ground

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?

Thanks for sharing! Awareness is a wish-fulfilling gem.

That may be called rebirth.

The ultimate guru is not a person, the ultimate guru it is the nature of your own mind. But as far as "does exist" or "does no exist" are concerned both do not apply. Thinking in terms of "does exist" and "does no exist" is the best way to never meet the ultimate guru.

I would put the question differently: "Which ancient Greek philosophers knew that they were enlightened?"

The concept of "development stages" is deeply engrained in ordinary worldly minds and that is why it is mostly taught this way. Otherwise the matter would hardly be accessible. So it is a skillful way of teaching. But all models of "development stages" offered by spiritual teachers are just models, i.e. possibilities. Individuals are too different and so are their individual stages. What certainly is important is focus and perseverance and patience. Some say that the basis must be faith others say that certainty based on rational analysis is more important than faith. Actually there are these two traits: bias towards faith and/or bias towards rational analysis. Different people different biases. Basically every spiritual journey can be summarized under three headings: view, path and fruition. One cultivates a view. One integrates this view with practices and finally the result/fruition will reveal itself. One can also speak of ground, path and result: The ground is already primordially present. The path serves to reveal that ground, not to create something new, and the result is the ground being fully and irreversibly manifest. So actually there is no difference between ground and result. And since the path arises from the ground and can only arise from the ground it is also not inherently different from the ground either. Having said that it turns out that if you practice you have already "attained" the result. If you don't practice you have in some sense already "attained" the result, too (because the ground is primordially present) but since there is no awareness of the ground if you do not practice delusions make themselves felt as if being independently real or true.

The question is how spiritual experiences differ from non-spiritual experiences and whether this difference is real or fabricated.

Provided "reality" = "ultimate mode of being (of phenomena)" and provided rationality is based on Arestotelian logic: Reality is neither rational, nor arational, nor both, nor neither. 1) Why not rational? Because nothing can withstand ultimate rational analysis, i.e. nothing can be found under rational analysis investigating into the ultimate mode of being although phenomena ceaselessly appear. This is a contradiction that cannot be rationally resolved. 2) Why not arational? Because without rational analysis reality cannot be fathomed/approached (although it cannot be grasped by rational analysis). 3) Why not both? Because of the law of contradiction. 4) Why not neither? Because of the law of excluded middle.

The sixth sense is fabricating continuously, that is why the number of senses may infinitely increase. ;-)

Initially the sphere of intuitions and conceptuality is the sphere of illusion, delusion and confusion, i.e. the sphere of collected conditionings and deeply engrained habits. Complete temporary cessation of intuition and conceptuality may occur when their nature, their conditions and effects, are seen clearly. There is no further realization beyond that and due to its transient nature it has to be cultivated through appropriate means.