one person who considered himself a Buddhist — Johnny5454

Which Buddhist school/tradition does this Buddhist propose to be a member of?

He spoke about all the main schools of Buddhism in China, Japan and South Korea (Chan, Zen, Seon, Pure Land)

No, the question is:
Which Buddhist school/tradition does this Buddhist propose to be a member of?
Is this person a Mahayana Buddhist, a Theravada Buddhist, a Zen Buddhist, ...?

He is a Mahayana Buddhist

Like many religions through history they do change from practices to entirely new religions.
See here: https://www.freexenon.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/religion_tree.jpg

Like many philosophers in philosophy each religous follower can have different perspectives on religon.
As such can lead to disagreements.

If you are following a openly adopted culture/religion follow the teachings that give you self-discipline while not negatively affecting your well-being or the well-being of those around you.
And follow the culture of that religion that gives you joy.

Just because you do not understand a person's culture or views on culture it does not mean it is something to fear but something your yet to understand.
You also don't have to follow every fine detail of a religion either, you can live a fulfilling life by living how you see fit.

I understand you, thank you.
But there are simply many Buddhists in the world and if they are all solipsists it would be scary.

I would like to know when I talk with Chinese Buddhists Chan or Chinese Pure Land Buddhists, will they believe that I have thoughts, consciousness, feelings, emotions, sensations?

Then ask them: "If that were true, why do we eat? Why do we drink?"
Because to value life is based on experiences and free will, If we feel hunger we eat, if we feel thirsty we drink, if we are in danger we feel threatened, it is because we value our own lives that we act on such impulse.
Externally if another were to value your life's needs then you would value that person's life more so.
Which can be the start of many friendships.

if they are all solipsists it would be scary. — Johnny5454

Why scary?

Thank you. I just don't have the opportunity to ask Buddhists directly, so I want to ask experts who know about Buddhism:

All the main modern schools of Buddhism in China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Vietnam believe and teach that all people in our world, all the people we see, all the people we talk to have thoughts, consciousness, memories, sensations, feelings and emotions ?

Solipsism is a terrible idea.
More than 500,000,000 Buddhists live in the world. If they are all solipsist, it’s scary to realize that there are so many people in our world who support this terrible idea.

Isn't it one of buddha's teachings or will that his followers thought for themselves and that they are not constrained by his teachings?

I don’t know sir. If I was an expert in Buddhism I would not ask here.

Buddhists — Johnny5454

solipsists — Johnny5454

@Wayfarer Anattā

Buddhism has this concept of annatā, link above, in English, no-self. Taking this into account, solipsism which claims the self to be the only certain truth seems distinctly non-Buddhist in character. All is illusion (Maya) but the question is who/what is experiencing this illusion?

Solipsism is a terrible idea.
More than 500,000,000 Buddhists live in the world. If they are all solipsist, it’s scary to realize that there are so many people in our world who support this terrible idea. — Johnny5454

I see, so you are scared at the prospect of that many solipsists. I hear you. You know, I hate to break it too you, but there are probably twice that many arseholes...

Buddhism is not generally known as solipsism.

Thank you.
But the question is: All the main modern schools of Buddhism in China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Vietnam believe and teach that all people in our world, all the people we see, all the people we talk to have thoughts, consciousness, memories, sensations, feelings and emotions?

Isn't it one of buddha's teachings or will that his followers thought for themselves and that they are not constrained by his teachings? — Tiberiusmoon

No, it isn't.

Fair enough.

I just don't have the opportunity to ask Buddhists directly — Johnny5454

Yes, you do: go to some Buddhist forums, e.g.:

Theravada: https://www.dhammawheel.com/
Mahayana: https://www.dharmawheel.net/
(Early) Buddhism: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/

Do provide a scriptural reference for the claim "one of buddha's teachings or will [is] that his followers thought for themselves and that they are not constrained by his teachings".

Not a claim but a question. :)
Considering Buddha was a philosopher, you would think he promoted philosophy itself.

You should read some primary Buddhist texts.

Thank you.
But the question is: All the main modern schools of Buddhism in China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Vietnam believe and teach that all people in our world, all the people we see, all the people we talk to have thoughts, consciousness, memories, sensations, feelings and emotions? — Johnny5454

The challenge for solpisism is this: granted that everything except one's own existence is doubtful but the catch is we simply can't distinguish minds that are real from minds that are not; after all, that is exactly the main premise of the slopsistic argument, no? If we could actually tell the difference between the two (real minds and unreal minds), solipsism would have been either vindicated or refuted decisively. Ergo, the real and the unreal can't be told apart and hence the distinction real-unreal is one without a difference. In other words, reality and illusion are one and the same thing and by extension, a real other mind is identical in every respect to an illusory other mind. Solipsism then is meaningless for the simple reason that though it casts doubt on reality, contemplates the possibility of it all being an illusion, it does so because it can't tell which is which and if that's the case, whence the distinction between reality and illusion?

All the main modern schools of Buddhism in China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Vietnam believe and teach that all people in our world, all the people we see, all the people we talk to have thoughts, consciousness, memories, sensations, feelings and emotions ? — Johnny5454

I might be able to help you out. I've been a dedicated Soto (Japanese lineage) Zen student for over 30 years but do not consider myself an expert.

Many people become quite confused with Zen or Buddhism because there are two aspects to it. One is the religion (what some like to refer to as the intellectualization of the spiritual essence) and the other, which is the actual spiritual practice (meditation), a non-intellectual pursuit.

The difficulties arise when attempting to intellectualize something that is non-intellectual. What makes for a great master (teacher) is their seeming ability to do just this, but it is not what they are doing. Understanding the teaching is purely experiential so the best teachers simply provide their students with the correct motivation. It is the student who must do the work (meditation).

Your confusion is common because when described the way you pose your question, the practice seems very different than what it actually is. Although quite an enigma, it is also the same which keeps it from being corrupted more than it would be otherwise. Fortunately, nobody has been able to corrupt the non-intellectual which is why Zen (in particular) has such a strong appeal to purists.

I don't know if I agree with that. The argument is that you can tell that your mind is a real one. You know that for sure, and that certitude us a real difference. On other minds it is necissarily agnostic.