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

[Someone here]

2 minutes ago, Ishanga said:

I post here because like others I have no one else to discuss this sort of topic with..I post less and participate less because the answers are not here for sure, but its entertaining to see the drama here when we are supposed to be searching for truth and not drama..

I care because in my perception Sugarcoat has a real attraction or desire to know truth, as do many of Us here, and in my experience after lots of trial and error i know finding the answers via logic or intellect won't work, its only entertainment (or socializing as she said).. I want to help those that are on a true path towards truth so I responded, plain and simple..

How do you know you can't actually get answers by utilising this forum ? Show me one single person posting  such content on YouTube as Leo ? Show me one YouTuber? One example ?

If this place is the only place to talk with like-minded people about the most nuanced topics in existence then you shouldn't be surprised that people have more than thousands of posts . I'm here since 2020. Haven't missed a single week without posting . And I have growed more than its possible to grow by applying any advice from any book or expert in any field like Eckhart Tolle or Joe dizpenza or your god  Sadhguru .

Kindly refrain from annoying people about wasting their lives and commenting on their post count .

Thanks.

[Princess Arabia]

41 minutes ago, Someone here said:

How do you know you can't actually get answers by utilising this forum ? Show me one single person posting  such content on YouTube as Leo ? Show me one YouTuber? One example ?

If this place is the only place to talk with like-minded people about the most nuanced topics in existence then you shouldn't be surprised that people have more than thousands of posts . I'm here since 2020. Haven't missed a single week without posting . And I have growed more than its possible to grow by applying any advice from any book or expert in any field like Eckhart Tolle or Joe dizpenza or your god  Sadhguru .

Kindly refrain from annoying people about wasting their lives and commenting on their post count .

Thanks.

Exactly. There can be so much to indirectly learn here. People are looking for direct teachings most of the time without realizing there's lots to learn passively. Shit, we can learn lots from a baby, an animal and the disabled. I'm learning everyday on here and these are profound learnings. I can teach myself a lot from observing life and behaviors. Only the genuinely curios and lover of life can utilize this gift and it is a gift to be able to learn when not directly being taught. Well, maybe not gift but a skill. I can learn from those who say there's nothing to learn here. Exactly what I just posted is what they taught me because I know I learn here all the time so it must be because they're looking for obvious direct teachings why they miss hidden lessons.

Edited 17 hours ago by Princess Arabia

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Ishanga

I am merely pointing out the arrogance of thinking you know what is best for others.

Life ebbs and flows. At some points, seekers need words to act as pointers for them to go different directions. Sometimes, we need some friction against our ideas by engaging in debates to further refine our own clarity and nuance. Sometimes, we aren't in a stage where we are prepared or comfortable to be out 100% engaging in only the trees, nature, forest, people. Often the only way out, is through. Some users here are labouring under a lot of mental suffering, and this place can be a great support for the dark night of the soul.

There is something to be gained in these forums. Naturally people outgrow them and move on. And return. Or do not. 

There is no correct path. 

So, for you to claim there is, is arrogance.

And the reason I called this out, is because I fall prey to this myself. I think I know best for others in many cases. I have to actively check myself every time I consider dispensing advice. Who am I to know what is best? What am I trying to achieve with this conversation?

I just think you recite general platitudes about what is good without any context or nuance. Just a pattern I have noticed. And it could be that it is simply virtue signalling on your behalf, I do not know.

But there is something there that you are doing that should prompt some self enquiry.

Edited 16 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

I see the subtle distinction you are making.  I've noticed it too.  But also notice that you can see the relative and the Absolute as identical as well, as they are, because they're one.  It's just that the average bear doesn't really grasp this, so that's why when someone talks about Solipsism it can be so gosh darn confusing for them.  They haven't even come full circle to realize that the relative and the Absolute are one thing, and thus you can talk freely about it like that.  Or that the form and the formless are one.  Same idea.

