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

[UnbornTao]

On 8/31/2025 at 5:29 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Conflating the absolute and the relative is not openmindedness, it's not proof of being awake. Don't let @Razard86 make you think otherwise.

That's common. Can you specify what you mean by that? What is it directed at? 

Man, this is fun.

My bad, it seems you already clarified that in your post above. 

Edited September 2 by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

@zurew 

[Razard86]

Real knowledge = Self acceptance that whatever is happening you did it and you did it forreal no matter how miraculous it is because you are a miracle. Because you are a miracle you are beyond logic and reason and because you are beyond all logic and reason, that creates stupidity. So because the power of infinity is illogical it can only create worlds that are constantly learning to be less stupid. All stupid is, is lack of unified connectivity to what is happening. Since connection is love, it just means that part was not granted a good enough connection to be less stupid. 

[Carl-Richard]

On 8/31/2025 at 11:48 PM, UnbornTao said:

My bad, it seems you already clarified that in your post above. 

It was apparently clarified so well that any pushback was not needed.

Edited September 2 by UnbornTao

[Inliytened1]

On 8/30/2025 at 5:52 PM, UnbornTao said:

I didn't say that. My point was related to "the absolute." What I meant is that enlightenment can't be accurately conveyed, or passed along like a ball. Among other things, language is ill-equipped for that task. Nor is the realization itself an experience. And so, we face our dilemma. This might be one reason why Zen has a reputation for being disconcerting or baffling.

You talk about sharing experiences, and that's fine.

This is excellent and precisely correct. So we face a dilemma.  But to the others point this also means that philosophical discussions are not useless.  If we have no way of communicating the Absolute and the only true way is to become the Absolute then this validates Solipsism.  But notice that this in itself is a philosophical position.  A philosophical position cannot be escaped. And thus should be embraced.  Whether or not it can get you to the Absolute is irrelevant.  It can only point you to the Absolute..or if it's not aligned, it can point you away.  Which worldview you believe should be none. You should heed all worldviews and then discover for yourself what is true via spiritual practice.  Now..again this too is a perspective.  Take it for it what you will. But the key here is that if you remain open you can attempt to validate any worldview through your own direct experience.  After that you can hold the worldview that is true. And whether others believe it should not be the goal of expressing it.

Edited September 2 by Inliytened1

[UnbornTao]

10 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

This is excellent and precisely correct. So we face a dilemma.  But to the others point this also means that philosophical discussions are not useless.  If we have no way of communicating the Absolute and the only true way is to become the Absolute then this validates Solipsism.  But notice that this in itself is a philosophical position.  A philosophical position cannot be escaped. And thus should be embraced.  Whether or not it can get you to the Absolute is irrelevant.  It can only point you to the Absolute..or if it's not aligned, it can point you away.  Which worldview you believe should be none. You should heed all worldviews and then discover for yourself what is true via spiritual practice.  Now..again this too is a perspective.  Take it for it what you will. But the key here is that if you remain open you can attempt to validate any worldview through your own direct experience.  After that you can hold the worldview that is true. And whether others believe it should not be the goal of expressing it.

Even a genuine direct consciousness can be "corrupted" by the mind. Someone like Adi Da cast himself as the sole gateway to God and fell into the adoration of his followers. He had a deep enlightenment, yet his group devolved into a cult and is now no more than a religion. Little remains of his teaching, given it's been turned into a system by his followers.

Any ism is already way off the mark. They are purely conjecture in this context, no matter how intelligent or sophisticated. Such systems may sometimes be useful but they degrade whatever reality might have been originally grasped by an individual, assuming there was a breakthough there in the first place. When it comes to the truth, they're always wrong.

Belief isn't just an extraneous thing - it's pervasive. Most of what you think you know is actually just a belief. In other words, we aren't directly in touch with the nature of anything. Moving in the direction of recognizing this fact is far more powerful than merely exchanging one conjecture for another.

This trap can be escaped. We usually assume that our only option is to adopt some stance, cling to a worldview, or believe in something. In a sense, having a worldview might be inescapable, and yet it can be recognized as a fabricated convenience - and thus as something different from the truth.

Why do we make up these things in the first place? Because we fail to realize the truth for ourselves. And so we become believers. Yet the possibility of direct realization remains. One could even adopt a practice of eliminating every belief they hold, which is more powerful and authentic, albeit emotionally and psychologically challenging at times. Why isn't such a practice seriously entertained and taken on?

Edited September 2 by UnbornTao

[Eskilon]

11 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Belief isn't just an extraneous thing - it's pervasive. Most of what you think you know is belief. In other words, we aren't directly in touch with the nature of anything. Moving in the direction of recognizing this fact is far more powerful than merely exchanging one conjecture for another.

The issue is deep. You also assume that you know what belief is, that too is a knowledge claim. Can't escape what knowing is, whatever that's the case, you might be wrong

Also, question that you aren't directly in touch with the nature of anything, that might not be quite right. Just a thought.

