Posts by placidharbor7

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Look, I’m hitting you with these questions because you’re making big-time claims here. And if you’re gonna make a claim, you better actually back it up and explain yourself.
For instance—if you’re insisting that spiritual seeking is this vital, pulsing life force, then you need to prove you actually get what that means before you start trashing journalism as being less "deeply personal."

If you decide to dodge my questions, I’m gonna take that as a sign that you’ve got zero interest in actually talking this through.

Later,

Here’s the thing: "explanations" can only take you so far. Extroverted learning is one thing, but true realization is always an intensely introverted, deeply personal journey.
As long as The Seeker keeps chasing external sources, they haven't truly found themselves or even begun to grasp their own essence. Honestly, it sounds like YOU are the one failing to show any real "interest" here, not placidharbor7.

A true master won't settle for a one-sided conversation. Real dialogue requires a natural counter-question: So tell me, Kenneth Peterson5, what have you actually discovered about YOURSELF so far?

Kenneth Peterson5 said:I just toss them into a little box labeled "Wisdom" and keep it right next to my pillow—maybe if I stare at it long enough, it'll actually jumpstart some brain cells and fix my circulation.
or
I try to actually talk to people who make big claims, because honestly, I just want to know the logic behind their nonsense; call it curiosity, I guess.

(Look, if you decide to stop answering my questions, you’re basically directly responsible for my descent into progressive dementia, but since this is all just some sort of digital spirituality, I'll let it slide. )

Isn't curiosity basically what journalism is all about? To me, spiritual seeking is like breathing—it's the very lifeblood of existence. Do you really think one can chase a daily headline sensation while claiming to be deeply, personally immersed in the soul?

Kenneth Peterson5 said:So if "everything is outside," including our supposed "inner life," does that mean one thing swallows the other up? Like, does "everything external" encompass "everything internal" because, at the end of the day, everything we feel inside is just what builds the world outside?

You brought up this whole illusion of "free will"—this thing we're supposedly "given" so we can play the game of choosing between opposites, you know? Like "yes vs. no" or "left vs. right."
That’s why I was wondering: do we actually need to experience those contradictions just to realize what's already been set in stone?

Seriously, what are you doing using those short, telegram-style answers for such deep, philosophical questions?

Kenneth Peterson5 said:But what even are these "internal dramas" anyway?

So, do we need to feel that conflict just to realize what's actually real?

It’s that strange sensation where you feel like you’re rushing toward some version of yourself that exists "outside."
But honestly, isn't that perspective a bit backwards? Think about it: "YOU" are the core on the inside, while everything else is out there—even that very concept of an "inner life" is just part of the vastness outside of your true self!

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Look, whether it's logical or not—I don't know, man—but I definitely don't get it.
If I don't actually have free will, then I can't choose anything because everything's already been decided for me... but then how come I keep choosing to "reject" exactly what I'm supposedly stuck with?

And that right there is exactly how "lack of free will" shows up! It’s this constant tug-of-war that tricks our tiny bit of focus on our inner workings. Poor little humans actually think they’re having these deep "internal debates" with themselves, don't they? But really, they're just acting in the name of some "higher purpose" or those big values you see listed in everyone else's textbooks.

The "I," or the self, is all woven together from that one single strand of "(un)will." Stop trying to split it apart and you'll finally see the whole picture!

Kenneth Peterson5 said:If a person doesn't even have their own free will—meaning there’s nothing they can actually *do* to earn anything—then why on earth do we spend so much damn time "denying" what’s already been handed to us?

Isn't it perfectly logical, though? It all stems from that same lack of true freedom!

Kenneth Peterson5 said:So, here's the kicker: is "change" something you actually earn, or is it just handed to you?

I mean, really, what kind of "will" does a person actually have to merit anything at all?🙂

Kenneth Peterson5 said:To find its purpose, obviously.

But can you actually reach the "known" by traveling through the unknown?

The "known" is dead, and the "unknown" will eventually die too; the only thing that stays truly alive is the Unknowable—assuming it even exists!

