1. Recently I have been reflecting on the idea of solipsism. This is the idea that only the individual “I” exists: “I” am the only verifiable thing that is real, and everything else is an illusion. The best analogy to understand this is to think of a single player computer game. The first-person player is real, however all the other individuals and entities are actually non-playable characters or NPCs.
In many ways this idea has value, because it is hard to definitively prove the individuals you observe are “I”s the same as you are. At the same time, denying the existence of others is not a path to healthy functioning, and the excesses of this idea would state one’s moral actions have no import: which is clearly not the case.
Solipsism causes us to reflect seriously on the idea of separation: on the division between subject (I) and object (you). This idea is built into our everyday experience, and we see it reflected in our basic grammar when we use words like I, you, us, and them. Speaking practically, “I” is always the most important: as while if “you” perish it is unfortunate for me, if “I” perishes there follows the effective nonexistence of the universe, with the erasure of the most certain subject who is able to be perceive separate others.
2. In India they have an interesting idea that is related to this. It is called “nondualism.” Nondualism is the idea that the separation between “I” and “you” is an illusion. The Indians say this illusion is a very powerful deception created by the divine. This illusion is needed to give its emanations (in other words: creation, all living beings) individuality.
Nondualism makes a very bold argument. Certainly, someone facing death would not be pleased to hear the line “oh it’s fine to die, because you see, we are all actually one consciousness that has divided itself.” The person on their deathbed would look you in the face and state how very real their idea of selfhood is and state the profound tragedy that it is to face death.
3. The premise of nondualism leads to a couple of interesting ideas.
First, the idea would show the clear foundation of karma. Harming others leads to negative effects because you are literally harming yourself. Helping others leads to positive effects because you are literally helping yourself.
Second, if nondualism is correct, then selfishness and selflessness are of great significance and would constitute a major part of why we are here. In our normal, default state, selfishness is the path of progress. Yet - paradoxically - selflessness (and self-transcendence) would be the true path to fulfillment.
4. This idea makes me think of the story of Christ. In the Gospels, Christ dies on the cross, and in this presents an example of self-negation and self-sacrifice. Yet when he does this, he attains immortality. This story seems to suggest that if one overcomes selfishness (and its individual “I”), one can rise to a higher state.
5. This idea also makes me think of Buddhism. In Buddhism, there is the teaching of Nirvana. Nirvana is the highest spiritual state, an incomprehensible state in which one loses individuality. It is a state in which one loses a sense of “I-hood” and unites with the Source of the cosmos.
6. Nirvana is distinct from heaven. While it is good if one dies and is reborn among the gods (which is possible in Buddhism), the Buddha counsels there is an attainment that is even greater than this. This suggests that even the gods still embrace the illusion of individual I-hood, and the highest goal is to transcend this.
7. A few final thoughts I had here were of “proximate” states: states where one gets close to I-hood dissolving back into unity but doesn’t entirely make it there.
Sexual union would be the first of these. In the sexual act, selfhood partly dissolves and one comes into a state of unity with the other person. Certainly, losing a strong sense of I-hood is a motivator for many in pursuing sex.
Intoxication would be another “proximate” state. Certainly, after a long day of stress many people pine for the opportunity to unwind with a drug and partly escape the imprisoning sense of I-hood.
A final example of a “proximate” state could be that of the “hive-mind.” You can find examples of this in science fiction, like the Borg on Star Trek. A hive-mind is a state of many individual “I”s linking together and communicating as one in a collective consciousness. When they do this, they maintain their individual I-hood but also come together as a larger I. Interestingly, we see a version of this in the very cells of our bodies. Another example could be visible today in the Internet: perhaps an early version of a collective consciousness for human beings.
8. Finally, returning back to solipsism – the idea we started with – it seems this idea has a great deal of truth to it. As if the premise stated here is correct, the divine “I” is not distinct from you, but it *is* you. “Thou art that,” and “you” are no different from the objects you perceive. The divine “I” has divided itself into a multiplicity of small “I”s. It is only the illusion of separation that keeps us from perceiving this.
