Many People Who Are Fighting Absolute Solipsism Do Not Even Know What It Is

[Loveeee]

[Inliytened1]

@Hojo wrong thread?

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Loveeee said:

 

[Hojo]

@Inliytened1I thought you were asking for a basic sadhguru teaching of a practice. That video has one.

[Inliytened1]

6 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@Inliytened1I thought you were asking for a basic sadhguru teaching of a practice. That video has one.

Oh yeah for some reason I thought it was a different thread.  Thanks 

[UnbornTao]

@Loveeee 

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

@Loveeee 

Michael Jackson was the shit. So sad he's gone.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Ishanga you also did just equivocate yourself with Leo... 

Just prompting some self enquiry - good to look into your compulsions, growth there. Everyone has an unconscious side - others see it but we cannot 🫠

[Human Mint]

On 8/31/2025 at 11:16 AM, Ishanga said:

Its this way on all forums, they lead to one having to defend their identities, not looking foolish or wrong in others eyes.

That's because you're not training yourself to spot insights, or maybe you don't care

[Inliytened1]

7 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Carl-Richard idealism minus solipsism is multiple consciousnesses existing simultaneously no?  So what if all the other consciousnessness were to end. You would have solipsism.  

@Carl-Richard And what if it didn't need to be multiple consciousnesses simultaneously.  What if because God had Infinite time - he could live through each configuration one at a time.  If you examine this deeply enough you will see that living through every possibility one at a time is no different than living through them simultaneously.   So why would God juggle multiple perspectives or consciousnesses simultaneously.   Plus - it would mean that you aren't God becsuse you couldn't be all of that once.  You have to look through the human's eyes or the dog's eyes as God.  Why would you want to do this simultaneously. Why would you need to.

Edited September 10 by Inliytened1

[Eskilon]

14 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

And what if it didn't need to be multiple consciousnesses simultaneously.  What if because God had Infinite time - he could live through each configuration one at a time.  If you examine this deeply enough you will see that living through every possibility one at a time is no different than living through them simultaneously.   So why would God juggle multiple perspectives or consciousnesses simultaneously.   Plus - it would mean that you aren't God becsuse you couldn't be all of that once.  You have to look through the human's eyes or the dog's eyes as God.  Why would you want to do this simultaneously. Why would you need to.

@Inliytened1 This is a really good point. Why multiple perspectives and not just one? If you think about, God creating multiple points of view is a really inefficient and even ugly design. God just needs itself to be. It is the most optimal and intelligent way for it to be. The most loving, and independent too. The cause of suffering is really a cause of dependence and lack of being everywhere at once.

Edited September 10 by Eskilon

[Carl-Richard]

23 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Carl-Richard idealism minus solipsism is multiple consciousnesses existing simultaneously no?  So what if all the other consciousnessness were to end. You would have solipsism.  

I don't see the point you're making. What if the entire universe of form were to end? You would have no form. Yes, and?

 

15 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Carl-Richard And what if it didn't need to be multiple consciousnesses simultaneously.  What if because God had Infinite time - he could live through each configuration one at a time.  If you examine this deeply enough you will see that living through every possibility one at a time is no different than living through them simultaneously.   So why would God juggle multiple perspectives or consciousnesses simultaneously.   Plus - it would mean that you aren't God becsuse you couldn't be all of that once.  You have to look through the human's eyes or the dog's eyes as God.  Why would you want to do this simultaneously. Why would you need to.

If you want to collapse the distinction between simultaneously and "one at the time" (essentially you create an infinite singularity), then you can do that, but then it makes no sense to say "only my bedroom exists", because it's the same as saying everybody's bedroom exists. There is no difference between your bedroom existing right now and somebody else's bedroom existing at some other time. Everything that will exist or could ever exist, exists.

You seem to want to collapse the distinction, but then you also want to favor the "one at the time" one? It seems like you're almost getting it: you need to collapse all distinctions to get to the absolute. But if you want to start favoring one over the other, then you're back into the relative again.

[Inliytened1]

On 9/10/2025 at 10:44 AM, Eskilon said:

@Inliytened1 This is a really good point. Why multiple perspectives and not just one? If you think about, God creating multiple points of view is a really inefficient and even ugly design. God just needs itself to be. It is the most optimal and intelligent way for it to be. The most loving, and independent too. The cause of suffering is really a cause of dependence and lack of being everywhere at once.

