The mistaken conflation of 'not knowing' with Solipsism

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The mistaken conflation of 'not knowing' with Solipsism Apr 28, 2020 16:16:32 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Apr 28, 2020 16:16:32 GMT

Once and for all, I'd like to slay this silly idea that the realization of all appearances as empty, that the absence of absolute knowing 'about' an appearance, beyond THAT it appears = Solipsism.

Solipsism is a philosphy....a theory. The realization of all appearances as empty (including the appearance of perception/experience relative to appearing people) is not a philosphy, but, 'a realization/seeing through' that results in an absence.

Reefs: TBO, apart from the path/practice thing - which I think is a red herring - I don't really see a difference between neo advaita and traditional advaita. To me, the actual issue seems to be some people having mistaken solipsism for non-duality. And it's those who are usually classified as 'neo' advaitists (self-professed or otherwise).

It's YOU who has mistaken the pointers offered by those who have realized the inherent emptiness of all appearances, FOR the philosophy of Solipsism.

Let's face it, if appearing people had been left out of things when "not knowing" was talked about, when it was said that "all appearances are inherently empty," you wouldn't be accusing us of "Solipsism."

Seems some 'knowings' are held by the person to be more sacred than others, hey? That's all that's gone on here; You balked at the idea that 'perception/experiencing' regarding the appearing person in your midst is also 'appearance only,' because mind simply couldn't let that knowing go.

Realization/seeing through...seeing all appearance as empty, is not "philosphy,"....not "a theory."

Solipsism is.

Last Edit: Apr 28, 2020 16:44:57 GMT by Figgles

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The mistaken conflation of 'not knowing' with Solipsism May 21, 2020 23:53:57 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on May 21, 2020 23:53:57 GMT

Shareefs: Hmmm.. interesting.

Firstly, nowhere does Seth say that you can create in another's reality. So.. what is really going on with this muddled intention?

This admittance that a mistake is being made is most revealing. So, secretly, the desire to help is actually just the desire to share. When the desire to share is accepted as just that. And this desire to help is let go of, then real help may actually happen.

And while you're letting go of ideas about helping others Sharon, and creating in another's reality, you'd do well too to let go of the very idea of 'another's reality.'

You know nothing at all about it....it's all assumed. How does that one go down?

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The mistaken conflation of 'not knowing' with Solipsism Dec 3, 2020 18:34:54 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Dec 3, 2020 18:34:54 GMT

Reefs: Personally, I don't like Spira either, but he does make some important points. Based on my experience on these forums, it seems when highly intelligent people start conceptualizing non-duality, they very often fall into the solipsism trap. There are also some famous ones, like McKenna. And once they've settled into that position, it's virtually impossible to get them out of there again (especially if it is metaphysical solipsism) because, from the personal perspective, it's the most radical and also most logical position or theory of everything. What makes matters worse is that, intellectually, the position of solipsism is virtually unassailable. So no one could ever talk you out of this by virtue of logic or arguments. By definition, you will win every philosophical debate.

Didn't you in a past post admit that from the personal perspective, it cannot be known and from the impersonal, the very question is misconceived, thus, there is no known 'answer' to the question of 'appearing others as representative of unique experience'?

Technically then, you are absent the knowing about 'other unique experiences,' thus, with you saying that it cannot be known from the personal perspective and from the impersonal perspective, the very question is misconceived/it collapses, you too fall under the label of "solipsist," no?

This is the definition of metaphysical solipsism:

Metaphysical solipsism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Metaphysical_solipsism
In metaphysics, metaphysical solipsism is the variety of idealism which asserts that nothing exists externally to this one mind, and since this mind is the whole of reality then the "external world" was never anything more than an idea.

These Niz quotes hit pretty darned close to that:

The World exists only as a dream in my Consciousness

As I only know the contents of my consciousness, and an outside world is unprovable, all perceivables are only in my mind.

You know only what is in your consciousness. What you claim exists outside conscious experience is inferred.

Is there a world outside your knowledge? Can you go beyond what you know? You may postulate a world beyond the mind, but it will remain a concept, unproved and unprovable. Your experience is your proof, and it is valid for you only. Who else can have your experience, when the other person is only as real as he appears in your experience?

Are you saying that you have knowledge of a world beyond the mind? if you say yes, your CC/Kensho has given you knowledge that appearing things are conscious/experiencing, then that means you also know of an objectively existent world beyond that which is presently appearing...that when the Reefs body/mind dies in physical death, you know for certain (via realization) that physical experience, a physical world and the people in, continues on. Does that sound right to you?

