A question about solipsism - am I missing something, or is there a step beyond?

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura extremely conformist?  I know where you have the picture about him. His followers are extremely conformist. But sadghuru is playing outside this field. A few examples: traveling the world with his motorcycle, going on podcasts with famous stars, talking about aliens: 

 

 

[PolyPeter]

7 hours ago, Monomachus said:

could then the merging of the copies contradict solipsism?

Hey, let me try to answer this.

I think it does not contradict solipsism, because there is an ultimate absolute, and this is the one that is truly only one.

Think of this idea in terms of Set theory for simplicity, in mathematical terms.

An Infinity can be full onto itself, so, in a way, it cannot touch anything but itself, and it cannot be touched by anything from outside itself.

Lets take A and B as two different infinites. 

A is infinite

B is infinite

And C, is the Union of both infinites

So C = { A, B }

With this logic, we have C as the Union of infinites, and the distinction is mereley conceptual.

 

In reality, there is an Absolute Infinity, out of which anything else gets imagined. It is completley unlimited, it is God.

God can imagine a copy of itself, there is absolutley nothing from stopping God from creating such God. and then, what if its two Gods? and what if three? you get the idea

Edited 5 hours ago by PolyPeter

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, OBEler said:

extremely conformist? 

I didn't mean that he himself is conformist. I mean his teachings are taught as conformity. He teaches you to follow his yogic methods strictly, without thought, question, improvisation, or customization. You must do it his way and he never even explains why. This is his style and it breeds insane conformity among his students.

Is Sadhguru told his students to lick their own assholes to reach God, they would do it without question.

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

7 hours ago, PsychedelicEagle said:

Interesting. Could you describe what changed in his understanding after his deeper Awakening?

This is hearsay - but someone briefly mentioned to me he wrote about this on his website. Blog perhaps. I did not look into it myself.

You could search there if directly asking him isn't your style.

Edited 4 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Joseph Maynor]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I didn't mean that he himself is conformist. I mean his teachings are taught as conformity. He teaches you to follow his yogic methods strictly, without thought, question, improvisation, or customization. You must do it his way and he never even explains why. This is his style and it breeds insane conformity among his students.

Is Sadhguru told his students to lick their own assholes to reach God, they would do it without question.

This is known as a closed system no?  It's designed to be closed, by ignorance or motive to control mostly. 

[oOo]

@PolyPeter

5 hours ago, PolyPeter said:

Hey, let me try to answer this.

I think it does not contradict solipsism, because there is an ultimate absolute, and this is the one that is truly only one.

Think of this idea in terms of Set theory for simplicity, in mathematical terms.

An Infinity can be full onto itself, so, in a way, it cannot touch anything but itself, and it cannot be touched by anything from outside itself.

Lets take A and B as two different infinites. 

A is infinite

B is infinite

And C, is the Union of both infinites

So C = { A, B }

With this logic, we have C as the Union of infinites, and the distinction is mereley conceptual.

 

In reality, there is an Absolute Infinity, out of which anything else gets imagined. It is completley unlimited, it is God.

God can imagine a copy of itself, there is absolutley nothing from stopping God from creating such God. and then, what if its two Gods? and what if three? you get the idea

With the set of “Intelligence” defining all possible sets:

I Identify extremely specific evidence based wants. I create a court-room as a thought experiment, then I have plaintiff, defendant and any other necessary ‘staffing’ lay their case followed by the judge making the final call. This acts as a “truth machine”. On what funnels out, I create an extremely specialised feedback loop around those wants using the scientific method for truth discernment, followed by a rinse and repeat. 

What is truth? Truth is simply the absence of falsity.

What is intelligence? Intelligence is simply information more likely aligned with truth, in this analogy we have the operant and the operators.

Within this analogy, operator and operant are both one with exclusivity to the former while irreducibility exists on scales that fall outside this conversation. Intelligence cannot divide itself in multiplication, however it can self-multiply from union, following the logic that strictly defines the parameter spaces reflecting interconnection. As in, symmetrical multiplication of opposites connecting, that’s in many ways how dualities become a system of one, division keeps opposites alive, and union kills them then leaves a system.

Purely reflective of dimensional constraints in theoretical logic presently taught; not a container for infinity, just the intelligence thats used to commonly denote. Contradicting this process generally has zero utility for any meaningful method of falsification, and when the mind says it does, that’s usually but not always a good analogy for how people end up seeking personal coaches to help them answer why they can’t determine, meet or manage their wants. Irrespectively, outliers always eventually find their way to the same methodological technology but, like take telepathy, now past non-disclosures and scientific denouncement looks like a memetic psyop for geopolitically competitive reasons against the slowly growing evidence based unveiling. 

Life is an intuition and therefore a whiteboard to see and sketch dots presently not seen. Strategic revelation, geopolitically or in scientific outcomes, is an analogy for how success tends to link with the outcomes of converting blindness to sighted self-evidential reasoning. This closed loop alone, helps us remember that life doesn’t have to be and actually isn’t very mysterious, enough absence of evidence and enough evidence of absence are just cycles of light (sun) and dark (moon) that eventually become the sight we call the evidence of truth that reflects what we call reality. Analogously as well, sight begets more sight that is self-referential that never becomes an “other”, and it’s the same reason we only ever create one reality, even if it’s the One Reality that encompasses all other possible realities being the simultaneous container of God, Source, Love and Infinity; with the latter being corrective of any other denotation, as in God becomes contained by its own very Infinity, that is God itself. Our blindness, is reflective of any experiment on that division between the two, where the cycles we are bound by become the duality of multiplication and divisional chains reflective of the patterns sentience tends to want to reconcile into union. We act as those multiplications of God but only as subsets, bound to the superset of God.

Drawing back to defining and chaining agency towards my wants in life; absences reflect the same pattern to achieve unity. And that’s done relative to the parameters of the set that encompass the logic of a human. Cyclical union is the operative pattern of life following successive patterns of iterative balance, and reflects the divisional multiplication you speak of across the animal kingdom and life as we presently know it. Non-division isn’t necessarily the goal of life, it’s just the present space of God relative to logic, and our healthiest operative movement as life. 

These are not truths I believe, but tools and patterns that survive falsification and are retained only while they continue to sharpen agency toward my wants within the frame I call God. And, it’s the only judge and courtroom I trust. For everything and everyone else: potential delusion, falsifying of evidence, memory and belief biases, conformity dynamics obscuring truth, paid off witnesses and testimonies, even if the monetary means is merely figurative, good will persons but are more shoulders in Isaac Newton’s “standing on the shoulders of giants”, even if all of us here, are just all the cells in unity coming together to forge said projective giant. A ‘want’ of sentience as a set, even when controlled for its divisions (i.e. anti-curiosity) which only reflect the pathway of the cycle that meets the unity that speaks it’s opposite language of truth multiplication. intelligence converges toward truth through falsification, remains self-referential in use, and never collapses into identity with reality, contained by its superset, God; and truths only at the edge of falsification, the unknown we all return to, One Courtroom, and it’s up to us about what kind of defendant to plaintiff we want to be on Gods superscript. 

Best wishes good sir.

 

[Yeah Yeah]

On 27/01/2026 at 11:10 PM, Leo Gura said:

 

I have to ask Leo Gura how do you exactly become more conscious ... Without drugs if you're sober ... Like do you repeatedly become more aware of self inquiry into imagination or I am god or this all solipsism ... There are no Leo videos on how to become more concious without drugs or meditation and there isn't a video what even is imagination. I'm just asking I have these videos on repeat like how I had an Alan Watts addiction or Abraham Hicks