Posts by Brenda Cook4

steeleagle13 said:aha, sure... and which part of the US are you living in where you can actually see a clear sky for stargazing?

😁

NYC😁 is a long way from "clear skies"... but I guess you manage.

mistybison said:The contradiction lies in starting with the premise that a person chooses to 'want' or 'not want,' while simultaneously claiming free will doesn't exist. If there is no free will, choice is an illusion and one simply exists as they are in any given moment. However, if we can work toward becoming an 'oak' instead of just an 'acorn'—then free will certainly exists.

If we aren't TRULY enlightened here (and it's obvious to both Milton and Priscilla that we aren't

while Buddha and the clerk at the local corner store—Nisargadatta and Aunt Bernadette—are), then all this philosophizing is just spinning our wheels compared to how the world actually functions outside this little bubble of a forum.

But what if it isn't?
What would become of our (non)enlightenment if we had never heard the stories of that clerk or his aunt?
You see that, in the end, everything comes down to FAITH. 🙂 (And just like that, we are back to the beginning of the topic. 😛 ) Many people embark on a 'spiritual path' because they believe someone else has walked it before and reached the destination. But consider these possibilities:
1) No one has actually achieved 'liberation,' but rather just one of many possible mental or physical experiences attainable through training and effort—experiences that are never final, as one experience always leads to another.
2) People have achieved 'liberation,' but not through their own striving; instead, it simply 'happened' to them, like a glitch in the matrix of their holographic program 😍 which they then interpreted as 'enlightenment' and began teaching others about.
?
There are endless possibilities, all of which should be considered; we can test them all, but clinging to them creates limitations. 🙂 It is much the same with all these theories of consciousness. They are all fascinating, but if we discard them all—what remains? Any entanglement in ideas is similar, whether they are scientific, religious, spiritual, or philosophical 'truths.'

It is clear there are two schools of thought... one saying the acorn is essentially the oak, and another that rejects that idea.

I believe there are far more than just those two schools. 🙂 There is also the school that rejected the entire debate regarding acorns and oaks altogether. 😉

I intend to eventually take the time😛 to pull out the high-quality posts and split them into two separate threads—one on the meaninglessness of philosophy and one on consciousness (which was my original plan anyway). 🙂Right now, we are in the middle of a site reorganization, so I will handle it once that is complete.

Nice one—honestly, I don't lose any sleep over it as long as you're the moderator.🙂

hiddenpuma75 said:That’s beside the point. The only thing I truly possess—and the one thing I cannot doubt—is my own consciousness.

...just as you would have to acknowledge that beyond consciousness, there is also a subconsciousness...)

That is pure speculation regarding some "subconscious." Honestly, bravo to you!! You've managed to do what no one else ever
-has split consciousness into pieces.🙏 It seems obvious to me that there is only ONE simple, undivided, everyday consciousness, regardless of gender.

Everything that comes to be is conditional—everything is relative. Nothing possesses an inherent nature, and that includes consciousness.

That is nothing more than your own conjecture, much like a chick inside an egg guessing what the world looks like on the outside.
Since neither I nor anyone else here actually KNOWS the true source of your consciousness—meaning you haven't actually experienced it firsthand—it all remains mere guesswork.

It's speculative in the same way that certain phrases are speculative—like saying "Jesus loves you."

Maybe Jesus really does exist and loves us all, but until a person experiences that for themselves, it's just an empty story. It's the same as talking about a subconscious or claiming an acorn is actually an oak tree.

ACHIEVE SOMETHING. EXPERIENCE the love of Jesus, grow from an acorn into an oak, and then you can talk about it!
Those who have actually achieved it describe it with absolute clarity.

They stand apart from philosophers because they offer a wealth of evidence that is impossible to ignore.😉

Parsifal—look, I’m asking you, please, just come back to my post and give it the serious attention it actually deserves.

What absolute truth? What Jesus? What kind of achievement are we even talking about here? It’s all just the flip side of the same coin. Everything is conditional and causal, plain and simple. We’re just trapped in the same endless loop—a loop that’s fueling your passionate attraction to some imaginary "absolute truth," or even worse, feeding into a belief in some eternalist idea.

