My Latest Solipsistic Insight

[Mellowmarsh]

2 hours ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Nothing's real - everything's real - to one degree or another.

Yes, it’s that simple.

When one thing is known, everything is known, because everything is one thing. The many is always of the one, and nothing but the one. 

How can oneness exist, it exists as a dream exists, this existence is comparable to a dream,  meaning there is no separate observer outside of reality to look at it, label it, or measure it.

While a character inside a dream might try to figure out the nature of the dream, the dream itself is not a thinking entity trying to analyse its own existence.

Words are dreamscape. The word “real” is a real word, in the dream, though direct existence doesn’t need a word, or a story, nor a category to be complete. Direct existence itself does not have a "mind," a set of beliefs, or an egoic identity. It simply is.

And that’s all folks. That’s yer lot. 
 

[Sugarcoat]

7 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

It just doesn’t quite make sense to me yet how a knock at my door is merely hallucinated. From my experience, a knock at a door and a voice that says “hello” presupposes a human is behind that door that I cannot experience but yet exists. I don’t see how you would say the only thing that exists is the door, the sound of knocking and the sound of the voice I identify as human. Whether it is a robot or a human behind that door, I know that when I open the door, I will witness something that was outside of my experience and when I close the door, I won’t see it, but that human still exists and they can even keep talking. I don’t see how you all can seriously defend this idealism position when you can easily test and disprove that it isn’t merely imagination.

I get what you mean.

I think words have been used in inconsistent ways in this thread.

You could say: you are only able to experience things that arise in your awareness (direct experience). This reveals how experience works for the self, but I doesn’t prove there is nothing outside of it. Connects to what you said.

Saying “its all imaginary”, then saying there’s only “direct experience”, is basically saying that the imagination (what they consider reality) is limited to your direct experience, which is making claims about the limitations of reality based on one’s direct experience. It’s a jump in conclusion imo. 
 

And as you say, if it’s all “imaginary” then it’s all the same fundamentally, it doesn’t say much. 

If someone would say “the perceived boundary is imaginary” that’s a different thing, as Carl says, it doesn’t say anything particular about the forms, what forms could exist or how things work etc. Just that it’s non-dual. 

Maybe I’m repeating myself but basically it’s a bit messy in these threads, lots of inconsistencies. Not being clear. 

Edited 2 minutes ago by Sugarcoat