There's one problem though, no solipsist ever lives up to his/her philosophy in real life.

This is no more 'a problem' than it's a problem that engaging with the experience of freely choosing....of, 'this causes/leads to that', continues on after seeing through volition and causation.

What you are positing when you suggest this, is akin to insisting that after seeing through causation and volition, all engagement with the experience of choosing freely and doing stuff that lead to other stuff, will cease.

The dream and all it's appearing content does not come to a screeching halt just because you see it for a dream. The story plays on and the appearances within the story naturally compel a degree of attention.

They may act accordingly during some quiet time when they reflect on life after the fact, but in the hustle and bustle and full immersion of the now moment, they all act like everybody else, assuming that there is an objective world that is real and that the other people they encounter are also real, actual perceivers (just like the solipsist himself/herself), without even being aware of it.

Yes, to one looking on (if there is anyone actually looking on) it will appear as though they are 'acting accordingly' and in full immersion, in assumption of an objective world and that other people are actual perceivers, but where you are DEAD WRONG, is when you say "In assumption of" and "without even being aware of it."

Being abidingly awake means never losing sight that it's all an empty appearance arising within to that which abides. If/when awareness is lost and the dream becomes fully immersive of that which abides, that means you've fallen back asleep. Abiding wakefulness/abiding SR means abiding groundedness in Being. When that groundedness abides, that which appears never fully obscures Being. The awareness that it's all an empty appearance, abides the experience of a compelling and engaging world. When that awareness abides, the world never becomes SO compelling that it obscures awarness that it's all an arising, empty appearance.

What we are pointing to in non-duality, however, is not referring to a mental/intellectual position and therefore cannot be proven or defended or even understood by intellectual means.

Yes, which is why it's often referred to as 'an unknowing....a realization/seeing through....a seeing of what is not so...an absence'

So we can't really explain what non-duality is, only what it is not. It's not what you think it is.

Precisely. Realization is not the taking on of new ideas or new knowledge.

What non-duality is pointing to has to be seen directly, it cannot be inferred. And that kind of seeing doesn't refer to your physical (or non-physical) sense organs or even your intellect. Your sense organs and intellect are filters that distort reality. The kind of seeing we are talking about here is seeing the world as it is (reality), sans filters, that which exists in its own right (the real) as opposed to that which doesn't exist in its own right (the false).

Beyond 'an empty, ephemeral appearance that arises dependent upon that which abides,' there IS nothing to the world to see/know. When it comes to the world, it's all about unknowing. If you see something 'other than' an empty appearance....something other than "______________" appearing as something, you've gone & conceptualized "________________".

Which means this refers to a perspective prior to any filters (even time and space). Usually we call this the impersonal perspective. Now, I say 'prior to' and not 'beyond' because this perspective is not some kind of highly evolved perspective, quite to the contrary. It's the original, the natural perspective. It comes comes with the natural state. And as such, it's the default perspective that is always there, always available, anywhere and anytime. Which means you cannot lose it, and conversely, you cannot gain it either. That's why, from the original perspective, your ideas of having to work on yourself in order to climb up some spiritual hierarchy in order to realize or achieve something worthy are partly bewildering, partly amusing. In short, what oneness in non-duality is pointing to is quite different from what new agers have in mind when they use that term. Needless to say, none of this is going to convince you that this kind of perspective even exists. And you wouldn't be the first one. We've seen an endless stream of people here who tried to convince us that what we've realized doesn't actually exist. And, well, people trying to tell other people the limits of what can be realized always seemed to be stellar examples of extreme spiritual arrogance (ESA) to me, because it's essentially like the blind trying to tell you that colors don't exist while you are both standing right under a gorgeous rainbow. It's probably not your intention, but you come across exactly like that when you keep talking like that, about something you have no actual reference for, because clearly, you don't.

Essentially, if there is a 'what' to a realization, you don't have a true realization. Realization is always a negation, seeing through, seeing of what is so. What 'is' is what's left once the false has been seen through...and it's not a 'something' that is a perceivable....it's that which is fundamental to all perceivables...not separate from perceivables, but inherently not a something at all. It's fine to say a shoe, a rock, a person is consciousness itself appearing, but you go wrong when you insist that 'consciousness appearing' necessarily means the thing that appears is itself consciously aware/experiencing.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The mistaken conflation of 'not knowing' with Solipsism Dec 4, 2020 16:52:33 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Dec 4, 2020 16:52:33 GMT

The realization pertaining to things, shoes, people is, that there is no separation…despite appearances, despite the appearance of ‘many,’ there are not actually two.

