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 18 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 4 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 1 hour 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 33 minutes 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 this doesn't contradict Ramana.  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 7 minutes ago by Inliytened1