Is Buddhism a methodological solipsism?

[Bristollad]

I know my friend, I know. I am not patronizing here. While I seem frivolous with belief that isn't a projection of my own mind. Do you realize I had to challenge the same distinctions. For me I could only do this through the lowest common denominator of empirical evidence.

No, that’s not it. It’s not that we don’t understand you because your ideas are profound. It’s that we simply can’t understand what you’re saying because your posts are very confusingly written, and seem not to address the questions being discussed. Sorry.

What I am saying isn't profound.

I simply don't let my mind adhere to paradigms that serve 0 purpose.

That is why I say where is the benefit to your statements.

Remember friend one's mind determines the aspect of phenomenon one chooses to recognize (or not).

Profundity or the lack of it isn't the problem. It's your use of English. Is English your native language? I wondered because you often seem to mix up nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs. This is often why I give up trying to understand any point you're trying to make - because what you write is incomprehensible.

[Queequeg]

I know my friend, I know. I am not patronizing here. While I seem frivolous with belief that isn't a projection of my own mind. Do you realize I had to challenge the same distinctions. For me I could only do this through the lowest common denominator of empirical evidence.

No, that’s not it. It’s not that we don’t understand you because your ideas are profound. It’s that we simply can’t understand what you’re saying because your posts are very confusingly written, and seem not to address the questions being discussed. Sorry.

What I am saying isn't profound.

I simply don't let my mind adhere to paradigms that serve 0 purpose.

That is why I say where is the benefit to your statements.

Remember friend one's mind determines the aspect of phenomenon one chooses to recognize (or not).

It would help if you at least stuck to English, with its generally accepted meanings and syntax, as a paradigm. That's just a suggestion, though.

[Malcolm]

No, that’s not it. It’s not that we don’t understand you because your ideas are profound. It’s that we simply can’t understand what you’re saying because your posts are very confusingly written, and seem not to address the questions being discussed. Sorry.

What I am saying isn't profound.

I simply don't let my mind adhere to paradigms that serve 0 purpose.

That is why I say where is the benefit to your statements.

Remember friend one's mind determines the aspect of phenomenon one chooses to recognize (or not).

It would help if you at least stuck to English, with its generally accepted meanings and syntax, as a paradigm. That's just a suggestion, though.

Based on cause and condition and without resort to predetermined outcomes, the awakening of the buddha surpasses the localized variants of time in your outlook, which prevaricates in tandem with the integration of all ten realms in one moment. QED.

We just have to learn his language...

[tkp67]

My language is fine. Meaning is based on two variables. Intent and interpretation both of which are driven by desires.

It is like a weird variant of mad libs.

[tkp67]

Profundity or the lack of it isn't the problem. It's your use of English. Is English your native language? I wondered because you often seem to mix up nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs. This is often why I give up trying to understand any point you're trying to make - because what you write is incomprehensible.

How can you talk about something that cannot be defined by distinction? You can't.

You can talk around it in a myriad of ways.

I understand that people are conditioned for an academic discourse as a sign of possession of knoweldge but as I said before I don't put much into counter intuitive positions regardless of how powerfully they are adhered to in other minds.

I have yet to find the benefit. I am open to understanding one but I can't find it from my perspective.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Ok this has really gone off the rails, and I'm not sure the original post was even done in good fatih. Gonna go ahead and call it a day with this one.

[Cool-team]

about 10 percent of the population are Buddhists. I read on the Internet that Buddhism is solipsism. This is why I want to ask you: 1. Does Buddhism preach solipsism and skepticism of other minds?

Nope, absolutely not.

(that is, one who believes in Buddhism must believe that only he has consciousness, and other people - philosophical zombies)? 2. Does this mean that Buddhism supports all forms of solipsism? That is, 10 percent of the population are people who do not believe that other people have the same consciousness, mind and feelings as they do? In other words, are all Buddhists or all other people just an illusion (philosophical zombies)? For example, when I talk to a Buddhist, does he think I'm a philosophical zombie? Thanks

Nope, don't know where you heard it, but that viewpoint would be uniformly rejected in Buddhist thought.