& We need not collapse apparent things completely to deny their appearance, to call them illusion, that's not accurate.... it’s enough to see that they are all dependently arising upon that which abides fundamental to them…Being. That’s what the term ‘empty appearance only’ references.

The very question of whether appearing people are representative of “a” unique experience is a step too far….. It’s misconceived. We don’t move from seeing appearances are empty and dependently arising, non-separate from Being to ascribing a unique point of experience to each appearing thing.

To do so is to move from seeing beyond the dream, back INTO the dream again. The ‘experience’ of the body/person appearing to you, is itself, but an appearance. It never becomes something more than that. Regardless of any mystical experience you might have that says otherwise.

Transcendent of the dream, it’s clearly seen that not only are appearing others arising dependently, non-separately within to that which abides, but the ‘me’ character and the body/mind relative to the ‘me’ character, is an empty appearance as well.

The entirety, me, you, bodies, an apparent ‘experiencer/perceiver,’ are all seen through. And what is remaining, there TO be known for absolute certain (it’s not much!) is singular Being (it belong to no one) and a singular arising directly known, present arising experience that includes/encompasses the apparent experiencing of appearing people.

The question, “what can be known for certain,” is an important one here. In clarity, it’s seen there is but One consciousness/Being that is/can be known….it’s not ‘mine’ or ‘yours,’ it belongs to no one. It simply is, and all people/characters/body-minds, arise/appear within to that, not separate from that….when that is seen, and identification with something appearing is no longer, we point with words such as; I am all of it.

But that realization in no way indicates a knowing/realization that appearances that arise dependent upon Being (the singular/One Being that is known) the ‘yous’ that appear along with the ‘me’ that appears, are representative of localized being, or perception or experience happening relative to that appearing thing.

Appearing things are realized to all be empty...and yet not separate from that which abides. That though does not make appearances, which are ephemeral/transient, themselves 'abiding,' and I think that's were some are going wrong. They are ascribing what they see to be the 'attribute' of Being to that which arises empty yet dependent upon Being. Abidingly conscious is not an attribute that is ascribed to appearances, it's the foundation of them.

People/bodies/rocks/socks do not give rise to conscious being, or to experience, rather, they are ephemeral, transient, empty appearance arising within/to Being…. Those who say they know, are trying to reverse that.

All appearances are appearing within/to the One and only, singular experience that is/can be known.
What some are positing is that there is a realization/cc Kensho experience, whereby an appearance (unique experience relative to an appearing body/mind) is actual. What they are positing then is that there is a realization that reveals appearances as indicators of a unique experience happening beyond the one, singular direct experience that can be known.

Whether or not there is unique experience happening ‘beyond’ this present experience is not known...the very question is misconceived from the vantage point of the impersonal... nor does it need to be known for the story of a me character that interacts and engages with other appearing characters, to roll on just fine.

The pointer/metaphor that life is vibrant…..the universe is alive….it’s all alive….is just that, a metaphor... a means to try to capture that which defies words and in no way should it be taken to mean that the apparent experience relative to an appearing person/body mind is actual, which some have done.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The mistaken conflation of 'not knowing' with Solipsism Dec 5, 2020 2:04:00 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Dec 5, 2020 2:04:00 GMT

So long as a world is appearing, so long as experience is arising, the distinction between that which abides and that which appears (that which is transient/ephemeral and NOT abiding) remains.

There is no-thing in the world, nor the world itself, nothing at all that is perceivable, be it an appearing/arising/sensed field of something-ness, an alive sort of energetic something that 'comprises' the phenomenal world of things or lies as an infusing sort of substrate of it, that constantly abides. But, there is an abiding ground to all that appears transient and ephemeral. There is no-thing at all in between that which lies fundamental and that which appears, and yet, there is no separation at all between them. The abiding ground and ephemeral/empty appearance which arises dependent upon it, are one, but not the 'same.'

If not for distinction, there would be no appearing 'world.'

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The mistaken conflation of 'not knowing' with Solipsism Apr 18, 2021 0:24:53 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Apr 18, 2021 0:24:53 GMT

Reefs: In fact, they are certain no one ever can be certain, ever. Even though they can't be certain if there even are other perceivers, let alone (in case there are being other perceivers) how they then would perceive. But they are absolutely certain that in case they are perveivers that they must be as limited as they are in their perception and degree of certainty. And this is where the not-knowing dogma crosses into the absurd (maybe we should call it 'abcertainty') when they feel absolutely certain about what another can or cannot realize. That's where ESA comes into play. You remember how they declared CC an impossibility, right? They can't be sure if you are even a perceiver, but they are absolutely certain that what you've realized can't actually be the case. Oy vey!

