I asked Rupert Spira directly about solipsism - here is what he said

[Gesundheit2]

Obviously, Rupert is not awake.

Though, that doesn't mean Leo is awake, either.

[Gesundheit2]

6 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Because reality is surprisingly simple and direct.  Look! Its right here and always was!! It's the stories we have imagined and the paradigms we have constructed that are so intricate.

What about the stories/paradigms we create about the original stories/paradigms? (Meta stories).

In other words, how do you know that all the imaginary stories and paradigms are necessarily false? Obviously, there's no way to know. The possibility of any given story to be true or false is always 50%. If it represents reality correctly, then it's true. If it doesn't, then it's false. And there's no third option.

So, your meta story about reality being so simple and direct is not necessarily true. Maybe reality is a lot more complex than you think it is. You don't know. You just assume that all the stories and paradigms are 100% false, without noticing that that's an unconfirmed meta story and paradigm.

So intricate, you see?

Edited February 25, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[Gesundheit2]

8 hours ago, Meta-Man said:

If you’re a solipsist it means you are still stuck in localization, not universal consciousness.

I'm not a solipsist, but what does this even mean?

[SQAAD]

Solipsism is pure non sense. Rupert agrees. 

Or maybe Rupert Spira, a 40 plus years spiritual practitioner is not ready for the Highest Teachings 

Also having one experience at a time doesn't seem like Infinity to me. 

Edited February 25, 2022 by SQAAD

[Gesundheit2]

29 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

It means that the vastness of the infinite Self does not share the limitations of the finite mind, or the ‘bubble’ as is referred to in this thread.

Maybe, but which one are you?

Edited February 25, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[Lenny]

Rupert clearly said that you (as consciousness) are experiencing Rupert's thoughts, but cannot experience the thoughts through the lens of the finite mind of Lucian. This comment could still allow for the idea that you (as consciousness) is creating the finite mind of both Rupert and Lucian, therefore resolving any disparity between the ideas from Leo and Rupert.

I believe that Rupert, not wanting to confuse Lucian, based on a quiet assessment of his spiritual level/consciousness level, wanted to approach Lucian's questions from a position that would be understood. Rupert is not speaking from the position of the Self here, he is speaking from the position of a finite person/mind. He may have noticed that Lucian's "mind" (Lucian's idea of the mind) is not the "mind of the Self". Rupert also started to use the term "finite mind" to differentiate between the one mind (consciousness/the mind of the Self) and the "mind" of "Lucian" and "Rupert". Also, Lucian could be speaking of the one mind, and there has been a miscommunication. But, I didn't hear Lucian say that he is Rupert.

Now, I might be wrong. It is easy to come up with ideas that verify statements and give justifications.

To expand; I know that I am all of existence/reality/consciousness, but the little me "Lenny" isn't. The little "Lenny" appears in me as reality. It might not help others for me to speak about myself as the fresh poop on the ground. Or that someone is imagining everything and nothing is real. From the position of the absolute, being real or not real doesn't hold any water and does not change the absolute/consciousness/reality/what is.

"Real" and "unreal" are just ideas/thoughts/finite forms in reality and only veil itself from itself. Even my saying "just ideas" is a thought/energetic form in reality that veils reality. My thought "reality" is made up of reality, and made by reality, but isn't reality in it's entirety. 

Love from Lenny  

 

 

 

[peanutspathtotruth]

19 minutes ago, Lenny said:

Rupert clearly said that you (as consciousness) are experiencing Rupert's thoughts, but cannot experience the thoughts through the lens of the finite mind of Lucian. This comment could still allow for the idea that you (as consciousness) is creating the finite mind of both Rupert and Lucian, therefore resolving any disparity between the ideas from Leo and Rupert.