Sandra Richardson53 said:If he comes for me, I'm coming for him.

Until then, my Beloved....🙂, life’s just easier when you feel like there’s someone up in the heavens watching your back.

Just kidding.

Actually, not even kidding. I talk to Him all the time.

Brahman becomes Ishvara (the Almighty) within creation.

Are you serious right now, girl? Seriously?

Sandra Richardson53 said:Pretty well put...

But still.....

who or what exactly is this "Kozmologos" you're always bringing up?

Why not just give your Kozmologos a nickname based on your own style? Then maybe you won't have to keep asking placidharbor7 about his latest little invention!

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Alright, so what’s the actual point of this thread, given the title?

If you were to ask Ram Dass that, he’d probably tell you that both the topic itself and whoever started it are just products of free will within the scope of a technically observable "future."

placidharbor7 would likely fire back at you with a counter-question: "Then what is the purpose of Surrender?"

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Can you apply that same logic to God?

We "perceive" "God" in the exact same way we perceive "ourselves" or our own "ego."
To us, "God" is about as tangible as "last year's snowfall."
The concept of "God" simply sits at the table of our own thoughts, where His angels are nothing more than the cherubs of our own imaginations.

CONSCIOUSNESS—assuming it even exists—is supreme, standing even above such a constructed "God."
If "God" were actually out there, He would know about CONSCIOUSNESS just as much as His creation, humanity, does; in other words, He would know absolutely nothing.

It’s all just "Bemu" and things like that "higher power."

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Look, if Consciousness lacks color, taste, or smell—meaning you can't really describe it using basic sensory input—then why bother adding that it "isn't bland"? Why even include that little qualifier? Is he just trying to fill the silence?
And what does he even mean by "basic sensory input" anyway?

Well, if we're adding qualifiers, let's be honest—it's because we're talking to OURSELVES!
You can't bake a single, solitary, absolute TRUTH about CONSCIOUSNESS.

In fact, you can't even prove whether it EXISTS or NOT.

Sandra Richardson53 said:"I am" is God itself.
The hunt for truth is God.

When you're searching, you finally realize you aren't just some meat suit or a bundle of thoughts... and that the love you feel for your own soul is the exact same thing as the love for the soul in everyone else.

It's all one.

Your consciousness and mine—it looks like we're two different people, right? Wrong. We're one. We're both chasing that unity, and that's what love is.

Nisargadatta Maharaj...

🙂

What a total joke!

Kenneth Peterson5 said:So, why is the actual, literal "present moment" of the "self" impossible?

Because that "self" is nothing more than a continuous stream of thoughts and mental constructs; it’s just a dead shell, yesterday's discarded husk, or some old, frozen snowdrifts from a past season...
Try to taste the "here and now" without a single thought about who you are or what you're doing. You won't be able to do it!

"CONSCIOUSNESS itself has neither color nor taste, yet it is far from bland," placidharbor7 once remarked. Honestly, that’s about as much as you can say about it—and even then, we're just using our blunt, clumsy senses to describe it.

You simply cannot capture CONSCIOUSNESS through any specific technique or action. All we can really do is celebrate it, like singing a beautiful, improvised hymn.

Trying to hunt it down with logic or tools is like a child still believing they can catch a rainbow in a net, despite everything they know.

Edward Flores4 said:

placidharbor7 explained this a long time ago—the whole impossibility of what you and Parsifal, along with all those other misguided believers in "consciousness," so desperately call the "here and now." Look, if it’s truly "here and now," then it isn't YOU; but if it is actually YOU, then it certainly isn't "here and now."

This idea of "here and now"—which you two, and so many others, unfortunately label as "consciousness"—is nothing more than a clumsy, amateur attempt at some New Age way of trying to grab God by the beard.

"Consciousness" and the observer simply never meet. All these stories about "consciousness," especially in your specific case, are nothing but spiritual beginnerism.

Seriously, just drop this half-baked, senile rhetoric already. It sounds like someone who’s spent a lifetime in ministry and is now adjusting to life in a mental health facility, handing out enlightenment advice to both the patients and the psychiatrists with the same level of authority.