What’s all this fuss about splitting consciousness? Honestly, it feels like we're overcomplicating things. To me, it’s just a technical way to describe how a phenomenon works—it's a functional breakdown, nothing more. The real issue here is that you're treating consciousness as if it has some kind of mystical essence, when really, it's just mechanics.

You’re really out here theorizing and philosophizing like that, aren't you? It’s one thing, but then you go even further—veering straight into speculative mysticism. Honestly, what problem are you actually solving with all this talk about absolute consciousness, or love, or "becoming"? It feels like you're just shifting the goalposts. You move a tiny fraction of an inch away from the point, and suddenly, there's nothing left to explain.

Becoming and vanishing... it isn’t about evolving or merging into some kind of eternal consciousness. Think about it this way: when a fire burns out, where does that flame actually go? Does it drift left or right? Does it sink down or rise up? Does it head north or south? It doesn't "go" anywhere. It just ceases to be.

So, I’m really trying to draw your attention back to your take on eternalism—specifically that whole straightforward slice of phenomenalism you use to explain how things work:

If things existed eternally, they’d essentially be frozen in time. Think about it—if an object had a permanent, unchanging identity, it couldn't actually *do* anything. There would be no movement, no growth, no shifts in state. It would just be a static, lifeless concept, totally stripped of any actual presence in our reality. On the flip side, you can't just claim that things pop into existence out of thin air as brand-new phenomena. If an effect is completely disconnected from what triggered it, then it isn't really caused by anything at all; it’s just a random glitch in the universe. That leaves us with dependent arising. It’s the only logical way to explain how one thing leads to another without falling into the trap of eternalism or pure randomness. It bridges the gap. It's like a feedback loop where everything is intertwined. As Nagarjuna points out when discussing the relationship between an actor and their actions, the cause relies on the effect just as much as the effect relies on the cause. We don't have any other way to truly pin down how these things connect.

So, let's get back to the heart of the matter—is it actually possible to be spiritual without God?

If we’re making that a prerequisite, then maybe we should just scrap the word 'spirituality' altogether (to be honest, I’ve never been a huge fan of that term either) and just call it 'faith.'😁

***
Dear Enzo, I have to say, hiddenpuma75 makes a great point here—when someone is that opinionated, they can hardly start a conversation without it veering off track or getting swallowed up by their own bias.

You really ought to restore his original thread about the futility of philosophy and everything else as its own separate discussion. It just isn't fair to merge them like this.

Let's keep moving. Who knows where this conversation might lead us? We might even end up circling right back to where we started.

That is such a well-put sentiment.

hiddenpuma75 said:These two questions hit home for me, and I really want to share my perspective with myself and everyone else here, because to me, the logic seems perfectly clear.🙂

1) The one thing you absolutely cannot doubt is your own awareness. It is the single most certain thing we possess. It’s the ONLY spiritual truth in the entire world that no one can question. To doubt your own consciousness is, in itself, a process occurring *within* consciousness, which only serves to confirm that awareness exists.🙂

2) The reality is, we don't actually have free will. It honestly surprises me that people cling to the idea of having it when it's so easy to verify for yourself. We aren't debating abstract things like whether angels shave or if the universe has four or ten dimensions.
Since I was once (just like everyone else) under the illusion that I possessed free will,
I can now look back on it.
Here is how it became crystal clear to me that everything just happens on its own.

Notice how you don't say, "I am beating my own heart."!
Instead, you say, "The heart beats. Blood flows."

So why, then, incorrectly do we say, "I am thinking my thoughts"?
When it is blatantly obvious that both thoughts and the heartbeat simply occur by themselves.🙂

--

Consider one more mistake that almost everyone falls into.

99.9999% of people will say, "I had a dream last night."
That is technically wrong, because we didn't dream those things through our own free will; rather, we were the object being dreamed.

Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that we ARE DREAMED. 😉

So, what we should really be saying is:

A dream is happening...

