He has seen through some “I” but not yet seen through “mine”

Why is the experience of talking to someone “mine”?

In an experience, is there anything in the xp, say an xp of a seeing a flower; “mine”?

Who says it’s “mine”?

That extra “mine” is an extra imputation.

Xp of a flower is just that - colours, eye consciousness, consciousness, that dependent originate.

That’s it.

No I , no mine.

So shouldn’t be solipsism

Hence Buddha taught to take the view of DO.

On the other extreme all self/Self is deconstructed but everything is subsumed or collapsed into objective matter. The world is inherently existing and real. Everything is vibrant and alive but objective or objectively existing. That is the actual freedom teachings. Here there is no solipsism but materialism, but also no subject object division. This is also a phase John Tan went through post anatta but before emptiness.

Then there is the emptiness teachings, which allows us to deconstruct everything without subsuming to either poles, all subjects and objects are liberated on the spot by seeing its empty and non-arisen and dependently designated / dependently originated nature. That is the nature of all appearance / mind / phenomena, empty and yet luminous/vibrant/alive.

I also think the guys refutation of panpsychism lacks substance because there are panpsychist viewpoints that would allow for sophisticated individual consciousness to emerge from Porto-consciousness that suffuses all matter.

First, no contemporary materialist or physicalist thinks that matter is itself an essence or a truly existing "something" which all things are. Materiality is more like the shape of a thing rather than some substantial singular essence which all things possess.

Second, while a lot of contemporary scientists believe in substantially existent, partless particles, it is possible to be a materialist and to think that such a thing is impossible, and or just plain absurd.

Buddhism has been very helpful to me in this regard. But at the same time, when these traditions ignore modern scientific developments and evidence, it makes them look a lot less credible, and then turns people off from finding the real gold that is within these religions and philosophies. For instance, there is just too much evidence, at least at the moment, and for a person who bases their beliefs on the available evidence, that points to consciousness being dependent on brains, to suggest that there is any consciousness which transcends the death of the body.

The Buddha knew a lot of things, but to suggest he knew everything about everything, is just to remain stubbornly inflexible in one's beliefs. And neither does modern science know everything about everything. The real danger is being dogmatic either way, and refusing to ever adapt or change one's views when new evidence or new truths present themselves.

James Wolanyk and Mr. JP - if you want a different take you guys might enjoy the book "Galileo's error" if you want a different take and look into the philosophy and science of consciousness written by a rigorous academic philosopher who is not a materialist.

There's rebirth evidences, peer reviewed papers. Thousands of cases, objectively verified, independent of Buddhism. Don't use preconceived ideas and philosophy to prejudge the data, but use the spirit of science to see the data to form one's own philosophy/theory.

Children being able to do extraordinary things in no way proves rebirth. That's a huge stretch. Monks being able to "recall" supposed past lives proves nothing regarding rebirth either. Strange personal experiences do not equate to evidence of an afterlife. There are lots of crazy people out there who believe God is speaking to them.

If it's the case that we should just accept claims regarding the afterlife based on the personal experiences of certain people, then how do we know that the person who claims the Christian God has spoken to them and that they have seen visions of the eternal Christian hell is not right and the Buddhist meditator is not wrong? We need some manner of sorting out which of these claims is true, and empirical evidence is the most effective manner we know of doing that.

And to Dhruval, emptiness is about dependent origination. If you are refusing to acknowledge the mounds of evidence we have that suggest that consciousness depends on the brain, you are ignoring dependent origination, and thus failing to see the emptiness of consciousness. We know now that damage to the frontal lobe can lead to a complete change in one's personality. Look up the famous case of Phineas Gage.

That said, it is indeed difficult to change minds in these kinds of conversations, and it is wise not to trigger the arguing tendencies that many of us (myself included) have.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I don't see any of the evidence presented as in any way confirming the past lives of these kids. "Little room for fraud" is a big claim to make as well, knowing the nature of humans.

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree on all this. I appreciate the discussion. Peace and love to all.

Objectively verified means it's not just claims. They found real world details as the children said it. Not for all cases, but sufficiently a lot of them. Say randomly guess a location, a specific house, then for the last 200 years or so when records exist and the house exists, name just one family, their names, how many families they have etc, and family secrets. Children who remembered past lives provided those kind of details, and it fits in real world data, data which is otherwise no one thought to look for and sometimes not easy to dig out of the records. As well as family secrets, like secret hiding place for treasure.

