My Latest Solipsistic Insight

[JoshB]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't need the term "solipsism" to grasp the ramifications of Universal consciousness.

 

Ok, but nothing in here needs "solipsism". Distinguishing between Absolute Infinite Mind and limited finite mind, no "solipsism" needed. Even realizing that Universal consciousness is One and thus alone, does not need the term "solipsism". It's actually a completely unnecessary word. "One" and "alone" will suffice.

 

Your one-sentence engagement contradicts this statement.

I am conscious I am the only thing that exists which makes me the ultimate authority on the subject.

If you are the only thing there is that automatically makes you the highest position, that is the ramifications of God's sovereignty 

You are trying to strip the solipsism out of oneness and it's corrupting it

Such as replacing Solipsism for Universal Consciousness at least in the terms you are sharing.

Edited 12 hours ago by JoshB

[JoshB]

@Carl-Richard

Edited 12 hours ago by JoshB

[JoshB]

@Carl-Richard

[kavaris]

Im not even right, thats how wrong i am.... or wait... it didnt come out right.

[JoshB]

[Carl-Richard]

18 minutes ago, JoshB said:

You are trying to strip the solipsism out of oneness and it's corrupting it

Such as replacing Solipsism for Universal Consciousness at least in the terms you are sharing.

The only reason you are using the word "solipsism" is because you're parroting Leo's vocabulary. Nobody else in the spiritual sphere (that I know of) has seriously used the word solipsism as an active part of their vocabulary to describe Absolute Mind / Universal consciousness, And if they did use it, it was as a passing remark or caveat trying to clear up a misunderstanding.

Edited 11 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[JoshB]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The only reason you are using the word "solipsism" is because you're parroting Leo's vocabulary. Nobody else in the spiritual sphere (that I know of) has seriously used the word solipsism as an active part of their vocabulary to describe Absolute Mind / Universal consciousness,

The spiritual sphere is an illusion you are imagining 

There is NO Spiritual Sphere ONLY YOU

Because No One in that Spiritual Sphere Understands God to the degree I am talking about

Edited 11 hours ago by JoshB

[kavaris]

1 hour ago, JoshB said:

Because No One in that Spiritual Sphere Understands God to the degree I am talking about

 But.... Like.... Why though? Like why is it "im the guy up here, yous are down here"? Like, is that a nice thing to say?

[AtmanIsBrahman]

14 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

"Seeing happens from nowhere" does not tell you anything about the structure of what is being seen. "Someone's eye" (a body part) is what is seen, it's not seeing itself. So you can't say anything about the state of body parts or any activity related to them based on the notion of "seeing happens from nowhere". It's a conflation of two different domains.

This is the perpetual trap solipsists on this forum go into. They start wanting to talk about the absoluteness of seeing/being itself but then they want to use that to make very specific claims about what is being seen and what is possible within what is being seen. They're two different domains. The nothingness of seeing betrays nothing about the nature of things that are seen. It betrays exactly nothing.

So you're saying the realization that seeing comes from nowhere isn't enough to ascribe any properties to seeing, right? I would agree, but it being YOU is not a property. It is an absolute, the claim being that YOU=NOTHING absolutely. 

I think you fail to consider that people on this forum might actually have direct consciousness of solipsism and aren't deluded or conceptually confused.

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

I think you fail to consider that people on this forum might actually have direct consciousness of solipsism and aren't deluded or conceptually confused.

Not at all. It's when said people open their mouths that they seem to be conceptually confused a lot of the time. You don't have to be insecure about whether you have direct experience or not and people denying this or not. That's not the issue. It's how it's being talked about and the implications that are being made. Implications like whatever is happening related to body parts, other human beings. If your idea of solipsism involves statements about what can or cannot happen in the reality of form, the reality of things, objects, states, activities, and that it's also supposedly absolute, you're already misunderstanding, you're already conceptually confused.

Absolute consciousness, aside from being absolute, is neutral to whatever metaphysical model you want to impose on reality. Solipsism as far as you seem to be presenting it here is a metaphysical model, a conceptual framework. What is not conceptual is absolute being, and nothing, literally nothing, can be said for it other than it exists absolutely and there is nothing that will change this, nothing specific in formed reality being the case or not the case will change this. The states of other people, people's eyes, whatever form or configuration of relative reality you can think of, is irrelevant to the absoluteness of being.

Edited 27 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[kavaris]

Heres a good one. Or i mean its okay (hey, i tried)

Suppose you become "enlightened" in this moment (just pretend, as it jus needs yas to imagine, nothing more).

And in said enlightenment, youve had a FLASH! A vision of allll the ppl on earth and the patterns that are contributing or forming the basis for their life, including your own, down to minūûte details...

Now, without this seeming like a lesson or some sortve "Hey Gwuys, look at the thing that i thought, im so smart, give me a gift cause i said the smart thing", just imagine this scenario for a second, without it feelin like its leading to "teacher, lesson or pressure". Note: The imagining part doesnt have to be perfect, in fact, its totally impractical. Bare with me...

Now you have these patterns, all these things that are *building* reality, and all its seemingly living creatures who are so real... Oh... "OH the realness, we loathe the realness", jk... And now its like   "So... Does that mean, since their patterns are so obviously revealed in this moment, that they are insignificant patterns ~that which are helping us to deduce all of the seemingly unintelligible people behind said patterns BECAUSE of how we can see into their patterns?" Or does it mean there is relevance, messages within each individual, where the patterns just give you a strange, albeit miraculous insight into a layer that wasnt previously exposed?

Basically im just asking  if everyone realizes that Eeveryone has a chance to find friendship and relevance within that special individual theyre examining, though, im asking it in this exaggerated way so yous can see the distance of it, and how/why it is to remain true (granted, you may discover that, for you, it doesnt hold up... thats the beauty of it... like...)

[Breakingthewall]

On 2/10/2026 at 8:31 AM, AtmanIsBrahman said:

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?

It's ridiculous if you think that "consciousness" is an individual . It's what happens to people who take psychedelics and as they can't breaking all the boundaries because they are not ready for it, they find as only exit inflate their ego and believe that they are god creating a dream. 

Consciousness is not a god or a creator, is just a reflexive structure. There is not a big you creating the movie, it's just limitlessness appearing as this possibility. The ego never, ever, in any case, would accept this. It's absolutely horrible for the ego, but this is a mistake. The absolute unlimited is everything. Who wants to be a miserable god dreaming when you are the open totality, the absolute vastness, the total freedom without boundaries. 

 

[JoshB]

9 hours ago, kavaris said:

 But.... Like.... Why though? Like why is it "im the guy up here, yous are down here"? Like, is that a nice thing to say?

You = Everyone, There is No One to be above.

I am laying the Ground Work for the Most Loving way Reality and Spirituality could be. 

Self=Love=Everyone

Edited 38 minutes ago by JoshB

[Willy Phallicus]

22 hours ago, cetus said:

Now I have to ask, who said that to who?

Having good conversations or great sex can be awkward and/or less enjoyable when youre in Christmode so I let the chicken or the egg tie for first place and let it remain a mystery.