My friend asked me today what Buddhism has to say about Solipsism. I was caught off guard by his questions, like usual. All I could say was something about how Solipsism is an extreme view that could be equated to the opposite view in terms of extremity that we don't have any inherent existence, only the outer world does (which, frankly on hindsight, my intuition which is typically correct even in its inability to communicate verbal reason, says that Solipsism is far more probable than its antithesis). I mumbled some half communicated reason about how Buddhism would probably adhere to the middle way and say something to the effect that all people have an equal share in the pie, that despite whatever ultimate reality is we all have an equally powerful mind if that mind is indeed projecting reality. Then I said that whether or not it is projecting reality or whatever ultimate reality may be isn't important in Buddhism, for when he asks me these sorts of questions (which I've highly encouraged him to do) if he is seeking an absolute answer to (or as he has often confessed a single, absolute philosophy to answer) all his questions he isn't going to find it, especially with Buddhism. This is because Buddhism is more pragmatic and if you cannot ascertain a question, then there's no use in debating or searching for supreme wisdom lies in giving up that search and quenching that irresistible thirst for unconjectural questions
. I also fumbled even less skillfully in attempting to say something to the effect that in the history of Buddhism there have been those schools who have strayed slightly off the path of admitting there's no knowledge for certain (and if I'm correct rather than saying what is for certain, they'd say something like what isn't likely to happen thereby limiting potentials of ultimate reality and passively giving you an idea of what is more likely) and in these cases people who understood well the nature of unconjecturable questions would emerge like Nagarjuna with his Mulamadhyamakakarika
text on absolute emptiness to accomplish the goal of more or less disproving all contemporary Buddhist philosophies which attempt to attest to any ultimate, discernible truth whatsoever in order to reintroduce the absolute middle way before a branch of alternate Buddhist philosophy can begin to emerge.
Therefore the position of Buddhism and Solipsism would probably ultimately be--who the hell knows or cares? But conventionally, considering the middle way, Buddhism would probably deny Solipsism on account of its extreme egocentrical nature, am I correct? Or ought I apologise and correct myself?