Carl-Richard

It's just the attitude of seeing an Instagram video with no external references that says "this woman is 141 years old" and then you say "this woman is 141 years old" and not "this woman is allegedly 141 years old" or "according to this Instagram video, this woman is 141 years old" that doesn't sit quite right with me. And I could imagine that this attitude of evaluating information might feed into other areas where you might be evaluating information.

I believe "other" is a concept. I believe "exist" is a concept. I believe "don't exist" is a concept. None of it is actual in the absolute sense. To pose that other minds exist or don't exist, it's philosophy, it's stuff you think about. But what "is" irrespective of thinking? That's what the Absolute is.

Her speaking gives me the ick. That's my psychic reading of the day. What I want to know is how @Ramasta9 knows that a lady in an Instagram video is 141 years old

At least you're here asking for guidance. You've presented pros and cons of both. Perhaps seeking the middle way is the answer.

One of the whistleblowers in the various corruption scandals in Siemens. The way he retells the meeting where corporate tried to intimidate him and the CEO opened the meeting by screaming "We have a mole high up in the system! He will be found and he will be fired!" and then looks directly at him, is something right out of The Wolf of Wall Street (22:00). https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2009/02/portrait-of-a-whistleblower.html Completely unrelated: I learned about this guy because he is one of the brothers of Lars Monsen, the famous adventurer guy (at least in Norway), who now has a YouTube channel.

What's the state of jails in India?

If the first thing you're saying is a result of distinctions, and then you go onto say "and this is a result of there being no distinctions", is that true or false? "Distinctions" because "no distinctions". That's not true. But then the non-dually awakened "solipsist" will retort and say, like @Eskilon points out, "but there is no distinction between distinctions and no distinctions", as if that is an argument that supports their position and doesn't defeat it. I'm pointing out how it defeats it. They are making distinctions, but then when pressured on it, they say that there are no distinctions. "Absolute solipsists" are nihilistic addicts with the memory of a goldfish. They will contradict themselves like it's the only thing that brings them pleasure, and you can trust them to always repeat the cycle when pressured on it. They will reliably make distinctions and then they will reliably retreat to "but no distinctions" when pressured on it. And that's the only way they will ever be reliable, the addicts that they are.

I would hurdle the comment above in a heroic last ditch attempt to save their minds from the shadowy grips of their own mind. So the Absolute and relative is a distinction, there is no distinction, yet the distinction of "my mind" vs "other minds" exists and it says "my mind" exists and "other minds" don't? "But what I'm actually saying is that there is only one thing that exists in existence". Ok, say that, but don't say "when I close my eyes, my grandma has now stopped existing, and this is somehow a result from there being no distinctions", because that is obviously not true. "Grandma" is a distinction, "eyes" is a distinction, "stopped existing" is a distinction, "because of closing my eyes" is a distinction. You're fighting with shadows. If you want to affirm or deny anything in existence but existence itself, you are not talking about the Absolute, you are not talking about "no distinctions", you are distinguishing, you are affirming or denying. If you are about the Absolute and the Absolute only, it cannot be captured by anything but itself. Hence the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

I think Plato's cave is a brilliant way to illustrate what the solipsists that confuse relative with Absolute (and that have had legitimate glimpses into the Absolute) often do: So the people in the cave only see shadows on the wall, and then when they climb out, they see the light and they realize "this is what is truly real, and it's One, it's the only thing that exists!". But then what they erroneously do is they go back into the cave and start saying "these shadows on the wall, they're the only things that exist!". So despite their legitimate glimpses of the Absolute, perhaps due to inexperience, perhaps due to a lack of intellect, they make this unfortunate conflation, of conflating the shadows on the wall with the Sun that shines. The Sun creates the shadows (hence the Absolute creates the relative), and indeed the Sun shines ultimately as one, but to start taking the insights of the Sun and presenting them as shadows, that is the misunderstanding. The Sun is self-luminous, ever-shining. It does not need limitation, it does not need shadows, to exist.

"But my grandma doesn't exist when I close my eyes" 🐒 Honestly, one of the very few that gets it. I applaud you. But I will give my dry formulation of the same thing: whether minds exist or not outside your field of view, is a relative matter. The Absolute ultimately doesn't care. Therefore, to invoke the Absolute to say that minds do not exist outside your field of view, is a misunderstanding.

Give me your best explanation. Best explanation gets a cookie (laced with meth).

There is possibly a way out: But you should try to work with someone if trying this out, not do it on your own.

Ask why you ask "why" and realize asking why is the issue.

If solipsism was a country I'd nuke it.

Why are you dropping a quote without dropping the source?

You can do better than one sentence.

Take some glycine or something. Something verbal should rarely ever escalate to something physical. If it does and you didn't want it to happen, it's a problem with you and your emotional regulation. Go speak to someone.

That's the way I viewed Better Call Saul and probably everybody else that watched Breaking Bad. It's like the most obvious statement so it was funny.

You underestimate what "only cares about" really means. It's not about effort, but attachment (or lack thereof). And it's not about "meditation" as in sitting doing a practice, but being. Sitting doing a practice is the surface level of what meditation is about. But you know all this. I was just being cheeky.

Lol

There are potentially traumatizing events, then there is trauma (a particular response to potentially traumatizing events), then there are coping mechanisms and response to trauma. There is a wide variety within these.

🐽 Pig nose makes me think of Plumbus.

What field?

Name just makes me think of Plumbus. I can't ever get it out of my head.