Rupert Spira and others on Solipsism

[Nak Khid]

Rupert Spira

https://non-duality.rupertspira.com/read/all_that_is_ever_known_and_all_that_ever_is154

The fact that Consciousness only experiences itself through one mind is a belief held by one mind! There is no evidence for it. This is called solipsism.

Non-duality states there is only Consciousness. Solipsism states there is only the content of our own mind. These two statements may appear to be similar but in fact they are poles apart. The former is the source of sanity, the latter insanity.

In order to know anything apparently objective, Consciousness must take the shape of the mind. It is by definition only possible for the mind to hold one thought/image/perception at a time.

In other words, this apparent limitation is inherent in the structure of the mind. However, it is a mistake to project this limitation of mind onto Consciousness and presume, as a result, that Consciousness is limited.

Let us take the example of two minds, mind A and mind B.

Mind A consists of thought/sensation/perception A and mind B consists of thought/sensation/perception B.

Mind A is one single ‘object’ known by Consciousness; likewise mind B.

Now mind B could never appear in mind A because one object cannot appear in another.

So it is impossible for mind A to know mind B. In fact mind A does not know anything. It is known. Likewise mind B.

However, the fact that one object can never appear in another object or even that two objects can never be present ‘in the same mind’ at the same time does not tell us anything about that which knows each mind.

In fact, why could there not be an infinity of minds all appearing in and simultaneously known by the same Consciousness? I am not proving that this is the case. I am only suggesting it as a possibility and in doing so exposing the fallacy of the ‘only-this-mind’ belief.

I am not suggesting that my model of a multiplicity of minds appearing simultaneously in one Consciousness is an accurate model of experience. There are no accurate mind-made models of the reality of experience.

However, I use this model as a possibility to rescue non-duality from being equated with solipsism.

Solipsism is simply an exaggerated form of the ‘I-am-the-centre-of-the-universe’ belief that characterises the apparently separate entity.

Non-duality is rather the opposite of this. It is the experiential understanding that there is no centre to the universe. Love is another name for this understanding in which all seeming things are known to be one seamless garment, made out of Consciousness alone,  each apparent part intimately connected to all other apparent parts.

Even that is not quite true because of the presumption of parts, but such are the limitations of the mind when speaking of something that is beyond its conception or perception.

* * *

 

Edited November 24, 2019 by Nak Khid

[allislove]

Oh my, I am (dimitri) not alone here, what a good news.

I love his model of reality.

[SunnyNewDay]

Solipsism is a dangerous trap, be careful everyone. 

Edited November 23, 2019 by SunnyNewDay

[Nak Khid]

Solipsism History

 

Gorgias

Solipsism was first recorded by the Greek presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) who is quoted by the Roman sceptic Sextus Empiricus as having stated:

Nothing exists.

Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it.

Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.

Much of the point of the Sophists was to show that "objective" knowledge was a literal impossibility. (See also comments credited to Protagoras of Abdera).

Descartes

The foundations of solipsism are in turn the foundations of the view that the individual's understanding of any and all psychological concepts (thinking, willing, perceiving, etc.) is accomplished by making an analogy with his or her own mental states; i.e., by abstraction from inner experience. And this view, or some variant of it, has been influential in philosophy since Descartes elevated the search for incontrovertible certainty to the status of the primary goal of epistemology, whilst also elevating epistemology to "first philosophy".[citation needed]

Berkeley

Portrait of George Berkeley by John Smybert, 1727

George Berkeley's arguments against materialism in favour of idealism provide the solipsist with a number of arguments not found in Descartes. While Descartes defends ontological dualism, thus accepting the existence of a material world (res extensa) as well as immaterial minds (res cogitans) and God, Berkeley denies the existence of matter but not minds, of which God is one

Hinduism

The earliest reference to Solipsism is found in Hindu philosophy in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, dated to early 1st millennium BCE. The Upanishad holds the mind to be the only god and all actions in the universe are thought to be a result of the mind assuming infinite forms.[21] After the development of distinct schools of Indian philosophy, Advaita Vedanta and Samkhya schools are thought to have originated concepts similar to solipsism.[citation needed]

Advaita Vedanta

Advaita is one of the six most known Hindu philosophical systems and literally means "non-duality". Its first great consolidator was Adi Shankaracharya, who continued the work of some of the Upanishadic teachers, and that of his teacher's teacher Gaudapada. By using various arguments, such as the analysis of the three states of experience—wakefulness, dream, and deep sleep, he established the singular reality of Brahman, in which Brahman, the universe and the Atman or the Self, were one and the same.

