Why It's Glaringly Obvious That Solipsism Is True

[A_v_E]

@Breakingthewall Understanding properly our entire motivational/incentive system and the flimsy consistency of all our phenomenology.

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by A_v_E

[Rafael Thundercat]

If it was glaringly Obvious for everyone that all "others" are dreamstuff of their own minds, how would the world be? Is the world giving any indication that Solipsism is Glaringly Obvious for all to see? For most people only starting a conversation that this is all a dream they are creating to justify their existence makes most getting triggered and deviating the topic to something more pratical like topics of making money, daily shores, sex,dating and so on. I tried a couple of times having  this talks, and even putting simple questions as " Why would be something bad if is all a dream?" And people don't want to talk about it. Keeping the boudaries of dreaming at nigth and wake live during he day must be firmly set, otherwise, what would happen, if the distinction is fully broken? If anyone get even close to break that distinction stuff start getting scary. Like what Datura users experience, or can even drive one crazy. 

The deleted Solipsism video itself. For me there was a point was making no pratical sense to listen it again and again. I thought with myself " make no sense listening this and not actualize this for myself" 

I never heard anyone speaking in that way, never. I got more curious that scary. Curiosity killed the cat hum..

[Eternal Unity]

Add to your book list some of my stuff.

[Zedman]

Getting strange vibes when I discuss solipsism with someone and have to pretend I dont exist.

I am telling the truth and bullshitting at the same time

Edited January 20, 2023 by Zedman

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Zedman said:

Getting strange vibes when I discuss solipsism with someone and have to pretend I dont exist.

?

[Thought Art]

@Rafael Thundercat a dream of a world with others. Simple

[itsadistraction]

On 17/01/2023 at 10:45 PM, Leo Gura said:

The most amazing thing about solipsism is how immediately it is rejected by virtually everyone, including every intellectual. And yet, obviously it is not rejected on any evidence-based grounds. It's rejected purely out of repugnance.

This fact alone should make you extremely curious. Why is everyone in the world rejecting a worldview so cockily, entirely without evidence? Only an ego would behave that way. What is the ego hiding?

Science has not 1 piece of evidence against solipsism. Think about that. That alone is an awesome fact. How can a worldview not have a single contradiction or piece of counter-evidence after 5000 years? That would have to be the most amazingly crafted worldview of all time, to withstand such an onslaught of scientific discovery. And yet, no one takes this worldview seriously. How is that possible?

How is other people's accounts of having an independent experience not evidence?

[Inliytened1]

3 hours ago, itsadistraction said:

How is other people's accounts of having an independent experience not evidence?

When you dream at night you could ask someone in your dream if they have an independent experience and they will tell you yes.   So basically there is no scientific evidence that can prove you aren't dreaming right now.  And to the contrary, you can have the direct realization that you are dreaming.   By awakening.  But be warned: you may not want to know it's a dream from the ego's perspective.    Note that the ego's very existence requires the self/other duality.  So when this collapses......

[Carl-Richard]

 

Quote

So what do we know about the dream life of a human DID patient? Can the patient’s different alters share a dream, taking different co-conscious points of view within the dream, just like you and I share a world? Can they perceive and interact with one another within their shared dream, just as people can perceive and interact with one another within their shared environment? As it turns out, there is evidence that this is precisely what happens, as research has shown (Barrett 1994: 170-171). Here is an illustrative case from the literature:

The host personality, Sarah, remembered only that her dream from the previous night involved hearing a girl screaming for help. Alter Annie, age four, remembered a nightmare of being tied down naked and unable to cry out as a man began to cut her vagina. Ann, age nine, dreamed of watching this scene and screaming desperately for help (apparently the voice in the host’s dream). Teenage Jo dreamed of coming upon this scene and clubbing the little girl’s attacker over the head; in her dream he fell to the ground dead and she left. In the dreams of Ann and Annie, the teenager with the club appeared, struck the man to the ground but he arose and renewed his attack again. Four year old Sally dreamed of playing with her dolls happily and nothing else. Both Annie and Ann reported a little girl playing obliviously in the corner of the room in their dreams. Although there was no definite abuser-identified alter manifesting at this time, the presence at times of a hallucinated voice similar to Sarah’s uncle suggested there might be yet another alter experiencing the dream from the attacker’s vantage. (Barrett 1994: 171)

Taking this at face value, what it shows is that, while dreaming, a dissociated human mind can manifest multiple, concurrently conscious alters that experience each other from second- and third-person perspectives, just as you and I can shake hands with one another in ordinary waking life. The alters’ experiences are also mutually consistent, in the sense that the alters all seem to perceive the same series of events, each alter from its own individual subjective perspective. The correspondences with the experiences of individual people sharing an outside world are self-evident and require no further commentary.

