What spiritual teachers actually teach Solipsism

[Breakingthewall]

12 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Not wrong, but tautological.

if reality is defined as consciousness or love, the definition is already wrong, because both are particular expressions.
The only coherent definition of reality is unlimited being: that which is, precisely because there are no limits. Absence of limits is not a quality ,it is the defining condition.

Being has no definite meaning in a differential sense, because it has no opposite within this frame. It cannot be defined by contrast. Being is not consciousness, consciousness is a relational process, while being is the fact of being because there are no limits.
Is this a tautology? Yes , and necessarily so. Any non-tautological definition would already introduce limits. As the Tao Te Ching says, what can be named is not the Tao.

Existence means being in a relative, structured form. Being is the condition that makes any form possible. It is prior to existence, but not separate from it.

There is no being apart from form; form is being appearing. Without form there is no existence, but form is inevitable because reality is not contained. Where there are no limits, coherent manifestation cannot be prevented.

 

12 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Is spirituality about emotions? Is it true only if it feels safe?

No, I said the opposite. 

Edited yesterday at 01:20 PM by Breakingthewall

[theleelajoker]

On 16.1.2026 at 1:09 AM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Can you see how your answers are somewhat circular?

You can make that point with ANY answer, no matter the content.

Language is conditioned in a way that one word 1 or symbol 1 must be explained by another word 2 or symbol 2.  But how you then define this word 2 with word 3 etc etc 

Descriptions are, like ultimate causality, limited and their coherence dissolves at some point.

Any description is in the end BS. John Lilly once said he starts his workshop with "everything I say is a lie. Because it's not the experience itself."

Let's switch symbols.

Let's call reality now "tomato soup"  and circular now "butter" and answer we call "horse" 

So your point is that breakingthewall's horse regarding tomato soup is butter.

Don't mistake the map for the territory. Look where the finger is pointing to, not the finger. Part of us is addicted to words, concepts, thinking. As Ralston would say, just stop doing that.

Edited yesterday at 02:10 PM by theleelajoker

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Breakingthewall gotcha, I think the way it was written reversed the meaning. 

@theleelajoker not sure regarding your rant, I think you pulled a comment out of context.  Maybe some assumptions there about what you perceive I may be aware of, or not. Or what I am really pointing to.

Words don't have any inherent meaning without context. You can be more or less accurate/defined. 

I think you assume a lot about my context. No where did I say words are reality or can describe truth in totality.

Edited yesterday at 04:38 PM by Natasha Tori Maru

[theleelajoker]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Breakingthewall gotcha, I think the way it was written reversed the meaning. 

@theleelajoker not sure regarding your rant, I think you pulled a comment out of context.  Maybe some assumptions there about what you perceive I may be aware of, or not. Or what I am really pointing to.

Words don't have any inherent meaning without context. You can be more or less accurate/defined. 

I think you assume a lot about my context. No where did I say words are reality or can describe truth in totality.

Ok. Point taken. 

But then I wonder: if that's your POV, that reality can not be described, then why bother to participate in a discussion about description of reality at all? 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

47 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

Ok. Point taken. 

But then I wonder: if that's your POV, that reality can not be described, then why bother to participate in a discussion about description of reality at all? 

This is just so open a question, I could answer it in ten pages or none. Like asking the meaning of life 🤪

Why not? Just because the tool isn't perfect ... 

We can point together

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I do not stop because I cannot be perfect. I limber around, happily imperfect and never knowing ⟵⁠(⁠๑⁠¯⁠◡⁠¯⁠๑⁠)

[Carl-Richard]

On 20.1.2026 at 0:23 AM, Inliytened1 said:

 Understanding is not limited to conceptual understanding alone   There is something called non-dual understanding that is not conceptual.  This is the direct experience and understanding as one.  What is omniscience for example?

And you forget that there is so much of this God-Understanding that you can handle in finite form. So its the opposite.  Because you have to shift back into finite form and then digest it.  So you have it backwards.  God would set you up for failure if he dropped everything on you at once.  Or on himself.

Non-dual understanding is One. No two ways about it. When I sat in class and had an experience of time stopping, was that me awakening onto time being an illusion? Was that me having an Absolute Time awakening? Or is it the fact that the non-dual experience of course has no time because time is a duality between past and present, between moment to moment, and non-duality is just one moment.

All of my awakenings have had timelessness to them. It's just in some of them I get fixed on the timeless aspect, because again, that's how our attention and conceptual mind works. It's limited, piecemeal.

Edited 19 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Breakingthewall It is my understanding you are not a solipsist? 

To be clear my questions are just trying to make out your cosmology.

Not here to tell or convince anyone

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

make out 

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

 

@Carl-Richard Carl... are you flirting with me?

You bloody telepathic devil!

I laughed out loud at this 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Carl-Richard Carl... are you flirting with me?

You bloody telepathic devil!

I laughed out loud at this 

[Breakingthewall]

11 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Breakingthewall It is my understanding you are not a solipsist? 

To be clear my questions are just trying to make out your cosmology.

Not here to tell or convince anyone

No, I'm not. The solipsist doesn't say that reality is non-dual, that everything that exists is the infinite being or the Tao or whatever; he says that you are God projecting a dream onto the screen of your mind, a dream that isn't real. Only you, God, are real, and the dream is a projection. The people you see aren't real; they have no experience. They are images you create to live an experience and achieve certain goals, to love, or whatever

Then no, I think that this is a totally wrong map of what reality is

[Carl-Richard]

I think solipsism as it's usually conceived falls under the concept of crypto-materialism. Earlier I've presented it as an epistemic phenomena of clinging on to the epistemic norms and empirical frameworks of materialism (materialist science, leading to largely discarding psychic phenomena, telepathy, spirits, etc.). This version of solipsism is more an ontological version of the same phenomena. You want to propose that "there is only you", "there is no self", "there is no objective reality, only a dream", but then you cling on to the ontological norms of physical creatures, physical constraints like time and space, perceptual contents, and making objective statements about these things (their limitations, their extension, their locality, closesness, visibility, immediateness). In reality, non-duality makes no claim about objective (or subjective) reality other than its oneness. Any elaboration in any direction is an overreach.

Edited 2 hours ago by Carl-Richard