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

[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 Wednesday at 05:55 PM by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

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

[Eskilon]

43 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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

Yeah, just like everything and anything anyone ever said or thought is projection onto reality

Edited Thursday at 06:10 PM by Eskilon

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Eskilon said:

Yeah, just like everything and anything anyone ever said or thought is projection onto reality

The problem is when you don't know that you're doing it. "Existence is colors, shapes, sounds", claiming this statement to be absolute, while claiming that all other statements are not, is to not know that you're projecting concepts onto reality.

Edited Friday at 12:17 AM by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

On 9/2/2025 at 8:31 AM, UnbornTao said:

 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?

That is exactly what the path to Truth and what Leo's message is here. It's my message as well.  That is the only way to Truth.   For many of us though this requires serious deconstruction of one's identity-  in which their beliefs are a part of.  And most people don't want to deconstruct their identity because it's so counter intuitive to the ego.   

That's why I think genetics play a role

 Some people just don't hold on that tightly to any belief or worldview. They are like chameleons.  Being a chameleon is really what it takes to become enlightened.   It kinda means you hold your identity very loosely.  And maybe in real life this doesn't really work well for self improvement because the ego is too loose and flexible.  But it's perfect for spirituality and meditation.  The avocado is ripe so to speak, for awakening.  I know, cheesy metaphor haha.

 

[ExploringReality]

23 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

That is exactly what the path to Truth and what Leo's message is here. It's my message as well.  That is the only way to Truth.   For many of us though this requires serious deconstruction of one's identity-  in which their beliefs are a part of.  And most people don't want to deconstruct their identity because it's so counter intuitive to the ego.   

That's why I think genetics play a role

 Some people just don't hold on that tightly to any belief or worldview. They are like chameleons.  Being a chameleon is really what it takes to become enlightened.   It kinda means you hold your identity very loosely.  And maybe in real life this doesn't really work well for self improvement because the ego is too loose and flexible.  But it's perfect for spirituality and meditation.  The avocado is ripe so to speak, for awakening.  I know, cheesy metaphor haha.

 

I love this! 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

On 04/09/2025 at 0:30 AM, Eskilon said:

@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

My post wasn't to express any knowledge held by me, more to encourage contemplation.

 

[Inliytened1]

20 minutes ago, ExploringReality said:

I love this! 

😀 i hope you eat avocados like I do!

[Natasha Tori Maru]

43 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

That is exactly what the path to Truth and what Leo's message is here. It's my message as well.  That is the only way to Truth.   For many of us though this requires serious deconstruction of one's identity-  in which their beliefs are a part of.  And most people don't want to deconstruct their identity because it's so counter intuitive to the ego.   

That's why I think genetics play a role

 Some people just don't hold on that tightly to any belief or worldview. They are like chameleons.  Being a chameleon is really what it takes to become enlightened.   It kinda means you hold your identity very loosely.  And maybe in real life this doesn't really work well for self improvement because the ego is too loose and flexible.  But it's perfect for spirituality and meditation.  The avocado is ripe so to speak, for awakening.  I know, cheesy metaphor haha.

I do think it requires genuine openness, an unsatiable curiosity & discernment/critical analysis. 

Not a common combination

Most people are terrified to have their identity pulled apart - it provokes the fear of death. And I suppose it is a death isn't it? Its the death of their understanding of reality and themselves. The death of how they existed up to that point. 

[UnbornTao]

@zurew

I feel like I'm leaving important things unsaid. And yes, I did avoid directly dealing with your points. I'm focused on where that stance might be coming from, what "world" it originated in. 

 

If you mean insight into what reality is, then I'm inclined to say that demands direct consciousness. I suspect the kind of questions you may be thinking of would be based on worlds of assumptions, though that depends on the specific question and what's being investigated. For instance, would we include the nature of language? As foundational as it is in our lives, it's still an invention - it isn't existential. This could apply to more things than we might think. If you include relative things in that category, then those exist as inventions or activity, not as a reality.

When you say metaphysics, I think of the existential - the ultimately real, rather than what could be regarded as relative aspects of reality - time, for example. Perhaps your point refers to scientific discovery and having insights into principles or dynamics. That's valid too. However, if it's indirect, what can you know about reality?

 

What can we expect from a network of thoughts adopted as true when it comes to accessing the nature of things? We're dealing with what's "real," which differs from perception or any human activity - even though we engage in activities to become conscious of it. A belief or answer are different from an experience of the reality of something.

We use intuition, language, models, equations, theories, frameworks, feelings, hypotheses, and social validation. But consider this: Do you know what you are? What is your self? If not, why adopt a philosophy? You do that precisely because you don't grasp what the self is. Consider Ramana: he simply grasped what's absolutely true. Perhaps realizing that deeply enough provides access to a consciousness that goes beyond the mind, rendering "metaphysical" questions irrelevant. We'd have to do that first to know for sure, though.

In any case, what form would that "knowing" take? A concept, belief, perception, answer, feeling, intuition, hypothesis, theory, philosophy, formula, language, equation, model, perspective, framework, or memory? This is the domain I'm discussing. Such frameworks can be useful for many purposes, but when it comes to existence itself, it demands direct realization. You can have a theory, but a theory is not an experience of the truth - it's just a thought. At the risk of oversimplifying: these are all "thought-forms." A thought in itself isn't true - it's an activity, a result of thinking.