Clearly, our empirical grasp of extreme forms of dissociation shows that a DID-like process at a universal scale is, at least in principle, a viable explanation for how individual subjects arise within the universal will. Whether the cognitive mechanisms underlying dissociation are also conceptually understood today is but a secondary question: whatever these mechanisms may be, we know empirically that they do exist in nature and produce precisely the right effects to explain the illusion of individuality posited by Schopenhauer. In this regard—and in many others as well—Schopenhauer’s metaphysics is empirically plausible.

https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2019/10/the-many-in-our-dreams.html

[erikchomko]

@Leo Gura 

To communicate the idea of solipsism you teach that you (Leo) are just a dream character in my dream. But I'm assuming that your awakening was the realization that I am a character in your dream, not the other way around.

According to your understanding, has God/consciousness experienced only Leo's life? Or only Erik's? Or both? Did you see that multiple lives are experienced simultaneously by one Godhead, or does god experience stuff only sequentially/chronologically? My understanding is that God is outside of time and space (not to mention infinite), so not sure why it would be limited to one experience at a time. What did you see? 

Edited November 3, 2023 by erikchomko

[Inliytened1]

4 hours ago, erikchomko said:

@Leo Gura 

Did you see that multiple lives are experienced simultaneously by one Godhead, or does god experience stuff only sequentially/chronologically? My understanding is that God is outside of time and space (not to mention infinite), so not sure why it would be limited to one experience at a time. What did you see? 

Do you see where this breaks down?  If multiple lives are experienced - you have to include all the experiences ever - ants, bees, butterflies, - and what else is "conscious"?   why does this have to include "beings"?  Is there a rulebook somewhere that says that you have to have a brain to have an experience?  Wouldn't this be the materialist paradigm?  So now, if we omit brains, we have to include the experience of  rocks, and trees.  Now, let's go beyond this - we have to include the experience of atoms, and molecules.  But why stop there?  Shouldn't every quark have an experience?  What does a quark break down to?  Do you see that it is infinite here?   So what if all of it was an illusion and that there was just Experience?  or Being?  

Edited November 3, 2023 by Inliytened1

[Kuba Powiertowski]

@Inliytened1 it has nothing to do with the materialist paradigm. You are mixing different views. What does EXPERIENCE have to do with the AWARENESS of having brains or bodies in n-number of dream entities, giving them the free will to make choices in mutual interaction in n-number of scenarios - except that only you - exist? At the same time, you limit what you consider infinite to your perspective of the world and your experiences, completely negating the possibility of the simultaneous existence of, say, other dreams or states that are unknowable directly by you. This is so lacking in basic logic and contrary to direct experience that I don't know what mechanism the ego uses to defend such a ridiculous view as a fortress. and the second question - why are you doing this at all?

[Razard86]

On 1/18/2023 at 6:57 PM, Inliytened1 said:

There is no "your" or  "my" perceptions.   There is only Being.  And it is Absolute.  You have to start by realizing No Self before you worry about No Other.  There is a shift in consciousness.  You are me and I am you, and thus that duality collapses.  But when you realize no Self..the rest will follow.  And I mean an awakening to No Self - not a conceptual realization.

Deep Sleep reveals the obviousness of NO SELF. It also reveals that death is imaginary. That single aspect of direct experience.

[Razard86]

7 hours ago, erikchomko said:

@Leo Gura 

To communicate the idea of solipsism you teach that you (Leo) are just a dream character in my dream. But I'm assuming that your awakening was the realization that I am a character in your dream, not the other way around.

According to your understanding, has God/consciousness experienced only Leo's life? Or only Erik's? Or both? Did you see that multiple lives are experienced simultaneously by one Godhead, or does god experience stuff only sequentially/chronologically? My understanding is that God is outside of time and space (not to mention infinite), so not sure why it would be limited to one experience at a time. What did you see? 

