On Solipsists

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

This is what you need to understand; you cannot rationalize the "I AM" experience using just your intellect, you have to realize this through Gnosis (inner knowledge) and not though you intellect. Until you gain this gnosis through introspection we cannot discuss this issue on the same place of understanding.

It may help you to unlearn what you have been taught, become like a child within your mind - open you mind. The I AM emotion of self is where your journey begins.

I am not using just my intellect. I am using my entire body in each moment. Refuse reducing yourself to a single faculty. For one, it simply doesn’t happen; and two, it is limiting oneself. I agree we cannot discuss this with the same understanding, for it involves working at full capacity, and using all our faculties concurrently, without negating one in favor of another.

Regards.

I think your argument is flawed. Attaining Brahma is not about having a super self ego. To be one with Brahma one has to destroy their ego, so in effect, die for Brahman. So rather than being self-centric, its the direct opposite.

a reply to: Aphorism

Oh, so you didn't say this?

the solipsist can only debase and slander the senses as distributers of illusion

So, yes you did.
In so many words.

And I apologize.
I figured you knew this and were playing at obtuseness, which is why I only hinted at it.
What we perceive with our senses as solid is not solid at the atomic level.
There are spaces between.
What gives the illusion of solidity is that those atoms repulse each other.
So, yes, our senses provide us with an illusion and yes science proves this.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Oh, so you didn't say this?

the solipsist can only debase and slander the senses as distributers of illusion

So, yes you did.
In so many words.

I did say this yes, and I am willing to dig up the passages if its necessary.

But if you want me to prove reality is not an illusion (proving a negative no less), I can not offer any proof, but only sufficient reason. There is no such thing as proof in regards to these questions, not unless God came out of the sky and told you so—"yes, my son, it's really real, take my word for it".

Try not drinking water for as long as you can. If reality is an illusion, you should have no problem.

Try walking through a wall. If reality is an illusion, you should have no problem.

Walk through traffic. If reality is an illusion, there are no cars there anyways.

There's insurmountable ways to prove this to yourself. "Real" is an honorific term. You can call things real or you can call them unreal, changing absolutely nothing in the process. It is a choice.

What we perceive with our senses as solid is not solid at the atomic level.
There are spaces between.
What gives the illusion of solidity is that those atoms repulse each other.
So, yes, our senses provide us with an illusion and yes science proves this.

We do not live nor operate on the atomic level.

We have words that express the way things feel to us. "Solid" is one of them. It is an adjective used to describe firmness and shape.

a reply to: glend

I think your argument is flawed. Attaining Brahma is not about having a super self ego. To be one with Brahma one has to destroy their ego, so in effect, die for Brahman. So rather than being self-centric, its the direct opposite.

They do not die for Brahman.

a reply to: Aphorism

I'm not trying to prove anything.
You are.
You seem to have missed the words, devil's advocate.
Just in case you are unfamiliar.

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such a process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance.

I don't know, so I don't pretend to.

You on the other hand, seems to think you do.
So......

We do not live nor operate on the atomic level.

We have words that express the way things feel to us. "Solid" is one of them. It is an adjective used to describe firmness and shape.

Still solidity is not the truth of the matter, just what we perceive.
Thus, an illusion.

And thank you for stating the obvious.

a reply to: Aphorism

If the Devil or God approached you and said, "I will give you a choice; Either I sacrifice every human and let you live, or I sacrifice you and let every human live; which do you choose?", besides saying "You dont exist!", what would you say?

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

You quoted it yourself:

“the solipsist can only debase and slander the senses as distributers of illusion”

Do you disagree with me on this assertion? If so, I can find the necessary passages to “prove” it to you. It's present in Plato, Descartes, Buddha, The upanishads, yoga etc.

You on the other hand, seems to think you do.
So......

Here’s the only thing I’ve said in regards to reality.

I can only be critical of this outlook, and I will give my reasons, but it should be known that what I say against these doctrines does not matter. Word-play begets word-play. They will be believed in and people will be convinced or not. In regards to reality, what you or I believe is a choice, and never a realization; and further I can only guess as to what the reasons of this choice is.

So………

Still solidity is not the truth of the matter, just what we perceive.
Thus, an illusion.

Just playing devil’s advocate here. It sounds like you “know” after all, yet have never been to the atomic scale to confirm any of this. How are you certain that what occurs at the atomic scale is the way reality should be perceived or conceived? Nothing shows this. In fact, we must peer through electron microscopes and mathematical models to discern any of this. How are you certain that viewing the world through electron microscopes and mathematical models is the correct way to view reality?

a reply to: ImaFungi

If the Devil or God approached you and said, "I will give you a choice; Either I sacrifice every human and let you live, or I sacrifice you and let every human live; which do you choose?", besides saying "You dont exist!", what would you say?

I would ask "Why?"

After which I would slay them both with my magical sword, and then fly off into the nights sky on the back of Pegasus.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: ImaFungi

If the Devil or God approached you and said, "I will give you a choice; Either I sacrifice every human and let you live, or I sacrifice you and let every human live; which do you choose?", besides saying "You dont exist!", what would you say?

I would ask "Why?"

After which I would slay them both with my magical sword, and then fly off into the nights sky on the back of Pegasus.

And if you were honest enough with your self and me to give an answer, it would be?

a reply to: ImaFungi

And if you were honest enough with your self and me to give an answer, it would be?

