Charles II was not an absolute monarch, and this shows a real severe misunderstanding of what it meant for the monarch to dissolve Parliament (something that was a regular power of the monarchy, and is technically the power used even to this day to dissolve Parliament for an election), Parliament being dissolved means no new Parliamentary acts can be passed. It did not mean Charles II wasn’t subject to the law, or that he could do anything that was within Parliamentary prerogative during the time Parliament was not seated. These limitations mean he was certainly not an absolute monarch. An absolute monarch can set tax rates through royal proclamation, as an example–Charles did not have this power. King Louis XIV or the Tsars of Russia on the other hand, absolutely did have this power. Earlier in his reign Charles proclaimed the “Declaration of Indulgences”, his first attempt to bring Catholics back to having religious liberty in the country. Parliament informed him it was opposed to it, and that he did not have the right to issue such acts without Parliamentary approval. Charles withdrew the declaration, and then agreed to the “Test Act” which made it so anyone who was not part of the Church of England or the Church of Scotland in Scotland, was ineligible for public office and any number of other civil liberties. Charles signed this despite not wanting to–in fact his brother was still trying to engineer a packed Parliament to overturn it during his reign.
Charles was granted a number of customs and excise duties on his restoration, and at many times this was not sufficient to run government fully, and he had to do without, largely because of his conflicts with Parliament he wasn’t able to secure additional sources of funding without being subject to negotiations he wasn’t prepared to enter into.
I can only assume your misunderstanding is a simplistic fact I see repeated in many quick google search results on the topic, that Charles “ruled without Parliament” after suspending it and became an “absolute monarch.” This does not describe the legal or constitutional status of the British monarchy in the 17th or even 16th centuries–even Henry VIII would not have met the definition of an absolute monarch, although he came very close, probably the closest any English King was able to come to achieving that. Charles certainly engaged in some of the same activities Henry did, such as packing courts with jurors friendly to his interests and firing judges he disagreed with, but even back to Anglo-Saxon times English Kings had limitations under the law, which had been confirmed many times before and after Charles IIs reign. Ruling without Parliament was not unusual in pre-modern England, but it did not represent anything like absolute monarchy due to various actions the Kings were not allowed to take without calling a new Parliament, and the fact various laws, judges and etc had ordinary independence of the monarch.
James II/VII was also not an absolute monarch, and again was limited in what he could do without Parliament. Proroguing Parliament does not turn the English monarch of this period into an absolute ruler. In fact the very end of James’s short reign illustrates why he could not be considered an absolute monarch, realizing that his Catholicism and various desires he had to undermine anti-Catholic laws was undermining his authority, he sought a definitive solution to the problem by calling new Parliamentary elections and finding a way to pack the new Parliament with his own men. The very act of him attempting to create a permanent “Royalist electoral machine” to erode the power of Parliament was a major reason the Protestant nobility invited William to invade, and the significant lack of support he realized he had in the country made him decline to fight William by force of arms.
Now, if James had succeeded in packing Parliament, he likely would have become a true absolute monarch along French / Russian / Austrian lines, as such control would have likely seen him pass many laws to permanently end the ability to challenge the monarchy. Instead, William’s first Parliament saw a number of laws passed which had the effect of permanently, and formally limiting the monarchy.
If you contrast this to Louis XIV who ruled coterminous to the events described, there were virtually no legal limitations to his activities or law making. While there were many provincial interests and prerogatives that even Louis didn’t entirely dismiss out of hand (every King with sense always fears things that can lead to unrest), he could for example and did issue direct capitation taxes without assent from any legal body (he did so to fund wars in the last 10 years of his reign, while he avoided such direct taxes previously.) The French Parlements (each territory had one) had traditional prerogatives that allowed them to in some instances reject laws passed down by the monarch, and under Louis this power was formally abolished, with the monarch attaining the ability to force the Parlements to accede and implement his laws over their objections–if Charles II or James had had such power their reigns would have been far simpler.