Difference between enlightenment solipsism & 'normie' solipsism

[mandyjw]

@Mason Riggle @Mason RiggleYeah, been there. Not a problem worth suffering for it. Doesn't mean you can't also point it out. Like Tolle says, if the waiter brings you cold soup, just tell him the soup is cold. That's all. 

 

 

[Mason Riggle]

@mandyjw it just all seems so silly to me.. it's like having a dream about 'realizing I'm dreaming and still worrying that the other people in my dream haven't realized they are just my dream'. 

How much time should I spend convincing the characters in my dream that I'm dreaming them up? Well, I suppose a lot if I'm still lost in the dream convinced they're not my dream. 

Edited March 11, 2022 by Mason Riggle

[Gesundheit2]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

I don't think Leo is clashing on the communication. He repeatedly claims that he's the most/only awake human ever, which communicates to me that he's a referring to normie solipsism regardless of mystical insight.

In other words, it's not really a matter of communication, but rather a matter of philosophy and conviction. Leo is a subjective idealist (solipsist), while most other teachers are objective idealists (non-dualists). Leo thinks that the more solipsistic you become, the higher your level of awakening gets. Which is why he thinks he's alone and that that's identical to being the most awake person, because there's only him to begin with.

I'm not saying I fully agree with the other teachers either, but at least they're more consistent with their teachings. They claim other people exist (regardless of the ontological metaphysics), and they live their lives based on that conviction. Leo claims other people don't exist, and yet he contradicts himself in practice and keeps interacting with others as if they're real and everything, and most ironically he tries to teach them solipsism. If that doesn't seem like delusion, I don't know what does.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[mandyjw]

1 minute ago, Mason Riggle said:

@mandyjw it just all seems so silly to me.. it's like having a dream about 'realizing I'm dreaming and still worrying that the other people in my dream haven't realized they are just my dream'.   

Well sex, sleep and food is silly but also enjoyable, so ya know. 

We hit stupid looking symbols on a keyboard and call it communication, what is it actually? Love. Kinda hilariously silly, right? Doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Just do it well, and by that I mean, enjoy it for what it really is. 

[Mason Riggle]

@mandyjw ?

[Gesundheit2]

4 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

Well sex, sleep and food is silly

How dare you?!

Edited March 11, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[Inliytened1]

7 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

I Leo claims other people don't exist, and yet he contradicts himself in practice and keeps interacting with others as if they're real and everything, and most ironically he tries to teach them solipsism. If that doesn't seem like delusion, I don't know what does.

That's because you aren't grasping yet that imagination is reality.  What you imagine IS real because there is nothing else.  

[Mason Riggle]

6 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

 What you imagine IS real because there is nothing else.  

^this is more language that's being hated on.   It implies duality between 'you' and 'what you imagine' which are not 2 different things.  

There isn't even a 'you' who imagines separate from 'what is being imagined'. 

Edited March 11, 2022 by Mason Riggle

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Mason Riggle said:

^this is more language that's being hated on.   It implies duality between 'you' and 'what you imagine' which are not 2 different things.  

There isn't even a 'you' who imagines. 

Language us dualistic

 

[Gesundheit2]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

That's because you aren't grasping yet that imagination is reality.  What you imagine IS real because there is nothing else.  

Imagination is not reality. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been a unique word for each one of them. Imagine a chair and then go actually and try to sit on it, you will fall and hurt your butt.

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

I don't think Leo is clashing on the communication. He repeatedly claims that he's the most/only awake human ever, which communicates to me that he's a referring to normie solipsism regardless of mystical insight.

When you're speaking from the perspective of the Absolute, it's true that you're the only one awake.

 

4 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

In other words, it's not really a matter of communication, but rather a matter of philosophy and conviction. Leo is a subjective idealist (solipsist), while most other teachers are objective idealists (non-dualists). Leo thinks that the more solipsistic you become, the higher your level of awakening gets. Which is why he thinks he's alone and that that's identical to being the most awake person, because there's only him to begin with.