Most of these cases are pre-internet.

There's a lot more than just one researcher, so cannot just simply say one researcher not reliable.

There's also a lot of other ways to explain some cases (possession by ghosts, telepathy etc), but seeing so many cases, occam's razor says rebirth.

Extraordinary cases need extraordinary proof usually is code by those who attach to physicalism that we will never accept such cases no matter how strong your evidence are because it contradicts our cherished physicalism philosophy. There's some philosophical investigation into it, and usually, it's because people cannot separate the scientific method of using data to form theories from the underlying current paradigm or philosophy some scientists currently hold (physicalism).

Like say extraordinary evidences, you can simply say: I want all such claims to have corresponding real world verification. This is like saying: I want all proton smashing in the LHC to produce the Higgs (note: they needed to smash a lot to find the small percentage of them which has the Higgs which is like looking for a needle in a haystack). Somethings are limited by the data we can gather, but there's already a lot of data we have which is compelling, to those with open mind, not blinded by physicalism philosophy.

It's possible to explain neuroscience with the brain is like radio receiver, the mind is like radio waves. Pick apart the radio, you don't find the voice of the broadcaster there. Similarly, pick apart the brain, without having feedback from the person conscious when doing brain experiment, one cannot really map certain brain region activation with qualia. (I do not advocate for killing people for brain research.) So physicalism is not the only explanation or philosophy which is compatible with all current scientific findings. It's just the current paradigm.

Rejecting rebirth just because of physicalism saying that the mind dies when the brain dies and no physical mechanism is there for the mind to travel to another body to take birth is like clinging onto classical physics and rejecting quantum findings/experiments, data. Saying that, there's no clear classical path for the electrons to go, no step by step, here's the electron at this place, with this velocity and position, etc, so quantum must be false, throw away those quantum experiments. Classical physics explains too much to be bothered by these quantum stuffs which is not obvious in classical range. There's no classical mechanical way for electron path in quantum physics. That's not a reason to discard quantum physics. Similary, there's no physicalism based mechanism of how rebirth can happen. That's not a reason to reject rebirth, which has empirical evidence for it.

Read the cases, then reply.

I re-read my post. Though it may not sound soothing to the ears, take it positively. I have no ill intention. Smile

Trying to forcefully account for non-material phenomenon by hard science is analogous to casting an1-inch-knitted net into an ocean and concludes that no species in the ocean has a size smaller than 1 inch. We have to know the limitation of hard science as we know the limitation of the net. If one chooses to remain blind to these limitations then we have made science into a blind-faith religion. It is the spirit of science that is laudable. What Buddha taught is systematic and the results are clearly stated but an effort to walk the first step must be made to witness the result and that includes past lives experiences. Have an open mind so that you will not miss something valuable. Good luck. Smile

However, I think that is distinct from the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness.

Just from Wikipedia:

“The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why and how we have qualia or phenomenal experiences. This is in contrast to the "easy problems" of explaining the physical systems that give us and other animals the ability to discriminate, integrate information, and so forth.”

“Annaka Harris poses the hard problem as the question of ‘how experience arise[s] out of non-sentient matter’.”

“. . .even when we have explained the performance of all the cognitive and behavioral functions in the vicinity of experience—perceptual discrimination, categorization, internal access, verbal report—there may still remain a further unanswered question: Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience?”

— David Chalmers, Facing up to the problem of consciousness

I’m inclined to think that the examples you mentioned of the brain coordinating the function of memory and personality, are in the category of the “performance of all the cognitive and behavioural functions in the vicinity of experience” mentioned in that quote by Chalmers. - In other words, the ‘easy problem’ of consciousness.

But those examples don’t say anything about the “further unanswered question: Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience?” - the ‘hard problem’.

I’m not currently aware of empirical evidence supporting any answer at all to the ‘hard problem’, but I haven’t been following the current trends very closely.

These insights, as far as I'm concerned, articulate different aspects of the true Tao, the true way of things, and the Tao doesn't belong to any one person or religion. Lao Tzu found it, the Buddha found it, and you and Thusness are leading people to it through your blog. But you don't own the true way. No one does. However, there is one major area, only one, but it is an important one, of disagreement I have with your blog. And that is regarding consciousness.

We had disagreements on this same point over ten years ago now, way back in the Taobums days, and it doesn't look like either of us have changed positions. I believe that all of these insights, emptiness, dependent origination, impermanence, aspects of anatta (not the non-dual presence aspect obviously), appearances being free from the four extremes, etc. are all compatible with a materialist framework, and in no way necessarily imply rebirth. You clearly believe the opposite.

