Contemplating solipsism in direct experience

[Joseph Maynor]

32 minutes ago, Someone here said:

The most fundamental thing ever (and there has to be a most fundamental thing ever to give rise to anything at all that exists ) is pure presence. It's present all times and all places and in all conditions.. Right now and before an hour and after a million years .

"Consciousness " in the sense of "perception " is not that .

i get that spiritual teachers call ultimate reality as "consciousness " but it can be confusing .

Why do we need a most fundamental thing?

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Why do we need a most fundamental thing?

Because everything in the universe is contingent..everything depends on other things ..therefore there must have been something eternal and doesn't depend on anything else . 

 

[kavaris]

2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

This is what I was driving at.  Direct experience to me is a kind of focusing that isn't always present and not always needed.  It takes work to focus.

Ha! Not many ppl realize this this! You are dropping serious knowledge bombs. It requires MORE work to try to empty or eliminate and/or focus things into a specific direction than it does to "follow the yellow brick road" of ideas and stimuli (to consistently hold in your mind something, such that you might call it "focusing") Like, our minds were never really made to focus so intently. We still dont really ever focus in the way its portrayed, like...

And even now its near to impossible since we still dont really grasp that like, our brains dont actually *focus* or *quiet* ever. They are always thinking and generating stuff, conjuring and/or bringing images to mind, even if it isnt acknowledged or even if its ignored, it is happening, consciously, subconsciously, like, we have never NOT had things happening in our mind. Even when it seems quiet (which is rare) it is the illusion of quiet. The mind is never ever quiet. We call this "quiet" but what it really is is like, "a comfortable state of peace" or something, like it actually is probably less quiet, but ignored, if you know what i mean.

What we call *quiet* is actually "layers of noise" essentially, ignored in a certain pattern of ways.

Edited 16 hours ago by kavaris

[kavaris]

And then, to piggy back off of *intent focus*, we could ask: Whats the opposite of focusing intently? Paying attention to everything maybe? Is that what psychedelics do? I wouldnt say that (alas im prolly goin way off topic diggin into this), but i still dont quite understand whats happening on a psychedelic; Like, alot, alot of thoughts come to mind, like it speeds up, or it triggers this thing where it slike, your mind is bouncing , i would say, between these things that sortve blend your auxiliary sense, or whatever they call our 5 senses. And they sortve all merge into one.

Though, the exp., itself is more like, you are individually still experiencing: As in, you are tasting feelings, or hearing what you use to feel, or seeing sounds, and stuff like that that bridges between the real and the auditory/efectively its a bridge to the once imagined, and by that, you are like, incorrectly (from the standpoint of normal waking reality) drawing connections to things, that wouldve otherwise not been present. Like its like this recapitulation of everything, but not like DMT i dont think, since it has to involve the stuff of reality. Like you have to contend with the fact that reality is, i guess you might say, being broken, but its not as violent. Like ive heard that DMT is sortve the strong version of this, in that it just throws you into complete wonderland, or so ive heard. LSD and mushrooms i can say are just the normalized form of it. Though ive never done DMT so i might have no idea what im talking about. Anyway let me just look at the title now, and see how far off i was... Okay  that was all.

[Breakingthewall]

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

But the difference is I'm using "direct logic"..which means I'm investigating direct sensory experience as it is ..whereas you are reasoning about additional layers of abstractions (relationships ..casuality ..point of views ..absence of limits etc)

I don't think that there is any difference. Any logical reasoning, such as: "I can only exist within my direct experience, therefore I cannot prove the existence of others," is a logical construct.

The problem is that it's a flawed construct, based on a false premise.  that statement reveals a lack of understanding that you can never truly escape your direct experience because what you call "I" is a construct that arises within this experience. "You" are not an absolute. This leads to solipsism and the belief that you are God dreaming, and the kind of "enlightenment" we know.

Enlightenment is precisely the dissolution, or opening, of the self. This is logic applied correctly versus logic applied incorrectly.

Can you understand how the self can be dissolved? Not right? Because if you do, you would do it. The only understanding of the opening of the self is the opening of the self. 

[kavaris]

8 minutes ago, kavaris said:

Anyway let me just look at the title now, and see how far off i was... Okay  that was all.

I just wanted to add one more funny thing; Cause its like, imagine trying to have the conversations we are having on LSD or mushrooms, or trying to do serious computer work (or any of the stuff i am like, trying to segue into...) its like, its hard to do something when the god damn world is ending / breaking down, wtf!? I mean, try to do anything involving focuing when its like, everything is connected in lemniskos knots and whatknots. Its Cray cray impossible. And at the same time, its like, we are talkin bout like this divine knowledge of the universe as well; And gaining insights into places that i guess these like dedicated manichaeans and tibetan monks and ppl like this wouldve had to have taken years to figure out soly by sittin there trying figure it out, like... It makes life simpler when you ignore everything, like...

[Someone here]

5 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

I don't think that there is any difference. Any logical reasoning, such as: "I can only exist within my direct experience, therefore I cannot prove the existence of others," is a logical construct.

The problem is that it's a flawed construct, based on a false premise.  that statement reveals a lack of understanding that you can never truly escape your direct experience because what you call "I" is a construct that arises within this experience. "You" are not an absolute. This leads to solipsism and the belief that you are God dreaming, and the kind of "enlightenment" we know.

Enlightenment is precisely the dissolution, or opening, of the self. This is logic applied correctly versus logic applied incorrectly.

Can you understand how the self can be dissolved? Not right? Because if you do, you would do it. The only understanding of the opening of the self is the opening of the self. 

What is "opening the self "? 

[Breakingthewall]

5 hours ago, Someone here said:

What is "opening the self "? 

The dissolution of the center. Centrality occurs by default in the dual configuration, where reality perceives itself trough the form. A perceiving individual separate from an external universe is necessary.

Both the universe and the individual are configurations that occur within reality. The dissolution of centrality allows reality to perceive itself in its essence, true nature ,from the individual/universe configuration, but beyond both.

Edited 4 hours ago by Breakingthewall