Last night, I was dreamed.🙂
Or,
last night, dreaming happened through me.

Even though one could challenge your "cogito" at this level too (for instance, how do you know you aren't just a simulated character in a computer program? But let's set that aside for now)—you are stopping at an absolutist and eternalist concept: you've placed everything into one "absolute" realm of existence—in this case, some eternal consciousness, a single One playing many roles.
(Regarding the beating of the heart, blood flow, and metabolism in the body, I assume you're somewhat familiar with anatomy😬—specifically that the motor system dictates voluntary actions, while the autonomic system handles non-voluntary processes like vasoconstriction, pupil dilation... blah blah... as well as knowing that besides consciousness, there is also a subconscious...)

Everything that becomes is conditioned—everything is relative. Nothing possesses its own inherent nature, and that includes consciousness. Being and non-being are just two sides of the same coin. Without "being," there is no "non-being."

Everything that is conditioned and lacks its own inherent nature is what we call empty. When things or phenomena are empty, why speculate about the finite or the infinite, or one versus the other? The infinite is just as much a phantom as the finite. One phantom cancels out the other.

When Nadia speaks of emptiness, she isn't describing some ultimate reality or preaching nihilism; she's describing the principle of relativity and providing the best explanation for how all phenomena are conditioned.

To treat emptiness as a "thing" is ridiculous. Emptiness isn't a thought, but the absence of thought; it isn't a theory, but the absence of theory. It seems simple... and it is. There is no transcendent realm waiting to be revealed, no ultimate knowledge we need to achieve, and no spiritual powers we can possess. The only thing we can do is liberate ourselves: by understanding the true nature of things. Selfhood isn't a real, existing thing; it only exists at a limited level. When the sphere of thought vanishes, "you" vanish too. A shift in perception. That's it.A truly enlightened individual won't kickstart the whole cycle of suffering just because they think they’ve grasped some ultimate truth.

There is no such thing as a heaven of absolute consciousness. Think about it: if something has an inherent essence, it shouldn't be subject to change, right? But the moment you perceive change happening, you're essentially witnessing the absence of a permanent self-nature. Honestly, clinging to that idea isn't much different from any other religious dogma—or even those rigid materialist views about a fundamental physical substrate. Nirvana, much like the phenomena we experience, doesn't exist as a standalone thing. They are merely isolated constructs, brought into being by a mind that insists on drawing lines and creating distinctions.

Hannah Wilson3 said:Alright, let's dial back the off-topic chatter. Everyone can have their own mirror at home—there's really no need to go looking for reflections of your own psyche in someone else's projection.

...but then the shaman will think I'm walking away from the debate😁...and poor guy will just suffer...well, actually, on the other hand, he'll walk away feeling like he 'won.'

shaman Proving what? It's simple: I just don't like people who bail on a conversation the moment the ship starts sinking. I disagree with plenty of people, but I don't react to them the way I'm reacting to you. Think about that.

I am flabbergasted😬 (though, once again, it really comes down to your skewed perception—you tend to react this way with anyone you disagree with)....but fine, let me say it one more time: I’m flattered, even if it isn't true, that I’ve earned this "special" treatment from you despite my insignificance...who knows, maybe this will turn into a real romance.

Edward Flores4 said:Do I sound agitated? Am I even trying to sell anything here? Maybe my descriptions are just a bit "vague"... honestly, probably fuzzier than those "sunyata" or other fancy terms you love to throw around

Anyway... the main thing is that you get what I'm saying, even if you couldn't care less about the previous discussions I'm bringing up 😉 Look, we both know what time it is—you're just busy maintaining that "persona" of yours... since it clearly means so much to you.

Love ya 😁

Fox News: Yes!😁

... and look, you know perfectly well there wasn't some massive debate going on—I simply responded to your take on consciousness with one somewhat lengthy post, and that was that (plus that other one where you were tossing out links trying to prove Bill Gates is a monster and that vaccinating kids in Africa is somehow a targeted plot to cause harm)... I honestly don't get why you're so insecure and feel this desperate need to constantly prove yourself.🤷...but I had no idea you were struggling this much, so I'm not going to waste my breath arguing with you. 😬

Just a little piece of advice—when you react this defensively (which seems to be your go-to move whenever anyone disagrees with you), you lose all credibility... even when someone is actually pointing something out to you.