Maybe one day I will have a eureka! moment and see that there is more to consciousness than I imagined, or maybe I won't. Or maybe you'll come to the materialist view someday, or maybe not. But for now, and because of our history with this same area of contention, I don't see either us budging on this aspect of the path. And that is why, in general, I don't like arguing. The majority of the time it only inflames anger and serves to make people just double down on their original positions. Reading or meditating in a quiet place is much more conducive, in my opinion, to learning or gaining insights, than is arguing back and forth on the internet with people you've never met in person before.

As Lao Tzu says, "One must know when to stop. Knowing when to stop averts trouble."

And if, according to Newtonian physics, matter is 99,9% empty space, what is actually a "materialist framework"? Isn't a materialist framework actually a "spatialist framework"? I think science is overly obsessed with the 0,1% that is *not* empty space. That reality is mostly space is an astonishing discovery, and one with rather esoteric connotations. And we haven't even left classical physics yet. Quantum physics gets all the more weird.

I'd say that believing in a linear and mechanical universe is getting really old really fast. Of course, one should not fall into the "anything goes" attitude. It's a fine line indeed.

Yes, it does have some impact for people who has naive expectation that solid things must be filled packed with stuffs.

However, the 99.9% empty thing doesn't mean one can suddenly go through walls. Electromagnetism prevents that. The quantum cloud of electron area fills the space. The 0.1% thing is very important. And apparently, one can hold all these and yet not have any insight into emptiness of Buddhism.

Materialism is updated to physicalism, which means anything physics can analyse. This includes space, time, energy, information. So any appeal to these is not impressive to people holding this philosophy. Only consciousness is not deemed as fundamental but assumed to be emergent from how the brain is wired.

It's good anyway, if people can have some emotional impact from learning that things are mostly empty space. Only alpha particles (thin gold leaf experiment), neutrinos goes through these anyway.

What is electromagnetism made of? Could it be that it is also mainly constituted by space?

And as science redefines and refines the notion of matter to include such subtle and abstract "entities" such as fields, forces, energy, subatomic particles, etc., could it be the case that, by naming all those things, we apply a veneer of "knowledge" on top of things that remain mostly mysterious to us? Can an ordinarily invisible particle still be considered matter? Can electromagnetism? Is physics, these days, even a physical science, in the day-to-day sense of "physical"?

By "scientifically explaining" everything, I think most people end up getting the feeling that our universe is after all very ordinary, explicable, predictable, etc. We are living sentient beings who after all don't know how life and sentience came about. And even if we do, we probably can't replicate it - which shows the gulf between knowing something and actually having comand over it.

That we, existing entities, don't know what existence itself is, is indeed an astonishing fact!

Just personal experience so that ppl don’t repeat my mistake

Using science to attain realisation is actually a huge obstacle

If ppl is serious about getting quickly to insight and realization, put science aside and investigate

Saying this from a deep seated biological science background.

I could name you the whole Vision hearing pathway and Every neurons that is involved and that has been my biggest obstacle.

Until I relinquish it the whole anatta came on full Fledge.

Science is the most cherished conditioning ever.

One of the difficulties I have with (what I take to be mainly) a Gelug trait, is that in trying to fully explain the conventional, one loses sight of the paradoxical nature that is involved in realizing what is ultimately an inconceivable reality. That's why equating emptiness with "mere dependently arisen appearances" may be problematic, because it seems to leave experience mostly untouched and untransformed. "Everything is like before, we just lost a bunch of erroneous views." The mystical and magical (not to be mistaken with the ilogical or nonsensical) are kind of left outside the door. I believe one must let go of the idea that reality can be conceptually and coherently explained.

For the aliveness and Miraculous expressions I look to Zen. Dogen expresses beautifully this miracle.

Unfortunately the Tibetan schools didn’t bring out this taste and is quite flat but their analysis is good. Tsongkhapa did try but Zen schools does it better.

Hence I’m very against sectarianism bec for me each schools benefit me hugely and my realisation is dependent on them

If not, check the 3rd to last chapter of the Gandavyhua, which revolves around Maitreya (it's about 80 pages) and is seemingly one of the main chapters. I've read only very few sections, but it's a sutra that's been calling me for a while. I think it's in the vein of the much shorter but also highly inspirational and exciting "Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra" (https://read.84000.co/translation/UT22084-060-005.html).

