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 6 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Nemra]

A world existing outside of your experience is a category mistake!

Let's assume that there is an outside world.

If you say that there is a thing that exists outside of your experience, it would immediately belong to some experiential category (e.g., visual, auditory, etc.) when you experience it.

But how would you know that they exist?

Because they become self-evident!

Experience is self-evident, which means that the outside experience as a category doesn't exist.

This doesn't mean you won't have different experiences, which points to a deeper aspect of your experience—that your experience is infinite.

The infinite nature of experience is what creates the illusion of an outside!

If you don't understand this and say it's wrong, you just believe you have a deeper understanding of experience than you do.

Edited 3 hours ago by Nemra

[r0ckyreed]

2 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

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. 

Exactly!! 💯

It is entirely unfalsifiable. Of course the only thing I have ever experienced is my experience by definition. I cannot get outside of consciousness. I am the entire field of consciousness. But my consciousness is limited. I can only see so far and can only hear so far. If I become blind, that doesn’t mean that the object disappears. There are probably a bunch of sense-perceptions I do not have access to.

[r0ckyreed]

If my consciousness is all there is, then why is my consciousness finite? Notice that I cannot see infinitely into space and I cannot hear everything that happens in the universe. My consciousness is finite because Infinite Consciousness is imagining a finite human consciousness. The only way I will become Infinite is whenever I die. If a human had access to Infinite Consciousness, then they would no longer be human, they would be God. 

The issue is Leo says you are God, but the human you is not God. God is the consciousness looking out of your eyes experiencing a finite mind and consciousness. But this does not mean that the human consciousness, God is behind, is experiencing all of God. The human consciousness is not experiencing ALL OF GOD. It is only experiencing a fraction of a fraction of God. God is omniscient and omnipotent, you aren’t.

Edited 3 hours ago by r0ckyreed

[Sugarcoat]

16 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

Exactly!! 💯

It is entirely unfalsifiable. Of course the only thing I have ever experienced is my experience by definition. I cannot get outside of consciousness. I am the entire field of consciousness. But my consciousness is limited. I can only see so far and can only hear so far. If I become blind, that doesn’t mean that the object disappears. There are probably a bunch of sense-perceptions I do not have access to.

Yea I think it’s crucial to distinguish between limits to our experience, vs reality as a whole, being honest about assumptions we might be making

Edited 3 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Nemra]

The confusion comes from not deconstructing or getting a deeper grasp of your ordinary state of experience.

Some of you hold a bunch of assumptions about your ordinary state and use higher states of experience to justify your assumptions, and then those assumptions structure the way you think about the higher states.

Edited 3 hours ago by Nemra

[Carl-Richard]

The thing that happens when you have a spiritual teacher who is not enlightened is that they will spend most of their time not speaking from a place of presence. And that will be reflected in their choice of words, their way of speaking, and of course their followers. An enlightened spiritual teacher, who rests in being as their natural state, will emphasize the unspeakability of the absolute truth. It's perpetually clear to them that this is the nature of the absolute truth.

A community that does not emphasize enlightenment, who emphasizes glimpses into non-ordinary / higher states and giving retrospective accounts of those through language and memory, not through direct live transmission of their current state, will of course be more inclined to talk as if everything about these higher states of being is speakable, is perfectly explainable, is perfectly encapsulatable in language. Because that is all they got in their current state.

If it rubs you the wrong way that somebody tries to emphasize the unspeakability of the absolute, perhaps that is a reflection of you and your approach, not somebody's "lack of" whatever fancy term you elevate to sacred status (awakening, consciousness). And perhaps the approach is not actually about the absolute at all, but rather manifestations within the illusory nature of being, a.k.a. Maya.

I will repeat this again and again whenever it is salient to do so: this place is not about enlightenment, and it's not actually about the absolute as far as I'm concerned. It's about experiences within the illusion, within the illusory sub-manifolds of reality. Reality itself happens beyond thought, beyond language, beyond even perception and memory. The way this becomes perpetually clear is again by being perpetually acquainted with it through direct experience, by being enlightened. But that is currently clearly not on your agenda in this space.

Edited 2 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

38 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

A community that does not emphasize enlightenment, who emphasizes glimpses into non-ordinary / higher states and giving retrospective accounts of those through language and memory, not through direct live transmission of their current state, will of course be more inclined to talk as if everything about these higher states of being is speakable, is perfectly explainable, is perfectly encapsulatable in language. Because that is all they got in their current state.

Dude.

I am well aware of the ineffable nature of God. Moreso than you understand. Just because I use words well does not mean I think my words encapsulate it.

You are trying to make this about words and lack of understanding the Absolute. But that's not what this is about. You are the one here who is lacking direct consciousness of the Absolute. It is completely obvious to me what the Absolute is. But then there's much more Awakening beyond that.

Again, getting the Absolute is easy.

I don't speak about enlightenment because there is something higher. Buddhism and nonduality are not enough to understand God.

You frame this issue as psychedelics granting inferrior understanding of the Absolute, but you are mistaken in that. They grant higher understanding than any human tradition you are copying.

You are not going to understand the Absolute better through Buddhism than through 5-MeO-DMT. Not gonna happen.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Inliytened1]

On 10/2/2026 at 5:31 PM, Leo Gura said:

One vs many is a duality.

Keep that in mind.

I have started to go back and listen to your recent episode 8 unique proofs of God.  (Again) Amazing stuff and extremely profound.  But I don't know if calling them proofs is the best word.  Perhaps the logical structure of God would be more fitting.  But I think you already had an episode with a similar name.  Although you clarify this in the beginning the name just did not sit right with me initially. 

But I highly recommend this one to you guys.

Edited 1 hour ago by Inliytened1

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

I have started to go back and listen to your recent episode 8 unique proofs of God.  Amazing stuff and extremely profound.  But I don't know if calling them proofs is the best word.  Perhaps the logical structure of God would be more fitting.  But I think you already had an episode with a similar name.  Although you clarify this in the beginning the name just did not sit right with me initially. 

But I highly recommend this one to you guys.

I call it proofs because there is a rich tradition of logical proofs for God, which I want to improve upon.

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

I call it proofs because there is a rich tradition of logical proofs for God, which I want to improve upon.

Indeed. I gotcha.  I think this one definitely takes a few listens!