Solipsism and the two-faced snake, egocentrism

[Outer]

Definition of solipsism:

The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.

The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

So there is only the self, and that it is god and that everyone else, which is the other from the two-faced snake's perspective: Is the self and god. There seems to be a good program in place that says, you, the self, is not god, that's egoic, hence solipsism would be seen as the most egoic thing ever.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Outer

[Joseph Maynor]

It’s actually unlearning things that gets you to Enlightenment.  I know, it’s paradoxical.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[DocHoliday]

@Outer Solipsism in my opinion destroys itself immediately because from my understanding, a solipsist believes that the entire world and all of reality is "only made for him" and that he literally is God and nobody else could be God as well, so that nobody else would be allowed to have that same thought of "Oh, wait, am I the only real being that is alive here?". But since many people share this world view, solipsism destroys itself because the very foundaion of solipsism would be that only one single human being would be granted to have this concept in order for it to work.

Edited January 16, 2018 by DocHoliday

[Outer]

4 minutes ago, DocHoliday said:

@Outer Solipsism in my opinion destroys itself immediately because from my understanding, a solipsist believes that the entire world and all of reality is "only made for him" and that he literally is God and nobody else could be God as well, so that nobody else would be allowed to have that same thought of "Oh, wait, am I the only real being that is alive here?". But since many people share this world view, solipsism destroys itself because the very foundaion of solipsism would be that only one single human being would be granted to have this concept in order for it to work.

If you think there's somebody else then that is not solipsism, since the self is all there is according to it. In fact I think solipsism is nonduality. Multiple humans, animals, etc, one self.

[Joseph Maynor]

There’s no point to reality, reality just is. You’re trying to wrap your mind around reality.  Ain’t never gonna work.  We miss reality when we cling to our frameworks.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Outer]

@Mighty Mouse So what do you think about solipsism then, it makes sense right? I think it is what Ramana Maharshi was talking about all along when he speaks of the self with a capital S. Only by the manufacturing of an other is there anything but the self.

What if there is no duality to self.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Outer

[DocHoliday]

 

[Outer]

9 minutes ago, DocHoliday said:

 

I did literally not understand what he was saying.

[Outer]

17 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

There’s no point to reality, reality just is. You’re trying to wrap your mind around reality.  Ain’t never gonna work.  We miss reality when we cling to our frameworks.

Truth is known and I want to know.

[Leo Gura]

The only problem here is that the concept of solipsism carries with it a slew of misleading associations.

Yes, all there is, is the Infinite Self. But thinking of it as solipsism will mislead you. Solipsism makes the ego feel more real, which is the opposite of what we want.

[DocHoliday]

@Outer It's kind of exactly what I was referring to in my prior explanation. Solipsism is the perspective one takes in which he believes that he is literally god, therfore, he thinks that his mind and only his mind is the creator of the world in which every other object and person resides. But since this is not the case because we only have ONE consciousness from which every individual "mind" or "ego" is derived, solipsism is in and of itself false - kind of.

Edited January 16, 2018 by DocHoliday

[snowleopard]

 Solipsism seems just self-identity taken to the extreme. If self-identity is dispelled, what remains?  

[DoubleYou]

How can I experience that my mind is not the only mind in this universe? 

The only thing I can know for sure is that I Am. How can I experience the truth of your (our) I Am-ness in a way that its not just another belief?

This has always bothered me. I dont 'believe' in solipsism, I just cant seem to find a way to deny it, without it being just another belief.

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by DoubleYou

[Outer]

1 minute ago, DoubleYou said:

How can I experience that my mind is not the only mind in this universe? 

The only thing I can know for sure is that I Am. How can I experience the truth of your I Am-ness in a way that its not just another belief?

This has always bothered me. I dont 'believe' in solipsism, I just cant seem to find a way to deny it, without it being just another belief.

 

Because it is true.

 

11 minutes ago, snowleopard said:

 Solipsism seems just self-identity taken to the extreme. If self-identity is dispelled, what remains?  

Elaborate further.

 

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The only problem here is that the concept of solipsism carries with it a slew of misleading associations.

Yes, all there is, is the Infinite Self. But thinking of it as solipsism will mislead you. Solipsism makes the ego feel more real, which is the opposite of what we want.

Do you mean as in the ego is all that exists and that there is no other egos...? But if the self is defined as more as mere contents of consciousness..?

 

18 minutes ago, DocHoliday said:

@Outer It's kind of exactly what I was referring to in my prior explanation. Solipsism is the perspective one takes in which he believes that he is literally god, therfore, he thinks that his mind and only his mind is the creator of the world in which every other object and person resides. But since this is not the case because we only have ONE consciousness from which every individual "mind" or "ego" is derived, solipsism is in and of itself false - kind of.

Me as spiritual teacher: You are god, your mind is all that exists. Of course anyone you thought were other before you knew this is you too.

[Outer]

19 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

Most teachers (and philosophers) avoid it like the plague or talk around it with subtle misdirection and clever evasive maneuvers  (maya), so as not to repel their target audience / source of reputation. They are wordsmiths, a favorite tool of maya.

Would you classify the rupert spira video above here as that? Did you understand what he said?

[Outer]

2 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

Maybe because there is no denying it...

Solipsism is not a belief, it's just an observation. What if it's an entirely valid one? You're gonna have to deal with it...

It's a pretty basic observation I'd presume everyone who takes philosophy 101 would know, if I speculate like crazy. I think I was full solipsism when I grew up and it went away due to programming.

[Lauritz]

Solipsism is pointing towards truth, but is in itself false. I understand that when you have a non-dual experience than yes, you could say solipsism is true, but then there is nobody to say that in the first place. And when you want to argue about solipsism from your everyday ego awareness, there is no point to it. There is only that which you experience. And if your experience tells you that other people exist, than there are, and if you stop believing it than they stop to exist. It is all different degrees of self-deception. How else could you experience anything other than nothingness?

I found Rupert Spiras video to be pretty good. You have basically just identified with one line on a picture, looking at other lines and not seeing the whole picture. 

You create the world you want to believe in. The magic trick is that you forgot you did it and how you did it.

[Nahm]

We have fun talking to ourself. 

[snowleopard]

1 hour ago, Outer said:

Elaborate further.

Instead of exclusive dichotomous identification as a specific self, it's identification as the only self -- but identification nonetheless.

[Outer]

17 minutes ago, snowleopard said:

Instead of exclusive dichotomous identification as a specific self, it's identification as the only self -- but identification nonetheless.

 

Doesn't identification imply identifying with what you aren't. I identify as a X, doesn't mean I am X, that's just my identity. I am that which identifies with something, I am not who I am. Can I ask you, what's wrong with identifying as the Self, God, whatever?

Am I an other person to you or am I a perception?