I disagree. It's about mysticism, not philosophy.

 

6 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

I'm not saying I agree with the other teachers, but at least they're more consistent with their teachings. They claim other people exist (regardless of the ontological metaphysics), and they live their lives based on that conviction. Leo claims other people don't exist, and yet he contradicts himself in practice keeps interacting with others, and most ironically he tries to teach them solipsism. If that doesn't seem like delusion, I don't know what does.

Have we not talked about this before? Your misunderstanding is based on conflating the relative and the Absolute. From the Absolute perspective, only consciousness exists; there is no self or other. From the relative perspective, people exist; there is self and other. If a teacher denies this basic lesson, you can dismiss them.

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Gesundheit2 said:

Imagination is not reality. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been a unique word for each one of them. Imagine a chair and then go actually and try to sit on it, you will fall and hurt your butt.

Your finite mind cannot manifest a chair, but Infinite Mind can.   

[Mason Riggle]

@Gesundheit2 not so.. both words are metaphors.  The word 'reality' is not what reality is.  

If you really got down to brass tacks about what you mean by 'imaginary', you'd find you mean the same thing as when you say 'real'. 

[Gesundheit2]

12 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Gesundheit2
If you really got down to brass tacks about what you mean by 'imaginary', you'd find you mean the same thing as when you say 'real'. 

No.

Ultimately language collapses on itself, but not on reality, because language is a metaphor for reality, it is couched inside of reality, not the other way around.

16 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Your finite mind cannot manifest a chair

Maybe your finite mind can't manifest a chair. My finite mind is the infinite Godhead itself. It is the source of reality. You are my creation.

Do you see how inconsistent you're being? You're playing jump the rope with non-duality without realizing. One moment everything is one and the same without any real distinctions. Then the very next moment there are distinctions, and the distinctions are real.

[Gesundheit2]

34 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

From the Absolute perspective, only consciousness exists; there is no self or other. From the relative perspective, people exist; there is self and other. If a teacher denies this basic lesson, you can dismiss them.

Keep saying that for a few weeks, and Leo will probably dismiss you.

Leo denies that basic lesson in principle, but in practice he contradicts his principles, interacts with others, teaches them solipsism, and preaches morality onto them.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[Mason Riggle]

3 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Ultimately language collapses on itself, but not on reality, because language is a metaphor for reality, it is couched inside of reality, not the other way around.

We disagree.  The word 'reality' is a metaphor.  So is the word 'imaginary'.  They are 'maps', but not the territory.   Ultimately they are maps of the same territory.  

How do you know what is real??  Well.. because it 'seems real'.  Notice that SEEMING REAL is 'good enough' for you to say that something IS REAL.   

Ask yourself.. what does 'real' mean?  When you say the word 'reality'.. what is that pointing to??  Well.. it's just whatever 'seems real' to you.

Notice that the 'seeming' is prior to 'being'.   A Universe that 'exists' but doesn't 'seem like it' is exactly the same as a Universe that doesn't exist. 

[Carl-Richard]

7 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Keep saying that for a few weeks, and Leo will probably dismiss you.

Leo denies that basic lesson in principle, but in practice he contradicts his principles and preaches morality.

Again, I disagree.

[Gesundheit2]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Again, I disagree.

With Leo.

[Gesundheit2]

14 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

Ask yourself.. what does 'real' mean?  When you say the word 'reality'.. what is that pointing to??

Maybe the answer is found by expanding the definition of reality beyond appearances.

[Mason Riggle]

@Gesundheit2 beyond appearances? What does that mean?

If something isn't 'experienced' in some way it's not part of reality.  

Reality 'appears' to me. I might be mistaken about the nature of it, but I'm absolutely certain something SEEMS to be happening. 

It's obvious. Self evident. If anything's Real, it's the seeming. The rest, well, it seems real to me.