[UnbornTao]

2 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

The issue is deep. You also assume that you know what belief is, that too is a knowledge claim. Can't escape what knowing is, whatever that's the case, you might be wrong

Also, question that you aren't directly in touch with the nature of anything, that might not be quite right. Just a thought.

A thought about what's true, or what you think to be true. It depends on what you're calling knowledge, but you can actually let go of your knowledge and set out to experience what's true. The point is that one can know directly the nature of things - we aren't just stuck with belief.

I'm not dismissing belief; what you believe has consequences and is powerful, but this belongs to the relative. What I'm pointing out is that belief itself is of a different nature than an experience of truth. An assessment or claim isn't the truth it refers to, even if the belief is valid and factually grounded.

Notice that no belief is needed to recognize that you currently do not know. This condition is intimately yours, permeating your very consciousness. Move in this direction, rather than covering it up.

[Eskilon]

15 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Notice that no belief is needed to recognize that you currently do not know

You might have a belief that you do not know, but you might actually know. This too needs to be abandoned. 

I like to draw parallels with the moment of recognition that you are dreaming in a lucid dream. In that moment, there's no doubt whatsoever of the reality that you are in. That for me is knowledge, true knowledge, where others can doubt, but its irrelevant. You just know, you didn't study for that knowledge, but you KNOW, and its sudden. No matter what other dream characters say, its completely irrevelant for the thing you just realized -- the nature of reality. In my experience, that's what true knowledge is, everything else is just belief, or borrowed knowledge. Everything else can change, but not self-knowledge. True knowledge is self-knowledge, and that's what spirituality is.

Edited September 2 by Eskilon

[Mellowmarsh]

The encounter with another is an encounter with someone who takes me as an object. Anita Avramides

[UnbornTao]

2 hours ago, Eskilon said:

You might have a belief that you do not know, but you might actually know. This too needs to be abandoned. 

I like to draw parallels with the moment of recognition that you are dreaming in a lucid dream. In that moment, there's no doubt whatsoever of the reality that you are in. That for me is knowledge, true knowledge, where others can doubt, but its irrelevant. You just know, you didn't study for that knowledge, but you KNOW, and its sudden. No matter what other dream characters say, its completely irrevelant for the thing you just realized -- the nature of reality. In my experience, that's what true knowledge is, everything else is just belief, or borrowed knowledge. Everything else can change, but not self-knowledge. True knowledge is self-knowledge, and that's what spirituality is.

Not at all - it is a profound condition. It's not trivial, such as lacking information or failing to understand some subject. In your very experience right now lies the sense that you might not even be real, as you don't experience having created yourself - you're disconnected from that source. In other words, you - your self - aren't God. This sense might be related to this deep not knowing.

I'm not explaining this very well. Besides, it requires setting a foundation first, and elaborating on it. Anyway, don't just automatically believe or disbelieve that.

Okay. Still, it has to be genuine. We can make up whole words to participate and believe in, so the potential for self-deception is high. States and experiences tend to be easily conflated with breakthroughs. 

Edited September 2 by UnbornTao

[Eskilon]

16 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Not at all, it is a profound condition. It's not trivial, such as the lack of information or failing to understand some subject. In your very experience right now lies the sense that you might not even be real, as you don't experience having created yourself, you're disconnected from that source. In othrer words, you - your self - aren't God. This sense might be related to not knowign. Anyway, I'm not explaining this very well. Don't just believe - or disbelieve - that.

It is 100% a question of understanding. And the subject is you or reality. I agree that is not trivial.

Not knowing is a tool for you to use to toss away your fat ego and maybe bring about understanding. There is a possibility of knowing 100% what is reality, you will not stay in not knowing forever. Be careful, not knowing might be a trap too.

Buddha himself laid out stages of Jnanas(Knowledge), that one travels in the spiritual path. Spirituality is about understanding and knowledge, don't kid yourself thinking its not.

Edited September 2 by Eskilon

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Eskilon

There might be more to not knowing that is not apparent. It is worth going further into it.

It might not be what it seems ... 

[Eskilon]

8 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

There might be more to not knowing that is not apparent. It is worth going further into it.

It might not be what it seems ... 

I know my response there might have lacked nuance on not knowing. But I do understand what not knowing is point to. And I do understand the relationship between not knowing and knowing. And also its relationship to meditation. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Eskilon but if a woosh moment for me context wise? 🤣

I think I see this statement :

2 hours ago, Eskilon said:

There is a possibility of knowing 100% what is reality, you will not stay in not knowing forever. 

And think... Hmmmm. I question. But good to consider 

[James123]

3 hours ago, Eskilon said:

It is 100% a question of understanding. And the subject is you or reality. I agree that is not trivial.