Love you too, stay cool, brother.😬

Edward Flores4 said:

I’ve been thinking about that little bluebird we saw earlier—you know, the one perched right on the edge of the fence near the driveway? It’s funny how such a small, unassuming thing can completely shift your mood if you catch it at just the right moment. There’s something almost meditative about watching them, isn't there? It makes you slow down, even if it's just for a second, and actually notice the world around you instead of just rushing through the daily grind. I was sitting out there with my coffee this morning, just taking it all in, and seeing that flash of blue felt like a tiny, quiet reminder to stay present. It’s those little unscripted moments that really make a day feel complete. kaže:
Honestly, what you just said is nothing more than a total amateur move.😁

Honestly, when you lay out an argument that "brilliant," I can't help but crack a little smile at the sheer audacity of it all—it’s almost charming. It really makes me wonder, though... since you clearly share so many personality traits with the people you quote in your signature, maybe you should start taking credit for their words too? 😁

Honestly, I’ve just gotten used to your posts by now—they always seem to fizzle out the second someone actually asks you to back up an argument with some substance. If you really want, I can happily remind you of at least two different threads where you basically folded immediately or decided to tuck your tail between your legs and run.

Look, I’m going to be honest here—I don't really see you as someone looking for a real debate, more like a hobbyist who just enjoys hearing themselves talk. If you're happy just posting empty comments for the sake of it, go right ahead, but don't be surprised when nobody bites. I honestly don't feel any urge to engage with them. It’s just that—and I say this as gently as I can—you’ve started a few discussions now where, the moment the actual arguments start getting heavy, you sort of lose the thread and just drift away from the topic entirely. It makes it feel like everything anyone writes to you just disappears into a void. It’s frustrating because it feels like a waste of energy; I wouldn't even give your posts three minutes of my time if I didn't feel the need to clarify things for everyone else. I think it’s only fair to explain why I’m going to be skipping over your remarks. Unlike the people here who actually want to dive into a serious discussion, reading your comments feels a bit like stepping around small puddles on the sidewalk—you just move past them because they're shallow, and you realize they're just sitting there, convinced they're the center of the whole street.

Bye-bye! 🙂

He he ....check out this defense 🤣 Come on, come on, you've already been answered—way more than your confused little brain can actually process.

And I agree—there’s really no need to answer me... I’m not looking to buy whatever smoke and mirrors you're selling.

Don't let it get to you too much.😁

My thoughts aren't actually mine... honestly, I used to think I was the one owning them. But once you really sit with the "situation" and dig a little deeper, you realize that thought is the primary thing, while experience is just secondary. Thought is absolute; experience is relative. It’s the same deal with the "holder" of that experience... the "I" only exists in a relative sense. I didn't just spontaneously generate myself out of thin air. Whatever it is that I actually emerged from—call it the Mother of all Mothers, the Absolute, the Void, or whatever terminology fits—that thing is what's absolute and primary.

So, before I sat down and chewed on this, it felt like "I" was the one doing the thinking. Now? I see it's just an illusion. I can't even claim the process of thinking as part of my "self"... or maybe it's the other way around. But here's the kicker: if I identify the "I" with the Absolute, then the whole process of identification just vanishes. Identification is basically the subject (the "I") undergoing a metamorphosis into a transcendental object (the Absolute). Once you truly grasp that you *are* the Absolute, the identification is over and identity itself ceases to exist. All that's left is a simple "point of awareness."

What you're saying here is just typical nonsense.😁

Exactly... that’s the heart of it. That’s Nagarjuna's concept of sunyata—the total absence of essence. It’s much like how I finally realized how incoherent it feels to suggest that things actually possess some inherent, fixed "nature" of their own.

outside the box.

placidharbor7 said:Sometimes even placidharbor7 misses the mark on things they actually love; I guess this is one of those moments.

