What spiritual teachers actually teach Solipsism

[Carl-Richard]

Anybody care to explain what the interpreter of Ramana means by "not solipsism turned out on the world but solipsism turned in on yourself"?

[Inliytened1]

8 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I didn't realize there is a Part 2.  I love it.
 

 

He is trying to explain enlightenment and you can't. 

 

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Anybody care to explain what the interpreter of Ramana means by "not solipsism turned out on the world but solipsism turned in on yourself"?

The realization that there isnt a world that can reveal Solpsism to you.  You have to reveal it to yourself. Thats what solipsism is, ultimately 

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Inliytened1 said:

The realization that there isnt a world that can reveal Solpsism to you.  You have to reveal it to yourself. Thats what solipsism is, ultimately 

Wrong. It's that solipsism doesn't describe the world, only the dreamer. You're very sloppy in your scholarship of those you decide to name-drop for bolstering your personal beliefs. I suggest stopping that. Nevertheless, I'm just making it clear for anyone here who cares about what Ramana thinks about solipsism: this is not a thread about Ramana Maharshi. It's a thread about a guy's obsession about using a term to describe relationships in the world.

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Wrong. It's that solipsism doesn't describe the world, only the dreamer. You're very sloppy in your scholarship of those you decide to name-drop for bolstering your personal beliefs. I suggest stopping that. Nevertheless, I'm just making it clear for anyone here who cares about what Ramana thinks about solipsism: this is not a thread about Ramana Maharshi. It's a thread about a guy's obsession about using a term to describe relationships in the world.

I dont study Ramana but apparently you purposely bated me and set a trap.  Thats fine.  I dont study him but I do know solipsism.  And it doesn't describe the dreamer.   It is all encompassing.

[Inliytened1]

@Carl-Richard jf you are going to get deep into Ramana then you may want to clarify his stance on solipsism.  Since you are the expert.  Your abstract descriptions are vague at best.

Edited 12 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Sincerity]

22 hours ago, Sincerity said:

I found a clip from Bashar.

"You are physical reality itself. There is no physical reality except for your experience of it, and THAT is what reality is."

I wonder why nobody (except @Inliytened1 of course) responded to the clip from Bashar I shared.

@Carl-Richard, could you describe how reality "works" according to you, in the simplest way possible? Without jargon, and in as few sentences as you can? If you could mention: God, experience, "me" and "others" (what these are, whether they exist, etc.), that'd be great.

Instead of simply denying the insight of solipsism/oneness of reality, I'd love to hear some of you clearly state what your actual understanding is. Or, if it's your view that no true understanding of reality is possible and that every statement is a belief, clearly say so.

Edited 12 hours ago by Sincerity

[Inliytened1]

12 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

I wonder why nobody (except @Inliytened1 of course) responded to the clip from Bashar I shared.

@Carl-Richard, could you describe how reality "works" according to you, in the simplest way possible? Without jargon, and in as few sentences as you can? If you could mention: God, experience, "me" and "others" (what these are, whether they exist, etc.), that'd be great.

Instead of simply denying the insight of solipsism/oneness of reality, I'd love to hear some of you clearly state what your actual understanding is. Or, if it's your view that no true understanding of reality is possible and that every statement is a belief, clearly say so.

He has a hard time being simple.  He's very engrossed with being complex. 

[James123]

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

A physical universe indicates that material is fundamental. The atoms. Consciousness is within atoms.

See? 

But awareness is not within atoms as you and I both know. Atoms don't make awareness.  Awareness makes atoms. 

Yes?

These are all mind, attachment. They don't belong to you. Arises and falls. 

Catch a thought, not even there. 

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, James123 said:

These are all mind, attachment. They don't belong to you. Arises and falls. 

Catch a thought, not even there. 

But you ignore blatant facts about the nature of reality.  This is irresponsible of you to say the least. 

[Carl-Richard]

45 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Carl-Richard jf you are going to get deep into Ramana then you may want to clarify his stance on solipsism.  Since you are the expert. 

