My Latest Solipsistic Insight

[AtmanIsBrahman]

I've been contemplating the question, "Can two consciousnesses exist?"

I came to the conclusion that the answer is no, and that's why solipsism is true. Here is an illustration:

 

It's impossible for 2 consciousnesses to mutually see each other because that is just a possibility imagined by consciousness. Consciousness is imagining the two people, and it itself is neither one of them. When you're assuming that other people exist, it's because you don't know what you are. You are not the body, nor any object of sense-perception. You are nothing.
As is shown in the drawing, the human "you" imagines yourself and someone else mutually seeing each other, but really there is just you seeing the other person. At first you think that "you" is your body, but the body is something that appears in consciousness, so it can't be the one that is seeing. The one that is seeing isn't the brain either, that's just more mental content. The source of seeing is NOTHING. In other words, the thing that is seeing is seeing itself. You are the SEER, and there are no other seers. 

If you think about it, it's obvious that the idea of two consciousnesses existing is absolutely ridiculous. What makes more sense, that there are millions of consciousnesses somehow seeing each other or that there is one seer imagining all of them? As Leo has explained, there is only one self-luminous Mind that could possibly exist. This means that when you are looking at someone in the eye, they can't actually see you.

All people and things are moving sense-objects generated by your own mind, and as soon as your mind stops they will stop moving like a wind-up toy. This is why no one survives your death, as Leo has explained. When you die, all of your imaginings get taken back with you because they were never real in the first place. So being worried about anything happening after your death is delusion -- it means you still believe in an external world. 

 

[AtmanIsBrahman]

Has anyone had this same insight? The fact that two consciousnesses can't exist is quite profound

[Nemra]

Something similar to that by deconstructing my sensory fields.

I was shocked when I realized that there is only one experience, whatever that is, and I am the only one who is truly experiencing.

Have you noticed that there is only one of everything? 🙂

Edited 3 hours ago by Nemra

[cetus]

13 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

It's impossible for 2 consciousnesses to mutually see each other because that is just a possibility imagined by consciousness. 

The meaning of Namaste... 

Namaste is more than a hello. It's a bow that says 'I honor the divine in you,' acknowledging that the same sacred spark lives in both people. The gesture of folded hands shows humility and the recognition that we're all part of the same whole.

3 minutes ago, Nemra said:

I was shocked when I realized that there is only one experience, whatever that is, and I am the only one who is truly experiencing.

While this may be an ultimate truth there is no one here that consistently holds that level of consciousness.  Just the fact that you replied to this topic is proof of that.

[Nemra]

7 minutes ago, cetus said:

While this may be an ultimate truth there is no one here that consistently holds that level of consciousness.  Just the fact that you replied to this topic is proof of that.

It's an understanding that came from deconstruction.

But sure, I cannot hold some crazy states like God-Consciousness.

Why does having a conversation with anyone contradict understanding that there is only one experience?

[cetus]

26 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Why does having a conversation with anyone contradict understanding that there is only one experience?

Ultimately, it doesn't. But we share a unique position where consciousness experiences its own reflection by means of "other". So, while you're given this temporary experience and a front row seat through which consciousness experiences itself as other, why not enjoy the show.    

#10 of the Ox hearding pictures. -Returning to the marketplace.

Edited 2 hours ago by cetus

[Nemra]

@cetus, I am imagining non-direct experiences on top of my experience.

That construction is built on top of the fact that some part of my experience can be aware of what I can experience, which is a deeper thing than the first one I said.

I'm enjoying the show.

Edited 1 hour ago by Nemra

[LastThursday]

@AtmanIsBrahman you're correct in so far that it is a category error to count consciousnesses, like it's a thing. There is neither two consciousness nor one. The correct view however you stated:

14 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

Consciousness is imagining the two people, and it itself is neither one of them.

But still, be careful with words like "imagining" and "it", because they also don't apply to consciousness, although I get it, it's hard not to use words like that.

If consciousness describes everything, then in fact it is everything and so it is unable to define itself, because any definition would be a simplification of itself, which can't happen by definition. The only way something can define itself is via recursion, so it is either a fractal or something like a quine from computer coding.

[cetus]

2 minutes ago, Nemra said:

I'm enjoying the show.

[JoshB]

2 hours ago, cetus said:

The meaning of Namaste... 

