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 1 hour 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 41 minutes 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 19 minutes 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.