What spiritual teachers actually teach Solipsism

[Sincerity]

9 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Solipsism claims that the people that you see in the street are not real, because there is nothing real outside of your field of consciousness. We are discussing about solipsism . Then you don't believe in solipsism.

If they're in your field of consciousness, they are "real". But fields of consciousness outside of "yours" is an idea in your mind.

THIS is all that is. I don't know how I can say it clearer. I sense that you're purposefully trying to misunderstand this - if so, I won't stop you.

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:

This sounds like the no separate self insight.  

No self must be realized before other can even be addressed.  To me at least.  

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, Sincerity said:

If they're in your field of consciousness, they are "real". But fields of consciousness outside of "yours" is an idea in your mind.

THIS is all that is. I don't know how I can say it clearer. I sense that you're purposefully trying to misunderstand this - if so, I won't stop you.

Solipsism says that the people you see are imaginary, and you're imagining them for a variety of reasons: to help you awaken, out of love, whatever. But they're created by you with a purpose. They don't really exist; they're a hallucination to keep you from being aware that you're alone in existence, which for some reason you want to hide, because you don't like it, or whatever. But at the same time, you invent people who help you awaken, the gurus, to realize the reality that you are hiding. 

That's the solipsism. 

[Breakingthewall]

17 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

No that's not true. The first thing to dissolve is the self. And then the dissolution of other.  You're right if you want to discuss fhe tradional definition of solipsism but that is not what is being said here.  Self/Other must both collapse for enlightenment. 

If you are imagining the reality for love or any other reason, because only you exist, how are you dissolving the self? You are claiming that only the self exist and everything else is imaginary.

[Sincerity]

7 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Solipsism says that the people you see are imaginary, and you're imagining them for a variety of reasons: to help you awaken, out of love, whatever. But they're created by you with a purpose. They don't really exist; they're a hallucination to keep you from being aware that you're alone in existence, which for some reason you want to hide, because you don't like it, or whatever. But at the same time, you invent people who help you awaken, the gurus, to realize the reality that you are hiding. 

That's the solipsism. 

No, that isn't solipsism. That is your personal definition of it, which has a lot of fluff added to it.

The universe doesn't revolve around you. You're adding a lot of selfhood to the definition.

To me, what you're describing is a naive, self-serving interpretation of solipsism.

Edited 18 hours ago by Sincerity

[Carl-Richard]

Just distinguish between personal dissociative complexes ("minds") and boundless consciousness. It's so easy.

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

If you are imagining the reality for love or any other reason, because only you exist, how are you dissolving the self? You are claiming that only the self exist and everything else is imaginary.

As @Sincerity says you are compounding layers of your own concepts on top of what is being said. I am claiming nothing of the sort. Self is equally Imaginary. 

[Breakingthewall]

3 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

To me, what you're describing is a naive, self-serving interpretation of solipsism.

Have you seen the video? Solipsism means that only you exist and the people that you see are imaginary, only the field of your consciousness is real, and you are making it for a reason. Check it

[Sincerity]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Just distinguish between personal dissociative complexes ("minds") and boundless consciousness. It's so easy.

A view of "personal dissociative complexes", as you call them, is only valid if consciousness (All That Is) is in a "selfhood state". If it isn't, there are no "minds".

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

As @Sincerity says you are compounding layers of your own concepts on top of what is being said. I am claiming nothing of the sort. Self is equally Imaginary. 

Then, what is solipsism? That everything is the same reality in different forms or points of view? That's claimed by spirituality from long ago, nothing new. 

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Then, what is solipsism? That everything is the same reality in different forms or points of view? That's claimed by spirituality from long ago, nothing new. 

One Mind and you are it.  

Not you as the small self.

Edited 18 hours ago by Inliytened1

[aurum]

15 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

No, that isn't solipsism. That is your personal definition of it, which has a lot of fluff added to it.

The universe doesn't revolve around you. You're adding a lot of selfhood to the definition.

To me, what you're describing is a naive, self-serving interpretation of solipsism.

Actually he is correct.

From the highest perspective, this is ultimately all about You.

[Breakingthewall]

19 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

One Mind and you are it.  

Not you as the small self.

So a big self then. But a self at the end. Well, that's a center.  but anyway, talking about solipsism, do you believe that the people who you see in street are not real, without inner reality, like hallucinations that you are having in a dream, or that they have inner experience? One is solipsism, other not. 

Edited 18 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

So a big self then. But a self at the end. 

There has to be something. Existence or Consciousness. 

 

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

 but anyway, talking about solipsism, do you believe that the people who you see in street are not real, without inner reality, like hallucinations that you are having in a dream, or that they have inner experience? 

In my everyday no.  I imagine them having their own minds.  But that is Mind imagining mind.

[Breakingthewall]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

There has to be something. Existence or Consciousness. 

Reality is without center, without purpose, without direction. It is without self. The self appears in reality; reality is being without limits, not someone who decides or creates. There is no separation between a doer and the act; there is reality being without limits.

5 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I imagine them having their own minds.  But that is Mind imagining mind.

No, you are perceiving them because what you are is a form that the reality is taking among infinite other forms. There is not a dream, "dream" is just a categorization that the human mind does. "You" are an emergence, reality is without self, that's the problem with enlightenment, that's why it's not simple

[Breakingthewall]

Time to sleep. Reality is just real. It's simple, but same time difficult because there is not a doer. That's absolutely counterintuitive being a human. There is not a cause, only absence of limitations. There in not a center, not a dreamer. Anyway, just my perspective, anyone have their own .

[UnbornTao]

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Like a good follower. Well said.

I was being sarcastic, to be clear.

[Sincerity]

48 minutes ago, aurum said:

From the highest perspective, this is ultimately all about You.

That is true.

However, it’s not so simple as to say that everything revolves around you. That others serve a purpose for you, personally. They can assist you and often do, but that’s not their sole reason for existence. Reality simply is.

It’s all about God. Of course. But assigning limited reasons to why particular things or people exist is faulty.

[aurum]

5 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

That is true.

However, it’s not so simple as to say that everything revolves around you. That others serve a purpose for you, personally. They can assist you and often do, but that’s not their sole reason for existence. Reality simply is.

It’s all about God. Of course. But assigning limited reasons to why particular things or people exist is faulty.

Saying "everything revolves around you" is a meta-perspective.

You imagine that some things revolve around your personal character and others don't. But it all serves a function for you either way.

This is your game. 

[Inliytened1]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

 There is not a dream, "dream" is just a categorization that the human mind does. 

If you look at the science you will see that it cannot be any other way. If you want to say its a physical material universe this theory is what actually falls apart. 

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Reality is without center, without purpose, without direction.

Do you really believe that the universe is this dumb.   Is this your grand theory of reality? I seemed to like it better when you thought it was Inifnity. 

If you want to fine.  I guess its better than believing in Jesus.

Edited 15 hours ago by Inliytened1