What spiritual teachers actually teach Solipsism

[Sincerity]

17 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I do wonder if it wouldn't matter, though

If it turned out he was faking the „alien” thing, I wouldn’t mind. It would say something about his character, but I’d appreciate the teachings the same.

Edited Sunday at 10:20 AM by Sincerity

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-01-10 at 10:39 AM, Breakingthewall said:

Fear and the need for self-preservation are fundamental elements of a living being. A living being is a self-preserving universe within another universe; its root is the will to be. Every breath or heartbeat is a manifestation of that will.

On 2026-01-10 at 2:10 AM, Sugarcoat said:

I see. 
 

 

On 2026-01-10 at 10:39 AM, Breakingthewall said:

 

Saying that reality is not real because it's a dream is just a spiritual formula, same than saying that everything is pure consciousness. The main goal of those claims are seduction. Spirituality is used as a mean to gain money and attention, same than politics. Humans need spirituality, then there are sellers and the most charismatic wins 

Maybe reality is real but that there’s a dream quality to my specific pov of reality.

 

[Breakingthewall]

38 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Maybe reality is real but that there’s a dream quality to my specific pov of reality.

Dreaming means that what appears doesn't have its own reality; it's your dream creation. It doesn't exist independently of you; you're creating it with your mind. Therefore, only what appears in your field of consciousness exists, and it's a creation of your mind. 

Then there is an absolute limit: you as creator. And another absolute limit: the field of your consciusness. Then reality is absolutely limited in all directions. 

[Sugarcoat]

16 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Dreaming means that what appears doesn't have its own reality; it's your dream creation. It doesn't exist independently of you; you're creating it with your mind. Therefore, only what appears in your field of consciousness exists, and it's a creation of your mind. 

Then there is an absolute limit: you as creator. And another absolute limit: the field of your consciusness. Then reality is absolutely limited in all directions. 

That’s one way of defining. I meant more that there might be a reality, exactly how it is, but from my pov, I am experiencing a warped version of that reality (for example by feeling like I’m stuck to this body and the world is out there, or viewing someone through a lense of judgement) . So maybe there’s possibility of experiencing reality exactly how it is without this warping which I assume has to do with the self 

Edited Sunday at 01:52 PM by Sugarcoat

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

That’s one way of defining. I meant more that there might be a reality, exactly how it is, but from my pov, I am experiencing a warped version of that reality (for example by feeling like I’m stuck to this body and the world is out there, or viewing someone through a lense of judgement) . So maybe there’s possibility of experiencing reality exactly how it is without this warping which I assume has to do with the self 

Sure, You might perceive a guy as very noble and then he turns out to be a professional con artist, but there's a guy with his own reality.

The spirituality that says reality is a dream means that there isn't a guy; you're imagining him, he doesn't really exist, just like when you dream while you're sleeping

[Sugarcoat]

15 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Sure, You might perceive a guy as very noble and then he turns out to be a professional con artist, but there's a guy with his own reality.

The spirituality that says reality is a dream means that there isn't a guy; you're imagining him, he doesn't really exist, just like when you dream while you're sleeping

I see what you mean, yea that particular view I don’t believe for now

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Sincerity said:

I said I’m not pursuing discussion with you here. 🤷‍♂️

No hard feelings. We’ll talk someplace else. But talking on „your level” of heavy conceptualization and dualism is just a needless tiresome exercise and again: a detraction from truth. You do you, but leave me out of it (when talking about the most basic things). 

I don't want to do that now. I want to do the inquiry into direct experience that I talked about in the other thread. It's very step by step based on what you answer, not a lecture. But you will find that exercise patronizing, so only if you're open to that.

Edited Sunday at 07:32 PM by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

On 1/10/2026 at 11:12 PM, Sincerity said:

What if someone is attempting to communicate their truth, but it so happens that there's already a term for it which more or less encompasses what's meant by that truth (at least in the communicator's mind)? Is it not useful to label a truth (eg. the truth of X, or "solipsism") to then fluently refer to it in conversation?

Still, why use an abstract term for a presumed breakthrough? Why wouldn't Ramana use terms like X or Y? In fact, for a long time he reportedly remained silent unless asked, if I recall correctly.

Anyhow, even if it was a genuine breakthrough, one might not be entirely clear in their mind about what it is they became conscious of. Also, the mindset behind phrases such as "my truth" can be problematic, in my view. We could think of truth as impersonal, even the truth of one's self and of existence. 

The way language is used hints at the experience someone is coming from. The way I see it, such claims tend to suggest the person is speaking from intellectual conclusions. What is not a concept? 

Quote

I don't like the word solipsism. But for me it's the closest single word to what I wish to convey: This right now is all that is. There's nothing beyond this moment/experience. You are God. You are this. (And, of course, there is no "you".)

According to Wikipedia, the term derives from Latin as a combination of solus ("alone") and ipse ("self"). Again, why would abstract terms be necessary to communicate an experience?

I imagine that experience is still what one is referring to. It's useful to observe that everything that happens occurs in your experience. But to claim that this is ultimately true is premature.

This is not too dissimilar to when someone talks about "no-self" and all that, claiming they understand it or live free from their selves. Sure thing, buddy. (As a general remark, not directed at you, since you admitted that this was a memory and not a presently operative realization.) I appreciate the honesty. 

The chances are slim that this is an actual reality for the one claiming it.  More often than not, they are stuck in an intellectual world without even noticing - especially when it's taken trivially or as an aspect of a cosmology. That suggests a concept being believed in and adopted. The reality of it is very different from our conception of it. And even though we already "know" that difference, do we really know it in our bones?

