How do you discuss solipsism with other people?

[romansoloviov]

I find that Leo's worldview is hard to make popular/attractive among most groups of people (both big groups, like the mainstream, and small groups of smart/open-minded people) because it claims that other people don't exist. So when discussing it with others, you have two options:

1. Tell people how it is, and essentially claim that only your consciousness exists. Obviously nobody likes it because it comes across as very selfish. You might lose respect of your friends over this, not just money/status.

2. Compromise integrity a bit and pretend that you believe in some other version of idealism. People are more open-minded to this view, and you're sort of easing them in, but the downside is you're not really speaking what you know to be true.

What do you all think is the best way to navigate this?

[tuku747]

Solipsism is no more true than any other perspective. I understand the desire to help. But you would help them much more by using that desire to actualize yourself. Actualized people are awesome! If you've ever met one, they're kind, patient, empathetic, intelligent and loving people. Simply being around an actualized person is therapeutic. So if your desire is to help people, actualize yourself and you will help by simply being yourself.

Solipsism is a story. See your hands? Now tell me more about how you're the only consciousness in existence.
Now look at your hands again. You've only told yourself another story.

Even if it was 'true', the thought of solipsism/nonduality is even more transient than your hands. Really consider that.

Free yourself of this belief. It only distracts you from actuality.
 

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by tuku747

[lmfao]

@romansoloviov Proselytising another teacher or gurus worldview is more coonery 

[Tim R]

If you truly buy into solipsism, there's no point discussing it with "other people". 

[Leo Gura]

This issue is best not discussed casually with people.

99.99% of humans are in denial about Truth. So of course you they will not be open to the highest teachings.

But if you are going to explain it to someone, the easiest way is just to say that reality works exactly like a dream. There is nothing outside the dream when you stop dreaming. Everyone can intuitively understand the dream analogy. But it's not an analogy, it's reality.

[roopepa]

A dream. Not a solipsistic, limiting and scary one, but the best, most spectacular and limitless divine beauty and adventure.

[Paulus Amadeus]

Why would you want to convince other people of solipsism, if they are just figments of your imagination? 

Makes no sense. 

 

The idea that other people don't have a personal consciousness, and that I'm imagining everybody, is completely ridiculous to me. 

Sure, I can buy that everything is god's imagination. But then why wouldn't god dream up a world and put multiple versions of herself in that world? 

Even people with multiple personality disorders apparently have dreams where their different alters occupy the same dream, and can interact with each other. But somehow I'm the only thing in existence? And that other people have a conscious experience is just something that I'm imagining?  

 

If solipsism was true, then I don't need to listen to Leo. Leo doesn't have a subjective experience, so he is has never become conscious of anything, let alone god.

 

I really can't understand how Leo could ever say that other people's consciousness is something my mind is inventing. If god is infinite, wouldn't one of the infinities be a shared dreamworld with loads of imagined god incarnations in it? Otherwise god has just created this random little 3D movie with just me in it. That seems awfully limited and uncreative for an all-powerful all-loving creator god. 

 

I get that ultimately the shared dreamworld has come about by the imagination by god. But that does not mean that currently my girlfriend does not have a conscious experience. She could be god imagining to be my girlfriend, as I am god imagining to be me. Ultimately that is not real. We are both the same god. But there is conscious experience happening in her, as there is in me. 

I know I'm not conscious of my girlfriends inner experience. But I don't buy that the only thing that exists is what I'm conscious of. I'm not conscious of the damn feeling in my foot most of the time. So it doesn't exist when I'm not paying attention to it? But then the feeling in my foot pops into existence as soon as I start doing a body-scan? That would be about the least elegant model of reality imaginable.  

[Tim R]

Look, why do you think that solipsism is a problem?

I'll tell you what upsets people so much about it:

What you wish for is that you are not the only ego in existence, and that there are other egos. But if you realize that not even you are an ego, then solipsism completely ceases to be an issue, immediately. 

"your" bubble of consciousness is as ridiculous of an notion as "other" bubbles of consciousness. 

Consciousness is impersonal, without a center (ego = belief that you are a separate center of consciousness). 

And of you understand that, the notion of "other" centers of consciousness just disappears with the illusion that you ever were such a center. 

Consciousness. That's the key thing to understand. It means that there is nothing but a conscious universe. 

Let go of the duality between yourself as the conscious agent and the "unconscious" dream. 

Consciousness means that there is no difference whatsoever between being conscious and being whatever it is that's "inside" of consciousness. 

There is neither a you, nor an other. There is no you to be trapped in solipsism. 

You as consciousness are everything, everywhere and everyone, without being anything, anywhere or anyone. 

As consciousness, you are "alone". But AS the universe. AS infinite perspective.

Which is identical to no particular perspective.

Solipsism won't be solved by thinking, but by actually realizing who you are. Because in doing that, you will discover that you anxiety about there not being any "other people" was completely founded in illusion, namely the belief that you are not pure consciousness. 

[Paulus Amadeus]

@Tim R if it is so ridiculous to think about bubbles of consciousness, then why are you not conscious of my experience right now? Seems like at our level of consciousness, it's very reasonable to speak about different bubbles of experience. 

In fact, I think that any model of reality that doesn't talk about how different bubbles of experience came to be is a very incomplete model. 

 

I know that there is no center to consciousness. I know I'm not my ego. In fact, I know ego actually doesn't exist. Ego is a happening of thoughts that creates an illusion of a separate entity, where there actually is none. But even a completely enlightened master will still have a separate conscious experience of a seemingly separate human life. 

 

Maybe god experiences all the consciousness bubbles all at once, and in that state there is no such thing as separate bubbles anymore. Something like that would make sense to me. 

