What spiritual teachers actually teach Solipsism

[Carl-Richard]

12 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

It was not for me.  I realized that the self was an illusion before I realized that all other was also an illusion. So its fine to teach both simultaneously but one should point out that you will not realize everything at once.  And teachers often just speak parts of things they dont go into things holistically.  Even a teacher that would encompass everything should specify that it won't be realized all at once. 

The realization of Infinity is even another so the realization is infinite cannot come before that.   I dont even know what the realization is infinite even means. No one said any realization was a thought i am speaking about awakening so this is not conceptual.   That's the very thing im against would be to take something as a belief would be a thought. 

That's because you confuse conceptual understanding for direct experience. The conceptual understanding comes afterwards, in waves, in packets, because they are limited. And there are various different concepts that can be used to describe the direct experience and which resonates intuitively with it. But it's not the same thing as the experience. That's why solipsism is a philosophy. That's even why non-dualism as far as its spoken and not directly equated to direct experience (nothing added to or subtracted from it) is a philosophy. But solipsism as it's "taught here" is not even non-dualistic. It's dualistic. So it's a v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶b̶a̶d̶ wrong* conceptualization of the experience.

 

13 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

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.  

Yet it says there is a "here" and "now" which you have explicitly stated excludes certain things being possible and/or existing, which means it's dualistic.

 

13 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

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.

The absolutely horrific irony is that you talk about this and go exactly in the trap of confusing concept with experience. This is a painfully ironic shitfest.

Edited 7 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

18 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

@UnbornTao You put too much faith in Ramana... You dont even know if he is real or not. He could just be your hallucination. Dont put too much authority on people, discover for yourself whats true.

I'm simply acknowledging that he was one of the few who knew what they were talking about. But I never met the guy, and he's been dead for a while. So certainly what I have of him is mostly imagination, stories, and his words, if the books are to be trusted.

[UnbornTao]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The absolutely horrific irony is that you talk about this and go exactly in the trap of confusing concept with experience.

Too real.

I'm beginning to suspect that most people don't really make that distinction, including me - to a large degree, at least.

Edited 16 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The absolutely horrific irony is that you talk about this and go exactly in the trap of confusing concept with experience. 

The only time I am able to clearly separate concept from experience is at the point of orgasm.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

On 14/01/2026 at 11:13 PM, Breakingthewall said:

Absence of limitations, which makes the emergence of coherent relationships inevitable

Are you afraid of emptiness, nothingness. No-thing?

No real words for it. But you know what I point to.

Or is it that you feel it is nihilistic? I notice you fear anything cold. Abstract. Empty. You always steer away from it.

This would be somewhat limiting your worldview and understanding. due to avoiding a large part of enquiry.

The problem with this 'absence of limits' is that that is ONLY how experience shows up.

It is not what reality is made of. 'Emptiness' is what experience is MADE of. Experience without a centre.

 

[UnbornTao]

Turn this into a belief system! https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi

[Breakingthewall]

36 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It is not what reality is made of. 'Emptiness' is what experience is MADE of. Experience without a centre.

 

Reality isn't made of something; it's made of being, and that's because it has no limits. It's difficult to truly grasp what "being" means. Reality is, you are, and you are because you have no absolute limits, only relative ones. And being is not experience, is what experience is. Experience is a possibility that is. Experience needs change. Being is where change happens. 

This isn't theory; it's constant, obvious, and undeniable direct openess to what I am. I don't speak from a conceptual standpoint, but rather I conceptualize vision in order to communicate it.

Edited 15 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Breakingthewall What is an atom?

 

[Breakingthewall]

7 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Breakingthewall What is an atom?

 

a localized set of vibrations of the fields of reality arranged coherently

[Natasha Tori Maru]

33 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

a localized set of vibrations of the fields of reality arranged coherently

What is a field of reality? 

What is reality? 

What is a vibration? 

What is coherence? 

In your words, how you define them.

[Breakingthewall]

32 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

What is a field of reality? 

What is reality? 

What is a vibration? 

What is coherence? 

In your words, how you define them.

A field of reality is a concrete possibility that can happen in the reality . According science a field is a magnitude defined in spacetime. More metaphysically could be said that it's a coherent way in which reality can be structured without contradiction

The reality is what is due it's limitlessness 

A vibration is a stable dynamic pattern of change in a system. 

Coherence is the compatibility between the parts of a system that allows a pattern to remain stable. If this compatibility is lacking, the pattern doesn't appear, it doesn't exist. What is incoherent does not manifest, since any manifestation is a relationship between parts.

What is a part in the unlimited? It's a local configuration. A wave is not a part of the ocean, it's a local configuration that is coherent with others locals configurations. 

Edited 14 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

14 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

A field of reality is a concrete possibility that can happen in the reality . According science a field is a magnitude defined in spacetime. More metaphysically could be said that it's a coherent way in which reality can be structured without contradiction

The reality is what is due it's limitlessness 

A vibration is a stable dynamic pattern of change in a system. 

Coherence is the compatibility between the parts of a system that allows a pattern to remain stable. If this compatibility is lacking, the pattern doesn't appear, it doesn't exist. What is incoherent does not manifest, since any manifestation is a relationship between parts.

What is a part in the unlimited? It's a local configuration. A wave is not a part of the ocean, it's a local configuration that is coherent with others locals configurations. 

Can you see how your answers are somewhat circular?

The way you have answered here, prompts me to ask the questions again. As they were not addressed.

None of this tells us what an atom is. Or what an atom is made of, and what it is further made of. What is at the 'bottom' so to speak.

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

The only time I am able to clearly separate concept from experience is at the point of orgasm.

Bruuuuuuuaaaaaaah. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

Bruuuuuuuaaaaaaah. 

HA HA HA.

No but I was serious >.<

Also, I have slipped into meditative states on numerous occasions, that reflect this single pointed focus.

In normal states my conceptual mind is so embedded up my arse you would need a full excavator/demolition crew to even touch the shit 

[Breakingthewall]

7 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Can you see how your answers are somewhat circular?

The way you have answered here, prompts me to ask the questions again. As they were not addressed.

Not circular, are final. What did you don't understand?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, Breakingthewall said:

Not circular, are final. What did you don't understand?

Because the answer got no closer to finding out what is behind an atom. 

The answers are born of simplicy. Not more concepts and large paragraphs.

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

HA HA HA.

No but I was serious >.<

Also, I have slipped into meditative states on numerous occasions, that reflect this single pointed focus.

In normal states my conceptual mind is so embedded up my arse you would need a full excavator/demolition crew to even touch the shit 

I've seen my conceptual mind completely stripped naked, poking it, morphing it, manipulating it, making it dance, while being held in a bottomless, wall-less chamber of terror. My grasp on it has been entirely intentional.

Edited 6 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Breakingthewall]

25 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Because the answer got no closer to finding out what is behind an atom. 

The answers are born of simplicy. Not more concepts and large paragraphs.

8 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

 

My answers are absolutely simple and direct. Maybe for you it's better this:

An atom is pure consciousness 

Or this:

An atom is pure love.

They are emotional answers and are very successful because people feel safe listening them . All is spirituality is about emotions. If make you feel safe, it's true. But the reality is not like that.

Anyway, tell me what is wrong in my answers , over all in the answer to the question: what is reality?

Edited 6 hours ago by Breakingthewall