Difference between enlightenment solipsism & 'normie' solipsism

[Gesundheit2]

Normie solipsism is a fancy term for the original and only form of solipsism, it was coined by non other than our beloved mod @Carl-Richardin a desperate attempt at rationalizing the paradigm-lock that this community is going through, thanks to its leader.

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

sorry for repeating it 10 times, but that's not the solipism leo is talking about. he says that your current bubble of perception is the only reality that exists and that there are no others. 

That is no different than what I have said.

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Breakingthewall consider it like this.. is this forum 'just your imagination' or 'does it objectively exist beyond your awareness of it'??  

Can you tell ANY difference between those two options???   

If you can't tell the difference, then it doesn't matter which it is.  

There ARE many other perspectives, as long as it seems that way (is how it's imagined to be) to you.  

It's this guys.  Appearance is reality.

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Breakingthewall consider it like this.. is this forum 'just your imagination' or 'does it objectively exist beyond your awareness of it'??  

Can you tell ANY difference between those two options???   

If you can't tell the difference, then it doesn't matter which it is.  

There ARE many other perspectives, as long as it seems that way (is how it's imagined to be) to you.  

I understand that. I just wanted to understand the nuance that makes it say here "rupert spira is not awake because he admits the existence of other minds"

[VictorB02]

6 hours ago, Tim R said:

In enlightenment, you're dead. There's no you left. You have realized that you are nothing, and everything is nothing.

And don't let people fool you when they hear someone say "there's no you" and then they immediately reply "yes, you do exist!! you are everything!!"

Well I got news for you: yes, you are everything. But in many of these cases, that "everything" can very well be a projection of ego onto a "larger" self, which is the case in normal solipsism.

It's a case of "inflation", where the ego simply latches on to the finite mind and then claims it & itself (it projects itself onto the whole of finite experience) to be God as in "finite consciousness is everything there is".

No-Self is probably the central insight - and of course, No-self has many "aspects" to it, like Love, Infinity, Everything...

If Infinity doesn't mean "No-Self", then it's not Infinity and not enlightenment. Infinity simply means "no boundaries". It doesn't (just) mean "all possible experiences at once" (there are no "all possible experiences", strictly speaking), which is what some poeple believe the word to mean. Consciousness (you) are infinite as in: you have no boundaries and no limits, in no dimension. That's where the whole omnipotence / omnipresence stuff comes from, and of course, it's true. Consciousness is omnipresent (or as Shunyamurti says: "omnicentral"). 

Same goes for Love; No-Self = Love 

So yeah. Solipsism is based on a self. And this self can assume vast dimensions and make claims like "I am God" without actually knowing God, but instead just projecting itself onto finite experience and thereby claiming that to be everything there is (I am everything, as this finite "bubble", this is all there is). It's a highly dualistic doctrine.

Enlightenment = No-Self, which is the same as God - and if No-Self isn't emphasized by  whoever claims to know God, I'd be very suspicious...

No-Self = No boundaries (Infinity), no finite "bubble", no "figments of imagination", no "POV", none of that. 

Also, No-Self = no problem. So there's no "though pill to swallow". So long as there is, you're missing something... Missing something!!, not "got something wrong". You might got things right, but only partially, hence the feeling of "having to face the Truth". Which inevitably will be the case, almost nobody gets all of it in one fell swoop, so keep going until there's neither you nor problems left. You ARE the Truth, there's nothing for you to face.

Wow this was a beautiful explanation, thank you.

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I understand that. I just wanted to understand the nuance that makes it say here "rupert spira is not awake because he admits the existence of other minds"

Rupert teaches that there are other minds behind the scenes.  Happening simultaneously.  That is the difference.    There only appears to be this.  It is an illusion.  Appearance is all that is required for it to Be real.

[Gili Trawangan]

8 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Rupert teaches that there are other minds behind the scenes.  Happening simultaneously.  That is the difference.    There only appears to be this.  It is an illusion.  Appearance is all that is required for it to Be real.

And Leo talks about his awakenings in the past. These have the same existence as other minds, none. There isn't a past. Therefore the conclusion is that Leo is not awake? By the way, Rupert Spira says exactly this, that other people's thoughts and feelings are on a par with our own thoughts and feelings from the past. They are not actual, but it could be said, as a concession, that they have existence. And he's right.

Where is people's sense of nuance? Leo says an obvious flat out ridiculous - and hypocritical - statement such as "Rupert Spira is not awake" or the more obviously egoic and equally ridiculous "I am the most awakened in history" (or something like that) and there's actually people who buy it...

To unpack all of the silly statements that pass for truth around here would be a full time job...

[Inliytened1]

14 minutes ago, Gili Trawangan said:

And Leo talks about his awakenings in the past. These have the same existence as other minds, none. 

I don't understand what you mean by this.