I once had a weird dream that reminded me of avatamsaka

Personally i also never read avatamsaka yet.. only a few excerpts lol

Maybe need to read more Longchenpa!

"Absent when scrutinized, absent when ignored, not even an iota of solid matter is attested; so all aspects of experience are always absent — know it as nothing but magical illusion!"

"For the person in whom the flow of good and bad ceases there is no duality of union with and separation from reality, and that ati-yogin, certain in the great mystery, effortlessly reaches the natural state of original perfection and abides forever in the royal citadel of pure being."

"Every experience, whatever it may be, is the uncontrived triad of essence, nature, and compassion, the display of pure being, enjoyment, and magical emanation."

Or the Kunjed Gyalpo!

"The root of all phenomena is pure and total consciousness, the source. All that appears is my nature. All that manifests is my magical display.”

[24/4/22, 8:58:01 PM] John Tan: Dont ke kiang

[24/4/22, 8:58:06 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Ok

[24/4/22, 9:01:26 PM] John Tan: U must know that from non-gelug perspective, the conventional and relative r relinquished ultimately as conventional arise out of ignorance otherwise y r there conventions and separation?

[24/4/22, 9:02:32 PM] John Tan: So how can there be total exertion?

[24/4/22, 9:04:26 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..

[24/4/22, 9:04:44 PM] John Tan: Y do u need to experience total exertion?

[24/4/22, 9:05:44 PM] Soh Wei Yu: When engaging in conventionality things appear separate and segregated unless total exertion is experienced?

[24/4/22, 9:05:54 PM] John Tan: No

[24/4/22, 9:07:04 PM] John Tan: Why do u need to go through the phases of insights from IM to anatta to -+A ...what is the purpose?

[24/4/22, 9:07:35 PM] John Tan: Doesn't I M also direct authentication of presence?

[24/4/22, 9:08:24 PM] Soh Wei Yu: To experience presence without any limitations and restrictions whatsoever

Like i am is presence restricted to formless, background

After anatta that duality is gone but can still be restricted to here/now and locality

[24/4/22, 9:08:44 PM] Soh Wei Yu: So total exertion is spontaneous presence without even here/now but exerts all times and directions

[24/4/22, 9:08:45 PM] John Tan: Yes what does that? mean

[24/4/22, 9:11:42 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Means like when i walk there is no sense of here or there and no need for grounding whatsoever… its like mountains and the entire sky and galaxies are walking with me. So no need to even mention about here ness and even the word presence may sound restricrive

A thought exerts all my past and future as well

[24/4/22, 9:12:10 PM] John Tan: I m asking u this

[24/4/22, 9:13:22 PM] John Tan: It means that experience is still tainted.

[24/4/22, 9:13:48 PM] John Tan: Yet practitioners may not be aware. Correct?

[24/4/22, 9:13:54 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Yea

[24/4/22, 9:14:13 PM] John Tan: That is y u so Ka poh and kept telling ppl right?

[24/4/22, 9:17:32 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Lol yea

[24/4/22, 9:18:28 PM] John Tan: So when ppl say I m already free from all elaborations, self does not exists, no-self does not exist, emptiness and dependent origination exhausted, spontaneously present, naturally perfected. So how u know the spontaneous presence is not tainted?

[24/4/22, 9:20:14 PM] Soh Wei Yu: By their insights, taste and see whether they overcome all the tendencies of all those self/Self/here and now/locality

[24/4/22, 9:22:04 PM] John Tan: Like when u tell me spontaneous arising when in IM, I told u not there yet don't talk abt it...u still talk...during I M, during the 4 aspects, during non-dual, during anatta, after anatta...I will tell u don't talk and u still talk

[24/4/22, 9:22:17 PM] John Tan: So tell me, which is which?

[24/4/22, 9:22:40 PM] John Tan: Which spontaneous presence r u talking abt?

[24/4/22, 9:23:10 PM] John Tan:

[24/4/22, 9:23:28 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Any tainted sense of inherency means fixed and not spontaneous.. so spontaneous is after d.o. And emptiness

[24/4/22, 9:23:41 PM] John Tan: So after 20 years still talking

[24/4/22, 9:23:51 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Lol

[24/4/22, 9:24:38 PM] John Tan: Then if presence is restricted in 3 times how can it be truly non-inherent?

