What spiritual teachers actually teach Solipsism

[Breakingthewall]

12 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Maybe you haven't dissolved the self. A key part of meditation is self inquiry. There will be a moment when you realize that you - the self- is a thought.  In that moment is enlightenment.   So what type of meditation have you been doing? Did you incorporate self inquiry?

I've meditated enough to dissolve all limits. If you dissolve all boundaries, you don't know that the self is a thought because the idea of "thought" doesn't exist; there is only an absence of boundaries, total reality being aware of itself. I haven't done this once, but thousands of times. At first, with psychedelics, for a second, something terrifying. Then the usual, just a Monday afternoon.

[Inliytened1]

7 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I've meditated enough to dissolve all limits. If you dissolve all boundaries, you don't know that the self is a thought because the idea of "thought" doesn't exist; there is only an absence of boundaries, total reality being aware of itself. I haven't done this once, but thousands of times. At first, with psychedelics, for a second, something terrifying. Then the usual, just a Monday afternoon.

I don't know then.  Leo says a million hours of meditation wouldn't make up for him taking psychedelics to awaken. A lot of it comes down to genetics.

Edited yesterday at 07:32 PM by Inliytened1

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I don't know then.  Leo says a million hours of meditation wouldn't make up for him taking psychedelics to awaken. A lot of it comes down to genetics.

Don't you see that reality can't be limited? You creating a dream is a limited scheme. On one hand, there's you, God, an absolute limit; on the other, an intention, to create this reality, another limit; and on the other hand, dreamed reality, which is just an image, yet another limit. And finally, there's nothing else in existence but your field of consciousness. Limits everywhere. Is that what you call awakening?

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Breakingthewall said:

Don't you see that reality can't be limited? You creating a dream is a limited scheme. On one hand, there's you, God, an absolute limit; on the other, an intention, to create this reality, another limit; and on the other hand, dreamed reality, which is just an image, yet another limit. And finally, there's nothing else in existence but your field of consciousness. Limits everywhere. Is that what you call awakening?

Yes I see that. And i have come to the conclusion that everyone has their own Truth.   Do you not see how silly it would be for me to tell you that awakening was Absolute in the same thread where I am stating that I am alone as God?

Its silly.  I get it.  I can tell you that for me it was the Truth.  For you, you have yours.  But..I will not stop teaching it.  Because of stories like @Sincerity 

[Breakingthewall]

9 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Yes I see that. And i have come to the conclusion that everyone has their own Truth.   Do you not see how silly it would be for me to tell you that awakening was Absolute in the same thread where I am stating that I am alone as God?

Its silly.  I get it.  I can tell you that for me it was the Truth.  For you, you have yours.  But..I will not stop teaching it.  Because of stories like @Sincerity 

Enlightenment is only one, It's a shift in the energetic configuration in which you operate as a human. When this shift occurs, boundaries dissolve, and you become one with reality; you are reality. Then, little by little, the small rests of attachments and identification dissolve: attachment to meaning, to causality, to purpose, to consciousness, to boundaries. Until only the totality remains. The totality is not definable, obviously, because any definition is relative. And "I'm god dreaming" is a definition. Just a relative realization, idea, call it as you want. Closed perception, inflation of the ego. 

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Enlightenment is only one, It's a shift in the energetic configuration in which you operate as a human. When this shift occurs, boundaries dissolve, and you become one with reality; you are reality. Then, little by little, the small rests of attachments and identification dissolve: attachment to meaning, to causality, to purpose, to consciousness, to boundaries. Until only the totality remains. The totality is not definable, obviously, because any definition is relative. And "I'm god dreaming" is a definition. Just a relative realization, idea, call it as you want. Closed perception, inflation of the ego. 

We agree although I would state that the first thing to dissolve for me was the self.  And I understand where you are coming from as well.   See the Jim Newman video posted here.  Hes awakened but the problem with it is others can take this on as a belief without directly dying.   As he did.  Same goes for you by the way.   Listen to it..

Anyway - the God dreaming is important from a metaphysical and ontological standpoint.  The understanding of reality is fundamental.  So, while you claim enlightenment you do nothing to explain or set up a metaphysical framework from which to work.  Enlightenment does not come without an understanding of reality as a whole. And here science must come into play.  The typical neo-advatain however completely dismisses science.  Did Einstein? Should you? I would beckon that you should not. 

Edited yesterday at 08:08 PM by Inliytened1

[James123]

13 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

I am still on the fence about James. He's had some awakenings but he got too wrapped up in neo-advaitan crap. He has spent a lot of time on Phil's forum where the brainwashing runs rampant.