Could you perhaps be so kind as to say this in plain, natural American English? It would definitely bring more joy to the souls hanging out here!

My point is that emptiness isn't the ultimate essence of reality—it's not an absolute. Think about it: if we treat emptiness as an object and try to pin down its core, we’ll find that it too is devoid of any inherent existence (form is emptiness / if we look at it without our own personal biases / — emptiness is form), leaving us with nothing but the emptiness of emptiness itself.

Furthermore, I'd argue there’s no objective distinction between samsara and nirvana. They are two sides of the same coin, viewed from different angles—one through the lens of ignorance and the other through enlightenment. Neither depends on anything "out there"; it’s purely a matter of perspective. These conventional and ultimate truths aren't contradictions; they complement one another perfectly.

...just my two cents regarding Nagarjuna🙂....

placidharbor7 said:blue bird says:...Nagarjuna essentially demonstrates that everything relies on something else just to exist. Nothing exists in a vacuum. That’s what emptiness actually means—it's all about dependent origination (pratityasamutpada).

What Nagarjuna is really getting at is this:

placidharbor7 says:
The way we humans typically "perceive" things and events is
built entirely on comparisons and dualities. Once you strip away those distinctions—whether one vanishes, the other does, or they both disappear—all you're left with is an empty void in the middle of nowhere.

Everything else you mentioned (and I don't just mean in your specific example) is honestly just extra noise.

That’s put perfectly.....sunyata-sunyata...

....in the end, we aren't absolutely confirming nor absolutely denying the existence of the self...that’s the middle way, the path between extremes...and one more thing: sunyata doesn't negate the conditioned world; it only negates the mistake of treating it as absolute. Just because you realize the sunya-nature doesn't mean the relative/conditioned world disappears—it just means ignorance is destroyed...

Since the undivided reality isn't ultimately separate from the divided, and since the core nature of the conditioned is actually the unconditioned, those who are wise don't abandon the world. They don't cling to nirvana as if it were something distinct from samsara.

Edward Flores4 said:I’m sorry, but I have to disagree here—what you’ve laid out actually runs completely contrary to Zen philosophy. In Zen, the core idea is that everything exists "of itself," and ultimately, everything is part of the "Void." All these "things" we see are really just mental constructs that pop into existence the very second we start perceiving the world through objects (basically, through our thoughts) while ignoring the non-dual nature of reality (the Tao). But in truth, everything that is—and even everything that isn't—exists on its own terms... without a specific cause... it's just this constant, spontaneous, and fluidly inclusive change.

.........wrong.....
Look, you aren't the first person to trip up on this, and I actually run into this quite often—people just don't grasp how Zen works. That "emptiness" specifically means that nothing can exist purely on its own; everything relies on everything else. Nothing possesses its own isolated nature: "self is empty of inherent nature." Think about it—if something actually had its own fixed, inherent nature, it could never change. It would be an unchangeable, ultimate reality. So, anything that undergoes change lacks an unconditional, inherent nature of its own.

They are the two truths doctrine, emptiness (sunyata) and dependent arising or co-dependent origination (pratityasamutpada).

Here's an example: we call it a "table" because we've agreed to call it that. A table is dependent on wood—on its various parts. A table doesn't have any existence outside of the material it's made from, the people who built it, and our shared agreement/language to label it a "table." Our tendency is to mistake this for the ultimate reality; we objectify it and, in doing so, we mistakenly grant things this sense of "self-existence."

