ground

They are the same since they are merely ideas. 'They are the same since they are merely ideas.' is an idea, too. => 'awakening' = 'enlightenment' = 'They are the same since they are merely ideas.'

Now 'self' is what everybody feels from the outset. However if someone claims to have found 'true self' that's something special.

None. Hehe ... how can one realize that one is already enlightened from the outset? Everything is primordially enlightened. How to realize this?

if they are taken to be truths then yes.

Thanks for your report. I think that it may be helpful for those cultivating unrealistic ideas about India and gurus etc. Also your experience with psychedelics may be a warning for others. So you have done a good deed. Of a course manifest depression should be treated. Advice like "Take a rest" or "Relax for some time" would certainly appear just as shallow wording although a break certainly is necessary to get things straight and to reorientate. All the best!

From my perspective 'enlightenment' is not appropriately expressed as 'something to be attained' but as 'something to be realized as having been present from the outset'. 'ego' is a term that I know from psychology only, so for me it is strange that this term is so commonly used here, but I guess that this may have to do with Leo's use of language. I prefer to use the terms 'I', 'my', 'mine' or 'self' instead. 'soul' I do know from christian religion only and I do not believe in 'soul'. Also I do not believe in 'God'. But honestly, if being asked what I do believe then I would be completely at a loss how to answer. This is because 'believe [in] sth' for me means 'to take sth as truth' or 'as truly existing'. Also I find the expression 'ego death' inappropriate since what does not exist in the first place cannot die. There are mental habits of imputing 'I', 'my', 'mine' or 'self' as truths or as truly existing. These habits may cease.

Depends ... if the goal is the cessation of speculation by means of enlightenment then every disillusioning remark may be welcomed. Also one may learn about techniques of mindfulness, contemplation or meditation that may silence speculative mind on such a board. Or one may learn that every topic can be regarded from countless perspectives and get to know relativity of language and conceptual thinking.

Whatever narrative you develop it won't matter as long as you do not seek affirmation from others. So you should keep your narrative to yourself and make sure that the narrative is conclusive for you. If it is conclusive for you there is no need to seek affirmation from others. Another option would be to simply avoid speculation because speculative thought is and will always be baseless.

The context was "concomitant assumptions" as you mentioned "ontological assumptions" above. Of course in order to understand linguistic expressions, i.e. the conventional meaning of a term, in the context of communication this meaning has to be imputed to the empty signs or sounds. But concomitant assumptions like the "ontological assumptions" you mentioned depend on the mode of consciousness. These concomitant assumptions usually kind of merge with the mere conventional meaning if imputed by a conscisouness

Language is either concatenation of signs/forms (writing - seeing) or sounds (speaking - hearing). The meanings of those concatenation arise in the mind of the writer and/or seer/reader or speaker and/or hearer and so do all concomitant assumptions. Sure. No, I do not posit this. What I posit however is that there are different modes of consciousness of which some impute concomitant assumptions whereas other modes are free from these imputations. So here we seem to agree (s. above)

Ok, e.g. I could also give the money to a third party .... nevertheless this all is covered by free will. No. How can you know simply through reading my words? Maybe ontological assumptions are your bias? I for my part can apply words without ontological assumptions. Even forgetting about self-concept, there's no reason to belief the decision is fated and that the options aren't validly expressed through language. I have several options and freely decide for one. What is there to be "entirely conscious of the machinery of my decision-making"? See, you cannot assess an alleged machinery of my decision-making. How would you do that? If you believe you can then simply because you believe in your philosophical concepts as truths. But your concepts cannot contact my decision making. Why should the mere concepts of your philosophy be more reliable than other concepts?

Well, how does - from your perspective - the philosophical concept of Free Will differ from everyday's concept of Free Will? E.g. if I walk after a person and see that this persons drops money. Then it is subject to my free will, or in other words it is my decision, to either pick up the money and keep it or to notify the person that he/she has dropped money and give it to him/her. Therefore I have free will, both conventionally spoken and from a philosophical point of view which of course is equally expressed in conventional language.

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.