 

14 minutes ago, Gili Trawangan said:

By the way, Rupert Spira says exactly this, that other people's thoughts and feelings are on a par with our own thoughts and feelings from the past. They are not actual, but it could be said, as a concession, that they have existence. And he's right.

 

Not sure about this but OK...it's nitpicking at this point which also happens with criticism of Leo.  People nitpick rather than focusing g on the teachings themselves that can actually awaken them.  I'm not that concerned with other teachers.   And both Rupert and Leo's  teachings can help awaken you.  Rupert is brilliant and awake as far as I'm concerned.  I retract any statements that he isn't.  Same with Peter Ralston.

 

14 minutes ago, Gili Trawangan said:

 "I am the most awakened in history" (or something like that) and there's actually people who buy it...

 

Ego talking here but he has had deep awakenings and when you have awakenings that deep there are literally no one else so you are the only one that can awaken.   So to come hack and say this is kinda silly when you are God.  No one is perfect.  We all deal with our ego.  You have seen me lose it here with my own ego.  I however can humble myself and admit it.

[Forza21]

30 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

 

Ego talking here but he has had deep awakenings and when you have awakenings that deep there are literally no one else so you are the only one that can awaken.   

How is it different from "normal"  materialistic perspective? Even one, who has 0 spiritual experience may say that:

-i never experience anything other than myself. It's all my thoughts, senses, perception.

-I'm born alone and i'll die alone

-I'm with myself 24/7h, there's no other way.

Therefore it's obvious, when you go deep into your mind, you won't find anyone there, right?

But still, it's the case for all the people, so obviously,  It's true for GOD. 
Together, we are all alone.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Forza21

[Gili Trawangan]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I don't understand what you mean by this.

I mean that when you or I - or Leo - say that we've had an awakening, strictly speaking that's just not true. If you want to speak truth with no concessions, then there simply isn't a past or a future or even a present. There's no time, there's only the absolute. Nothing has ever happened.

9 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Not sure about this but OK...it's nitpicking at this point which also happens with criticism of Leo.  People nitpick rather than focusing g on the teachings themselves that can actually awaken them. 

I do admit to being triggered by hypocrisy: yes, people nitpick what Leo says but he does the same with other teachers, Rupert Spira being a prime example. And Rupert communicates truth with a lot more nuance than Leo, not to mention the huge gap in the level of embodiment.

15 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I'm not that concerned with other teachers.   And both Rupert and Leo's  teachings can help awaken you.  Rupert is brilliant and awake as far as I'm concerned.  I retract any statements that he isn't.  Same with Peter Ralston.

Happy to hear this. All I want is for this place to become more welcoming, open-minded, nuanced and inclusive of more perspectives.

16 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Ego talking here but he has had deep awakenings and when you have awakenings that deep there are literally no one else so you are the only one that can awaken.   So to come hack and say this is kinda silly when you are God.

You might not like it, but here we go again, because this is where confusion easily arises... "the only one that can awaken" is misleading... so is "you are God". I mean, who is the "you" that can be God? There isn't one... there is only God/Love/Reality. It's not a someone, a you or a me that it could be. It's not localized anywhere, it's not behind the eyes, it doesn't have a POV, it's nothing. This is the realization that is missing, if not from the direct experience of most who are on this forum, then at least from the communication that takes place here on a daily basis.

22 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

No one is perfect.  We all deal with our ego.  You have seen me lose it here with my own ego.  I however can humble myself and admit it.

Amen to that. We can all continue to learn and grow 

[Forza21]

Just now, Gili Trawangan said:

ves.

You might not like it, but here we go again, because this is where confusion easily arises... "the only one that can awaken" is misleading... so is "you are God". I mean, who is the "you" that can be God? There isn't one... there is only God/Love/Reality. It's not a someone, a you or a me that it could be. It's not localized anywhere, it's not behind the eyes, it doesn't have a POV, it's nothing. This is the realization that is missing, if not from the direct experience of most who are on this forum, then at least from the communication that takes place here on a daily basis.

 

Dude, you seriously put warm into my heart. 

I really got stuck into this forum narration lately, and it put me miserable. 

It's not that it's anyone's fault, it's just language which may be good pointer but IT'S NOT THE TRUTH.  

But the way you put it, it really, really resonate with my experience, and i "feel" it with all my heart. Thank you.
 

[Inliytened1]

21 minutes ago, Gili Trawangan said:

I

You might not like it, but here we go again, because this is where confusion easily arises... "the only one that can awaken" is misleading... so is "you are God". I mean, who is the "you" that can be God? There isn't one... there is only God/Love/Reality. It's not a someone, a you or a me that it could be. It's not localized anywhere, it's not behind the eyes, it doesn't have a POV, it's nothing. This is the realization that is missing, if not from the direct experience of most who are on this forum, then at least from the communication that takes place here on a daily basis.