I believe that Rupert, not wanting to confuse Lucian, based on a quiet assessment of his spiritual level/consciousness level, wanted to approach Lucian's questions from a position that would be understood. Rupert is not speaking from the position of the Self here, he is speaking from the position of a finite person/mind. He may have noticed that Lucian's "mind" (Lucian's idea of the mind) is not the "mind of the Self". Rupert also started to use the term "finite mind" to differentiate between the one mind (consciousness/the mind of the Self) and the "mind" of "Lucian" and "Rupert". Also, Lucian could be speaking of the one mind, and there has been a miscommunication. But, I didn't hear Lucian say that he is Rupert.

Now, I might be wrong. It is easy to come up with ideas that verify statements and give justifications.

To expand; I know that I am all of existence/reality/consciousness, but the little me "Lenny" isn't. The little "Lenny" appears in me as reality. It might not help others for me to speak about myself as the fresh poop on the ground. Or that someone is imagining everything and nothing is real. From the position of the absolute, being real or not real doesn't hold any water and does not change the absolute/consciousness/reality/what is.

"Real" and "unreal" are just ideas/thoughts/finite forms in reality and only veil itself from itself. Even my saying "just ideas" is a thought/energetic form in reality that veils reality. My thought "reality" is made up of reality, and made by reality, but isn't reality in it's entirety. 

Love from Lenny  

 

 

 

Great take on this!

[Gesundheit2]

35 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

Making that discovery is the goal of the spiritual path.

Are you trying to say "I don't know" but feeling a little bit shy?

Edited February 25, 2022 by Gesundheit2
I keep forgetting the "you" in the sentence

[Gesundheit2]

1 minute ago, Meta-Man said:

I’m directing the attention back to you. The discovery is yours to make  

Then I don't think you understood my question.

I asked you whether you're the infinite or finite self. It was a straightforward question about your experience.

Do you experience yourself as what you're calling the infinite Self (whatever that is)? Or do you experience yourself as the finite self (again, whatever that is)?

It would be ideal if the answer included an explanation for the "whatever that is" part.

[Dazgwny]

Interesting. The only thing I would say is that spira has to have become conscious at some point of another finite mind. Which clearly he hasn’t. Or he would just say so. This means spira is yet to confirm whether there is or isn’t. So he’s going off a belief that there is. Sound to me like he’s gone very very far, but not far enough. I don’t know the absolute answer to this, but most of my deepest awakenings have been very solipsistic. So I’m leaning towards Leo’s revelations. But yet to be totally confirmed without a shadow of a doubt. Which is strange because during my awakenings there is no doubt. But then I come back and my ego creates doubt. What spira suggests is that there’s stuff going on outside of your consciousness. That to me still suggests a sense of separation no matter how subtle, but it’s still there. Up unto now, that goes against my own discoveries

[Gesundheit2]

10 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

@Gesundheit2

What good will it do you if I tell you I am the infinite Self?

I wouldn't know unless you tell me first.

10 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

Are you interested in freedom?

I'm interested in a free conversation where sensible communication happens.

[Inliytened1]

11 minutes ago, Dazgwny said:

 . But yet to be totally confirmed without a shadow of a doubt. Which is strange because during my awakenings there is no doubt. But then I come back and my ego creates doubt. 

That's normal for the ego to do.  They were validated but this is the ego's attempt to unvalidate them and keep you in the illusion.   

.

[GreenWoods]

21 minutes ago, Dazgwny said:

The only thing I would say is that spira has to have become conscious at some point of another finite mind. Which clearly he hasn’t. Or he would just say so. This means spira is yet to confirm whether there is or isn’t. So he’s going off a belief that there is. 

Might be interesting to hear his answer if someone asks him what makes him believe there are other bubble's outside of 'his' Consciousness. 

 

I think, in case he is aware that there is only One Consciousness (with nothing outside It), he can't say this publicly.

Edited February 25, 2022 by GreenWoods

[Reciprocality]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

He isn't conscious enough to be aware of how he constructed other minds.

Self-inquiry will not give you sufficient consciousness for that.

@Leo Gura There is only one way in which the creation of other minds must necessarily mean that there is nobody 'on the other side' of the minds that are created by me, and that is that nothing exists also at my side. Otherwise it would have to be a belief from speculative rationalism.

