The mary and jane metaphor suggest solipsism?

[MarkusSweden]

Any of you familiar with the mary and jane metaphor? 

It's a popular metaphor that Rupert Spira tells his audience in basically every satsang he hold. 

Anyway, the metaphor is that Mary(metaphor for consciousness) falls asleep and start dreaming she is Jane in the streets of London. 

Now, Jane experience herself as a separate self, but when she starts investigate who she really is, she finds out she is not a separate self (jane) in London, but that she was Mary all the time.

Everything was just Mary, including all the objects and other subjects in London, all was just a dream in Mary's mind.  

This is the metaphor Rupert often tells us, it looks like a conventional dream. And it only include ONE subject(jane). 

If I apply this metaphor to our reality, that means Mary(consciousness) "falls asleep to herself" and dream she is Markus in a country called Sweden in a world called earth. 

But going with that metaphor I end up with solipsism, right? 

I don't believe this of course, but isn't the metaphor lame in comparison to how great Rupert is otherwise? 

And what is the most effective argument to debunk solipsism? 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by MarkusSweden

[snowleopard]

@MarkusSweden  Given that a solipsist could only be another self-identity, and inherently a fiction, it kind of ranks right up there with zombies.

[tsuki]

2 hours ago, MarkusSweden said:

But going with that metaphor I end up with solipsism, right? 

When you see solipsism, you are still in subject-object paradigm.
If Mary is REALLY the one dreaming the dream, who is dreaming Mary? If She's not a part of the dream, then where is she if the dream is all there is?

The answer is: She's in Jane's dream.

When you pass a stranger on the street and he looks at you, smiling, is he happy or sarcastic? The answer is: you.
Depending on the answer to the above question, you're living two completely different worlds. Every other person, as well as yourself is a mirror.
Once you mistake your reflection for another person, you may get angry that he's not letting you through the door

 

[Leo Gura]

@MarkusSweden There is only The Self. All is ONE. But you are not going to understand this until you have a few deep enlightenment experiences.

It's more radical that solipsism. But in a good way.

Just who do you think you're talking to here??

Yourself!!

Wakey, wakey

 

[MarkusSweden]

34 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@MarkusSweden

Wakey, wakey

 

Haha.  

One thing I've notice as a "doubter" is that even if I go with a hard core materialist view, reality can't be other the ONE anyway, right? 

It's even more obvious that everything is ONE if reality only exists of matter. Just like whirlpools only consists of the water it's made of with no separate existence of its own. 

If duality was possible, then reality has to have something other the matter as fundamentals. Like consciousness/God. But when we explore that, just as we do here, we find that non duality is the only possible position. 

Therefore, there is no way to come up with duality no matter what intellectual angle you choose, right? 

  

Edited February 21, 2018 by MarkusSweden

[Leo Gura]

@MarkusSweden Well, the mind can invent all sorts of plausible-sounding stories.

But in the end, the ultimate question is: How can reality exist at all?

And the only answer is: everything collapses into unity. Infinity.

This is borne out by quantum mechanics as it is by mysticism.

[sarapr]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@MarkusSweden

This is borne out by quantum mechanics as it is by mysticism.

Why do you agree with quantom mechanics when you don't agree with the scientific method behind it?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, sarapr said:

Why do you agree with quantom mechanics when you don't agree with the scientific method behind it?

People really misunderstand my attitude towards science. I'm all for the scientific method. My criticism of science is essentially that it's not scientific enough. I criticize those areas where science holds dogmas and unquestioned metaphysical assumptions.

The scientific method behind quantum mechanics is valid. The problem there only arises when the discoveries of quantum mechanics are misunderstood by people who hold a materialist metaphysics. They don't understand the profundity of what quantum mechanics or something like Godel's incompleteness theorem is pointing to.

I don't disagree with scientific method. I merely point out how it is misapplied and the results of science are misinterpreted. I also point out the limits of the scientific method and suggest that there are alternative methods which can go beyond those limits.

I want science to be more pure, more openminded, more humble, less orthodox, less conservative, less of a religion.

[NoSelfSelf]

@Leo Gura What would be "perfect" scenario to make it openminded,even if im fully passionate about science i couldnt do it because they dismiss the nature of reality...

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, NoSelfSelf said:

@Leo Gura What would be "perfect" scenario to make it openminded,even if im fully passionate about science i couldnt do it because they dismiss the nature of reality...

Just be a radically openminded scientist. Which means, you don't exclude any phenomena a priori. You are open to running any kind of experiment and you are willing to accept the results whatever they end up being, even it the result is paradoxical, unorthodox, radical, or undermines the very enterprise of conventional science.

The perfect scenario is to realize the Absolute for yourself, become fully enlightened, and then you will be able to do incredible science if you still desire to.