Not knowing is a tool for you to use to toss away your fat ego and maybe bring about understanding. There is a possibility of knowing 100% what is reality, you will not stay in not knowing forever. Be careful, not knowing might be a trap too.

Buddha himself laid out stages of Jnanas(Knowledge), that one travels in the spiritual path. Spirituality is about understanding and knowledge, don't kid yourself thinking its not.

Love.

[UnbornTao]

17 hours ago, Eskilon said:

It is 100% a question of understanding. And the subject is you or reality. I agree that is not trivial.

Not knowing is a tool for you to use to toss away your fat ego and maybe bring about understanding. There is a possibility of knowing 100% what is reality, you will not stay in not knowing forever. Be careful, not knowing might be a trap too.

Buddha himself laid out stages of Jnanas(Knowledge), that one travels in the spiritual path. Spirituality is about understanding and knowledge, don't kid yourself thinking its not.

One can't get around this condition, and neither is it wrong nor negative, though we might tacitly believe otherwise. Rather than treating it as ignorance to be avoided, we should recognize that such dismissal reflects our cultural relationship with "knowledge" itself.

It is the source of knowledge, learning, insight, and creativity - the closest thing we have to direct consciousness.

Consider the contrast between ourselves and someone like Gautama, who was presumably "fully awakened." What does that contrast reveal about us? Do we truly grasp everything there is?

At present, we are not in touch with the nature of anything - and we might not even be aware of that yet! It has to be experienced deeply. And this, paradoxically, is a powerful place to stand.

Not sure where I'm going with that, but it may be of some use. 

Edited September 3 by UnbornTao

[Eskilon]

19 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Eskilon but if a woosh moment for me context wise? 🤣

I think I see this statement :

21 hours ago, Eskilon said:

There is a possibility of knowing 100% what is reality, you will not stay in not knowing forever. 

And think... Hmmmm. I question. But good to consider 

@Natasha Tori Maru See, if you can doubt something or some knowledge, is it really true? If you see a possibility of it not being the case, is it true knowledge?

An example of true knowledge beyound doubt in everyday world would be, lets say you have a headache. You know you have it, its undeniable, you can doubt it that you have, others can doubt, but the doubt is irrelevant to the present condition that you find yourself in. Spiritual knowledge is like that, but more profound because it deals with reality itself.

I am not saying that one should cast doubt away, no, doubt is the beginning of wisdom so to speak. But there comes a time where doubt comes full circle, and you start doubting your doubts

[zurew]

@UnbornTao You are not engaging and not answering questions, you are just running the zen script as a default. I dont disagree with your main points about enlightenment and about the importance of direct consciousness when it comes to enlightenment - that never was the point. I also agree that when it comes to questions that enlightement can answer, we should do enlightement work and we shouldn't philosophize about those questions.

 

 

But the question is this: Are there questions about metaphysics that cant be answered using direct consciousness? If the answer is yes, and you want to have an answer and want to investigate those questions (questions that would be in that set) - then you will need to use a different epistemic approach. If you dont care about questions that might be in that set - cool, but others might be.

Now to answer the "what kind of questions?" - I can name a few, but we should be able to entertain this without naming any particular question (without naming any particular member of the set), we could just talk about the properties of the set that contains all questions that have the necessary attributes (attribute like "cant be investigated/answered using direct consciousness").

For example: Maybe questions regarding solipsism are in that set. So if questions regarding solipsism cant be answered through direct consciousness, then giving the reply of "just have awakenings bro or have more enlightenments bro" , that isnt at all responsive to the issue at hand and completely misses the point (unless you actually know that enlightement can give one an answer about solipsism and you dont just assume that enlightement can answer questions about solipsism).

 

If you categorize questions about solipsism as relative, thats fine, but I would still categorize those questions under metaphysics - but regardless how you categorize these questions - the point is that if these questions cant be answered by direct consciousness, awakening, enlightenment, then you need a different epistemic approach to try to investigate these questions.

The other point is this: Do you actually know what questions enlightenement can answer in principle or do you just have a basic unjustified assumption that tells you that enlightenment can answer all questions about metaphysics?

Can you recognize how in this case appealing to enlightement doesnt give an answer to this question? By having enlightements at best you will only recognize some of the questions that can be answered by direct consciousness, but you never establish that the set I described is empty. Even if you had a 100 enlightements (where each enlightement answered you 1 question about metaphysics), that doesnt establish that the set is empty, that only shows that enlightenement can answer 100 questions about metaphysics.

For you to hold the position that enlightement can categorically answer all questions about metaphysics, you would need to make an inference (you would infer from enlightement being able to answer some questions about metaphysics, to enlightement being able to answer all questions about metaphyics) - and the point we start to talk about inferences, you are suddenly subject to be wrong and you are in philosophy territory that you categorize as "speculation and useless".

Edited September 3 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

Many People Who Are Solipsists Don't Even Know They Are Projecting Concepts Onto Reality