One who sees everything as nothing but the Self, and the Self in everything one sees

such a seer withdraws from nothing.

For the enlightened all that exists is nothing but the Self

so how could any suffering or delusion continue for those who know this oneness?

— Ishopanishad: sloka 6, 7

The concept of the Self in the philosophy of Advaita could be interpreted as solipsism. However, the transhuman, theological implications of the Self in Advaita protect it from true solipsism as found in the west. Similarly, the Vedantic text Yogavasistha, escapes charge of solipsism because the real "I" is thought to be nothing but the absolute whole looked at through a particular unique point of interest.

Advaita is also thought to strongly diverge from solipsism in that, the former is a system of exploration of one's mind in order to finally understand the nature of the self and attain complete knowledge. The unity of existence is said to be directly experienced and understood at the end as a part of complete knowledge. On the other hand, solipsism posits the non-existence of the external world right at the beginning, and says that no further inquiry is possible.

Samkhya and Yoga

Samkhya philosophy, which is sometimes seen as the basis of Yogic thought,[23] adopts a view that matter exists independently of individual minds. Representation of an object in an individual mind is held to be a mental approximation of the object in the external world.[24] Therefore, Samkhya chooses representational realism over epistemological solipsism. Having established this distinction between the external world and the mind, Samkhya posits the existence of two metaphysical realities Prakriti (matter) and Purusha (consciousness).

Buddhism

Some interpretations of Buddhism assert that external reality is an illusion, and sometimes this position is [mis]understood as metaphysical solipsism. Buddhist philosophy, though, generally holds that the mind and external phenomena are both equally transient, and that they arise from each other. The mind cannot exist without external phenomena, nor can external phenomena exist without the mind. This relation is known as "dependent arising" (pratityasamutpada).

The Buddha stated, "Within this fathom long body is the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world and the path leading to the cessation of the world".[25] Whilst not rejecting the occurrence of external phenomena, the Buddha focused on the illusion created within the mind of the perceiver by the process of ascribing permanence to impermanent phenomena, satisfaction to unsatisfying experiences, and a sense of reality to things that were effectively insubstantial.

Mahayana Buddhism also challenges the illusion of the idea that one can experience an 'objective' reality independent of individual perceiving minds.

From the standpoint of Prasangika (a branch of Madhyamaka thought), external objects do exist, but are devoid of any type of inherent identity: "Just as objects of mind do not exist [inherently], mind also does not exist [inherently]".[26] In other words, even though a chair may physically exist, individuals can only experience it through the medium of their own mind, each with their own literal point of view. Therefore, an independent, purely 'objective' reality could never be experienced.

The Yogacara (sometimes translated as "Mind only") school of Buddhist philosophy contends that all human experience is constructed by mind. Some later representatives of one Yogacara subschool (Prajnakaragupta, Ratnakīrti) propounded a form of idealism that has been interpreted as solipsism. A view of this sort is contained in the 11th-century treatise of Ratnakirti, "Refutation of the existence of other minds" (Santanantara dusana), which provides a philosophical refutation of external mind-streams from the Buddhist standpoint of ultimate truth (as distinct from the perspective of everyday reality).[27]

In addition to this, the Bardo Thodol, Tibet's famous book of the dead, repeatedly states that all of reality is a figment of one's perception, although this occurs within the "Bardo" realm (post-mortem). For instance, within the sixth part of the section titled "The Root Verses of the Six Bardos", there appears the following line: "May I recognize whatever appeareth as being mine own thought-forms";[28] there are many lines in similar ideal.

 

 

 

[Nak Khid]

_______________Dualism and Solipsism - Philosophy of Mind I

[Nak Khid]

___________________Relationship between Solipsism and Hallucination

[Nak Khid]

fixed, thanks

Edited November 24, 2019 by Nak Khid

[Leo Gura]

The difference between self/other is imaginary.

This means that you cannot even formulate solipsism vs its opposite. I mean, you can. But you're imagining that difference.

[Nak Khid]

It's opposite is not needed to formulate it

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

It's opposite is not needed to formulate it

8 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

Solipsism states there is only the content of our own mind.

 

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

It's opposite is not needed to formulate it

Every formulation whatsoever is dualistic and requires an opposite to hold it in your mind.

If it has no opposite, you cannot think it or speak it.

[Nak Khid]

so even nondualists are screwed

Edited November 24, 2019 by Nak Khid