When I say you I am not saying it is a person or a someone.  It is Infinity.  But Infinity is one so that makes YOU and IT the same.  To say "it's God" is still creating a separation between you and God.

It is completely ONE. You are IT.  

Just expand your definition of You.

[Gili Trawangan]

6 minutes ago, Forza21 said:

Dude, you seriously put warm into my heart. 

I really got stuck into this forum narration lately, and it put me miserable. 

It's not that it's anyone's fault, it's just language which may be good pointer but IT'S NOT THE TRUTH.  

But the way you put it, it really, really resonate with my experience, and i "feel" it with all my heart. Thank you.
 

You're very welcome

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Normie solipsism is a fancy term for the original and only form of solipsism, it was coined by non other than our beloved mod @Carl-Richardin a desperate attempt at rationalizing the paradigm-lock that this community is going through, thanks to its leader.

Normie solipsism is when you believe you're the only conscious being that exists, but you're unaware of the experiential implications of non-duality (mysticism). The normie solipsist is usually a materialist or dualist that believes his mind exists separately from the world. On the other hand, the mystical solipsist experiences the world as himself, an experience that exists prior to belief.

I believe people like Rupert Spira only deny normie solipsism, not mystical solipsism. Rupert believes there is only one conscious being in the absolute sense, but in the relative sense, it's possible to describe the existence of so-called "body-minds", i.e. localized self-referential pockets of consciousness that proclaim themselves to be selves (small selves that talk to themselves), but in reality, these are simply manifestations of the same conscious being.

In my opinion, what Leo is clashing on is the communication of the truth, not the truth itself. He wants to call it solipsism because of its raw simplicity and directness, while other teachers see the pitfalls of normie solipsism and try to couch it in a different language.

[mandyjw]

?@Gili Trawangan ?❤

[Tim R]

5 hours ago, Gili Trawangan said:

They were extremely careful not to call it "one", because one is easily turned into an object by the mind - a self - and leads to thoughts like solipsism.

Exactly! Solipsism is a kind of Monism... the Monism of the finite mind.

5 hours ago, Gili Trawangan said:

It should be obvious by now that the way truth is being communicated around here is causing more trouble than helping.

Totally agree.

4 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

You may or may not agree, but he does not say that the mind of God is the only one and that all other minds are illusion.

Actually, yes, that's precisely what Leo says. He says that his mind is all there is. 

4 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

he also says that the deeper he goes, he finds an almost unbearable loneliness.

Well there you have it, that's why no-self is crucial. That's how the ego corrupts insights and turns nonduality into solipsism. 

[Tim R]

6 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Traditional solipsism is based on the small ego self yes   - the definition used in Wikipedia, yes.  But here we are talking about Absolute Solipsism or Solipsism as God as I call it.

Wouldn't be so sure about that.

In fact, let me rant a little bit here.

I would bet my left nut that there are more people here on the forum and in Leo's following who think they're awakened, but are actually delusional solipsists who believe their finite mind to be the whole of reality because their un-integrated spiritual ego has totally corrupted the mechanism by which they sought/seek Truth, namely what they perceived to be "direct experience", but which, because of the corruption, is not at all direct experience, but a perception of reality filtered and (mis-)interpreted through the finite ego-mind (I've talked about this extensively yeterday in Someone Here's post) that then proceeded to inflate itself and latch itself onto "experience".

That's what I honestly believe and I feel very sorry for all the people (and yes, there are no other people), who, like myself, had (and some still have to, some will have to) go through this absolute hell of solipsism because

a) they weren't ready for it (not yet sufficiently integrated), thus their mind/ego corrupted what was supposed to be insight into the nature of No-Self & nonduality

b) the use of language is absolutely crucial, and on this forum, a lot of people just don't give a f*ck about how they comunicate these dangerously powerful ideas to others, with Leo leading the way (although I think he's working on that, so props where props are due) and people parroting him, because they think it sounds cool and awake.

If it's a "tough pill" for you to swallow, then sorry, you're still missing something. A tough pill to swallow is probably a sign that, yes, you got something right, but in a wrong way. And if you're lonely, you're not awake either. We're all alone together.

No f*cking wonder that big spiritual egos would dismiss the importance of no-self.

Rant over. 

[mandyjw]

30 minutes ago, Tim R said:

Actually, yes, that's precisely what Leo says. He says that his mind is all there is.

You don't see this as hugely problematic? It asserts that he does have a finite mind and other do not. No one has a mind. 

[Mason Riggle]

4 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

You don't see this as hugely problematic? It asserts that he does have a finite mind and other do not. No one has a mind. 

If no one has a mind.. who is this 'hugely problematic' for?

[Tim R]

4 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

You don't see this as hugely problematic? It asserts that he does have a finite mind and other do not. No one has a mind. 

@mandyjw Haven't you read my little rant?? Even without it, I've made my position on this more than clear in the past