"Quote:"
Brenda Cook4 said: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.
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.