 

Although this doesn't change the fact that, in real contemplation, intellect is insignifcant. In the end the method is unimportant, but honest and direct is best, since in reality there isn't a path.

Perhaps the best practice is to identify and eliminate every belief and assumption we hold. Powerful and functional beliefs that enhance life can be kept, but they should be recognized as beliefs, and therefore different from truth.

Edited Friday at 04:44 PM by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

8 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

That is exactly what the path to Truth and what Leo's message is here. It's my message as well.  That is the only way to Truth.   For many of us though this requires serious deconstruction of one's identity-  in which their beliefs are a part of.  And most people don't want to deconstruct their identity because it's so counter intuitive to the ego.   

That's why I think genetics play a role

 Some people just don't hold on that tightly to any belief or worldview. They are like chameleons.  Being a chameleon is really what it takes to become enlightened.   It kinda means you hold your identity very loosely.  And maybe in real life this doesn't really work well for self improvement because the ego is too loose and flexible.  But it's perfect for spirituality and meditation.  The avocado is ripe so to speak, for awakening.  I know, cheesy metaphor haha.

 

And yet, like Zen, it still runs the risk of turning into just another theory to adopt.

In this discussion, a philosophy or worldview is a superficial construction: often highly abstract, consciously adopted, and easily discarded - or simply recognized as such. The foundational kind, however, is the one you are currently unconscious of, even as you operate from it, like fish in water. This hidden framework sets the stage for the more superficial exchange of beliefs that so often occurs. It's based on the entrenched assumption that our perception and experience are accurate reflections of reality, even when, intellectually, we acknowledge that they may not be. 

In practice, it will likely be resisted and felt as threatening - yet it is probably the most useful direction to pursue, and on that we agree.

[Someone here]

Solipsism is weird . It says I'm the only one.  But how could I be the only one if there are no others?😵‍💫

[UnbornTao]

Solipsism is the philosophy that holds only the self can be known to exist. This is because our shared human experience assumes the self is the source of perception and consciousness. It only seems that way because everything perceived is related to the self as a matter of self-survival to determine its value or threat to us, and we hold that conceptual activity is generated by the self and so self seems essential for all of our experiences.

Yet self can't exist without not-self. And even if you see the not-self is experienced by the self, you still have to admit that you don't control objective reality. This begs the question, how can you assume self is all that is, or all that can be known?

The truth is way different than this philosophy. Ultimately, there is no self, so that rather destroys the whole solipsism argument, doesn't it? Self is an illusion, it is just a distinction made in experience and is not inherently real. So there you go.

--

Your experience is all you have, which is why it's tempting to go there. We already feel existentially lonely as individual selves, and I suspect this gets conflated with and extrapolated into this philosophy, at least by some people. Also, without deeply experiencing the truth of the matter ourselves, Ramana's quote about there being no others will necessarily be misunderstood.

Edited Friday at 10:27 AM by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

Haha, just found it funny.

[Someone here]

@UnbornTao solipsism is true and false simultaneously.  Others are conscious..but your consciousness is all that exists as far as you are concerned. Do you give a shit about anything or anyone but yourself ? Right now as you typing a response to me ,you are responding to your understanding not to what I meant. 

[UnbornTao]

33 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@UnbornTao solipsism is true and false simultaneously.  Others are conscious..but your consciousness is all that exists as far as you are concerned. Do you give a shit about anything or anyone but yourself ? Right now as you typing a response to me ,you are responding to your understanding not to what I meant. 

What you said about consciousness is your contribution, not mine. Speculation and philosophy aren't useful here. In any case, "self" isn't meant as the one you take yourself to be - the little one assumed to be the source of awareness and the recipient of perception.

These kinds of exchanges, albeit entertaining at times, exemplify how our approach is too intellectual and superficial to make a real dent in one's experience.

[Someone here]

@UnbornTao dude stop talking like this .its weird .

[Someone here]

7 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

In any case, "self" isn't meant as the one you take yourself to be - the little one assumed to be the source of awareness and the recipient of perception.

 

Lol.

You seriously going to offload the responsibility of creating reality to something external to you ? You go to sleep..existence goes poof...you awaken..existence goes live stream. Isn't that suspicious? 

[Someone here]

11 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

 Speculation and philosophy aren't useful here. 

It's not armchair philosophy. I'm not talking about fluffy hypothesis like quantum auto creation field or something like that..I'm investigating direct experience as is .

This requires careful attention to what is actually going on vs what you "think " is going on .

Your eyes lid the world before you .you are literally projecting reality out from inside your skull. You are the source of reality . Notice that  Reality comes from inside your being and projected as external world and not the other way around . Again ..zero speculation here ..just study what is actually happening in your direct sensory experience. 

[UnbornTao]

14 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Lol.

You seriously going to offload the responsibility of creating reality to something external to you ? You go to sleep..existence goes poof...you awaken..existence goes live stream. Isn't that suspicious? 

No, I'm just saying that an imposter could be living in your house. 

You refer to cognition and perception, and drawing conclusions from that is premature. Consider that not-you isn't in your control. But again, figuring things out won't cut it, only an insight.

-

That's the thing. Perception is what you're dealing with, and these matters go beyond this activity. Observe that you don't perceive yourself, that you can't locate or find the one you are. That's because experience is all you have, and you'll search there.

Edited Friday at 06:39 PM by UnbornTao