ground

Nothing happens anew since knowing has been and is and will be spontaneously present.

In actuality your hair does not grow. there is no substance persisting as agent of growing. you cannot get the intuition of time or duration out of your mind because the sentiment of time/duration inheres in your intuitive perception which is a precursor of full-fledged conceptuality. Only when experience ceases does the illusion of time cease. The only thing you can do prior to that is to reveal the illusion of time through rational analysis.

Well see, communication is the sphere of conceptuality. If you do not integrate then your conceptuality is deceptive for you. But even if you integrate you cannot know whether your words are deceptive for those you are communicating with. So I am fully aware and integrating but since I cannot read your mind I cannot exclude that my words are deceptive for you. Anyway since communication is the sphere of conceptuality and since I am fully aware of the dangers of communication and empty words that cause potentially deceptive conceptuality on the side of my communication partners I have decided to apply the discipline of rationality when it comes to communication. Why? Simply to apply words consistently. That is all I can do avoid using language in an inconsistent way and to avoid adding linguistic confusion to the delusion that is already potentially inherent in conceptuality from the outset. When not communicating I am applying a diversity of non-rational methods but also methods that include rational analysis to dissolve conceptuality and thus rationality itself. My teachers/gurus have not deceived me!

I could have said that ... but wait ... I wouldn't have used the expression 'direct experience' since in my linguistic system 'experience' is always 'experience of sth' and thus deceptive due to being bound to conceptuality. So better 'cessation of experience is really important for this integration' In my linguistic system 'no self' cannot be characterized other than 'no self'. It is a non-implicative negation so there is no 'trans-personal domain' replacing self. And yes, seeing personalities as truly existing is a delusion. Nevertheless we are communicating here on the level of conventional language otherwise we couldn't communicate. And on this level talking about you and me and about personalities is no problem. It's only language.

But this applies to you speculative statement to which I replied, too:

A connotation of 'movement' is change. Both ''movement'' and 'change' are the basis of the illusion of true time. Movement or change can be true only if there is something that truly persists in time and is the agent of moving or changing. But no such something persisting in time and undergoing change simultaneously can be found. The same applies to 'I' (or self): no 'I' persisting in time and undergoing change simultaneously can be found. But the concept of 'life' does presume exactly that. Therefore life is truthless, lacking truth. BTW all that can be said of 'the Absolute' is that it is an idea. Life is also an idea. Some ideas can be useful in everyday communication and in the context of worldly affairs.

My mind doesn't even exist

See, i don't know how often in this forum I have already said that conceptuality isn't 'it'. Rationality is conceptuality. I have never asserted that rationality is 'it' or that it is the sole path. In the beginning conceptuality/rationality was deceptive but now I have attained the capacity to freely apply rationality wherever it is appropriate and/or I like to. I also do use language as is appropriate and conventional and if a behaviour can be observed among children and is unreasonable then I call it 'childish'. Obviously you are completely misunderstanding my words since you are imputing your template of a naiv person/newbie without experience to my username and my words. But you do not know anything about my background. All you can know is that I am not a follower of Leo's teachings. But the latter shouldn't be a problem for you since Leo himself has emphasized more than once that there are many different spiritual paths and that there is not only one.

Depends on the spiritual tradition

Wow that did it!! Can you feel me?

Too bad. your urge to proselytize seems to be overwhelming. I am very familiar with that kind of argumentation. It can be observed with all religious believers. All arguments you are applying I could reverse and apply to you/your words. But that would be a very childish quarrel 'It's you' - 'No it's you'

Depends on the meaning context of 'exist'. Ultimately nothing exists because 'exist* is merely imputed. According to common parlance common sense objects, you and me exist. *lol* I love that ... but not infinitely more kind of condtioned by context and transient

Might also be called 'lucid emptiness that knows itself'. Actually every individual 'experiences' this state innumerable times on the fly, in different situations but without registering it. Consequently there are also innumerable methods to 'get into it'. So that state is nothing special. It is natural. Special however is the challenge to integrate this state into daily life as 'vision' or 'contemplation' without slipping out of it.

Orgasms? yes. But not with that kind of alleged 'tantra'.

No, as I said I am after the use of langague that is conventional in a given language based on the dictionaries and the grammar of that language. Political correctness is something else. See, I've explained one of my guidelines for choosing words within the sphere of one language. you do not have to make up inappropriate similes to show that my guideline isn't yours. It's perfectly ok if we don't agree on the use of words, i.e. concatenations of characters ('Mu' isn't even a word in English language).

Nice try Well maybe its 'I'-'my'-'mine' that makes up the narrative of an alleged 'ego' to justify its clinging to the idea 'truth' without which it would feel uncomfortable ? Serotoninluv, let's leave it at that to demonstrate that the play with words and characters does not necessarily trigger innate habits and thus cause going astray into the deadlock of 'belief vs non-belief' in the context of 'is vs isn't'.

Taking this expression on a merely linguistic level I can agree with this wording. But beware of asserting where words are pointing to!

Well I would like to use the most conventional language, i.e. expressions one does find in common dictionaries. Using expressions only used in small communities of believers ('Mu' is know from a Zen koan and Zen folks typically are believers) would to a certain degree create the impression that I would advocate their view which is what I do not want.

Provided there is a mind that can expand.

Maybe that's the point. I have no urge to name what isn't, let alone to call a nature 'true' when this nature isn't. Saying 'isn't' however is restricted by the degrees of freedom that language has and in case of 'is' it is just 'is' in the affirmative and 'isn't' in the negative. Unfortunately there is no word for the middle of 'is' and 'isn't'. "Neither 'is', nor 'isn't', nor both, nor neither" would be the most appropriate expression.

Ah see, if this sentence of yours would have ended after 'collapse' then I could have said 'On a linguistic level I can agree with your wording' but since it does not end after 'collapse' I cannot even agree on a linguistic level.

I haven't even read the opening post. So I do not know what 'screen' you are referring to. Do you take your speculations about 'you' and 'your mind' as valid? if yes, how come?

I think you are confusing the sentiment of 'I' with awareness here. What's the meaning of 'through the lenses or instrument of other forms'? Are there other existing forms in your system of thought? Since your metaphysics posits an inter-individual consciousness you can impute whatever you like to this idea of an inter-individual consciousness. But how does your system explain that a square that is green may cause different thoughts in two individuals? Obviously there have to be other consciousnesses that aren't inter-individual but individual, right?

you said "In truth, all these apparent "forms" are themselves consciousness" And I replied "But if this were the case then seeing a square green form consciousness would be square and green." meaning: if it were the case that "In truth, all these apparent "forms" are themselves consciousness" then when seeing an apparent "form" which appears as square and green according to your 'truth' consciousness would be square and green.

But if this were the case then seeing a square green form consciousness would be square and green.