or other mental activity. If it is, they're most likely fooling themselves.

The mind does try to capture and make sense of it, but it can't. From what I can tell, "pure" breakthroughs are rare. People tend to interpret them through their so-called knowledge and mess them up in their minds. But there's a difference between the expression or memory of realization, and the actual consciousness of it.

There also seem to be degrees, like glimpses, full-blown awakenings, and everything in between. I once had a small insight into who I am, where I made a distinction between the self I've always taken myself to be, and what we might call being. I recognized that who I am is not my self. But the memory is vague and I eventually "lost" the insight. Go figure. (By the way, that wasn't an enlightenment.)

But where would the mind place its attention to "remember" the realization? On your experience: perception, mood, reactions, feelings, knowledge, beliefs. And you'll talk about these.

When Ramana spoke, he wasn't recalling an experience or state - he was speaking from direct consciousness of being and existence. Of course, there's no way to verify claims of this nature, except by realizing them firsthand - hence "direct."

I imagine awakened people struggle to convey that kind of consciousness. But that's what language is for. They'll probably fail miserably, but the attempt is made.

Or so the theory goes (maybe.)

Edited June 1 by UnbornTao

[Nemra]

Just now, Salvijus said:

If I'm wrong, then solipsism is still debunked. 

No.

[Salvijus]

2 minutes ago, aurum said:

Only at this level of consciousness does that appear to be the case.

Any “part” or individuation of infinity you suppose is actually Infinity as a Whole. That’s what it means to be infinity. It’s fractal in nature.

You’re not really a “part” at all.

It’s just the Infinite Mind of God, which is your Mind. That’s what is Absolutely  True. Which is what solipsism is about.

You're both the Whole and an individuated part at the same time. And there are infinite individuated parts. And that's where the word solipsism becomes redundant to describe reality because it misses the relative perspective of reality. 

[UnbornTao]

I'd move this thread to the Intellectual subforum, surprisingly.

[Salvijus]

Just now, Nemra said:

No.

But you have no counter argument against my will example. So as long as that stands, it is a yes.