This seems as a meek, lame, "sort-of" assertion of 'knowing' regarding others as actual perceivers. Is it?

Didn't you yourself declare the question of 'other perceivers' as a misconceived question? And now, once again, you seem to be circling back, to declare the absence of knowing relative to appearing others as perceivers, to be absurd/dogmatic.

If the very question of whether or not other appearing people are perceiving/experiencing is misconceived, then how is you would somehow arrive at knowing that others ARE perceiving?

You continue to waffle on this. On one hand you agree, the question of appearing people/others, as to whether they are actually experiencers, IS misconceived, but then you poop on the idea of an absence of knowing relative to that point, insinuating that it IS and CAN BE known that appearing others are actually experiencing.

Reefs, If you truly are interested in Nonduality, Truth-talk, what is true vs. what is false, Why not come here and discuss it with me....explain your position? Is the question misconceived? Is there an absence of knowing.....or is there the presence of knowledge relative to that question? Let's clear it up once & for all. I'm unable to come to ST to discuss...will you come here and have the conversation?

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The mistaken conflation of 'not knowing' with Solipsism Apr 21, 2021 5:21:14 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Apr 21, 2021 5:21:14 GMT

Reefs" There are different kinds of solipsism though. Gopal's version is epistemological solipsism which doesn't have anything to do with non-duality. But there's also another version, metaphysical solipsism, which I think people often confuse with non-duality.

Here, check out these definitions:
www.philosophybasics.com/branch_solipsism.html

Yes, that would be wrong to conflate with nonduality.

As I've said before, the not knowing that goes hand in hand with seeing the entire scope of appearances as empty (including of course, appearing people, animals, objects) is not the same as the adopting of a philosphy or the musings of a philosopher.

Below is the def. of "Metaphysical Solipsism" Reefs alluded to in his post and he's right, it most definitely has nothing to do with nonduality;

Metaphysical Solipsism is a type of Idealism which maintains that the individual self of an individual is the whole of reality, and that the external world and other persons are representations of that self and have no independent existence.

That IS a 'sort of idealism'...an idealism OF a person..an SVP

....In seeing through separation/SR/awakening, the 'individual self' is also seen to be appearance only...(multiples are also seen to be appearance only)...yes,there's an appearing body/mind character along with numerous body/mind characters.....a 'me' sense, in comparison to appearing 'yous'.... but all of that, an empty arising only, within that which abides.

....while that which abides is indeed 'singular/undivided/unbounded' those are mere pointers only and not to be conflated with "individual" as that is a concept that carries the connotation of "multiple" as it's partner. The very idea of "multiples" when it comes to the awareness to which all appearance arises, is a step into conceptualizing where conceptualizing has no place.

If anything Reefs, what you've said in the past about knowing/not knowing relative to appearing people actually aligns somewhat with that definition of Metaphysical Solipsism..the context of it anyway where even though you speak about 'impersonal' you remain within the context of "individual/multiple."

You've said that from the personal position, it cannot be known if other people are perceiving/experiencing, and then you've said that from the impersonal position, it's a misconceived question/idea,so there is no answer (which would mean an absence of knowing, right?).... but then, on the heels of stating the very idea/question of appearing people perceiving/experiencing is misconceived (because you say, there are no others) you circle back to say that there is a very special realization that can be had that completely answers that 'misconceived question' and leave you with positive knowing that those appearing people, and even rocks, socks and piles of poop, are indeed, individually perceiving/experiencing...all known for certain to be having unique experience.

The problem is in trying to grasp what you think is meant by 'emptiness.' Mind cannot grasp it...it must be 'realized'...it's completely non-conceptual...beyond mind.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The mistaken conflation of 'not knowing' with Solipsism Apr 21, 2021 5:46:02 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Apr 21, 2021 5:46:02 GMT

Reefs: I actually thought Invavalan was in agreement with Seth here, i.e. it is a shared reality and everyone who is participating in this reality is holding that reality in place by the sheer fact that they are perceiving it. Which means when you look at the Moon and then turn around and stop perceiving the Moon, the Moon will still be there because you didn't create the Moon single-handedly.

Do you see that that involves 'theorizing' vs. direct, imminent seeing/knowing?