Namaste is more than a hello. It's a bow that says 'I honor the divine in you,' acknowledging that the same sacred spark lives in both people. The gesture of folded hands shows humility and the recognition that we're all part of the same whole.

While this may be an ultimate truth there is no one here that consistently holds that level of consciousness.  Just the fact that you replied to this topic is proof of that.

You can be conscious of the one experience and still hold pseudo partitions 

I definitely agree with you in that aspect that when you are infinitely conscious socializing falls apart.

But there are degrees and different flavors to awakening. 

Leo said no one the forum is awake and I've realized consciousness without even an imaginary other.

Edited 47 minutes ago by JoshB

[cetus]

Just now, JoshB said:

You can be conscious of the one experience and still hold pseudo partitions 

Amen to that. What a unique position to be in. Absolutely magical.

What a shame that most take it for granted. Until one day they realize the sands of time are running out.

[JoshB]

7 minutes ago, cetus said:

Amen to that. What a unique position to be in. Absolutely magical.

What a shame that most take it for granted. Until one day they realize the sands of time are running out.

When I look i see other then josh but not self 

To quote your statement on ultimate reality, I would say its when the pseudo separate partitions fall away. 

So most are not consciousness of that relative partition. And even fewer have deconstructed it.

Edited 38 minutes ago by JoshB

[Leo Gura]

One vs many is a duality.

Keep that in mind.

[kavaris]

3 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

Has anyone had this same insight? The fact that two consciousnesses can't exist is quite profound

In the sense that theres two conscious ppl here, then "reality" and its conscious people are real, because otherwise youve just uncovered the same problem from the opposite end ~ i.e., "reality is science, etc" So youve now said that same claim, but from the opposite end, granted its inversion and not opposed/ opposite, because inversion means youve explored another angle of the pyramid. Like, in the sense that theres two 98 year olds staggering each other "You move" - "No, you move"  -  "No, ill move" - "I'll move"  -  "No i wanna move!" -Thats a reality that you fantasize about now (otherwise we become "to exist" or non existence)

But that staggering of consciousness is still very much a reality. Thats the predicament to solve, not just whether people are real. They are real, as everyone is inside of the group of realness. So for you, the figment that you literally cant or shouldnt touch like a scary ghost, thats called the unreal, but its inside of realness, for you, in the sense of what it even means to be real, but the fantasy of it NOW is the dilemma, cause simply believing in * non-realness * does not make it real OR unreal,

You dont have to belirve (or *un believe) in "chair" and "chairness" for it to still be there... You cant distinguish between real and unreal, inthat way. Only in self experience does that happen ~ that is, where it is going to make sense. Thats the predicament. Climbing to the top to describe the bottom means that, Now YOU would be at the top, and the things you are reaching for are now at the bottom. Like it doesnt require any one specific thing, but the fact that its all things, means its possible to imagine ANY thing, and the predicament begins there, not after making the climb, Like awareness is happening in each moment, otherwise its more of a faint lesson about what its like to make climbs. The climbing analogy is just a means of contrasting a center thats being taken for granted, and it means that individual consciousness, if thought of as consciousness that others are experiencing, is the opposite that happens from the center... the fact that theres only one consciousness is a minor communication in that sense.

Differences and distinctions are making it seem like, anything thats Not of centervoid IS itself the answer!... Like, its working because of differences, not the distinctions themselves that cause there to be realizations around inverted answers. What is the pyramid itself? And why is it? Not the thing making [out there] happen. But even before the conscious reality happens, we ask, 'What is that thing? Does it happens aufto magically? Maybe, maybe not.

Edited 7 minutes ago by kavaris

[cetus]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

One vs many is a duality.

Keep that in mind.

Keeping that in mind is the magic show. Watching as the illusion of duality unfolds around you from a place of non-duality.

[Leo Gura]

Just now, cetus said:

Keeping that in mind is the magic show. Watching as the illusion of duality unfolds around you from a place of non-duality.

Huzzah!

[cetus]

@Leo Gura What's the name of that Penn and Teller show?

[JoshB]

36 minutes ago, JoshB said:

When I look i see other then josh but not self 

I see other relative to josh. Not relative to Self 

@Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

Just now, cetus said:

@Leo Gura What's the name of that Penn and Teller show?

I don't think it has a name.

Penn & Teller