 

[Kuba Powiertowski]

I'm deeply interested in the causal roots of the solipsistic viewpoint. I will write my observations and conclusions soon.

"A very nice blog post here by David Godman — longtime student of Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi — which goes far in articulating how Bhagavan’s teachings are distinct from what western philosophy refers to as “solipsism” and “idealism.”  Also interesting to me were some deep resonances with Buddhism. For instance in this exchange —

Question: In the Vedanta of Sri Sankaracharya, the principle of the creation of the world has been accepted for the sake of beginners, but for the advanced, the principle of non-creation is put forward. What is your view in this matter?

Bhagavan:

Na nirodho na chotpattir
Nabaddho na cha sadhakaha
Na mumukshur na vai mukta
Ityesha paramarthata.

This verse appears in the second chapter [v. 32, vaithathya prakarana] of Gaudapada’s Karika [a commentary on the Mandukyopanishad]. It means really that there is no creation and no dissolution. There is no bondage, no one doing spiritual practices, no one seeking spiritual liberation, and no one who is liberated. One who is established in the Self sees this by his knowledge of reality. (The Power of the Presence, part one, p. 240)

— I hear the Heart Sutra, big-time!

But, getting back to the solipsism issue …. Mr. Godman distinguishes three forms of solipsism:

Solipsism is the philosophical position that nothing exists other than one’s own mind and its perceptions. The logical extension of this is that ‘other’ minds do not exist. Various strands or subdivisions of solipsism have been identified and pursued in western philosophy:

Metaphysical Solipsism

Metaphysical solipsism  maintains that the individual self constitutes the sole reality. The external world and the people in it are part of the perceiving individual self and have no independent existence apart from it.

Epistemological Solipsism

Epistemology is the study of knowledge and how it is validly or invalidly acquired. Epistemological solipsism states that only the accessible contents of the mind can be known. It does not, though, accept that this is the only possible knowledge. Though it concedes that there is a possibility that an external world exists, it states that such a thesis is impossible to prove or disprove.

Methodological Solipsism

Methodological solipsism is a philosophical principle that the individual self and its states are the sole and proper starting point for philosophical speculation. Its basic premise is that all philosophical statements and conclusions must derive from the irrefutable and directly experienced fact of personal consciousness.

And then, in a nutshell, Mr. Godman lets us know why Bhagavan cannot be considered to be a solipsist:

All of these positions can find parallels in things that Bhagavan periodically said, but the major reason why Bhagavan could not be considered to be a solipsist is that solipsism does not accept the reality of anything that is prior to or beyond the mind. It has no transcendental aspect.

And once again,  expanding a bit on the same point:

Solipsism only accepts the reality of those things that can be ascertained by the mind. Bhagavan, on the other hand, does not claim that the mind is everything. He says that there is an underlying state that has nothing to do with the mind, a state that can be discovered and directly experienced by eliminating the individual ‘I’ that superimposes itself on this substratum.

Though Bhagavan did not accept the solipsist position that only mental data are valid, he did occasionally adopt solipsisitic arguments in an attempt to demonstrate there is no real external world, independent of the observer of it.

And here, distinguishing Bhagavan’s teachings from both subjective idealism and solipsism:

However, there are key differences between idealism and Bhagavan’s teachings. Bhagavan taught that when the seer and the seen (the individual self and the world) are absent, the Self remains, consciously known by the jnani, but unknown to those who mediate their knowledge and perceptions through a knower and a perceiver. It is this extra dimension of a permanent substratum, knowable through direct experience, rather than mediated by the senses, that distinguishes both idealism and solipsism from advaita. A solipsist and a subjective idealist will only accept as real those things that their senses and their mind consciously register. Bhagavan teaches that the mind, far from registering what is true and real, actually hides reality. There is a world of difference between these two positions.

Perhaps most challenging to distinguish from solipsism is the eka-jiva (one-jiva) position. The term “jiva” refers to the light of the Self reflected within a particular bodymind, which then mistakes itself for that bodymind.

Bhagavan: Jiva is called so because he sees the world. A dreamer sees many jivas in a dream, but all of them are not real. The dreamer alone exists and he sees all. So it is with the individual and the world. There is the creed of only one Self, which is also called the creed of only one jiva. It says that the jiva is the only one who sees the whole world and the jivas therein.