Hey there, buddy, why don't you try listening to the actual meaning behind your own signature for once? Since your teacher clearly lost touch with you a long time ago, maybe this will help:

"The universe is the unity of all things. If one recognizes his identity with this unity, then the parts of his body mean no more to him than so much dirt, and death and life, end and beginning, disturb HIS TRANQUILITY no more than the succession of day and night."

When it says "His," it means YOUR tranquility, not his, you dummy!

Edward Flores4 said:

placidharbor7 explained this a long time ago—the whole impossibility of what you and Parsifal, along with all those other misguided believers in "consciousness," so desperately call the "here and now." Look, if it’s truly "here and now," then it isn't YOU; but if it is actually YOU, then it certainly isn't "here and now."

This idea of "here and now"—which you two, and so many others, unfortunately label as "consciousness"—is nothing more than a clumsy, amateur attempt at some New Age way of trying to grab God by the beard.

"Consciousness" and the observer simply never meet. All these stories about "consciousness," especially in your specific case, are nothing but spiritual beginnerism.

Seriously, just drop this half-baked, senile rhetoric already. It sounds like someone who’s spent a lifetime in ministry and is now adjusting to life in a mental health facility, handing out enlightenment advice to both the patients and the psychiatrists with the same level of authority.

If you two geniuses and all those old fossils think you're enlightened, it just shows how much of a baby you still are when it comes to actual spirituality.

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Man, that's some deep stuff right there.
But honestly, how would you even label the "present moment" for a specific "self"? Maybe just call it a "glimpse of the past"?

The idea of a literal "present moment" belonging to a "self" just isn't possible.
But that "apparent present moment" of the "self"? Oh, that is absolutely possible! In fact, that's where all those shamanic tricks and "spiritual" Parsifal gimmicks actually live.

Edward Flores4 said:My bad!

See, I don't think unconsciousness is really the "opposite" of consciousness... it's more like a negation. You can only be unconscious if you actually have the capacity to be conscious in the first place, but for some reason, you aren't using it. Think about it like this: true opposites are things like life and death, black and white, or good and evil—not stuff like "alive and not alive," "black and not black," or "good and not good." So, in my book, consciousness and unconsciousness aren't actual opposites.

Everything else you mentioned was spot on, though.

If we follow that logic, then you’ll also have to admit that consciousness is completely immeasurable, right? It evades any kind of objective check or observation.

Which makes this whole claim from Master Raman an absolute absurdity, so let me just apologize to everyone right off the bat!

Think about it: when you and Parsifal claim to be "conscious," you aren't actually *aware* of that awareness. Instead, you're both just projecting your own memories onto a concept of "self" and "identity." It's like a coroner measuring a corpse (the past) while loudly shouting about how full of life they are! Oh, the irony! Honestly, trying to define the "self" is about as productive as snoring through a lecture—it's just a much more polite way of being foolish.

placidharbor7 explained this ages ago: it is fundamentally impossible to achieve what you, Parsifal, and all those other misguided believers call being "here and now." Because if you are truly "here and now"—you aren't "YOU"; and if you are "YOU"—then you aren't "here and now." Makes sense, doesn't it?

That "here and now" which you two, and so many others, so desperately label as "consciousness" is nothing more than a clumsy attempt to grab God by the beard.

"Consciousness" and the observer can never actually meet. All these claims regarding "consciousness"—especially in your specific case—are nothing more than pure spiritual amateurism.

hiddenpuma75 said:"Quote:"

Why on earth are you putting words in my mouth?
To be honest, I’m still pretty much in the dark when it comes to what absolute truth actually is, let alone who or what this "Absolute" might be.
The only thing I can say for certain is that I am aware. 🙂

.

The issue is that you're attributing the very essence of hiddenpuma75 to consciousness itself.