[24/4/22, 9:25:12 PM] John Tan: Then if presence is restricted in 10 directions can it be truly non-inherent?

[24/4/22, 9:29:08 PM] Soh Wei Yu: The 3 times and 10 directions are also empty.. like diamond sutra say

一合相

一合相者。盖言众尘和合而为一世界也。世界本空。微尘不有。但众生不了。妄执为实。若是实有。即应世界不可分为微尘。若是实无。不应微尘合为世界。是知执有执无。皆不当理。经云。如来说一合相。即非一合相。是名一合相。是也。

[24/4/22, 9:30:36 PM] John Tan: I m not talking about that

[24/4/22, 9:31:20 PM] Soh Wei Yu: If 3 times and 10 directions are reified it becomes like AF

[24/4/22, 9:31:28 PM] John Tan: ?

[24/4/22, 9:34:45 PM] John Tan: Now if I ask u in each of the phrase, do emptiness and DO apply,v what would u say?

[24/4/22, 9:35:45 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Im not sure I understand your qn

[24/4/22, 9:36:54 PM] John Tan: What I meant is, is it better to tell ppl emptiness and DO or spontaneous presence?

[24/4/22, 9:38:09 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Better to tell d.o. And emptiness first.. spontaneous presence without understanding emptiness will be mistaken

One can have realisation and taste of presence even I AM as skillful means but shldnt be understood as the true spontaneous presence after purification

[24/4/22, 9:38:44 PM] John Tan: Purification means?

[24/4/22, 9:38:55 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Insight of twofold emptiness

[24/4/22, 9:39:11 PM] John Tan: Means all inherentness are exhausted.

[24/4/22, 9:39:18 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Ic..

[24/4/22, 9:39:49 PM] John Tan: In other words, it is simply the full actualization of emptiness.

[24/4/22, 9:39:58 PM] John Tan: Or dharmakaya.

[24/4/22, 9:40:52 PM] John Tan: By then DO is understood to be the conventional expression of spontaneous presence and natural perfection.

[24/4/22, 9:42:00 PM] John Tan: So y do you want to talk abt spontaneous presence or self-arising in every phase non-stop?

[24/4/22, 9:42:28 PM] John Tan: Y not just talk abt DO and emptiness?

[24/4/22, 9:43:29 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. cos its natural tendency to want to experience presence in its full spontaneity and naturalness

But without correct insights its impossible

[24/4/22, 9:46:26 PM] John Tan: ‎This message was deleted.

[24/4/22, 9:46:51 PM] John Tan: And without total exertion, how can it be correct? Coz one will still be tainted by the 3 times and 10 directions but because they worry so much about "conceptualities" they conveniently say it is still tainted.

[24/4/22, 9:48:09 PM] Soh Wei Yu: I see..

[24/4/22, 9:48:52 PM] John Tan: So do u know y Tsongkhapa emphasize on DO and emptiness?

[24/4/22, 9:49:24 PM] Soh Wei Yu: To bring out importance of total exertion?

[24/4/22, 9:51:25 PM] John Tan: No because to him all appearances r false. All way up and all way down. What we called pure perception is also dependently originated. He doesn't need spontaneous presence. It is just another appearances.

[24/4/22, 9:53:06 PM] John Tan: That is not to say Tsongkhapa doesn't understand the so called "spontaneous presence and natural perfection" u r talking about.

[24/4/22, 9:53:18 PM] John Tan: That will be a joke.

[24/4/22, 9:54:10 PM] John Tan: ‎This message was deleted.

[24/4/22, 9:54:30 PM] John Tan: It is he knows too detail, too fine and know that ppl like us r talking nonsense.

Solipsism is also based on a half-baked intuition of non-duality. The very concepts of "this" or "I" or "mine" depend on their opposites. So, by saying that "only this exists" I'm already establishing its opposite - some "that" that is nonexistent. "Existent-this" vs. "nonexistent-that" is a dualistic stance, making solipsism inherently self-refuting. Experience is devoid of "other" or "thatness," but it too is devoid of "me/mine" or "thisness." There is nothing exclusivistic in experience - there is no exclusion of anything. It's rather the opposite, experience is intrinsically open-ended, expansive and accommodating - even of concepts positing closed, constricted and excluding attitudes.

