[wrangling] a conceptual framework for inquiry into the Self

Tractatus 5.64. One sees here that solipsism, strictly followed through, coincides with pure realism. The self of solipsism shrinks to an extensionless point and what is left is the reality coordinated with it.

What is the question of life?

First, we must understand that there is no such question, nor problem. It is nonsensical to ask about the question or purpose or problem of life, in the same way it is nonsensical to speak of the inner life of a stone. (You might posit that stones have an inner life in geological time and through the elements of nature, much in the way we do, but to go that far also illustrates the linguistic creativity you have to employ to make this sensical.)

I want to say that all the religious texts that I consider credible - the ones about personal experience and encounters with the divine - all seem to point to a similar thing. All also lead to similar speech and actions, similar guidances of life, a similar experience of unity and oneness (with God, the world, Atman), and the view that reaching that final state of unity both requires incredible work and also divine grace. It is up to you to try, but it is not up to you to receive.

What is the relevance of these texts to the “question of life”? I suppose that the question of life is answered via the vanishing of the problem, or that the question is answered by experience. The question is born of ignorance. The question is born of a selfishness instilled in us by evolution, when it comes in contrast with the needlessness of this selfishness. It is also born of great suffering.

[totally unfinished]