ground

I learned that there are different categories of meditation: 1. analytical meditation involving conceptual thinking, 2. concentrative meditation with one (mental) object to focus on which leads to concentrative states of bliss and non-conceptualty states and 3. meditation in emptiness (neither thought nor object, letting go of everything). As a rule a practical meditation is often a combination of two or three of these and one often starts with 1 (even if not fully aware of it) before going further to 2 or one starts with 1 before going further to 2 and finally 3. Reason is that one first has to be rightly motivated and then calm down before being able to concentrate single pointedly or even being able to let go of everything. I am assuming that what you call "self inquiry" I would call "analytical meditation".

From the perspective of one who believes in the truth of "I" it may make sense. However to reduce mind to the volitional activity of choosing does not appear to be appropriate because conventionally one would say that it is also involved in perception, feeling, being aware of etc. From the perspective of one who knows "I", "my", "mine" to be expressions of falsities to say "I use my mind" can make sense only as an expression of conventional language, i.e. common parlance. That means that even if there is awareness of reality one should still speak as everybody else does for the sake of everyday communication.

I must say that in all relevant teachings I came across the term "ego" was absent. So I am at a loss what the topic here is.

The meaning of "enlightenment" depends on what teaching resonates with you.

That's a good point. Absence of thoughts in the presence of bliss. That's similar to the recognition of the primordially present.

Listen to your inner intelligence and you know what to do. you are perfect and can rely on your intuitions. Have a good sleep.

Ah, ok. I exist in the relative and I am communicating right from there. Understand?

@Nadosa you are perfect. Don't try to change. Just be.

Thank you. But then you must explain your expression "ULTIMATELY there is only YOU" above. What or who do you refer to with "YOU"?

Go and let yourself be inspired by what other religions or ideologies have to say about compassion and love. This may accomplish "the whole picture" and if not then you have to decide for yourself. May you end up with certainty!

I cannot accept that because there still is me.

Depends. Love may be impermanent. Nevertheless temporary love can be enlightening. But the cessation of love can be enlightening, too.

Sure. Integration is what is called "practice".

Wholeness is spontaneously present and unbounded. Grasping "I" is veil.

However if there is non-recognition of intelligence/awareness then "you" (yes, the alleged "you") have to gain control and you can gain control. If in such a situation you are deluding yourself into a reality which is merely conceptual and reject control and responsibility based on empty concepts then you will inevitably reap suffering. Utimate reality is not conceptual.

There is not even a "we" that is punishing. Totally consistent.

Great questions! Investigating into the application of linguistic expressions and its concomitant sentiments one may find out that "{This or that} changes." implies a sentiment that {This or that} is a property possessor and "changes" means that the properties of {This or that} are transforming from state A to state B. But looking at it more directly no property possessor can be found. What remains are so called "properties" without basis so that the expression "properties" turns out to be absurd and the concept of "change" actually is an absurd concept.

"you" are reaping the fruits of "your" deeds according to "your" context of "your" deeds. Ultimately from an analytical "outside perspective" it wasn't "you" but that is not decisive in the context of "your" deeds and the fruits these lead to. What is decisive for "your" reality is "your" reality when doing the deeds.

There is this primordial intelligence or awareness that knows itself. But to say that this intelligence is "in control" is inappropriate because the consciousness arising from it is pristine, non-dual cognition. This intelligence manifests in and as the apparent empirical phenomena incl. the alleged person that one feels to be and all inner phenomena like feelings, perceptions, volitional formations and all outer phenomena. It is through misconceiving phenomena as independent and 'other' on the basis of not recognizing intelligence/awareness that confusing concepts about controling this or that arise.

In budddhism compassion is wishing that others are free from suffering and love is wishing them to have happiness.

If one is not prepared then approaching the ultimate can be frightening or depressing. It is not the ultimate that is frightening or depressing but one's inappropriate state of mind causes fright or depression. Perhaps for the time being it would be better to focus on something that lightens up your mind. In meditation you may focus or visualize something positive, that causes gratitude, devotion or love. Mind is like a field that needs moisture and nutrients to be able to bear fruit.

If the actor's ultimate existence is investigated nothing can be found. There is no essence of "actor" in either feed or legs or hands, head or other parts of the body. The same applies for that which is allegedly acted upon. So what are the bases for "acting"? Empirical reality can be funny, right? But it can also be felt as if causing unease or even worse.

There is no time in the abiding reality of awareness. There is no "I" either. Sentiments of "I" and time or duration or change do mutually condition each other.

How can one pursue what one does not know? If "pursue" is replaced by "seek" the issue is the same. If someone seeks something he/she should be in a position to identify that something otherwise he/she will never know if what he/she has found/attained is that what has been sought. In contrast to this issue if someone wants to get rid of something that something is known because it is present and can be known and one wants it to be absent. This seems to be a "better" or more reliable approach because if what is known and wanted to be absent is finally absent one can clearly know when the goal (its absence) is attained.

I was wondering what "mind-body problem" stands for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_problem Actually when it comes to linguistic expressions I'd prefer the materialistic approach: consciousness being the product of more complex organizational structures of matter similar to light being emitted by matter which is a common phenomenon even in the context of non-complex matter. But then that's just linguistic expressions and "matter" could also be replaced by "energy" without contradicting the linguistic conventions of science. Whichever narrative one fabricates what does it matter?