All scientists MUST study and seriously contemplate epistemology, metaphysics, transpersonal psychology, holism, and nonduality. Without that, you cannot be a good scientist. With that, you can be the next Einstein.

FYI, many of the fathers of quantum mechanics were mystics. They were no orthodox materialist fools. Which is why they were able to figure out quantum mechanics in the first place.

The best scientists think precisely along the lines I advocate. They are radically openminded and anti-traditionalist.

Don't get discouraged about science. It will reform itself in the next 100 years. We need good people leading the way. Science is quickly coming around on nonduality.

[egoless]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

People really misunderstand my attitude towards science. I'm all for the scientific method. My criticism of science is essentially that it's not scientific enough. I criticize those areas where science holds dogmas and unquestioned metaphysical assumptions.

The scientific method behind quantum mechanics is valid. The problem there only arises when the discoveries of quantum mechanics are misunderstood by people who hold a materialist metaphysics. They don't understand the profundity of what quantum mechanics or something like Godel's incompleteness theorem is pointing to.

I don't disagree with scientific method. I merely point out how it is misapplied and the results of science are misinterpreted. I also point out the limits of the scientific method and suggest that there are alternative methods which can go beyond those limits.

I want science to be more pure, more openminded, more humble, less orthodox, less conservative, less of a religion.

But from your perspective there is only subjective observation possible right? So any kind of science which includes objective observation should be yet another ilussion for you - it is only your subjective experience. I think that’s what he meant.

Edited February 21, 2018 by egoless

[NoSelfSelf]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Just be a radically openminded scientist. Which means, you don't exclude any phenomena a priori. You are open to running any kind of experiment and you are willing to accept the results whatever they end up being, even it the result is paradoxical, unorthodox, radical, or undermines the very enterprise of conventional science.

The perfect scenario is to realize the Absolute for yourself, become fully enlightened, and they you will be able to do incredible science if you still desire to.

Great answer..i love investigation,research,invention/progress...but with enlightment i dont know what would i be investigating making better when everything is perfect as it is and another thing how would i know im helping someone with advancing science when getting rid of ego is only real help you can give..

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, egoless said:

But from your perspective there is only subjective observation possible right? So any kind of science which includes objective observation should be yet another ilussion for you. I think that’s what he meant.

Science just needs to be honest that it's a human species specific perspective of reality.

There is nothing wrong with subjectivity. The only mistake is confusing it with objectivity (The Absolute).

No serious philosopher of science can deny -- these days -- that all scientific experiments are theory-laden and always subject to interpretation. This was all hashed out over 100 years ago. Logical Positivism, Rationalism, and naive Empiricism are dead. They have been debunked.

14 minutes ago, NoSelfSelf said:

Great answer..i love investigation,research,invention/progress...but with enlightment i dont know what would i be investigating making better when everything is perfect as it is and another thing how would i know im helping someone with advancing science when getting rid of ego is only real help you can give..

Enlightenment is not the only thing to life. Enlightenment merely tells you what the metaphysical nature of everything is. That all is a dream. Enlightenment says little about what to do within the dream.

Don't have such a narrow-minded view of enlightenment.

After enlightenment, life must go on. Science must be done. This infinite reality must be explored, mapped out, understood, and mastered.

Exploring infinity is fun and exciting work.

[NoSelfSelf]

@Leo Gura

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Science just needs to be honest that it's a human species specific perspective of reality.

There is nothing wrong with subjectivity. The only mistake is confusing it with objectivity (The Absolute).

Enlightenment is not the only thing to life. Enlightenment merely tells you what the metaphysical nature of everything is. That all is dream. Enlightenment says little about how to play in the dream.

Don't have such a narrow-minded view of enlightenment.

After enlightenment, life must go on. Science must be done. This infinite reality must be explored, mapped out, understood, and mastered.

Yeah,you have different approach to enlightment than others thanks for clearing things up...everything should be included is the key...i thought that if its an illusion dont bother investigate...

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, NoSelfSelf said:

@Leo Gura

Yeah,you have different approach to enlightment than others thanks for clearing things up...everything should be included is the key...i thought that if its an illusion dont bother investigate...

My approach really isn't different. It's just that my work is much more holistic. Most teachers teach a strictly narrow path toward enlightenment in the same way that most math teachers only teach math. But that doesn't mean that life is only about math.

See, most enlightenment teachers won't talk about how to have great sex. Because that's not their specialization. But that doesn't mean learning how to have great sex isn't deeply rewarding and worthwhile. Or that becoming enlightened obviates such learning. What you see with Actualized.org is not me being a nonduality teacher. You see my general passion for learning about life, of which nonduality just happens to be ONE facet. My goal was never nonduality, but living a great life and learning about a variety of cool stuff.