Can't you get it, these thoughts doesn't belong to you it is the mind. 

Enlightenment is just simply Being where you already are. 

The person never began. Just a story, not even. Therefore, naming an labeling as self or no self belongs to the mind, including neo Adviata.

[Inliytened1]

18 minutes ago, James123 said:

Can't you get it, these thoughts doesn't belong to you it is the mind. 

Enlightenment is just simply Being where you already are. 

The person never began. Just a story, not even. Therefore, naming an labeling as self or no self belongs to the mind, including neo Adviata.

yes i get it do you want a prize? Shall I doordash you some pizza? You are absolutely right.  I just hope that you realized it for yourself and not from some external source.  I know that you didn't.  The problem i have with you guys is your flexibility.  You become so one sided its becomes very difficult to even conduct a decent conversation.   That's why being on Phil's forum is like talking to a bunch of robots.  

As I said..embrace the ego.  What the fuck else is there while your mortal.  You wanna sit here and play God yet you still have to shit in the morning. 

Edited 23 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Sugarcoat]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Phil's forum

What forum is that? 

[Sugarcoat]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

If you had multiple consciousnesses you would end up with sovereign entities each in their own reality.  That's where the infinity of Gods video came in.

When you say “you had multiple consciousnesses” you don’t mean a single person somehow having access to multiple consciousness but rather reality being expressed as multiple consciousness?

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

What forum is that? 

The forum @Nahm set up.

[Sugarcoat]

Just now, Inliytened1 said:

The forum @Nahm set up.

Oh ok that was my guess. 

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Sugarcoat said:

When you say “you had multiple consciousnesses” you don’t mean a single person somehow having access to multiple consciousness but rather reality being expressed as multiple consciousness?

Right.  Separate consciousnessnes.  So think about it.  If it's consciousness how could God make a shared dream.  It would not be logically possible. 

[Inliytened1]

@Carl-Richard nothing from you on the shared dream theory? Are you even an idealist? Meaning..I don't want to label but do you believe consciousness is fundamental 

[Sugarcoat]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

The self is a creation of the hyper-complex energy structure that is a human, and is as real as any other form that reality creates.

The first part of the sentence is where I lean too in my view. I’m open to the idea that other type of form are related to self (like maybe the brain producing it). Partly because of my own inner experiences 

But isn’t there something untruthful about the self? You guys talk about non duality being truth so much, the average human walks around experiencing that they’re super real (meaning separate) isn’t it something illusory about it?

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

1. Core Function of the Self
The human self is not a single location, but a distributed regulatory system whose primary function is:
to maintain organismal continuity across time
(survival, coherence, prediction, social positioning)
The “I” is a control-and-integration pattern, not an entity.

2. Main Neural Components of the Self
A. Prefrontal Cortex (PFC) – Executive Self
Location: Frontal lobes (especially medial & dorsolateral PFC)
Functions:
Decision-making
Self-control and inhibition
Planning and future simulation
Moral and social rule integration
Narrative identity (“who I am”)
Role in the self:
Generates the narrative ego
Projects identity into the future
Maintains continuity and goals
This is where the symbolic, reflective self lives.

B. Default Mode Network (DMN) – Narrative & Self-Referential Loop
Main nodes:
Medial prefrontal cortex
Posterior cingulate cortex
Precuneus
Angular gyrus
Functions:
Self-referential thinking
Rumination
Autobiographical memory
Mental time travel (past/future)
Comparison and valuation
Role in the self:
Creates the sense of a persistent “me”
Generates self-evaluation and lack/excess
Core neural correlate of psychological contraction
When the DMN dominates → anxiety, rumination, identity fixation.

C. Limbic System – Affective / Survival Self
Main structures:
Amygdala
Hippocampus
Hypothalamus
Functions:
Threat detection
Fear and attachment
Emotional memory
Stress response
Biological valuation (good/bad)
Role in the self:
Produces affective centrality
Grounds the self in survival urgency
Links identity to pain, pleasure, and fear
This is the biological core of contraction.

D. Insular Cortex – Embodied Self
Functions:
Interoception (body state awareness)
Sense of “being here”
Emotional salience
Integration of body and emotion
Role in the self:
Generates the felt sense of self
Anchors identity in bodily continuity
Makes the self feel “real” and immediate
Damage or deactivation here alters self-presence dramatically.

E. Basal Ganglia – Habitual / Procedural Self
Functions:
Habit formation
Automatic behavior
Repetitive patterns
Reward prediction
Role in the self:
Encodes the behavioral inertia of identity
Keeps the self stable through repetition
Makes “who I am” feel automatic
3. What the Self Actually Is (Structurally)
Putting it together:
The self is a stable energetic–informational loop integrating:
prediction (PFC)
memory (hippocampus)
valuation (limbic system)
embodiment (insula)
narrative continuity (DMN)
habit (basal ganglia)
It is real, functional, and necessary for a living organism.

