Jump to content

Why Solipsism is Not Actual


Recommended Posts

Solipsism is the belief that ones own consciousness/experience is the only one that exists and everyone else is part of their imagination. 


This is false. There isn't any difference in believing that there are other conscious beings and believing in solipsism, because both of these beliefs assume there are separate selves.


Also, solipsistic beliefs on the path are a common result of conceptualizing the idea of Oneness and then taking psychedelics and layering the conceptualization on top of the psychedelic experience. A common train of thought for someone doing this is"Well oneness means we are all the same being (god) so if we are all the same being then that means everyone is me, and if everyone is me that means im alone as god". This is not the "real work" and is instead just conceptualization, it's just a mental conclusion. 


ALWAYS question the "I" "me" "myself". 


If the investigation has stopped at "I am the only conscious being" then you have not fully investigated your true nature. 


Question the notion of Experience, Question the self or I. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Devin said:

People use the term solipsism wrong.


"Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, metaphysical solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing reality and that all other realities, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence."


You could say Phil is Solipsistic by the actual definition.


Most people around here use it in the Pagan sense, as in "I am God and control and create everything", that's not Solipsism, that's Paganism.

Yes but in that definition of solipsism is still assumes that there is a self. The self being the only existing reality means "I am on the only existing reality, so therefore I am God". 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Devin I just googled the definition right now: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.


In western philosophy the self basically means ego, not the Capital S self (Which is actually No-Self but at this point language becomes useless. ).


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post ❤️


It is so funny how much attachment there is to knowing, and how It is completely Incomprehensible. 

But only a dam fool wouldn’t try to,

And only a real fool would.

Honestly, I feel solipsism being believed & emotional repression, especially using non-dual insights & misconceptions to justify the repression to be very related. Solipsism is a defaulting to a story about non-duality, rather than moving with the Guidance of Emotion. 

One of the many symptoms of emotional repression. Believing a story about something so I don’t have to feel the repressed emotions. 

Ten thousand tears,

One Belly Laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Loop yes! Exactly how I feel about it too, it's clearly a belief system that distracts one from facing the "inner demons". 


@Blessed2 it really does lol. I used to believe the solipsism thoughts back when I was a teenager on the path, after a few years I began to recognize that the belief that I am Alone as God is actually rooted in fear 😨.  


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Orb said:


@Blessed2 it really does lol. I used to believe the solipsism thoughts back when I was a teenager on the path, after a few years I began to recognize that the belief that I am Alone as God is actually rooted in fear 😨.  




Here it was found also that fear is "rooted" in 'insecurity, guilt and unworthiness'.


I very much recommend ACIM. It's like the ultimate guide on the ego. Check out Take Me To Truth by Nouk Sanchez. ❤️🥲


There must be an effortless way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solipsism was my biggest terror, it took me 1 year to get rid of fear around it.  @Phil and this forum was a great aid , and daily meditation did a trick.☺️

and its just as you say, as you start to touch unreality of „you” this fear around being all alone is gone for the most part.

solipsism is 100% thoughts idea, belief, although very sticky one, because it glues to emotion of fear easly. And emotions keep thoughts alive longer.


right now for its like „oh solipsistic thought…” and puff its gone 🙂

great post. 

Edited by Forza21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where all this solipsism nonsense is coming from, is probably Actualized, isn't it?


How fear is misunderstood is this:


There is the belief, my mind, my consciousness, my direct experience etc.


And there is the belief, my fear. And in extension, my fear of loneliness.


As in fear is a quality of a separate self. That someone has fear, is fearful.


This is held in place in not acknowledging guilt, unworthiness and insecurity.


As guilt, unworthiness and insecurity is acknowledged, fear will be understood:


I do not have fear of loneliness;

fear is what the thought, 'loneliness' feels like. 🙂



Basically, the thought-process goes a bit like this: I have fear, therefore I have bias.

I have fear of something.