Without emptiness (sunyata) there could be no two truths. Without emptiness, there could be no dependent arising (pratityasamutpada). What is important to realise about emptiness is that it does not deny the existence of things (conventional reality)but says that all things (everything) have no intrinsic essence. In other words, nothing exists on its own, divorced or separated from other things. Therefore, everything is interconnected and cannot exist without these ‘other things’, including the self. It’s also important to realise that Nagarjuna really does mean everything, without exception, including the Self, including thoughts, volition,beliefs—quite literally everything. For example, Nagarjuna argues that spatial properties cannot exist on their own. A location cannot exist without an object tobe located in that space and, conversely, there cannot be an object without a location for it as all objects must have a location for them to exist in. Both object and location are dependent on each other. (Garfield & Priest, 2003) Nagarjuna goes on to show that everything is dependent on something else to exist. Nothing can exist without something else existing. This is the meaning of emptiness—and this is dependent arising (pratityasamutpada)

Or, as expressed in verse: 😬

Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the middle way.

Something that is not dependently arisen,
Such a thing does not exist.
So, a thing that isn't empty
simply can't exist.

....that's really the core of it....

....people often mistake the 'great void' for being an absolute nothingness, but that's not how it works from a Zen perspective. Think of it this way: the great emptiness isn't a lack of everything; rather, it's the absence of obstruction. It's what allows everything else to actually happen. Matter is essentially just form, and by its very nature, form creates obstacles. But emptiness? It doesn't get in the way. Instead, it acts as the essential foundation that allows matter to function. If it were to obstruct, nothing could ever come into being. Sunyata shouldn't be viewed as a mere 'vast vacuum,' but as the bedrock for all phenomena—both form and mind. That is the true essence of all things; it's the fundamental principle of existence itself.

To put it plainly, if the universe weren't characterized by emptiness and impermanence, none of the phenomena we see would ever emerge through the interplay of different causes. There would be no rise and no fall. In that sense, the nature of sunyata is actually profoundly positive!

mistybison said:Reading through your posts, I get the impression that most of you view the spiritual journey as being synonymous with personal religion. If we were to set aside faith entirely—even one's own private beliefs—could we still speak of spirituality? What would a spiritual path look like without faith? Is it even possible for such a path to exist?

There is definitely a bit of a hurdle here, mostly because spirituality has traditionally been framed through this dualistic lens of the natural versus the supernatural. It’s that classic split between spirit and body—a divided existence.

But, if we redefine "spirituality" as our emotional response to simply *being* in this world—that sense of wonder and active exploration of our surroundings, without needing to summon any divine entities—then the answer to your question is a resounding yes.

When we ask those big questions—who are we, where did we come from, where are we headed, what is our purpose, what can we actually know, or what is the true nature of reality?—anyone asking them will inevitably run into God, angels, demons, past lives, adepts, forces, nature, emptiness... everything. Every single answer is just an attempt to transcend the limitations of daily life; it's a search for meaning.

In my spare time, I dabble in amateur astronomy. I’m often out at night with my telescope, observing the stars and jotting down some notes... and honestly, more than once, I've found myself tearing up just from the privilege of being able to witness it all. I am in deep awe. It's that feeling of oneness, that concept in Zen where every new moment is dependent on everything else. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything that appears arises because of something else. In those moments, it isn't even about my perspective or my angle of observation—it's just that intuitive connection to nature... to the universe... a state of total openness. It feels like coming home.

rustymaker5🙏

Way to go, steelridge58!🎉

Kudos to the mods for making such a smart call here.🙂 I never had even a single doubt about their judgment.👍

I don't really see much of a dilemma here. If we’re talking about the Ten Commandments, it's pretty straightforward—"Thou shalt not kill" refers to taking a human life. The Old Testament is quite explicit about which animals are okay to eat and which aren't, especially since man is considered "the crown of creation," granted dominion over everything on Earth. It’s just funny how the entire book feels like a total horror show that constantly tramples over its own commandment.🤷

So, Sister, just to make sure I follow—is your main gripe that the director took some liberties with the Quran and didn't quite get the translation right?

If that’s the case, it would be incredibly helpful if you could post both the version used in the movie and your own translation side-by-side.

So, what does it actually mean to confront a problem head-on?

Facing a problem directly—especially when looking at the landscape here in North America (and I’m thinking specifically about that famous political cartoon)—really boils down to answering one core question: Is freedom of speech a fundamental pillar of our democracy, or is there something even more essential that sits above it?