ground

No, because it's been last Monday

Thoughts? Thoughts come and go

Saying "I am the doer" and "I have free will" does not necessarily have to be based on the belief in self as truly existing. Why? Because saying so is merely conventional language and valid in this context. That is not correctly expressed. Why? Because you are kind of cherry picking if you assert that your concept "The concept doesn't apply if there's no illusion of separate self. " would apply but the concepts "there is a doer" or "there is free will" would not if there's no illusion of self. Actually it is unclear what "a concept applies" does mean and whether there are different qualities of "a concept applies" depending on whether there is concomitant belief in a truly existing self or no such belief when saying "a concept applies".

that view is similar to the view 'Colors are an illusion and there is only blue'

Everything is primordially enlightened. Anxiety & depression are like fog blocking the sun's rays. But fog is far from being solid and constant. The sun will eventually shine through and its warmth will dissolve the fog.

Depends what your teacher told you. I would recommend to have the eyes wide open without focusing anything. Here relaxation is required. If objects are located in front of you then in order to avoid the eyes' focusing reflex which would attach the mind to the object one should 'focus on' the space before an object, i.e. stare into space. Thus immersion into awareness may occur and although the eyes are open and there may be objects in front one will not perceive anything - mere nonconceptual radiance.

If causality is understood as determinism then the path to liberation is destroyed. If causality is understood as conditionality then it mirrors the emptiness of all phenomena which actually is liberation.

@Matt23 I think this is just an escapist romantic fantasy and it seems that you know that.

Again one of those threads. Some people here are expressing or deploring their stress. To some this suggested "way of practice" may appear to be even more stressful than life.

All these questions and assumptions are based on an inappropriate view which is caused by inappropriate philosophy of ontology. It is simply inappropriate wording to say "only awareness exists" or "everything is illusion except awareness". In many minds such and similar wordings seem to evoke a view of ontological monism which is extremely counterproductive in terms of enlightenment. you cannot overcome dualism through affirming one side of this dualism and negating the other side. you have to see that this "it has to be either X or non-X" is exactly the deeply ingrained habit that fosters delusion. Of course there is free will but free will is not absolute but relative. Relative to what? Relative to the world of appearances and ideas (incl. 'I', 'my', 'mine') which appears as if truly existing to ordinary mind. And there is also absence of free will which is relative too. How that? Because of habits accumulated in the context of the world of appearances and ideas which can determine behaviour, emotions etc. temporarily. And in relation to this world of appearances and ideas you can undermine habits and gain more control, enlarge the relative free will's sphere of activity. But you can also transcend this world of appearances and ideas, transcend ordinary mind and enter a sphere where concepts of 'control', 'free will', 'I', 'my', 'mine' etc, all concepts, are absent and even if they arise then they are completely translucent and empty as if present and absent simultaneously.

Actually both, enlightenment and life purpose are distractions, as long as you are seeking those. When you have found one or both then you should not care about it any longer. Having said that the tricky thing is that as long as you are seeking you can neither find enlightenment nor life purpose. So how can you ever find enlightenment and/or life purpose if seeking is an obstacle? Through peace of mind and naturalness. you seem to be cultivating the dualism of enlightenment vs life purpose but neither are enlightenment and life purpose the same nor are they different. Both can manifest themselves in and as inactivity or activity.

So to come to a conclusion: There is nothing to learn if ordinary mind ceases. Enlightenment is a matter of cessation, not a matter of learning.

Well ... no, there is no direct experience. Experience always is muddled by intuition/conceptuality. Conventionally, i.e. in the world you learn through observation and experience. But that is mundane learning. Ordinary mind is deceptive. Ordinary mind is that of mundane learning, that of learning through observation and experience.

Why do you care about the enlightenment of others? Discover your own and you've discovered that of others.

yes, I recite mantras from time to time and I do find it very helpful.

When reading "Sex and spirituality?" my first thought was about tantra / vajrayana where sexual union is a practice in inner tantra / vajrayana. But then, reading the opening post of Mada I am not quite sure what this thread is meant to be about. It is certainly not about sexual union in tantra / vajrayana but maybe about Mada being torn between mundane and spiritual matters?

Sounds good. If you have issues with him recommending mantras there is no need to have issues with mantras categorically because the effect of mantras need not be explained religiously but can also be explained psychologically.

you focus / concentrate on the question continuously striving to anser it. It is a kind of concentrative meditation. A koan is a question that can't be answered conceptually, nevertheless the effort is directed towards a conceptual answer until the mind is like a hot knife and the koan like a piece of butter. The nonconceptual freedom attained then makes possible a spontaneous answer/reaction when being asked.

Stop that unconducive struggle and surrender.

yeah, chattering mind can be a real killjoy

What comes to my mind is this: 1. There are as many paths as there are beings. 2. "Being enlightened" is not validated through hearsay. 3. Some "religious" people say that a "Buddha" knows how to teach every being individually according to its biases and needs and that those with lower attainments lack this capacity.

If one wants to get rid of ignorance one has to segregate from outer ignorance supporting conditions at least for some time to be able to directly deal with mind's inherent ignorance supporting conditions.

if your self identifies with autobiography and family then what is this other than "ego"?

Whom did you get your instruction from and who guides you to do it right?

Not really but I am wondering whether appropriate practice may release you from such thoughts.