It’s cool that you’re spiritual but still able to incorporate science concepts into it. I don’t see those things as completely contradictory either. Even if the experience of consciousness/self awareness seems so different from an object doesn’t mean it’s independent of it 

Edited 23 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Sugarcoat]

24 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Right.  Separate consciousnessnes.  So think about it.  If it's consciousness how could God make a shared dream.  It would not be logically possible. 

Shared dream as in the seeming reality we live in today where we live in same world? 
 

 

[Inliytened1]

Well since @Carl-Richard didn't bless us wirh his brilliance i will explain why the shared dream does not work. 

it doesnt work because there would have to be someone to oversee it.  To supervise it.  To make the connections.  Way too much trouble.  Its much easier for God to just be a singular mind and imagine everything.  Its no less real.

[James123]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

yes i get it do you want a prize? Shall I doordash you some pizza? You are absolutely right.  I just hope that you realized it for yourself and not from some external source.  I know that you didn't.  The problem i have with you guys is your flexibility.  You become so one sided its becomes very difficult to even conduct a decent conversation.   That's why being on Phil's forum is like talking to a bunch of robots.  

As I said..embrace the ego.  What the fuck else is there while your mortal.  You wanna sit here and play God yet you still have to shit in the morning. 

Body does not me. Yet, body is absolutely perfect. 

It is not being robot, it is being absolutely free.

Then love whispers non stop 😊 

[Inliytened1]

 

8 minutes ago, James123 said:

Body does not me. Yet, body is absolutely perfect. 

It is not being robot, it is being absolutely free.

Then love whispers non stop 😊 

I just want you to be happy. I have found that when you are so awakened things become too mundane for you and it is difficult to survive that way.  Just be happy

[Sincerity]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The I that is God is not an avatar. That's the problem with projecting your own idea of the word. That's why I elaborate with what the "I" is.

Consider the possibility that you might have too many ideas about the word.

It’s not complicated. I am God. There. 😉 

No need to bring avatars into this. I don’t like the series.

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The entire linguistic enterprise is dualistic for God's sake. And I'm saying God is in everything. What is dualistic about that? "Sounds weird" means you're coming at this from a "feels" perspective not a logically consistent and conceptually informed perspective. And that's the problem. Something that is logically consistent sounds weird. We're barely logical creatures.

The pointing game is ridiculously limited. The best way is sometimes to shut up. But people keep asking so we keep pointing.

It’s dualistic if you make it. Truth can be (and is) expressed in a non-dualistic way.

I said „sounds weird” for the sake of politeness. To translate: I think what you’re saying is bs. „God knows everything”. What does this mean? Why are you framing it that way? Yes, what you’re saying is weird and tells me that your understanding is not direct. And you didn’t elaborate like I asked.

Your points weren’t „logically consistent”. They were incorrect in their dualistic nature. God is not „in everything”. God IS EVERYTHING! So don’t cover your arguments with „logicality” please. God is above the logic you’re implying.

And please don’t imply that I’m only coming from some vibe-oriented perspective. I don’t appreciate it. Not „conceptually informed”, bruh… consider this might be what you have too much of. A lot of words, but not enough truth.

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

God and avatars are one, God and perceptions are one. God and feelings, sounds, colors are one. But you saying "only these sounds and colors exist, not these other sounds and colors", that's fantasy, that's illusion. Because show me "these sounds and colors". Point them out to me. If you can do that, you will see that is in fact dualistic.

You see, solipsism in the way you seem to conceive it can ever only be dualistic. Ramana's solipsism, is radically non-dualistic. It's going inwards towards yourself, not outwards towards the world, things, feelings, perceptions, experiences, sensations — inwards towards the One, not outwards towards the many.

The One and the many are united in the journey inwards, united in an infinite way, not in a "here is the border of my limited avatar-based experience, anything outside is not real" kind of way.

Yes, only THIS exists. Only this moment exists. This isn’t complicated.

To imply that there’s something beyond This is fantasy and being lost in concepts.

If you understood „my” solipsism as dualistic, then you are making an effort to misunderstand me. Sorry.

* * * * *

Ultimately, to me your understanding is dualistic and overconceptualized. There is not a directedness to your words. Which is a shame.

I have no intention to pursue this discussion with you specifically any longer. After I wrote this response, I only found it a detraction from truth and a waste of time.

Edited 22 hours ago by Sincerity