ground

@Baotrader Taking ideas as truths is confusion. your current mood is totally groundless and so are the thoughts/ideas arising from there. This is not to say that this world is not miserable but wonderful. What I am saying is that both "miserable world" and "wonderful world" and all potential accompanying sentiments and moods are equally empty of truth. Having said that it is likely that my words cannot reach you. Therefore there are 2 warnings: 1. some people suffer from conditions that cannot be dealt with meditation but require medical help 2. many people cannot deal with spiritual practices like meditation without the close guide of a qualified master and run into problems, sometimes even severe problems, if they try on their own.

... then it should also strip away the belief "everything is consciousness". The belief "consciousness is the ultimat truth" is a thought and as such it is said to be illusory. Nevertheless for some this thought or idea is helpful. Ideas don't have to be true in order to be helpful. Just consider the illusory idea "Oh, there is no food at home, I have to go and buy some."

@Pouya skepticism isn't such bad because it untermines the habitual imputation of truth to experiences. But there isn't any truth in any kind of experience, not even in the welcomed experience you initially mention. All experience whether good or bad, whether welcomed or not, arises from awareness which is the ground of being. Regardless of appearances or ideas, perceptions, feelings, volitional formations ... nothing exists inherently. There is no truth in anything. If you are suffering then it is because of imputation of truth to at least some of your experiences, at least the sentiment of "I", "my", "mine" is taken as truths. But sentiments of happiness and suffering are equally illusory. All these experiences, sentiments are merely the play of awareness. All are equally neither good nor bad. They are like ornaments of space.

Why? I'd say there is an external objective reality if someone asked me. However since this reality is ultimately not accessible all one can do is to work with the appearing circumstances but stop imputing truth to mere appearances.

It is merely idea. However as with all ideas one may get obsessed with it and erroneously take it as a truth.

To say 'reality is {this or that}' would be ignorant considering that people usually conceive of reality as "ultimate truth". Ulimate truth however is not conceptual, but is beyond linguistic expressions. If we speak of "conventional reality" there are as many realities as there are systems of thought ... e.g. there are scientific realities, the realities of religious beliefs, the realities of philosophical or ideological views etc. etc.

Well I do not know Leo's teaching but if he says that "there is no basis to experience beyond consciousness" then he is expressing himself correctly based on the conventional view that consciousness exists. But if he asserts "consciousness is all there is" he certainly merely speculates.

Actually there is no truth independent of imputation. If you cannot deal with that but keep on chasing after truth and only suffering prevails because of not being able to let go then there will inevitably emerge a point when medical and/or psychotherapist help is advisable.

There is nothing to be dissolved or killed. There is no being. There is no experience. There is no self to be benefited and nobody to commit suicide. Ideas are fooling a person that is merely an idea.

Based on the conventional view of anatomy and physiology, on 'inner' and 'outer', that is an appropriate expression. No, this conclusion is not consistent. What you may conclude based on the a.m. conventional view is that you simply cannot know whether there is an 'outside world' and if there is an 'outside world' how it really is, i.e. independent of human consciousness. This is a speculative question. Speculations are useless. you can't. you cannot even know whether there is an absolute truth. "truth" is just a word expressing a mental habit. rational analysis entails evidence that there is no truth at all. How so? Because rational analysis is conceptual and directed against its own domain conceptuality and "truth" is only a concept.

If someone tells you that it matters and you believe it then it matters. If someone tells you that it does not matter and you believe it then it does not matters. If someone tells you that it matters and you do not believe it then it does not matter. If someone tells you that it does not matters and you do not believe it then it does not matter either. If you are free of belief nothing matters. Meditation is not important. Don't believe me!

By definition the negation of a word like "Self" through application of the prefix "non-" as in "non-Self" creates a dualism linguistically. There is nothing to be inferred because the words and characters can be seen. The same holds true for "duality" and "non-duality". So continuously speaking about "non-duality" which is a linguistic negation like it is done here in this forum may actually cultivate a dualism, "may" not necessarily "does". The funny thing I was referring to is that your use of words seem to express accepting "Self" but rejecting "non-Self" whereas coming from a buddhist background it would be exactly the opposite, i.e. the realization to be attained in buddhism is called "non-Self" and "Self" is held to be an illusion. Now considering reality beyond linguistic expression it is completely irrelevant whether "non-Self" or "Self" is accepted or rejected. Considering this it would be more straightforward to teach "neither acceptance nor rejection of anything whatsoever".

Since people care about words which are empty of inherent meaning and merely symbolic why shouldn't they care about empty forms like corpses which are symbolic, too, in the same way?

Whether "in line with non duality" or "not in line with non duality" does no matter. Who cares?

The funny thing is that we're applying different conceptual frameworks when talking about it. But if - and only if - we agree that reality is beyond linguistic expession then the different linguistic expressions we are using is only caused by different kinds of conceptual teachings we're following/applying. E.g. consider the dualism "non-Self vs Self" that you are expressing. I do not think that you want to assert that this represents reality.

Interesting. Then it seems to be a kind of concentrative meditation although the term "inquiry" makes me think of analysis and analysis would be impossible without conceptual thought.

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"?