Saying absolute and relative are identical is another thing from saying absolute and relative is identical therefore only this particular configuration of the relative can be said to exist because *insert yet more relative reasons here*. It's a complete red herring move, every solipsist who doesn't merely stop at "it's absolute, that's it" does it.

They have some kind of allegiance to materialism or something, that objects exist out there (or rather "right here") independent of our carving out of reality, but because they have learned the word "absolute", it's these objects ("right here") that must somehow be absolute, but that is a complete contradiction of terms.

Substitute the "out there" of materialism with "right here", and add a sprinkle of "absolute", and you have this confused absolute-relative conflation solipsism.

Edited 16 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

29 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Saying absolute and relative are identical is another thing from saying absolute and relative is identical therefore only this particular configuration of the relative can be said to exist because *insert yet more relative reasons here*. It's a complete red herring move, every solipsist who doesn't merely stop at "it's absolute, that's it" does it.

They have some kind of allegiance to materialism or something, that objects exist out there (or rather "right here") independent of our carving out of reality, but because they have learned the word "absolute", it's these objects ("right here") that must somehow be absolute, but that is a complete contradiction of terms.

Substitute the "out there" of materialism with "right here", and add a sprinkle of "absolute", and you have this confused absolute-relative conflation solipsism.

Ok but this goes back to what we were saying about the relative.  It's a dream.  So when you dream at night aren't you only dreaming one particular configuration? Yet all of reality is in that particular configuration because in truth it isn't about the configuration.  Or one could say that particular configuration is also the entire board.  Like the Tower of David is in the sand.  You can make any configuration out of the sand yet it's still the same sand it's just what you see it as in your mind's eye.  But in that moment it is the Tower of David. 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Ishanga]

14 hours ago, Someone here said:

How do you know you can't actually get answers by utilising this forum ? Show me one single person posting  such content on YouTube as Leo ? Show me one YouTuber? One example ?

If this place is the only place to talk with like-minded people about the most nuanced topics in existence then you shouldn't be surprised that people have more than thousands of posts . I'm here since 2020. Haven't missed a single week without posting . And I have growed more than its possible to grow by applying any advice from any book or expert in any field like Eckhart Tolle or Joe dizpenza or your god  Sadhguru .

Kindly refrain from annoying people about wasting their lives and commenting on their post count .

Thanks.

What's funny is that Leo is sounding more and more like Sadhguru on a regular basis, his sharings in my perception seem to reveal that.. 

I would classify Leo as a Jnana Yogi, he has a desire to know all the mechanics of Existence and Reality, that is fine we all have to choose which path to pursue...

Also why does my admiration of Sadhguru bother You?

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Ishanga

[Ishanga]

@Natasha Tori Maru Leo does this steady telling ppl what he thinks they should do, why should I not do the same, its just unsolicited advice that is all..Plus Sugarcoat raised the question herself if she should leave here or not, I just added my two cents, its not arrogance, just sharing, but to each their own... Plus I am not giving here life changing advice, just that spending too much time or online is not so healthy which is a proven point!

Edited 3 hours ago by Ishanga

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Ishanga said:

What's funny is that Leo is sounding more and more like Sadhguru on a regular basis, his sharings in my perception seem to reveal that.. 

I would classify Leo as a Jnana Yogi, he has a desire to know all the mechanics of Existence and Reality, that is fine we all have to choose which path to pursue...

 

The difference between him and Sadhguru is vast but to your point i think the immediate difference is Leo doesn't have monetary goals as his highest value.  I knock on the guy a lot but he stays true to his values and limits distortion of the Truth. That says a lot about character and who you want to listen to as a teacher.  Corruption is a strong word.  Sadhguru is far more distorted.  And for the record I think you're right on spending too much time here.   Sort the wheat from the chaff and move on

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Ishanga]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

The difference between him and Sadhguru is vast but to your point it's think the immediate difference is Leo doesn't have monetary goals as his highest value.  I knock on the guy a lot but he stays true to his values and limits distortion of the Truth. Corruption is a strong word.  Sadhguru is far more distorted.  And for the record I think you're right on spending too much time here.   Sort the wheat from the chaff and move on

 

Yes there are major differences, Sadhguru is much more active socially, this is two fold, first he wants the ppl to see and touch him so that it seems more real, plus he has to raise funds to make the events available to the public and to support the ashrams and programs they have running, so as Sadhguru says often he has to play circus, Leo is much more private and isolated, with a limited audience and message... Both have their purpose, both will go on no matter what anyone says or thinks, that is the way it should be!