And also:

Multiplicity of individuals is a moot point with most persons. A jiva is only the light reflected on the ego. The person identifies himself with the ego and argues that there must be more like him. He is not easily convinced of the absurdity of his position. Does a man who sees many individuals in his dream persist in believing them to be real and enquire after them when he wakes up?

I’m currently letting myself be reorganized by the possibility of eka-jiva ….. looking forward to seeing how it all unfolds, in coming days, weeks, months …..

The second half of the post includes excerpts from the Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad (The Supreme Science as Taught by Sri Ramana) — a Sanskrit work composed by Lakshmana Sarma in the 1950s — which explore the relationship between mind, world and Self. Great stuff! I found the combination of the verses with the short commentaries to be both challenging and wonderfully accessible. Here’s just a sampling, to whet your appetite …

Excerpts from Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad

A direct challenge to empiricism:

114 Everyone sees both his own body and the world through the eye, which is a part of that very body. How can this seeing be admissible as evidence in this enquiry about the reality of the world?

Since the body is a part of the world, its reality is also in question. It cannot be assumed without proof. But it is so assumed when the eye is appealed to as a witness to the truth of the world. The question of the reality of forms is now further pursued.

***

A charmingly tongue-in-cheek challenge to the tenets of valid cognition:

151 The intellect, the sense organs, and the mind are servants of the primary ignorance. Hence, the worldly methods of seeking knowledge do not at all favour success in this enquiry.

The worldly means of knowledge, called proofs, are direct perception, inference, analogy, tradition, and so on. These are understood and practised by logicians and philosophers. In vedantic reasoning these are not to be relied upon for the reason stated, namely that they are naturally the servants of ignorance, having been created in order to protect and confirm that ignorance.

***

A version of the Parable of the Tenth Man …

Now a doubt is raised and is set at rest in the following verses:

162 ‘If even the mind is unreal, then it will follow that what remains is only a void, since in deep sleep there is nothing at all.’ Those who raise this contention are committing the mistake of forgetting themselves!

163 How can this void be known at all if there is no one to witness it? This void is certainly not without a witness. Hence, this void is not the final reality.

***

A little love-letter to Rene Descartes:

Thus it is made clear that the Self is self-revealed. This means that knowledge of the Self is by direct experience and not by inference. But many philosophers seem to be unaware of this.

166 The existence of their own Self is inferred by some from mental functioning, by the reasoning, ‘I think, therefore I am’. These men are like those dull-witted ones who ignore the elephant when it goes past, and become convinced afterwards by looking at the footprints!

***

Reminiscent of the Buddhist Three Natures of Existence — with “utterly unreal” (hare’s horn) equivalent to the Imaginary Nature, and the rope-snake equivalent to the Dependent Nature. In Bhagavan’s teaching, these represent two levels of “unreality” — with only the Self being the equivalent of the Perfectly-Existent Nature (which puts him more-or-less in alignment with the Buddhist Shentong school):

194 The whole universe appears as a superimposition on the real Self, the substratum, which is the reality, and hence it is not like a man’s horn. But it is taught that it is not real in its own right.

This distinction is important. There are two kinds of unreality. The utterly unreal, which is never conceivable as real, is one which has no substratum, like a man’s or hare’s horn. The other kind is that which can and does appear as real, like the rope-snake. The world’s unreality is of the latter kind. It is not real in its own right, since it owes its appearance of reality to its substratum.

Ulladu Narpadu, verse 3:

‘The world is real.’ ‘No, it is a mere illusory appearance.’ ‘The world is conscious.’ ‘No.’ ‘The world is happiness-‘ ‘ No.’ What use is it to argue thus? That State is agreeable to all, wherein, having given up the objective outlook, one knows one’s Self and loses all notions either of unity or duality, of oneself and the ego.

—-
Bhagavan specifically recommends not to waste our time on understanding what this world is, because only if there is a world then we would have to understand it, only what this “I” is. Solipsistic explanations were given only to appease the mind of those who are trapped in the explanation of others as independent or even semi-independent realities, the real is that which is self-shining always and constantly encompassing time and space, where is there a time and space for others other than in that which is constantly ever shining? Leaving the world alone and focusing on the ego must be the real focus. Once you understand your real nature by diving deep within you can start seeing the reality of others and what “these others” really are. In the meantime, while that doesn’t happen you cannot say that solipsism is true because the one who says it’s this or that is not true. It’s simply the ego and it itself is not real, therefore nothing it states as true is true, the only trueism that can come from the ego is his own observation, meaning looking back within into itself, then it will not longer be a question of “psolism or not psolism” but the Ego will have to go back within the isolation it never came out of and see itself as unreal, any other statement that comes after that is not an intellectual reflection but and inescapable repercussion.

