What spiritual teachers actually teach Solipsism

[Human Mint]

On 13/1/2026 at 8:01 PM, Breakingthewall said:

I don't understand what you mean. 

Me neither. I could not come up with half the things that are discussed in this forum, that's why it is so valuable for me. But I can connect a lot of dots reading from the blog + the discussions on the forum, because I do have good intuition.

Edited 19 hours ago by Human Mint

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Maybe something is missing in my interpretation, of course. I talk just by the image that I have of Ramana due some readings and videos. 

Not long ago, I read the backside of a shampoo bottle and thought "what if I read up on every ingredient?" Sometimes this thinking is needed in discussions like these.

[Breakingthewall]

12 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Not long ago, I read the backside of a shampoo bottle and thought "what if I read up on every ingredient?" Sometimes this thinking is needed in discussions like these.

I know what Ramana Maharshi said; it's quite basic, uncomplicated. The thing would be to talk to him and see how he responds, but that's impossible.

What is undeniable is that he was a man detached from form. For him, form was irrelevant; he was focused on what's he call the absolute self, the unlimited being. But for me, this only means that he was innately detached from form, and that since this attitude is promoted and given status in India, he voluntarily emphasized this detachment by vocation.

This doesn't imply that when, for example, he says that the enlightened reach the end of the cycle of reincarnation, it isn't simply a religious repetition. 

For me, a much more interesting mystic is Ramakrishna, for example. His message is personal and direct. Ramana's message seems heavily filtered through Advaita and Buddhism . Focused in the vacuity, silence, no form. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[UnbornTao]

19 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

I agree, it’s impossible to know whether I truly understand what Maharshi was trying to communicate, but I would say yes , and I would also say that I see his limitations (I know this will sound intolerably presumptuous to you).

I think this reveals the gap in listening that I was talking about. Only recently have I begun to notice how poor a listener I am, and how profound this principle is - especially in the context of 'consciousness' communications. It doesn't help that the mind can conjure worlds and states consistent with the input it receives. It not only "observes" reality, but also helps create it.

For example, notice how all of this remains purely intellectual for you. You don't even grasp that he was trying to communicate something real and profound. It wasn't just theory, conjecture, philosophy, belief, or hearsay. He was actually and directly conscious of something real and profound. The guy likely transcended life, death, and himself. And again, for real. He wasn't just jerking off in his mind like most of us do. That reality is distinct from the imaginative world everyone else is immersed in without realizing it.

I do share the skepticism toward his followers and everything around him; I'd just stick to his original teachings and not get caught up in the culture and fantasy surrounding his image.

Quote

Maybe something is missing in my interpretation, of course. I talk just by the image that I have of Ramana due some readings and videos. 

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what anyone else says. What makes a difference is your own work and contemplation, and whether you produce breakthroughs. This case could be used as a reality check for us, to avoid fooling ourselves - which we do all too readily. Insofar as it is real, experiential, and true, that seems to be the best criterion here.

Edited 3 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Inliytened1]

 

Wow after my little break I see this thread is still hot! 

@UnbornTao thought u were done with the circle jerks..pulled back in eh..

Edited 2 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

On 1/8/2026 at 10:57 AM, Carl-Richard said:

Now you're making the mistake of solipsism turned out on the world instead of turned in towards yourself, as Michael James put it (the person doing the Ramana Maharshi Q&A). Once you use solipsism to describe relationships out in the world, relationships between people, between you as a dream character and other dream characters, you are no longer talking about Ramana's solipsism. Ramana's solipsism is the one dreamer taking on the dream character(s) as an illusion in its own imagination. The relationship between the dreamer and the dream characters is not spatial, not local, not present in time, only present through omniscience, pure knowing, pure being of everything that exists. Once you start talking about hidden things, of things being present in space or being not present in space, of where things are on the screen of perception or where they are not — once you start to question the dreamer's complete omniscience — you are in conceptual thinking, belief, fantastical delusion. What Ramana wanted to tell you is that your grandma is an illusion, and so are you.