Whereas what E was getting at, didn't--and I don't think he used the term 'exist' to talk about the moon in those convos, rather, he'd likely say absent direct, imminent, present perception of moon, a moon no longer appears ...and therefore, there is no moon unless it's appearing.

It's very simple, but first it must be seen how much of the story involves mind imagining, theorizing and surmising.

Reefs: Gopal, however, and even Enigma (!), would say that the Moon would cease to exist in that case. So this is where it gets a little weird, when you tie creation to the physical senses.

Only an SVP 'ties perception' to physical senses. Seeing through separation means seeing that eyes are not actually the source of the seeing/perceiving. Again, what happened, you used to know this stuff?!

Tenka and Enigma had long conversations about this, and I remember the question morphing into if - since perception is creation - the other people we interact with will still have inner organs even though we can't see them. Enigma said, no they don't have inner organs. That was the point where I stopped following the discussion.

Does the mountain continue to appear when it's not imminently appearing?

Much of this (and the issue with experiencing/perceiving appearing people) can be resolved by the question; What is actually known for absolute certain....and by seeing all appearance as empty and devoid of inherent, independent existence in it's own right.

Last Edit: Apr 21, 2021 5:47:22 GMT by Figgles

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The mistaken conflation of 'not knowing' with Solipsism Apr 21, 2021 6:00:53 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Apr 21, 2021 6:00:53 GMT

Reefs: Now you are anthropomorphizing Consciousness. You see, if you'd actually understood the meaning of the term Consciounsess, we wouldn't have this conversation and you wouldn't be a solipsist. So I can only conclude that you are confusing Consciousness with Mind. Again, don't assume that I don't understand your perspective. I do. I am just saying, it's not the ultimate perspective of reality. So put your logic and stories aside. They are of no value when it comes to realizing the nature of THIS.

Yes, Gopal was seemingly anthropomorphizing "Consciousness," but you are also conceptualizing it when you conclude that "it's all Consciousness" necessarily means every-thing appering is experiencing/perceiving.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,053

The mistaken conflation of 'not knowing' with Solipsism Apr 21, 2021 17:36:55 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Apr 21, 2021 17:36:55 GMT

Reefs: Also, think of the options the solipsist has here when interacting with other people: 1) taking others for real as their natural reflexes force them to do; 2) talk themselves into not taking them for real or 3) not caring about real or not real and just going with the flow.

That's precisely what one does post seeing the world as an empty appearance only, arising within fundamental existence. While there is no caring about actuality vs. appearance only and there is no active question about it all arising, there IS abiding groundedness in that which is not an appearance....in/as that which abides.

And while you may not 'see' that abiding groundedness readily in looking on, (if you are in fact, looking on

) I assure you, it has very real ramifications in terms of how the world is experienced. There is a vast difference between experiencing a world through the imaginings of an SVP vs. the experience of a world absent an SVP....absent mistaking appearing things for being existent in their own right.

Now, 1) would mean deliberately discarding solipsism and 2) is basically the definition of madness and 3) would be similar to 1) discarding solipsism, although in this case indirectly, because if the the solipsist just follows the natural flow, the solipsist will just act as any other non-solipsist, he can't do otherwise.

Well, going back to previous convo, seeing the inherent emptiness of all appearance (even appearing people...even appearing sentience in those people) is NOT metaphysical Solipsism (of the def. you supplied).

Behaviorally going along with flow of what is appearing in the story does not mean that there's a failure to realize the entire story and it's content as empty and devoid of Truth...empty and devoid of inherent existence in it's own right. That's really what we're talking about here.

When you go along with the idea of personal volition and causation as actions get taken towards the idea of betterment, as choices get made absent the sense of being bound, all towards and engaging the idea of a sequentially unfolding story, does that mean that you've 'discarded' the seeing through of the SVP...of time/space.....of no actual cause within the dream?

I see you doing what so many who've had conceptual awakenings only, do. You assume that the impersonal perspective has no implications within experience. Fact is, the impersonal perspective, once awake and abiding, just does that; Abides the personal perspective...the personal perspective, the ideals of the appearing me character, still continue to arise, it's just that's all now couched in the overriding impersonal view...the impersonal view includes the personal, but most importantly, it re-frames it as 'appearance only.'

And of course, this is all non-conceptual vs. some idea 'about' the world that gets carted around. The best way to describe it is to say there's now an absence of identification with appearance and an overriding presence of presence itself to which it is clearly evident in every moment, appearances arise empty and dependent upon 'this' presence.