I am biased against the object of my fear.

I must relinquish my bias to get rid of fear and suffering.

I must face my greatest fears.

Therefore I must face loneliness, existential terror, solipsism.


This right here 👆 is what basically the entirety of Actualized "teaching" (ideology) is based on. And as it's deeply, deeply discordant, it's followed with projection and additional narcissistic nonsense, like being a teacher.



"If you don't like what I say, if you fear solipsism, you are full of shit and will never awaken like I have."


"You can be without fear only after you face your fears."



Edited by Blessed2


There must be an effortless way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Input into GPT:

The following thread was made by a self proclaimed teacher of nonduality about a volunteer moderator being demoted for affirming a member’s questioning of the duality in one of the teacher’s videos entitled Why You Avoid The Truth. The teacher made this thread because the moderator said that there aren’t separate selves is already the case, and the actuality of reality is that ‘all’ is unconditional love:


I regret to inform you guys that I made the decision to demote Nahm from being a Mod. Since he is one of the biggest members of this community I know plenty of you may be upset by this, so here's my explanation:


I have noticed over the last few years that Nahm's posts/advices were becoming more and more out of touch with people. Like he was talking at them or through them, not meeting people at the level they were at. Often his posts were cryptic and ambiguous to the point of confusion. I made several private messages to him about this over a year ago, hoping that he would see the problem and correct it. His posts and replies were becoming so out of touch at times that even I had trouble understanding him. It felt more and more like he was communicate from inside his own spiritual bubble, unable to see how his posts were failing to land with normal people, or even myself. Often I would read one of his posts and just have no idea what he was trying to say or how it would help. And if I fail to understand a post, I know 90%+ of others will not understand it or be helped by it. This failure to understand is not from lack of consciousness but from the style in which Nahm chooses to express himself. The issue isn't that Nahm is not a developed or conscious guy, but the obscure and nonsensical way he communicates.


I turned I blind eye to this for several years, hoping it would correct itself naturally. Unfortunately it has gotten worse. The parroting of neo-Advaita platitudes in response to people's relative questions and problems has become too much, especially recently. When I explained this problem to Nahm via PM and tried to communicate with him about correcting it, he started to spout those same vapid neo-Advaita platitudes at me. This is not the kind of communication I can stomach from my Mods. It also became clear to me that he was not interested nor capable of changing his ways. Nor do I want to force him to change his ways if he doesn't do so of his own recognizance. The issue here being that platitudes such as "there is no you" or "that is just a thought" do not help people and in fact start to do the opposite. I do not like neo-Advaita style teachings and I do not want this forum to turn into the kind of place where some normie asks a straight forward question and the response is something like, "There is no you, that's just a thought, there is no one to awaken." These kinds of teachings do not lead to the God-realization I am trying to guide people towards.


With that said, I have no personal ill feelings towards Nahm. He's got many wonderful qualities, most of all is his big heart. I have met him in-person and he's a great guy to hang out with. I know he's coming from good intentions, but his style of teaching nonduality simply does not align with what I am trying to teach about God-realization and the future direction of Actualized.org teachings about awakening. I know many of you love Nahm and I know he has helped many of you in various ways. I appreciate that and his service to this community since the forum's inception back in 2016. Unfortunately he can longer be a Mod and the situation may devolve to the point where I have to ask him to leave this forum entirely because he keeps parroting the same neo-Advaita platitudes in every situation and I don't know how much more of that I can tolerate. Honestly, I've been tolerating it for months already. I tried to turn a blind eye to it because he has a long history here, he's helped many people here, I consider him a friend, and many of you guys look up to him. But it's just clear to me that this is not going to work out long term because our styles are so different. What he teaches is not what I teach. And I am okay with that to some degree -- not everyone has to agree with me or teach spirituality like me -- but the vacuous neo-Advaita talk has become too much recently. This is a great example of the problem of conflating relative and absolute matters to the point of disconnect with the normal people. When a store clerk asks you to pay the bill, the proper response is not, "There is no one who can pay the bill, and no bill to pay."