Also, solipsism seems to be based on notions of limited space and mutual exclusion of experiences. There is a sense of "there is only here" and so a "there" is excluded. Again this is dualistic, as without the notion of "there" there can't be a "here" either. So, in the non-conceptual spaciousness of experience there can be no sense of "here." So solipsism still embraces ideas of spatial extension, distance and separation, which it then paradoxically uses to refute notions of "other separate places," etc. So, we have dualistic principles being used in the defense of some non-dual solipsistic reality.

There is also the sense that experiences are mutually exclusive - if "this" experience is "here," "other" experiences cannot be simultaneously "here." Yet, we can cultivate an openness to the possibility that "everything is already here," that "everything is intrinsically included" right within this very experience. In the same way that we can develop our conventional senses (or other "senses") and experience things previously unnoticed - but that were already present -, we can also conceive of developing perception (or some kind of empirical sensitivity) in a way that allows the accommodation of an infinity of experiences, in opposition to the previously "singular solipsistic experience." That's what omniscience seems to entail - a non-conflicting appreciation of the totality of experiences, a full embrace of the entirety of the space-time display. In cutting through the solidity and seemingly exclusivistic nature of space and time - what is "here" is not "there," what is "now" cannot be "then" -, the "whole field" can become naturally manifest. The sections of our experiential field that seem more obscure and concealing (like the sense of past and future experiences, and the notions of beyond the horizon and behind/bellow/above "me"), which are all instances of some type of impenetrable not-knowing, can be seen as representatives, clues or empirical "handles" that can serve as portals or doorways into the infinite dimensions of experience that remain unrevealed and unaccommodated. "Other times" and "other places," even in infinitely cosmic scales, can be seen as mere subtler dimensions - and yet unappreciated - of what is already here, of "this very experience."

Another angle of exploration is to consider if "this sole experience" is either one or many. A "many" can only be composed of a plurality of "ones" or units. Yet, no unit or singularity can ever be found - it's a logical and empirical impossibility. So, notions of singularity and plurality fall apart, and thus solipsism falls apart, since it is based on the idea of being the "singularly existing thing." Also, if "this experience" was the only existing thing, where would the seemingly diversity of experience come from? It either comes from something else (refuting solipsism) or it is generated "internally," in which case "this sole experience" is itself already a pluralistic experience. Also, in the absence of a sense of there being some singular observer, experience is understood as "self-luminous" and "self-knowing"; why then can't the diversity of experience be already a case for so-called multiple perceivers or observers? Solipsism is based on the idea that "only I perceive" - but if all objects (material, mental or emotional) are already "self-knowing" and "naturally luminous," how can there be a sense of "only I perceive"?

Experience is not intrinsically one for it arises as diversity; and it is not intrinsically many, since it's embraced by utter intimacy and non-separation. Solipsism, being based on solid notions of singularity and plurality, is incapable of appreciating the transparency and spaciousness of experience; and it is incapable of appreciating the fine balance of appearance-emptiness, a luminous display that is beyond materialistic, solidified and dualistic tendencies - that is, in fact, beyond all notions whatsoever, be they dual, non-dual, both or neither. Solipsism seems to be a classical example of an attempt to interpret an utterly transcendent and unlimited reality by making use of somewhat mystical and yet still conventional and limited notions and perspectives.

I think that solipsism has to have a certain amount of identity left. It's kind of a god complex to give priority to only one mind and presume there's nothing else. This has to be a presumption because nothing in experience suggests specifically that nothing else exists.

As Soh and Yin said higher up, emptiness/DO is the only "permanent" antidote to the solipsism fears on the path, if you have fallen into them. Once we see that even fear/solipsism is a conditioned, baseless collection of sense impressions, the fear becomes ridiculous. It's like worrying about what happens to characters after a film ends.

This is where "No-Self" is so important to understand. Solipsism could be the result of "non-duality" IF there is still an attachment to a sense of "Self", in which case non-dual is still not fully understood.

When there is no "Self", there is no, "There's only me.", perspective. There are just "happenings", which include the stream of conceptualizations that give an appearance and feeling of a "Self" in the first place.

John Tan wrote:

Yes solipsistic state can be overcome by:

1. What he said.

2. Overcoming the sense of "mine".

3. Also by de-constructing via dependent designation into kadag, primordial purity.

4. Essencelessness

Solipsisim is an extreme of deducing a conclusion using our existing dualistic and inherent paradigm. Negation without affirming anything will not.

Likewise de-construction does not lead into an all encompassing space, that too is an abstraction and extrapolation. It is to slowly allow us to see through the faulty premise and open up the entire field.