I would choose to be the sacrifice.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: ImaFungi

And if you were honest enough with your self and me to give an answer, it would be?

I would choose to be the sacrifice.

Why? Would this mean that you have some 'connection' to others, in this example, all others?

Would your answer change if instead of all people, it was only half? And if not, would there be some point where it would not be worth it to sacrifice yourself?

What if the question was altered such that;

Either you are sacrificed and everyone in the world lives.

Or, Everyone in the world, besides you and your family, friends and loved ones, is sacrificed.

I have no idea, stake, or claim in thee questions or the notions of the point your OP and subsequent conversation was arguing. Merely am playing devils advocate, with the idea of 'oneness' or, 'meaningful inter-human connection'.

a reply to: Aphorism

You quoted it yourself:

“the solipsist can only debase and slander the senses as distributers of illusion”

Do you disagree with me on this assertion? If so, I can find the necessary passages to “prove” it to you. It's present in Plato, Descartes, Buddha, The upanishads, yoga etc.

Passages?
Passages don't make truth.
Just someone's claiming truth.
Might as well quote Christian scripture.

Not that it's unnoticeable that you continue to avoid the question.

Here’s the only thing I’ve said in regards to reality.

Please please please tell me you noticed the problem with what you just said sir.

Just playing devil’s advocate here. It sounds like you “know” after all, yet have never been to the atomic scale to confirm any of this. How are you certain that what occurs at the atomic scale is the way reality should be perceived or conceived? Nothing shows this. In fact, we must peer through electron microscopes and mathematical models to discern any of this. How are you certain that viewing the world through electron microscopes and mathematical models is the correct way to view reality?

And he tries to turn the tables....


I believe the term for what you're trying now is deflection.

So, I guess I am to take you cannot back up your assertion.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Connection? Not in any literal or figurative sense. I do not love indiscriminately. I think it is rational, and believe everyone would do the same in that situation.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Read the assertion one more time, maybe a little slower, before you dig a bigger hole.

"the solipsist can only debase and slander the senses as distributers of illusion, but nonetheless keeps using them."

I am asserting solipsists debase and slander the senses, and at the same time keep using them. This is not an assertion regarding the nature of reality, but an assertion regarding what people have said. Yes, they are passages in books, because sometimes people make claims in books.

This is tiresome, friend. The devil would hire better advocates.

originally posted by: Aphorism

There is no such thing as proof in regards to these questions, not unless God came out of the sky and told you so—"yes, my son, it's really real, take my word for it".

Well, God did come out of the sky and said that to me.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Try not drinking water for as long as you can. If reality is an illusion, you should have no problem.

While not constituting proof, it's circumstantial evidence:

en.wikipedia.org...

Try walking through a wall. If reality is an illusion, you should have no problem.

My old master could easily do that.

Walk through traffic. If reality is an illusion, there are no cars there anyways.

Sure, I've walked through traffic before, quite easy it is.
Spontaneous manifestations of physical objects is more impressive to me.

originally posted by: Aphorism

I am asserting solipsists debase and slander the senses, and at the same time keep using them.

Sensing is what there is!!
The one sensing is never separate from what is sensed.

No one is using senses - see if hearing and seeing can be stopped from happening. Notice that it is impossible to stop sensing - sensation is what there is. Sensation is being all that can be known - it is all that is showing up. All that appears is sensation.

Yet there is a belief in 'you' feeling/sensing 'something'.

There is only ever what is happening and it is not made of two things. There is just ever changing textures of sensation.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I do not enjoy going around thinking I'm being lied to. So I will give you the benefit of the doubt, knowing that if you're being dishonest, it is something only you will have to live with.

On the other hand, if you're being honest, and if God appeared and told you reality is real, I suppose I could agree with him.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Sensing is what there is!!
The one sensing is never separate from what is sensed.

No one is using senses - see if hearing and seeing can be stopped from happening. Notice that it is impossible to stop sensing - sensation is what there is. Sensation is being all that can be known - it is all that is showing up. All that appears is sensation.

Yet there is a belief in 'you' feeling/sensing 'something'.

There is only ever what is happening and it is not made of two things. There is just ever changing textures of sensation.

Sensing is what there is? I’m not sure I can make sense of that statement.

The one sensing is separate from “what is sensed”. “What is sensed” by one is the exact same as “what isn’t sensed” by another. What may or may not be sensed doesn’t change, but whether it is sensed or not does. How? Because the one sensing is separate from what is sensed.

“What is sensed” by one is different than “what is sensed” by another, by virtue of the fact that they are not one and the same, but that they are different, that they are separate, being that no two objects occupy the same place at the same time.

“All that appears” and “all that is showing up” is not the same as “what is happening”.

No one is using senses because they are the senses. The eyes, ears, nose, the brain—the entire body—is what they are. The body—what you call “sensation”—is only an infinitely minute fraction of “what is happening”. In fact, there are plenty of bodies, all equipped with their own faculties of sense, and “what appears” to them is entirely unique and separate from what appears to another, by virtue of the fact that each body is different, no two of them occupying the same place at the same time.

“What is happening” is only one phrase, not one appearance.

I believe Alan Watts said something about solipsism once: "Imagine being at a solipsists convention; and everyone starts arguing about who is really there." And that as much sums it up :-)