Solipsism

Until we are fully enlightened, our reality appears solipsistic — but it isn’t.

What does this mean?

Our perceptions of reality are dependent on our concept of self. We learn about reality through a filter of relevance: ‘What’s in it for me?’

Our minds, at this stage, race uncontrollably towards every sense and mental object, and examine each by one of three modes:

1. This is something we desire, gives us pleasure, or will satisfy us — we develop attachment towards the object.
2. This is something we fear, dislike, hate, or that angers us — we develop ill-will towards the object.
3. This is something we have yet to categorise because it doesn’t interest us — we remain ignorant of this object.

This sounds rather mechanical, but it’s exactly how our subconscious constantly evaluates our environment. Our ‘investigating consciousness’ is always scanning our surroundings, assessing every object that arises in the sense or mental fields by asking, ‘What’s in it for me?’

Objects arise in levels of significance. We assign significance to objects through choice and volition; we act because of an object’s significance. ‘Very Great Objects’ are those of highest significance and, when present, interrupt the flow of the life continuum almost immediately and precipitate a cognitive series — these are the things we become consciously aware of.

It’s a bit technical, but the mind can hold the object for no longer than 17 mind moments before it is lost. Therefore, it is only ‘Very Great Objects’ that cut off the life continuum quickly enough for full cognition to occur.

We have also learned that this inner sense of self and outer sense of other are created by the mind. The process of objectification creates the counter-phenomenon of ‘subject.’ Though fleeting, our minds ignore these gaps, which gives us a sense of continuity of being.

This inner sense of being can never truly be objectified. We take pride in labels we give ourselves or suffer from others, but the thing being labelled can never be the label itself. Our true inner being can never be these labels.

Thus, the inner being — which doesn’t exist as a concrete entity — is better dismissed. We can’t just discard the feeling of self, but we can recognise that all objective phenomena are self. Instead of clinging to an inner concept of being, we can recognise that our true being is simply the mind behind all that we experience. As this being can never be conceptualised, there remains only experience itself — no experiencer.

There are thoughts, but no thinker; feelings, but no one feeling them; perceptions occur, but no one perceives them. One is empty of self, and so is everyone else. There is only a single array of phenomena arising and falling — countless beings, most dreaming of being dreamers. Thus, one achieves infinite compassion for every living being.

Once self is seen to be empty both in reality and conceptually, the mind turns away even from the idea of ’emptiness’ itself, dismissing duality entirely. Without any inner self, volition becomes impossible — for volition depends on the concept of ‘I.’ Without a being to make choices, what choices remain?

Without self, time becomes meaningless. Life is no longer a chain of events, but simply an eternal present. The cognitive mind runs out of directions in which it can wander. As perception ceases before objectification arises, one becomes progressively immersed in non-dual, conceptual bliss — bliss that transforms samsara into nirvana.

“Form is like a mass of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; volitional formations, a plantain tree; and consciousness, a magic trick — all these are empty, void, and without substance.”
— Samyutta Nikāya 22.95