Sadhguru's hightest value from what I gather is too liberate as many ppl as possible, he already fulfilled his guru's goal of creating the Dylanalinga, so now it is too transform the world to a better place... 

Edited 3 hours ago by Ishanga

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Ishanga said:

Yes there are major differences, Sadhguru is much more active socially, this is two fold, first he wants the ppl to see and touch him so that it seems more real, plus he has to raise funds to make the events available to the public and to support the ashrams and programs they have running, so as Sadhguru says often he has to play circus, Leo is much more private and isolated, with a limited audience and message... Both have their purpose, both will go on no matter what anyone says or thinks, that is the way it should be!

Ok. I haven't really listened to a lot of Sadhguru's talks or works because namely is it free and available like Leo's? I'm not sure.  I don't doubt he's awake but in a way I do doubt it until I have listened to hours of his work and talk. I haven't done that.  So maybe you know better than I. But I see him more as an entertainer

 

[Ishanga]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Ok. I haven't really listened to a lot of Sadhguru's talks or works because namely is it free and available like Leo's? I'm not sure.  I don't doubt he's awake but in a way I do doubt it until I have listened to hours of his work and talk. I haven't done that.  So maybe you know better than I. But I see him more as an entertainer

 

He calls it circus, things he has to do to make things work for his plan, he's said this many times... He's no Entertainer lol, I don't think all the work he has done or is doing it too entertain, like building temples, social works projects and trips all over the world to do the work, he's been doing this for over 30yrs risking his life to do it on many occasions, I don't see anyone else in the world doing the work that he is doing like he does it, with this 20hr days 7 days a week schedule..

I don't listen to his talks anymore much, but the methods and techniques he shares are super effective, I felt a huge change just after 2 weeks of the basic practice he shares...

Edited 3 hours ago by Ishanga

[Inliytened1]

25 minutes ago, Ishanga said:

 

I don't listen to his talks anymore much, but the methods and techniques he shares are super effective, I felt a huge change just after 2 weeks of the basic practice he shares...

That's cool.  What's that basic practice?

[Ishanga]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

That's cool.  What's that basic practice?

 

[Inliytened1]

7 minutes ago, Ishanga said:

 

He's not teaching that directly. That is an immediate red flag to me.  Did he delegate this to one of his guys or who is this?

[Ishanga]

5 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

He's not teaching that directly. That is an immediate red flag to me.  Did he delegate this to one of his guys or who is this?

here he is with more detailed explanation, he is doing the mantra and chant in the background of the first video...

 

[Carl-Richard]

16 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Yet all of reality is in that particular configuration

No? All of reality is not limited? Why be this flaky? A limited part of reality is in that particular configuration.

 

16 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Or one could say that particular configuration is also the entire board.

The particular figuration is the limited screen of perception, Maya, a product of your limited existence, both your human existence and everything in-between. And for all intents and purposes, all you can know is it's your limited screen of perception (that's the solipsist inclination). But it might very well be that there are multiple limited screens of perception, and also a big screen co-joining all of them. Because implicit in the concept of limitation, there is multiplicity.

But that's an inquiry into limitation. "All of reality" is still limitless.

 

16 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Like the Tower of David is in the sand.  You can make any configuration out of the sand yet it's still the same sand it's just what you see it as in your mind's eye.  But in that moment it is the Tower of David. 

"But in that moment", that's the "right here" in your linguistic equation, the regressor signifying limitation. Whichever way you choose to solve it, you have to use a word that signifies limitation, or else you cannot hold on to a solipsistic argument.

Edited 11 minutes ago by Carl-Richard