What is this ego?

The one who wrote this article is the Ego, the one who read this article is the Ego, the one who wrote this comment is the Ego. When the Ego rises the world rises and with it everything along with it. From the smallest thing to the most complex relationship with others, all of this is the Ego, the person I take myself to be is as much a projection of the Ego as the whole world, the stars and every galaxy, so the ego itself is everything, investigating what this ego is is really giving up everything. The ultimate goal as prescribed by Bhagavan is not an intellectual understanding, because even the purest and most refined intellectual understanding has to be anchored to an “I”, who holds this intellectual understanding? The ego, now who is ego? Who am I? A deep observation will reveal the ever present, ever shining, always constant ineffable and infinite reality, the Heart."

*

[Razard86]

All of these posts are just posts that construct complexity so you can get lost. Your mind is capable of infinite complexity. 

As yourself when you are in deep sleep...what is there? NOTHING. Deep sleep is the most simple of the simple...because it is blank.

But notice...you are able to be AWARE OF BLANK!!!! So blankness...is the foundation of everything....because it is the ABSENCE of appearance.

But notice....everything you perceive is HOUSED IN A LACK OF APPEARANCE.

So you are a selfless LACK OF APPEARANCE, that CONSTRUCTS AN APPEARANCE. But that appearance can disappear and reappear and we call that change, we call it time, we call it space, we call it distance, we call distinctness, we call it other. But notice...this appearance, is a SELF. A SELF IS A CONSTRUCTION!!! 

So if you want to know the TRUTH OF THE CONSTRUCTION. Just deconstruct the construction!!!! No point in playing these mind games!!! No point in creating needless complexity!!! If the truth of what you are is a BLANK!!!! A selfless awareness....then that means there is NO OTHER, and everything you have ever perceived was JUST AN APPEARANCE, A MIRAGE, AN ILLUSION, IMAGINARY. 

This is very simple....it's not complicated. You just use your INFINITE MIND to create INFINITE complexity. 

THE END. 

[Kuba Powiertowski]

1 hour ago, Razard86 said:

You just use your INFINITE MIND to create INFINITE complexity. 

What is interesting is not only the moment when you introduce the concept of "YOU" - "YOU who create infinite complexity". Examining all your rhetoric, or if you prefer, your mind games that are - let's face it - a product of your ego, which leads to the final conclusion that SOMEONE is creating something at all. It's inconvenient to say it's me or THE "I", so let it be YOU. Our conversation makes no sense in that neither of us will convince the other, but maybe it will allow others to look more critically at both views and thus establish their own.

[Kuba Powiertowski]

I will also attempt to deconstruct the validity of the solipsistic view using what we all have in abundance here - simple logic and direct experience. I want to see how it goes. It's a mind game done for fun. On the other hand, when you reach the final border beyond which there are no boundaries, only great beyond, naturally, there is excitement but also fear at this stage. And exciting things are happening. I guess we can talk about them with an open mind.

[Razard86]

34 minutes ago, Kuba Powiertowski said:

What is interesting is not only the moment when you introduce the concept of "YOU" - "YOU who create infinite complexity". Examining all your rhetoric, or if you prefer, your mind games that are - let's face it - a product of your ego, which leads to the final conclusion that SOMEONE is creating something at all. It's inconvenient to say it's me or THE "I", so let it be YOU. Our conversation makes no sense in that neither of us will convince the other, but maybe it will allow others to look more critically at both views and thus establish their own.

What YOU is = a MIND. But a MIND...is BLANK. That blankness can CREATE WHATEVER IT IS. But that mind is UNIVERSAL. That means it is singular. What makes it infinite, is it's ability to construct/imagine is INFINITE= no limit.

This is VERY SIMPLE. You just don't want to know this.

You can never disprove what is presented here. Why? Because....it is the foundation of everything.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Razard86