Granted, it's also possible they may have achieved some degree of freedom from self, though that's still a long way from "no-self."

Perhaps it's like rationally explaining the event at the very moment one is being kicked in the balls, abstracting it, instead of simply going "ouch." By their own account, it makes one wonder whether the person was actually kicked at all. Not the best analogy, but it may help clarify the contrast.

Quote

Eh. Yeah, you're right. It is a waste of time. 🤷‍♂️

I appreciate his perspective (especially his most basic formula and teachings) and I like to think about what he says. But ultimately I'm always the final arbiter of truth anyway. I can as well contemplate from scratch, with more genuine "results". External perspective can be useful too though, as grist for the mill.

That said, hopefully it was genuine and real, and/or had a positive impact on your life - which it seems it did.

As for the arbiter, whatever is ultimately true is the final arbiter; you, me, or anyone else have nothing to do with it. The video on listening I shared in the blog thread may be helpful here.

Edited Monday at 06:26 PM by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

On 1/11/2026 at 4:16 AM, Carl-Richard said:

I see this distinction between the direct consciousness and the communication of it as a massive abyss. Yes, you can have a kind of intuitive flow and traction which resonates viscerally when reading it, and it can be one of the most effective ways of pointing. Energetic delivery in person is even better. But the abyss is still there. It's between the actual experience and the words, concepts, pointers, philosophy characterizing it. And if the communication is through philosophy, a deeply rigorous philisophy can be warranted. And just generally, engaging deeply in philosophy cannot negate any spiritual experience. It's very freeing when you see the ultimateness of spiritual experience that cannot be negated, that whatever you engage with in the world, is the world, the ultimate remains ultimately.

Agree for the most part. I'd also make a distinction between an experience and a philosophy. Communication is about the former. Notice that no philosophy or additional conceptual structure is required for experiential insight; in fact, they can get in the way. 

Our deep need for, or reliance on, belief suggests that we (the entire world) may not truly know what we're talking about. In this existential context, one might attempt to mask that fundamental ignorance by adopting certain systems or practices such as nonduality, idealism, scientific hearsay, atheism, religion, ritual, psychedelics, materialism, solipsism, Scientology, Buddhism, "no-self," or any of the rest.

Edited Monday at 04:34 PM by UnbornTao

[Sincerity]

@UnbornTao I appreciate your feedback.

[Breakingthewall]

It's important to remember that Ramana Maharshi was revered for his mystical "aura," not for what he said. Some people seek genuine mysticism, finding someone who conveys a sense of serenity, holiness ,and this implies that the person is enlightened, whatever that may mean, someone who knows the truth.

Let's see, Ramana spoke of the cycle of reincarnation and said that his mother performed Mashamadi, then she ended the reincarnation well and a cow achieved enlightenment through transmission by him. Just a couple of examples.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

It's important to remember that Ramana Maharshi was revered for his mystical "aura," not for what he said.

He did say some impactful things as well, but like with all teachings, they are often misunderstood.

[Breakingthewall]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

He did say some impactful things as well, but like with all teachings, they are often misunderstood.

One should always be skeptical. Just because someone seems serene and without desires doesn't mean they're at peace with themselves or maybe they have a system that works at low intensity. It doesn't imply a deep understanding of the structure of reality. For example, how does he know there's a cycle of reincarnation that ends with enlightenment? It's an acquired idea.

Edited 10 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

One should always be skeptical. Just because someone seems serene and without desires doesn't mean they're at peace with themselves or maybe they have a system that works at low intensity. It doesn't imply a deep understanding of the structure of reality. For example, how does he know there's a cycle of reincarnation that ends with enlightenment? It's an acquired idea.

Reincarnation happens every moment you think a self-referential thought ("I/me/my" thoughts). Enlightenment eliminates self-referential thoughts. If the thoughts are eliminated, the string of thoughts preceding it are broken. What is reincarnation? A string of self-referential thoughts extending across lifetimes.

Edited 8 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

If you think you already understand what Ramana was conscious of and trying to convey, you're most likely not paying close attention.

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

If you think you already understand what Ramana was conscious of and trying to convey, you're most likely not paying close attention.

You have a fixation on non-pointing.

[UnbornTao]

11 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You have a fixation on non-pointing.

I have a fixation on plain honesty. 

Understanding as in "real knowing."

Edited 8 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Human Mint]

Why would you see solipsism as terrifying? If it is the truth then it is the truth. It is like if you were an alien right know, you would just accept that as reality.

In other words if you're disgusted by solipsism then it is absolutely your making. On the other hand I understand how it is a mindfuck, because it is haha. Maybe that's the point.

Also understanding how God works requires a full grasping of its mechanics, something that if you don't experience you simply cannot bring it to the table. It is a gigantic mistery.

You can see rach individual consciousnesses struggling to grasp their true nature, and then have the intuition that it adds up to God. That's the mindfuck and there lies the brilliant mechanics of God.

I apreciate the thread, very funny to see different perspectives clashing.

Edited 8 hours ago by Human Mint

[Human Mint]

On 11/1/2026 at 1:23 PM, Breakingthewall said:

The spirituality that says reality is a dream means that there isn't a guy; you're imagining him, he doesn't really exist, just like when you dream while you're sleeping

The problem is not that it is nonsense, the problem is that you are not actually grasping the significance of it  

It could just be nonsense, but the problem is you take it as the final answer without "respecting" the actual information that it trying to get to you. Weird phrasing, but I have read a few of your posts and that's your bottleneck. 

[UnbornTao]

4 hours ago, Sincerity said:

@UnbornTao I appreciate your feedback.

No problem.