Exactly. 

[Inliytened1]

23 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't see the point you're making. What if the entire universe of form were to end? You would have no form. Yes, and?

 

 

 

I didn't say form i said Consciousneses.  Like every conscious being dying but you. Let's say a virus. Metaphysical idealism assumes that reality is Mind.  But what mind? Is there an Absolute Mind and then thousands of other minds constructing what you could call a shared dream?  Wouldn't this conflict with non-duality because all these minds would be independent.  Including the one Absolute one governing it or providing the framework of the dream while the other minds were inside it?  Or if you take away the One Mind dreaming the background or the frame of the dream - then what? All you have is separate minds or consciousnesses  but how would that even make a shared dream work?   It isn't even logical let alone conflicts with non-duality.   So my point was if you had multiple minds existing simultaneously forming some type of shared dream - with no one in control then what would happen if all the other minds suddenly died.  There would only be you.  The shared dream (which again makes no logical sense anyway unless you abandoned non- duality)  would just be your bedroom or whatever you were dreaming in that moment.  There wouldn't be an empty universe somewhere else  sitting there independent of your Mind because you are the only Mind.  

Leo's video on Infinity of Gods talks about the shared dream but then later (I think here) he corrects this by saying each God has its own independent dream completely isolated.  The people or "conscious beings" in each God's dream are part of his own mind so there cannot be a shared dream.

It's not like a multi-player video game.  In multi-player video game in which there is underlying code that allows me to walk up a path and you walk up a path and we meet.  Thats because of programming externally existing somewhere separately making up the code allowing this to happen.  But maybe reality doesn't need all of that.

Edited September 11 by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

The shared dream (which again makes no logical sense anyway unless you abandoned non- duality)  would just be your bedroom or whatever or whatever you were dreaming in that moment

A bedroom separate from other bedrooms doesn't make sense in a non-dual reality. Any moment separate from any other moment doesn't make sense in a non-dual reality. Right at that point where you mention the bedroom, you jump from the absolute to the relative. Again, this is inescapable when arguing for solipsism. The absolute-relative conflation is mandatory (if you want to call solipsism absolute). Go read the rest of my last post to get this point re-iterated.

Edited September 12 by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

20 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

. Right at that point where you mention the bedroom, you jump from the absolute to the relative. 

Not in this case because again we are talking with the recognition that relative vs Absolute is a duality that has collapsed.  But whatever.   If you are not opposed that only "this" exists and nothing outside of "this: then you are inadvertently OK with Solpsism.  If you think their are multiple "This's" then this gets into their being multiple Absolutes.  As you see this quickly becomes a very advanced topic with lots of nuance .  Too much to cover in a thread on a forum.  But also to realize one shouldn't be so quick to be anti-solpsism or anti-anything without serious contemplation.

Edited September 12 by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

27 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Not in this case because again we are talking with the recognition that relative vs Absolute is a duality that has collapsed.  But whatever.   If you are not opposed that only "this" exists and nothing outside of "this: then you are inadvertently OK with Solpsism.  If you think their are multiple "This's" then this gets into their being multiple Absolutes.  As you see this quickly becomes a very advanced topic with lots of nuance .  Too much to cover in a thread on a forum.  But also to realize one shouldn't be so quick to be anti-solpsism or anti-anything without serious contemplation.

 

On 10.9.2025 at 7:31 PM, Carl-Richard said:

You seem to want to collapse the distinction, but then you also want to favor the "one at the time" one? It seems like you're almost getting it: you need to collapse all distinctions to get to the absolute. But if you want to start favoring one over the other, then you're back into the relative again.

 

You can load "this" with whatever assumption you want to force a fake sense of closure that favors your perspective. But if you actually ask me, "this" might involve anything and everything that might possibly exist or could ever exist, hidden or immediate. But from the absolute perspective, I can't say one way or the other. In that sense, I'm not a solipsist.

Edited September 12 by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

15 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

 

You can load "this" with whatever assumption you want to force a fake sense of closure that favors your perspective. But if you ask me, "this" might involve anything and everything that might possibly exist or could ever exist, hidden or immediate. But from the absolute perspective, I can't say what it is. In that sense, I'm not a solipsist.

Understood.  Let's table this maybe a one on one conversation might be better. This is a very advanced topic.

Edited September 12 by Inliytened1