Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

[Coëmgenu]

As you can see, there are many variations of solipsism. But, in current use of the term, as far as I know it is generally used to describe any philosophy claiming material form is a product of perception

[...]

No!

These theories are non-substantialist theories.

[...]

Solipsism means that you think "only you" exist. That is the root of solipsism. Nothing about external reality. It 'means' only you exist. Theories about the substantiality or nonsubstantiality of the world follow therefrom.

So if one believes their family members will not continue to exist after they die, does this not imply that they only consider themselves to exist, and not their family members ?

Look at it this way, you used to use the example of a car about to hit someone. So, lets go back to that. All of this, I have to say of course, IMO.

You are J walking. A car is about to strike you. After it kills you, it will continue onward and kill several people behind you on the sidewalk. After you are dead, does the car continue and do the people behind you still die on account of that continuing car?

The answer is yes, the car will still continue on doing what it was doing and the people behind you will still die, killed by that very car. This is because no one (well, to be fair, some people say this, but they are a far more eccentric and small minority than you think, IMO) argues that "empty of inherent existence" or even "asvabhāva" has ever meant that causality does not exist and that causes and conditions do not interact. Saying that the car is "empty of car" simply means that there is no "true identity" that is the "fundamental 'car' essence" in a way that is indivisible and irreduceable. You can break the car down into its constituent parts. You can also break the car down into the experience of the car. You cannot find the discreet "only-car" essence. Because it does not exist.

A lot of people are what I would like to call "Emptiness Mystics" IMO. If I wanted to be less generous I would call these unnamed and unspecified peoples "para-Madhyamakas". You would call them "Emptiness Eel-wrigglers". Suññavikkhepa perhaps. 像空性之扭動, to use the language of the āgamāḥ.

That is, they do a great job, standing on the shoulders of the Madhyamaka giants, in declaring emptiness to not be whatever anyone just described it as, regardless of however they just described it.

[Circle5]

You are J walking. A car is about to strike you. After it kills you, it will continue onward and kill several people behind you on the sidewalk. After you are dead, does the car continue and do the people behind you still die on account of that continuing car?

The answer is yes, the car will still continue on doing what it was doing and the people behind you will still die, killed by that very car. This is because no one (well, to be fair, some people say this, but they are a far more eccentric and small minority than you think, IMO)

And that minority includes the Nananandians who respond that they don't know weather the car will kill those people or not.

Saying that the car is "empty of car" simply means that there is no "true identity" that is the "fundamental 'car' essence" in a way that is indivisible and irreduceable. You can break the car down into its constituent parts. You can also break the car down into the experience of the car. You cannot find the discreet "only-car" essence. Because it does not exist.

But who is arguing otherwise ? That is like claiming "I believe the world is not flat" and also claim that you are in a small minority of people who see the world in a non-conventional way. Like there would be a huge majority of people out there believing it is flat. That's the definition of fighting a strawman.

[Coëmgenu]

Saying that the car is "empty of car" simply means that there is no "true identity" that is the "fundamental 'car' essence" in a way that is indivisible and irreduceable. You can break the car down into its constituent parts. You can also break the car down into the experience of the car. You cannot find the discreet "only-car" essence. Because it does not exist.

But who is arguing otherwise ? That is like claiming "I believe the world is not flat" and also claim that you are in a small minority of people who see the world in a non-conventional way. Like there would be a huge majority of people out there believing it is flat. That's the definition of fighting a strawman.

Honestly? I don't know. Its a pretty dumb idea isn't it? That there is a distinct "only-car" essence. And that there is "only-X-dhamma" essence for any given dhamma. But it seems people used to believe this, quite possibly on an "official religious dogma" level.

People also used to believe that the entire world was made of ether in the form of irreducible prime particles. These particles, it seems, took on the qualities of Nibbāna or the 'Unconditioned' in the minds of Indian atomists.

Then you get Mahāyānis critiquing that position as such:

Objection: But how do we really know that the Buddha intended an esoteric meaning when he spoke of the
senses and their objects? Are there not external, really existing elements [that is, atoms] . . . that, when joined together into
aggregations, form the objects perceived through the senses? [Didn't the Buddha recognize the underlying atomic structure
of the objective material world?]

Yogacara Reply: [The Buddha could not have accepted the atomic theory.] "The existence of atoms cannot be
proved because an object of perception is never a unified entity [that is, a whole without parts], nor is it several distinct
atoms, nor is it even an aggregation of atoms." [Ven Vasubandhu, Viṃśatikākārikā, verse 11]

and

"One atom joined to six others would have six sides [for the other six to attach themselves to]. Or do the other six
atoms occupy the same place [space] as the first? Wouldn't the seven then be one [that is, wouldn't there be just one atom
instead of seven]?" Furthermore, some atomists2 argue that, since an atom has no parts, it is impossible for atoms to join together into
aggregations. And yet, these same atomists claim that aggregations of atoms can join with other aggregations to form larger
aggregations. "But if atoms cannot aggregate in the first place because they have no parts, how can there be any atomic
aggregations to subsequently aggregate with one another? Whatever has parts cannot be a unity [that is, cannot be indivisible]." [v 12-14a]

So it seems that people, at one point, literally thought that atoms were Nibbāna, or something similarly eccentric of the like. People have believed all sorts of weird business.

But who is arguing otherwise ?

I think the argument is the same as with pernicious self-view, which must be severed from and vomited out, as it is largely an unconscious process that we do without trying, self-reifying, that is to say is. That is one perspective. We do this even (i.e. presume fundamental essences for 'things') though we think we don't.

[sentinel]