So the question becomes then if it is the same type of nothing which the idea is founded upon that exists 'on the other side' that you refer to when you say that you do not exist?

By other words, for people who have not directly experienced this nothingness are never actually even considering solipsism.

 

Self inquiry with the guide of others (you can lol at that) have made it obvious to me that whatever entity i refer to, be it a thing or a someone, I refer back to my creation of them. Though at the same time it is far from obvious I created the space, time or magnitude etc. they must be created within.

As in had they not been created in these elements then I had thereby no such element to refer to them in now.

[peanutspathtotruth]

1 minute ago, GreenWoods said:

Might be interesting to hear his answer if someone asks him what makes him believe there are other bubble's outside of 'his' Consciousness. 

 

I think, in case he is aware that there is only One Consciousness (with nothing outside It), he can't say this publicly.

He's not saying there is something outside of Consciousness, he's repeatedly saying there is only one infinite consciousness. He's saying that what's seen here is not all that is to see.

Again, I see the conflation of two things:

A) there is one consciousness and everything is it, nothing else exists, it's infinite and perfect and love, etc.

B) this experience right now, this content made out of consciousness in consciousness, is the only content there is in consciousness.

A does not lead to B, but that's what you're saying. And the possibility that in infinite consciousness there can be multiple points of view at the same time is also not negated by A.

I'm not on any position - I have no idea, just a hunch (which isn't worth much). But the way you guys argue against Rupert is sloppy.

[Inliytened1]

15 minutes ago, GreenWoods said:

 

I think, in case he is aware that there is only One Consciousness (with nothing outside It), he can't say this publicly.

That's possible but I doubt it.

 

15 minutes ago, GreenWoods said:

Might be interesting to hear his answer if someone asks him what makes him believe there are other bubble's outside of 'his' Consciousness. 

 

I believe he has answered that and his response is thst it a small assumption to make and that its OK to make this assumption.  I forger how he justified that right now off the top of my head but there another video out where talks about solipsism.  Though it should be noted that in thar video he talks about solipsism as the ego not solipsism as God or Absolute Solipsism as Leo calls it.

[Fernanda]

Nisargadatta Maharaj:  

Why do you worry about the world before taking care of yourself? You want to save the world, don't you? Can you save the world before saving yourself? And what means being saved? Saved from what? From illusion. Salvation is to see things as they are. I really do not see myself related to anybody and anything. Not even to a self, whatever that self may be. I remain forever -- undefined. I am -- within and beyond -- intimate and unapproachable.

 

Questioner:    

How did you come to it?

 

Nisargadatta Maharaj:

By my trust in my Guru. He told me 'You alone are' and I did not doubt him. I was merely puzzling over it, until I realised that it is absolutely true.

 

From the book "I AM THAT", Nisargadatta Maharaj

[Gesundheit2]

@peanutspathtotruth

All of this discussion can be boiled down to these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism (Spirituality in general).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism (Leo/Solipsism).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_idealism (Spira and the others).

[GreenWoods]

2 minutes ago, peanutspathtotruth said:

He's not saying there is something outside of Consciousness, he's repeatedly saying there is only one infinite consciousness. He's saying that what's seen here is not all that is to see.

Again, I see the conflation of two things:

A) there is one consciousness and everything is it, nothing else exists, it's infinite and perfect and love, etc.

B) this experience right now, this content made out of consciousness in consciousness, is the only content there is in consciousness.

A does not lead to B, but that's what you're saying. And the possibility that in infinite consciousness there can be multiple points of view at the same time is also not negated by A.

I'm not on any position - I have no idea, just a hunch (which isn't worth much). But the way you guys argue against Rupert is sloppy.

Well in my opinion, A and B are exactly the same, when realizing A deeply enough.

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

But see, here’s the kicker: There is no ‘his’ consciousness. Consciousness is universal and not localized.

Right all there is is Consciousness period.  Both self and other (duality) is imagined from that.   @GreenWoods knows this that's why he put "his" in quotes.