The Only Confusion
La única confusión
A question about solipsism leads to a discussion of how mistaking thought for reality is the single, recurring confusion on the spiritual path.
The Only Confusion
A question about solipsism leads to a discussion of how mistaking thought for reality is the single, recurring confusion on the spiritual path.
My question is about solipsism. Francis Lucille uses the image of a tree with many leaves: we think we're the leaves, but we're really the tree. The separate self is like all the leaves, all these separate selves, but really there's just one universal consciousness. So how can the mistake of solipsism arise? If consciousness is universal, it's the same consciousness here and there. Is solipsism just a leaf saying, "I'm the only leaf"?
The condition for solipsism is that you believe yourself to be separate. That's the requirement: you believe you are separate, and then you conclude that the consciousness you are is the only one that exists. But it depends on you being separate in the first place.
Thought mistaken for reality
Probably, on the spiritual path, we make that mistake quite often. It's like a signature in thought, and you think you're not in thought. That's the confusion, always. It's the only confusion: when you're in thought and you think you're not.
It's very simple. It's confusing thought with something real. And by "real," I mean something that's not thought. It's easy for us to see thoughts as thoughts when they aren't close to that sense of separation. But when we start getting close to that sense of separation, we no longer realize we're relating to thought. We experience it as "I'm relating to the reality of what I am," whereas in fact we're relating to thoughts, the world of me, the person. There's nothing wrong with me the person, as long as I'm aware that it's a thought.
Love and the limits of naming
Love is mysterious. You can't say there's a separate you and I, but if there isn't, then how can there be love? One teacher put it this way: you can only define love by what is not love. You can't define love itself.
It's the same principle found in Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching. The common translation is "The Tao that is spoken is not the true Tao." My preferred translation is simply: "Tao, told, is not Tao." So love, called love, is not love. Truth, called truth, is not truth. Because then you're in thought. The only way you can call something something is in the world of thought.