Enlightenment is ONE domain of life. It just happens to be a very important domain because it's the domain of "What is the substance of EVERYTHING?" That's a pretty important and epic domain. But nevertheless, it's just ONE domain. And enlightenment is -- strictly speaking -- no more important than anything else. There is no reason why you should become enlightenment. And there is nothing wrong with you if you choose to ignore enlightenment entirely and decide to go become a potato farmer or an axe murderer instead. Life is free. You can do whatever the hell you like. Just be ware of the consequences.

You cannot derive an ought from an is.

If it's an illusion... so what? Life goes on just as before. The only difference is you understand it's an illusion. You can still raise your illusory children, walk your illusory dog, jerk your illusory dick, and eat your illusory ice cream.

You can be miserable in the illusion or joyful in the illusion. Either way it's an illusion. And it doesn't matter how you feel about it from the universe's perspective. But how you feel probably makes all the difference from your perspective.

[NoSelfSelf]

Thank you for clearing things up...i have intuition that life should be like you say,and my enviroment is complete opposite im glad i stayed for 3  years now

[Joyboy]

Be careful of your 'should', it leads to miserable things 

[Edvard]

On 21.2.2018 at 0:07 PM, Leo Gura said:

My approach really isn't different. It's just that my work is much more holistic. Most teachers teach a strictly narrow path toward enlightenment in the same way that most math teachers only teach math. But that doesn't mean that life is only about math.

See, most enlightenment teachers won't talk about how to have great sex. Because that's not their specialization. But that doesn't mean learning how to have great sex isn't deeply rewarding and worthwhile. Or that becoming enlightened obviates such learning. What you see with Actualized.org is not me being a nonduality teacher. You see my general passion for learning about life, of which nonduality just happens to be ONE facet. My goal was never nonduality, but living a great life and learning about a variety of cool stuff.

Enlightenment is ONE domain of life. It just happens to be a very important domain because it's the domain of "What is the substance of EVERYTHING?" That's a pretty important and epic domain. But nevertheless, it's just ONE domain. And enlightenment is -- strictly speaking -- no more important than anything else. There is no reason why you should become enlightenment. And there is nothing wrong with you if you choose to ignore enlightenment entirely and decide to go become a potato farmer or an axe murderer instead. Life is free. You can do whatever the hell you like. Just be ware of the consequences.

You cannot derive an ought from an is.

If it's an illusion... so what? Life goes on just as before. The only difference is you understand it's an illusion. You can still raise your illusory children, walk your illusory dog, jerk your illusory dick, and eat your illusory ice cream.

You can be miserable in the illusion or joyful in the illusion. Either way it's an illusion. And it doesn't matter how you feel about it from the universe's perspective. But how you feel probably makes all the difference from your perspective.

But why do you lie?;) You say that you are in my dream, but given that every human being in my dream behaves as if they have their own perspective, you're lying! Cuz then you're not in my dream; I am in «your» dream. There's no one but you, yet you're saying you're in my dream... well... it's true that I behave as if I have my own perspective in your dream, so you wanna tell it to me even if I am illusory, because that's how you choose to relate to an illusion which behaves like it's real and has a perspective, or a «separate consciousess». Too bad it's the other way around... wanna fight over that? You could say you're «me», but not really. More accurate to say that you're behaving like «me» in a different life, and in that sense you're kind of a reflection. Just talking about ideas here, of course...

Edited February 22, 2018 by Edvard

[Saumaya]

On 20/02/2018 at 11:03 PM, MarkusSweden said:

Any of you familiar with the mary and jane metaphor? 

It's a popular metaphor that Rupert Spira tells his audience in basically every satsang he hold. 

Anyway, the metaphor is that Mary(metaphor for consciousness) falls asleep and start dreaming she is Jane in the streets of London. 

Now, Jane experience herself as a separate self, but when she starts investigate who she really is, she finds out she is not a separate self (jane) in London, but that she was Mary all the time.

Everything was just Mary, including all the objects and other subjects in London, all was just a dream in Mary's mind.  

This is the metaphor Rupert often tells us, it looks like a conventional dream. And it only include ONE subject(jane). 

If I apply this metaphor to our reality, that means Mary(consciousness) "falls asleep to herself" and dream she is Markus in a country called Sweden in a world called earth. 

But going with that metaphor I end up with solipsism, right? 

I don't believe this of course, but isn't the metaphor lame in comparison to how great Rupert is otherwise? 

And what is the most effective argument to debunk solipsism? 

 

If you say there is only consciousness, then its not solipsism as consciousness is the whole that everything is a part of. If you say there is only markus then it is solipsism as you have believed that other people dont exist but only you do.

[Nahm]

@Saumaya We’re actually all in agreeance on solipsism denial. Lol.