But right now you don't have access to my inner states. It is a completely valid to talk about this being the case, and to talk about how this seeming split has come into existence. To pretend like our separate inner lives are just flimsy illusions created by the ego I think is just simply not true. You can transcend the ego and still not be conscious of other people's experience. 

 

[Blackhawk]

4 hours ago, romansoloviov said:

I find that Leo's worldview is hard to make popular/attractive among most groups of people (both big groups, like the mainstream, and small groups of smart/open-minded people) because it claims that other people don't exist. So when discussing it with others, you have two options:

1. Tell people how it is, and essentially claim that only your consciousness exists. Obviously nobody likes it because it comes across as very selfish. You might lose respect of your friends over this, not just money/status.

2. Compromise integrity a bit and pretend that you believe in some other version of idealism. People are more open-minded to this view, and you're sort of easing them in, but the downside is you're not really speaking what you know to be true.

What do you all think is the best way to navigate this?

 

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

This issue is best not discussed casually with people.

99.99% of humans are in denial about Truth. So of course you they will not be open to the highest teachings.

But if you are going to explain it to someone, the easiest way is just to say that reality works exactly like a dream. There is nothing outside the dream when you stop dreaming. Everyone can intuitively understand the dream analogy. But it's not an analogy, it's reality.

Are you guys kidding? Can't you see what you are saying?

You are saying 2 incompatible things: 1 that there is other people who are "in denial about Truth", and 2 that solipsism is true. You need to drop one of those.

[Paulus Amadeus]

1 minute ago, Blackhawk said:

 

Are you guys kidding? Can't you see what you are saying?

You are saying 2 incompatible things: 1 that there is other people who are "in denial about Truth", and 2 that solipsism is true. You need to drop one of those.

Yeah it is completely ridiculous. Trying to convince someone of solipsism is about the most absurd thing you could ever do. 

What's also completely absurd, is believing a teacher who says solipsism is true. If the teacher is right, he is not conscious, so he is basically just a cardboard figure. In which case you have absolutely no reason to believe him!

 

It reminds me of the logical paradox "this sentence is a lie". If you believe Leo when he is talking about solipsism, you can then immediately no longer believe him. 

 

[Tim R]

Quote

9 minutes ago, Paulus Amadeus said:

@Tim R if it is so ridiculous to think about bubbles of consciousness, then why are you not conscious of my experience right now?

 

But I am!!??

I am you! 

I am the exact same consciousness that you are. 

You and I are like eyes and ears. It's true, your eyes can't hear and your ears can't see. 

But: they share one consciousness underneath. 

You see, your eyes and ears don't have "separate bubbles of consciousness". But they, as eyes and ears, also don't have "their own" bubble of consciousness. 

There's just one consciousness, but many perspectives. As I said, consciousness is infinite perspective. No center. 

The reason why our perspectives can't be "together" is because they were never separate. 

[Blackhawk]

@Paulus Amadeus Yeah I'm not buying solipsism. Just because you can't prove for sure that others are conscious doesn't mean that they are unconscious.

[Paulus Amadeus]

@Tim R I know we share one consciousness underneath. I know we are ultimately the same. 

 

But then it's interesting to talk about how these seemingly separate perspectives came into being no? And it's interesting to discuss whether or not other people on the planet have a separate perspective, or whether they are just a cardboard figures without a perspective. 

 

I don't think we disagree on what is going on. I'm just saying that its interesting to talk about how these different perspectives came to be. What is the purpose of them? where are they located? How is it possible that they seemingly walk around in the same world? 

These are questions that I personally find very interesting. 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

34 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

Are you guys kidding? Can't you see what you are saying?

You are saying 2 incompatible things: 1 that there is other people who are "in denial about Truth", and 2 that solipsism is true. You need to drop one of those.

All language is relativistic. Relativistic things are being said, you're not not being intelligent in your listening because you take all these things as objective.

NOTHING IS OBJECTIVE!

When I say that I took a shit today, you think I mean Leo actually took a physical shit today. What I actually mean is: You imagine I took a shit today.

If you are discussing solipsism with someone, this already implies you are talking to an imaginary other.

[tuku747]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

When I say that I took a shit today, you think I mean Leo actually took a physical shit today. What I actually mean is: You imagine I took a shit.

And it was quite the interesting visual 

Edited September 12, 2021 by tuku747

[Blackhawk]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

All language is relativistic. Relativistic things are being said, you're not not being intelligent in your listening because you take all these things as objective.

NOTHING IS OBJECTIVE!

When I say that I took a shit today, you think I mean Leo actually took a physical shit today. What I actually mean is: You imagine I took a shit today.

If you are discussing solipsism with someone, this already implies you are talking to an imaginary other.

Ok but why would me or anyone have any empathy or compassion at all towards others if they are completely unconscious?

[Paulus Amadeus]

@Leo Gura You just made the same argument against solipsism that we already made. You didn't clarify anything with that. 

 

If nothing is objective, then it's also not objectively true that other people don't exist? On some level they do have a separate perspective and a separate bubble of experience? 

If you think this, then I think you should do a better job at communicating this.

I think you are leading quite some people to believe in actual solipsism, and I think it will lead to suicides and mental health problems. 

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

Ok but why would me or anyone have any empathy or compassion at all towards others if they are completely unconscious?

Goodness can have no reason.

If Goodness has a reason, it would be evil, not Goodness.

To be Good you must act out of delight for Goodness itself.

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Paulus Amadeus said:

You didn't clarify anything with that. 

And you will never understand until you awaken to the fact that self/other is a distinction.

You are not appreciating the depth of the problem. The only way to understand what "other" is, is for you to die. You are trying to understand this without dying. And that is impossible. You are never going to logick this out, so stop playing that foolish game.