I read on the Internet that Buddhism is solipsism

Again nope, you either misinterpreted something or read something which simply was not true.

why is Buddhism not a form of solipsism (epistemological, methodological, metaphysical? thank you

[Johnny Dangerous]

about 10 percent of the population are Buddhists. I read on the Internet that Buddhism is solipsism. This is why I want to ask you: 1. Does Buddhism preach solipsism and skepticism of other minds?

Nope, absolutely not.

(that is, one who believes in Buddhism must believe that only he has consciousness, and other people - philosophical zombies)? 2. Does this mean that Buddhism supports all forms of solipsism? That is, 10 percent of the population are people who do not believe that other people have the same consciousness, mind and feelings as they do? In other words, are all Buddhists or all other people just an illusion (philosophical zombies)? For example, when I talk to a Buddhist, does he think I'm a philosophical zombie? Thanks

Nope, don't know where you heard it, but that viewpoint would be uniformly rejected in Buddhist thought.

I read on the Internet that Buddhism is solipsism

Again nope, you either misinterpreted something or read something which simply was not true.

why is Buddhism not a form of solipsism (epistemological, methodological, metaphysical? thank you

Because it doesn't deny that sentient beings have individual mindstreams. In fact, it is predicated on the fact that they do, otherwise Buddhahood would not be possible.

Beyond that, if you want to continue you need to explain why you think Buddhism *is* or might be a form of solipsism. You are here on a Buddhist site, asking a random question with no background as to what school or part of Buddhism you are talking about.

So basically, you are taking a philosophical concept unrelated to Buddhism and asking people to "disprove" that Buddhism meets the criteria for that philosophy.

Rather, you should figure out what part of Buddhist doctrine you are asking about, then specifically either explain why it's solipsism, or simply ask about it.

The approach you are taking here is possibly contrary to the ToS, and moreover is probably a waste of time. I will shutter the thread if you can't be more specific about your questions, and/or learn enough about Buddhism to properly criticize it or compare it to something else.

[muni]

We have our own individual karmic dream, which is our prison. That is why there is great variety of medicines in Buddhism, to come out, to awaken by compassionate enlightened guidance.

Buddhism makes clear: dependence-emptiness. No independent self standing alone. Then what to compare?

Possible not having studied different philosophies could be more easy? Then there is not the problem "is it like this or like that." Then clarity is necessary.

ps The words by Garchen Rinpoche here below are explanation of meditation, coming out of prison, NOT object to discuss or argue.

[PeterC]

about 10 percent of the population are Buddhists. I read on the Internet that Buddhism is solipsism. This is why I want to ask you: 1. Does Buddhism preach solipsism and skepticism of other minds?

Nope, absolutely not.

(that is, one who believes in Buddhism must believe that only he has consciousness, and other people - philosophical zombies)? 2. Does this mean that Buddhism supports all forms of solipsism? That is, 10 percent of the population are people who do not believe that other people have the same consciousness, mind and feelings as they do? In other words, are all Buddhists or all other people just an illusion (philosophical zombies)? For example, when I talk to a Buddhist, does he think I'm a philosophical zombie? Thanks

Nope, don't know where you heard it, but that viewpoint would be uniformly rejected in Buddhist thought.

I read on the Internet that Buddhism is solipsism

Again nope, you either misinterpreted something or read something which simply was not true.

why is Buddhism not a form of solipsism (epistemological, methodological, metaphysical? thank you

Didn't we have this discussion here ->https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=35834 ?

Is there more to be gained from this discussion?

[tkp67]

Even though there are no beings, including ourselves, we vow to liberate them.

I think many people who don't bother to try and understand Buddhism will try to put the teachings into neat little boxes by which they order their own worlds. If they only understood what Buddhists are actually saying... their minds might melt, much of it in a good way!

Thank you, but i don't understand you, can you explain your answer?

The formulation of thought is biased by every moment one's mind has existed in one's body. For example the definition of mother is personalized by your own familial experiences. Same with culture, language and even palate.

All of the defined concepts that one would use to invalidate/validate solipsism are in and of themselves manifestations of the very same mind. The mind creates the very illusions that would allow them to appear as such (true reality).

How do you measure the boundaries of a concept when one's own mind is the one that imposes them?