Carl-Richard

I guess. I said it was a human argument after all To be clear, it's not only about helping other humans. A realization that doesn't stick doesn't feel like a complete realization. You feel naturally drawn to making it stick, maybe not just as a human but as a being. The fact that the formlessness fades and you feel lost in the illusion again is evidence of the incompleteness.

You know some threads are going to be good just by reading the title.

You would feel inclined to privilege the one over the other because you're human. That is a reason. To deny that reason would be to deny your humanity.

It's a human argument It's also a "why not?" argument. What else is there to do? A bored sattva is a bodhisattva.

Pure formlessness usually doesn't last very long. Eventually, you return to human form, either the one you were originally, or a different incarnation (). So unless you want to keep returning to the formlessness like a spiritual tourist, you would probably want to keep it with you regardless of what form is appearing (or not appearing). Besides, it's in human form you can help others to awaken, and they would surely benefit from being hooked up directly to the source through their guru without the guru having to go on vacation every once in a while.

Ah, formlessness. In that case, sure. Reincarnation would be the case where you don't return to the original dream you exited. Nevertheless, "enlightenment" is often conceptualized as when you retain the realization of the formless while still being immersed in the "formful" (relative reality), i.e. being lucid in the dream. Awakening to formlessness is a taste of this realization; pure lucidity, but without the contents of the dream. The former (enlightenment) is of course much "harder" than the latter (awakening).

When I was around 18, I was fascinated by the time distortion effects of weed, and I had a spontaneous compulsion to contemplate the question "what creates the perception of time?", and I thought really long, and I landed on the answer of "it's how often you connect to your memories", which is actually pretty accurate. How often you connect to your memories is also how often you connect to your ego. In the brain, it's how often you activate the Default Mode Network, which correlates with self-referential thinking, i.e. self in relationship to others and self in relationship to time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_mode_network

which is a spectrum that we're all on 😌

The point is that despite the massive shift in perspective, the dream doesn't actually end. You're still a human being (in a relative sense). You've just opened yourself to a larger perspective.

I don't know. Probably because it's catchier and more impactful. "Guys, I've awoken!" vs. "Guys, I see things clearly now!"

Reincarnation.

No, it's ironically only relatively true that you're dreaming this finite dream. The finite dream is in the relative domain. The fact that you're a human being reading this sentence right now is only relatively true. From the Absolute perspective, you're God dreaming all dreams; an infinite dream. You don't have to, but it sure is wise.

I can't be asked reading that awfully formatted article, but I'm just going to say: the fact that brains correlate with certain experiences does not mean they "cause" them or that the phenomena experienced are "not real". By that logic, nothing you experience is real.

I don't have to

True.

People who get into spirituality don't generally aim to be miserable.

Take a break, be a normal human for a while and integrate your insights.

Right now, you're dreaming, while realizing Absolute Truth would be like becoming lucid in the dream.

You're confusing Absolute Truth with Maya (illusion), which is a classic mistake solipsists on this forum tend to make. It's hard to grok what we're talking about conceptually, which is why mystical experiences are needed to actually grasp it. You have to die psychologically to see through the illusion (the illusion of your limited POV). Illusion can only ever be a subset of Absolute Truth, not identical to it; i.e., the personal can only be a subset of the transpersonal, not identical to it.

But you're not the person. The ego is an illusion, don't you know? It can't be true when you fundamentally misunderstand what a "person" is

In analytical idealism, Absolute Truth is transpersonal consciousness, which of course also includes all possible personal consciousnesses, but the distinction between personal and transpersonal is useful for describing the difference between our personal minds (particularly thoughts, emotions and feelings) and transpersonal mind stuff (shapes, colors, general phenomenal qualities). A good ontology (at least in analytical philosophy) is able to provide explanations for a wide range of phenomena while maintaining an adequate level of parsimony or elegance. Your idea of solipsism dispenses with explaining a huge realm of reality (the relationship between the personal and the transpersonal) in exchange for an increase in parsimony (which arguably leads to a decrease in elegance). No other ontology that is taken seriously in analytical philosophy (e.g. physicalism, panpsychism) does this. For them, the distinction goes something like "subjective vs. objective", "mental vs. physical", "mind vs. matter". The distinction between the personal and transpersonal is so central to how we understand the world as humans that neglecting it is in a sense inhuman (and we're all way familiar with this notion being applied to solipsism). So in sum, if solipsism is not simply an inhuman way of conceptualizing the world, it's at least a poor ontology from the perspective of the values of analytical philosophy.

People keep saying vitamin D supplements, and I would echo that. I upped my dose around October or so (I live in Norway which can get pretty dark), and I think that is one of the things that keeps me from going back to the lamp (I should probably consider using it still, if only I could find it hehe). If you suspect you're actually deficient, you should get your levels measured by a doctor and they will put you on a megadose regimen, but if you just think you need a boost and you live in a dark part of the world, you should still consider taking a few times the recommended daily amount.

I don't think "other people" is direct. If you're questioning whether or not other people are conscious, you're questioning things that are not direct. From the perspective of direct experience ("Absolute Truth"), other people don't actually exist. Even questioning itself doesn't exist. Everything that is to know from direct experience is directly clear; no questions needed, no "other people" involved.

What does "what is" have to do with whether or not other people are conscious?

I think solipsism is just as much a mind game an any other, demonstrated by the heavy baggage of assumptions that comes with it. What do you mean by "direct"? What do you mean by "experience"? What do you mean by "me"? These concepts carry a lot of assumptions.