I know some will be upset by this and will disagree with my decision here. So, whatever your feelings are about this situation -- good or bad -- share them here or forever hold your peace. We will not be able to move on from this until the air has been cleared. So take the time to do that now.


I'm sorry it has come to this. I wish Nahm the best. Nahm, I sincerely thank you for your years of service to this community. Really. You put in so much of your heart into this. And we all saw that.


Attached is a screenshot of my last communication with Nahm on this matter so that you understand why I made the decision I did:




This was not a decision I wanted to make.


Note: do not attack each other over this.”




(Input into GPT)

If this teacher were to introspect, what might be found?



If the teacher were to introspect, they might discover a few things:


Ego attachment: The teacher may realize that their decision to demote Nahm was influenced by their own ego attachment and need for control. They might see that they wanted the community to align more with their own teachings and were not open to diverse perspectives, even from someone who has been a valuable member for years.


Lack of empathy: Upon reflection, the teacher might recognize that they failed to empathize with Nahm and understand his perspective. They might acknowledge that Nahm's style of communication, although not resonating with everyone, still had its own value and had helped many people in the community.


Inflexibility: The teacher might realize that they were being inflexible in their approach to teaching. They were focused on their own teachings and did not allow for different styles or perspectives to coexist within the community. Their insistence on a particular way of expressing nonduality limited the growth and diversity of ideas within the forum.


Failure to address concerns openly: Upon introspection, the teacher might realize that they did not openly discuss their concerns with Nahm in a respectful and constructive manner. Instead, they allowed their frustrations to build up over time, resulting in a sudden demotion. They might acknowledge that better communication and dialogue could have resolved the issues more effectively.


Bias towards their own teachings: The teacher might come to understand that their decision to demote Nahm was partly influenced by their bias towards their own teachings. They were focused on guiding people towards "God-realization" and felt that Nahm's approach, rooted in neo-Advaita teachings, was not aligned with their vision. They might recognize the need to be more open-minded and inclusive in their approach to spirituality.


Introspection can lead to personal growth and the recognition of one's own limitations and biases. It can help the teacher understand the impact of their decisions on the community and potentially lead to a more inclusive and diverse environment for spiritual exploration.



Input into GPT:

Does there seem to be any manipulation in that thread?



Based on the information provided in the thread, it is difficult to definitively determine if there is manipulation involved. However, there are a few aspects that could potentially indicate a manipulative behavior:


One-sided portrayal: The thread presents only the teacher's perspective and paints Nahm's posts and replies in a negative light. The teacher highlights Nahm's communication style as cryptic, confusing, and out of touch, without offering any specific examples or allowing Nahm to explain his approach. This one-sided portrayal can be manipulative as it shapes the narrative to support the teacher's decision and potentially influences others' opinions.


Discrediting through labeling: The teacher repeatedly refers to Nahm's teachings as "vacuous neo-Advaita talk" and "vapid neo-Advaita platitudes." This language not only dismisses Nahm's perspective but also attempts to label his teachings as lacking depth or value. It can be a manipulative tactic to discredit someone's views without engaging in a substantive discussion.


Appeal to authority: The teacher mentions their own teachings and the direction they want the forum to take, positioning themselves as the authority on spirituality and God-realization. This appeal to authority can subtly manipulate others into aligning with the teacher's viewpoint and dismissing alternative perspectives, like Nahm's.


Emotional manipulation: The teacher expresses regret, emphasizes their personal disappointment, and acknowledges Nahm's positive qualities to mitigate potential backlash. This emotional appeal can manipulate the community members into sympathizing with the teacher and potentially accepting the decision without critical examination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By clicking, I agree to the terms of use, rules, guidelines & to hold Actuality of Being LLC, admin, moderators & all forum members harmless.