More importantly, think, if I and you and X and Y and this computer and your chair are all merely manifestations of the absolute mind in thought, then after we die, we will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.
Or perhaps we are just that, merely temporary manifestations, like waves that rise and fall. Completely gone while the absolute mind merely manifests on.
Is this a wrong view? This is your view, so I don't want to make too many assumptions.
As for the esoterica alluded to earlier, I am reminded of śrāvaka literature, in which it is said that he who sees dependent origination sees the Buddha himself. We can choose to interpret this in two ways, a silly way, and a sublime way, IMO.
Silly: dependent origination as the workings of a great Buddha god.
Sublime: the Buddha as something revealed in penetrating and understanding dependent origination, not only in fleshly robes of historical personages.
Reminding us of the Buddha's words to Vakkali SN 22.87, once again. In turn, bringing us to "every appearance whatsoever is a deception, if you can see all appearances not as appearances, then you see the Thus-Gone."
(Vajracchedikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra T 235.749a12)
Once again, there a silly interpretation and one that is reasonable.
Silly: when you see all appearances not as appearances, the Buddha's personality and his work in causally sustaining the cosmos through his one mind that we all are, can be perceived.
Whatever the view of Tendai esoterica is I can guarantee it's not the above.
We can decide what is reasonable.
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.