No Ramana's exolanation  doesn't contradict Solpsism. .  This doesn't question the self this simply questions other. Just because you are questioning other doesn't mean you arent questioning self at some point.

Edited just now by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

On 1/8/2026 at 2:09 PM, Breakingthewall said:

Solipsism claims that the people that you see in the street are not real, because there is nothing real outside of your field of consciousness.

 

 

Anything outside of your consciousness is actually inside your own consciousness as God.  You are imagining what is outside and inside as God. That is the premise.  This cannot be escaped ever ever ever.  

Ever.

Edited 1 hour ago by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

There is no distinction.

Each is a separate realization. You do not realize no self and no other simultaneously.  So when Ramana references there is no other and I don't need to know his inner thoughts for this..he isn't saying there isnt a self.  Same as when Leo talks about it. Language can only cover so much that's why teaching is limited.

Edited 1 hour ago by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

27 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Each is a separate realization. You do not realize no self and no other simultaneously.

That's a load of bullshit. "No self" only ever arises not simultaneously as "no other" as a thought. The realization is infinite.

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

For example, notice how all of this remains purely intellectual for you. You don't even grasp that he was trying to communicate something real and profound.

Maybe it's you who can't listen and understand what I'm saying. just consider the possibility. I wrote a long analysis about Ramana Maharshi and I don't see any relationship with your answer. Just that you think that I'm not in the level to talk about Ramana . But what about that I said?

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

again, for real. He wasn't just jerking off in his mind like most of us do.

That's interesting that you deliver subtle, let's say phrases meant to put the other person down

Anyway I was trying to talk about Ramana maharishi. 

 

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

the end of the day, it doesn't matter what anyone else says. What makes a difference is your own work and contemplation, and whether you produce breakthroughs

That's good, I appreciate a your advices, but I was trying to talk about Maharshi. Anyway, thanks for the advices and for the conversation 

Edited 48 minutes ago by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

40 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Anything outside of your consciousness is actually inside your own consciousness as God.  You are imagining what is outside and inside as God. That is the premise.  This cannot be escaped ever ever ever.  

Ever.

You are not imagining, there is not an agent or a centre that creates the reality, it's impossible. But we already talked about it. 

 

[Inliytened1]

51 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

You are not imagining, there is not an agent or a centre that creates the reality, it's impossible. But we already talked about it. 

 

But this doesn't explain anything and we did talk about it - since you do not consider the science.   Your explanation does not resolve anything other than its just there, unfolding without anything. But what you fail to see is this is your logical scientific explanation.   You claim there is no science or logic to reality yet you use this to determine your definition of reality.   You saying there is no science is the science.  There is a foundation to your explanation whether you wish to deny this or not.  In your explanation there is a physical universe with atoms and brains and consciousness within the brain right?  You cannot escape the science because it is right in front of you with what is assumed to be true.  There is assumed to be a physical world.  With you over here and other over there.  The moon there.  The sky there.  The planets there.  And other people there.

Edited 5 minutes ago by Inliytened1

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

 

@UnbornTao thought u were done with the circle jerks..pulled back in eh..

Forgot to answer @Sincerity.

[Inliytened1]

On 1/11/2026 at 3:56 AM, Mellowmarsh said:

This is confusing. Can you clarify what you mean by dangerous?

Confusing because on the one hand Advaita or Neo-repackaged Advaita is stating there is ''no you stuff''. And yet, solipsism is saying there is a you, and the idea that there are other you's is just YOU imagining those other you's.

So it's confusing because according to solipsistic knowledge, there is only you, and all other you's are just (P Zombies) that have no consciousness or mind of their own.

Which idea out of those two ideas is dangerous, and why?

 

Both are dangerous if taught as a belief system.  But what is have seen from the neo-advaitan teachings it is very much turned into a belief system which makes you question of the ones teachings it came to know it through concept or actuality.  A further clarification  is that Solpsism the way its taught here does not say there is a you or a self.   So it does not contradict the no self premise.