Carl-Richard

I knew you might say that. I'm saying that is also not the case. It's in the same ballpark as inferring the existence of matter, but it's just a much trickier inference to spot because one makes it so often. Most people don't have a good reference point to notice this. One such reference point is a state of samadhi (void) where body and mind dissolves (sensory phenomena and thought activity ceases), and not coincidentally, space and time also dissolves, something which I've verified in my experience. Space and time only makes sense when you experience a body that feels and a mind that thinks.

Meditation bro ;D

Space and time are also inferences.

I don't understand why that distinction matters. If you're posing say the existence of something particular like matter, something which is indeed purely abstract with no qualities and is inaccessible to experience, are you not by definition posing the existence of something abstract and inaccessible to experience i.e. something behind the scenes?

I didn't do that. The intuition of something behind the scenes is an inference based on a certain regularity of what is happening live on the scenes. Making inferences is one type of conceptual scheme, but communication is another. Communicating the primacy of experience (a non-inference) doesn't make it equal to an inference by the mere fact of communicating it.

"Behind the scenes" is a conceptual construct happening live on the scene.

@Husseinisdoingfine This is exactly why teachers like Rupert Spira reject solipsism, because people misunderstand it. It's generally a really bad pointer. It's also so ridiculously ironic that people have lately started shitting on the lessons of Neo-Advaita, because it's exactly what is needed to not misunderstand absolute solipsism. You are not your body-mind. You are infinite consciousness imagining body-minds. Infinite consciousness is alone, because there is nothing outside of infinity.

Live like a pig.

What do you mean?

He is a professor in political science.

Please don't make Neo-Advaita into a naughty word. It's as fundamental as self-actualization.

Again, I disagree.

When you're speaking from the perspective of the Absolute, it's true that you're the only one awake. I disagree. It's about mysticism, not philosophy. Have we not talked about this before? Your misunderstanding is based on conflating the relative and the Absolute. From the Absolute perspective, only consciousness exists; there is no self or other. From the relative perspective, people exist; there is self and other. If a teacher denies this basic lesson, you can dismiss them.

Normie solipsism is when you believe you're the only conscious being that exists, but you're unaware of the experiential implications of non-duality (mysticism). The normie solipsist is usually a materialist or dualist that believes his mind exists separately from the world. On the other hand, the mystical solipsist experiences the world as himself, an experience that exists prior to belief. I believe people like Rupert Spira only deny normie solipsism, not mystical solipsism. Rupert believes there is only one conscious being in the absolute sense, but in the relative sense, it's possible to describe the existence of so-called "body-minds", i.e. localized self-referential pockets of consciousness that proclaim themselves to be selves (small selves that talk to themselves), but in reality, these are simply manifestations of the same conscious being. In my opinion, what Leo is clashing on is the communication of the truth, not the truth itself. He wants to call it solipsism because of its raw simplicity and directness, while other teachers see the pitfalls of normie solipsism and try to couch it in a different language.

No.

Sensitivity is a gift.

Is this a surprise?

Then again, I will refer you to cyanide and other natural poisons. Do they produce epiphanies? There is no correlation there.

Weed

- Frank Zappa

The same you justify taking a natural drug: how dangerous is it?

Intrinsic health needs to be developed, and you develop it by enhancing your Being and Meaning. It's really too simple to make an image out of, but I just felt like making it anyway Np. Thank you very much!

Therein lies your problem. Emotions have a function which is to direct attention and energy outwards towards a task in the environment (in your case aggression towards a person). You're used to directing the energy inwards and into the mind where you create fantasies of revenge, which is not productive or healthy. When any emotion arises, grab the oppurtunity to solve the problem it is trying to address. Of course be civilized about it. I'm not advising you to commit violent acts.

You're stuck on normie solipsism.