Coldbrain

So all history is a lie that didn't really exist? Isn't that solipsism?

And emptiness holds consciousness and all beings within it. It makes a world of difference to equate the two.

I answered that confusion in my first post. You're just running around in circles trying to maintain "consciousness is everything" worldview. You're confusing your relative perspective with absolute truth. Different labels for the one indescribable thing that doesn't even have qualities, and therefore can have any qualities.

What is it?

Are they? And do I? You're claiming that if all conscious being were wiped out of existence, then there would still be consciousness?

Correct.

That's assuming that consciousness is all that there is. But you have no proof for that claim except your experience, which is infinitely limited compared to infinity. Infinity is not conscious or consciousness, it's emptyness.

Reality is nothingness. Consciousness is a label projected onto nothingness. Nothingness and consciousness are not equal or synonyms. They're on two different levels. Nothingness is first order. Consciousness, or human experience, is second order.

You can't prove that rocks exist outside of your own consciousness, so your definition is flawed. You're defining the rock through your own experience, which is, by definition, your experience, not mine. Hence, all the disagreements and confusion.

It's obvious that consciousness is a concept and that it is partial and flawed. The most obvious limitation of everything is consciousness theory is that it can never explain how others and the external world exist outside of one's own bubble of reality. Consciousness is, by definition, a first person experience, and so it cannot explain a third person's experience, or even acknowledge it for that matter. How does the world continue working while you're unaware? Consciousness has nothing to do with that, obviously. This is Sam's argument. And y'all are just deflecting it with your smart ass non-dual arguments cause you're too closed-minded and identified with your position as if it's absolutely true. Yet, when you are presented with an argument as such, you will immediately go to the absolute vs. relative distinction, as if it's gonna answer anything at all. What you're actually doing is that you're just confusing your relative perspective with the absolute. But you're not aware enough to see that. And now that I'm saying that, you'll either hate me or call me names, even though I'm just telling you the truth of what you're doing. It's a tragedy that you claim open-mindedness while being dogmatic. Sam is careful at least. He's willing to admit your consciousness theory if it can resolve the 1st person vs. 3rd person contradiction. But since it can't, he doesn't admit it as absolutely true, and he's correct for that. Y'all are the deluded, naive, and closed-minded ones here. Not Sam. Now you will probably say that I don't understand what you mean cause I'm not awake or whatever, but that would make you even more confused cause you'd be disproving your own theory by the sheer fact of trying to prove it to "others". Your theory is solipsism, and it's impossible to prove. Now you will probably say that you don't claim that solipsism is true. And you will think that I've made this mistake cause I don't understand non-duality, but I have an answer for this already. You think that consciousness is the ultimate ground of reality. To you, reality IS consciousness. Right? Well, you're deluded for thinking that. Why? Because reality is unconscious when you're unconscious. So why do you think it's consciousness? I would guess that that's just a projection from the human consciousness onto reality. And that it has nothing to do with the ultimate reality, which is nothing. And I know what you're gonna say, you will say that consciousness IS nothingness, but at that point you will be just arguing semantics, cause I could call nothingness toilet paper, or bird's milk, or ox turd, or anything else. Consciousness is just a meaningless label that you're using to describe the indescribable. But since you confuse your relative perspective with the absolute truth, you will identify the indescribable as consciousness cause you're too identified with your non-dual narrative.

Two things: Am I the only one to like the casual Leo more? Why are you wearing black again?

The tree does make a sound after all!