 

I linked this video earlier, and it resonates with what I have said, time and time again, in this thread and elsewhere. It resonates with what Rupert Spira has said about solipsism, what Bernardo Kastrup has said about it (I can also name-drop people).

The distinction is about the dreamer and the dream characters. The dreamer is one, is omniscient, knows itself and everything because it is everything. The dream character, the videogame character, the avatar in the MMO role-playing game, is a projection, happening inside the dreamer's unbounded consciousness. The dreamer is one, because it is everything, it exists everywhere, in everything, at the same time, in "everyone". The avatars are irrelevant, they are illusory, projections. The dreamer is one. The dreamer is one. The dreamer is one.

The moment you engage in "where is your grandmother?", you're engaging in illusion. You are not talking about an omniscient dreamer. You are engaging in a very select and limited section of the projections of the dreamer, dreamed by the dreamer, and the dreamer is not an avatar, it is not confined to an avatar, it is not confined to anything. Avatars are concerned with what you can see, smell, touch, hear, feel. The dreamer is concerned with what "is", what is everything, beyond what you can smell, see, feel, beyond anything you as an avatar can imagine with your limited imagination. And what "is" is pure knowing, pure being, pure "is".

 

You were given the opportunity to read the above text with undue charity, strategically leaving this at the end so you might be more open. Now, let me re-iterate: there is something wildly juvenile about writing a thread where you open with "you know who agrees with me? The most respected guy in the business" and then you're completely wrong, and you even admit you're wrong. And now you also make it my burden to prove you wrong. That is also wrong.

 

29 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

He has a hard time being simple.  He's very engrossed with being complex. 

Nevermind, I should've placed it at the beginning. If you think knowing the difference between "minds" as in the common psychologist perception of it (the type Freud, Jung, etc., talk about) — the minds of perception, feeling, sensation — vs the mind of God, the pure consciousness permeating all of reality, is to be "engrossed in being complex", then ok, being complex is necessary.

Edited 11 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Anybody care to explain what the interpreter of Ramana means by "not solipsism turned out on the world but solipsism turned in on yourself"?

The guy is probably parroting Ramana. I'd try to grasp what the original guy was trying to teach.

[Inliytened1]

12 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

 

I linked this video earlier, and it resonates with what I have said, time and time again, in this thread and elsewhere. It resonates with what Rupert Spira has said about solipsism, what Bernardo Kastrup has said about it (I can also name-drop people).

 

The distinction is about the dreamer and the dream characters. The dreamer is one, is omniscient, knows itself and everything because it is everything. The dream character, the videogame character, the avatar in the MMO role-playing game, is a projection, happening inside the dreamer's unbounded consciousness. The dreamer is one, because it is everything, it exists everywhere, in everything, at the same time, in "everyone". The avatars are irrelevant, they are illusory, projections. The dreamer is one. The dreamer is one. The dreamer is one.

The moment you engage in "where is your grandmother?", you're engaging in illusion. You are not talking about an omniscient dreamer. You are engaging in a very select and limited section of the projections of the dreamer, dreamed by the dreamer, and the dreamer is not an avatar, it is not confined to an avatar, it is not confined to anything. Avatars are concerned with what you can see, smell, touch, hear, feel. The dreamer is concerned with what "is", what is everything, beyond what you can smell, see, feel, beyond anything you as an avatar can imagine with your limited imagination. And what "is" is pure knowing, pure being, pure "is".

 

You were given the opportunity to read the above text with undue charity, strategically leaving this at the end so you might be more open. Now, let me re-iterate: there is something wildly juvenile about writing a thread where you open with "you know who agrees with me? The most respected guy in the business" and then you're completely wrong, and you even admit you're wrong. And now you also make it my burden to prove you wrong. That is also wrong.

The problem with this is starting with the dreamer.  For there to be a dreamer that already sneaks in a hidden metaphysics.   Self and other. So when discussing solipsism one must be extremely cautious.  You start with the dreamer - as does Spira and others.   But what if there is not a dreamer at all?  What if the idea of a dreamer was first concocted by you.  So that's the problem here.  Its like the guy in the neo-advaitan video.  Jim Newman...He is enlightened but try explaining that to anyone. 