Wait, hold on! The problem here is that you're attributing things to me that I neither wrote nor actually believe.
I honestly have no clue what people mean when they talk about "essence," and frankly, I couldn't care less. I’ve heard of essential oils—I’ll occasionally toss a drop or two into my bathwater if I'm feeling fancy—but I highly doubt we’re talking about the same thing.
I’m more of a hands-on practitioner.
I’m really only interested in what’s right in front of me—the things I can actually touch, feel, and prove to be real. 🙂
Essence, purpose, the absolute, God, spirituality... honestly, none of that really interests me. I don't have the slightest clue what any of it actually means, either.

You really love to dive deep into the theory and philosophy of things, don't you? You have such a distinct way of looking at the world.

I have to say, I feel like your posts are easily the most complicated and confusing ones on this entire board. If you ask me, you’re definitely the one who writes with the most difficulty—it all feels so dense, unclear, and just plain muddled.
I can follow what others are saying, but I have to admit, your writing style is a bit of a challenge—I actually had to read through your post twice just to make sure I didn't miss anything!

"Quote:"

Or even worse, you end up spiraling straight into speculative mysticism.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
Honestly, I’m just out here selling the simple stuff—you know, like basic pantry staples like dried beans.
If there's one thing I can say about my life, it’s that everything else is just noise—the only thing actually worth anything is my consciousness. 🙂
You guys are so lucky to have actual supermarkets. 😛 You guys are really going after Miller.
I have a huge stash of canned goods, but let's be honest—it’s definitely not exactly what I’d call "health food." 😁

What specific question were you actually answering when you hit that state of absolute consciousness, or love, or becoming one with everything? Because honestly, that feels like just a shift—you’re only a tiny fraction away from the actual thing, and even then, there isn't much more explanation to follow.

I’m still wrestling with this one: I honestly can't say for sure whether Consciousness itself is absolute.
And honestly, I’m completely lost—what even is "the absolute," and who is this person everyone keeps talking about?🤷
All I can say is that I’m staying mindful and keeping my eyes wide open.
I'm looking to connect with anyone else who finds this kind of stuff interesting so we can swap stories and share our experiences.
It seems to me that none of you actually appreciate something as simple and classic as a good bowl of chili.
Are you perhaps too embarrassed to let one rip?? 🤣

So, I'm trying to point out your leaning toward eternalism—or rather, that narrow slice of phenomenalism you're using to explain everything:

Look, I'm just pointing out that you're far too clever for me, and we really aren't a great match for this forum 😁
I’m just a regular guy—a total salt-of-the-earth, blue-collar person, both literally and figuratively.

In any decent book, you won't find words like

-eternalism
-phenomenalism

To me, that sounds like pure philosophy—the kind of stuff for people who enjoy traveling from nowhere to absolutely nothing.
🙂

Things cannot exist eternally and thus remain unarisen; if they possessed an eternal identity, they would be stripped of change, action, and all phenomenality, rendering them metaphysically meaningless. Nor can there be a causal structure where things are merely temporal phenomenal creations; if the effect is discrete from its cause, it lacks a connection to that cause and remains effectively uncaused. Dependent arising, which accounts for causation without relying on either eternalism or simple phenomenalism, stands as the only coherent theory. As Nagarjuna says regarding the relationship between agent and action, a cause proceeds depending upon its effect, and the effect proceeds depending on the cause. "We do not perceive any other way of establishing [them]," he says. .

My grandfather, Nisargadatta, that lady, and even Buddha—none of them talk like this.
And those people knew exactly what they were saying; they spoke SIMPLY.
You feel the vibration; it washes over you and brings a warmth to your heart.🙂
I don't quite follow what you quoted, and honestly, the author writes just like you do. It's heavy food—the kind of thing that keeps a person wide awake at night.

So, wait—Parsifal is self-aware but hasn't reached enlightenment yet?!
Is Master Raman’s cow unconscious yet enlightened?!
And here we have Parsifal practically singing Master Raman’s praises!

Logic is getting completely tangled up here, along with our sense of what counts as true realization.
Poor Master Raman, everyone seems to be projecting their own ideas onto his words!