Edited 11 hours ago by Inliytened1

[UnbornTao]

Yeah you guys are full of it.

[Carl-Richard]

8 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

The problem with this is starting with the dreamer.  For there to be a dreamer that already sneaks in a hidden metaphysics.   Self and other. So when discussing solipsism one must be extremely cautious.  You start with the dreamer - as does Spira and others.   But what if there is not a dreamer at all?  What if the idea of a dreamer was first concocted by you.  So that's the problem here.  Its like the guy in the neo-advaitan video.  He is enlightened but try explaining that to anyone. 

I love how everything just loops back into "but can we describe anything at all 🤪"? when things become only slightly difficult. Yes, any description is a concoction, "dreamer" is a word. Same with solipsism, same with anything. This is philosophy 101. Welcome. Do we get this now and can we move on?

Edited 11 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

I love how everything just loops back into "but can we describe anything at all 🤪"? when things become only slightly difficult. Yes, any description is a concotion, "dreamer" is a word. Same with solipsism, same with anything. This is philosophy 101. Welcome. Do we get this now and can we move on?

We can but when it comes to this topic it is extremely vital.  You care about responsibility as do I.  And I was careless in the teachers I mentioned. But lets not be careless here.

[Sincerity]

37 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

I pretty much agree with everything in this video. Yes, there is only one Dreamer*. Yes, for all intents and purposes, you should act as if there are others - this is right behaviour. I also said this before, which this guy repeats when he says that there are "egos" once you yourself see yourself as "an ego":

Quote

"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".

Yes, there is ONLY Pure Awareness, which the guy states. ONE Experience, ONE Consciousness, ONE DREAM. So what the fuck is the problem? 

29 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

The problem with this is starting with the dreamer.  For there to be a dreamer that already sneaks in a hidden metaphysics.   Self and other. So when discussing solipsism one must be extremely cautious.  You start with the dreamer - as does Spira and others.   But what if there is not a dreamer at all?  What if the idea of a dreamer was first concocted by you.  So that's the problem here.

*However, I also agree with @Inliytened1 here. In fact, this is my most recent awakening. That the witness/dreamer/nothingness/awareness is the exact same as what's being perceived. There's no dreamer and observed reality. It's more like reality seeing itself. A complete oneness of formlessness and form. One "thing" witnessing itself, no duality whatsoever. God.

Edited 11 hours ago by Sincerity

[Carl-Richard]

49 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

@Carl-Richard, could you describe how reality "works" according to you, in the simplest way possible? Without jargon, and in as few sentences as you can? If you could mention: God, experience, "me" and "others" (what these are, whether they exist, etc.), that'd be great.

Me and other are illusions, God is real. "Where is other?" is illusion. "Only me" is illusion. God knows everything, God is everything, God is in me, God is in you, God is in avatars, God is outside avatars.

The problem with being simple is that you project your own idea of "me" and "other" onto those words (and it tends to lead to equivocation). That's why I have to start talking about perceptions, sounds, colors, Freud, Jung. Grasping the difference between "personal" and "transpersonal" should not be that hard if you just try for more than 10 minutes.

[Carl-Richard]

23 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

I pretty much agree with everything in this video. Yes, there is only one Dreamer*. Yes, for all intents and purposes, you should act as if there are others - this is right behaviour. I also said this before, which this guy repeats when he says that there are "egos" once you yourself see yourself as "an ego":

Yes, there is ONLY Pure Awareness, which the guy states. ONE Experience, ONE Consciousness, ONE DREAM. So what the fuck is the problem? 

Why is @Inliytened1 asking where your grandmother is?

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Me and other are illusions, God is real. "Where is other?" is illusion. "Only me" is illusion. God knows everything, God is everything, God is in me, God is in you, God is in avatars, God is outside avatars.

 

The knot to be tied is just that you are God.  And it doesn't need to be tied its just that still you emanate that you arent the One.  But if reality is infinity it makes you that by default. If reality is one.