ground

you are deceived by words empty of truth. you still have not gone beyond acceptance and rejection. This is why appropriate practice is so important.

'Empty' always need to be qualified as 'empty of what?' otherwise 'empty' has no meaning. Therefore 'empty of truth'.

meditation must be pleasure. If it's no pleasure then let go of meditation.

@ivankiss honestly: you are free to have opinions as I am free to not care about opinions.

It is not a matter of losing. Once you are enlightened what may be judged as 'losing' by non-enlightened ones isn't 'losing' from the perspective of enlightened ones.

Empty of truth, yes.

Meaninglessness is great bliss

It's solipsism if you start negating what is other than you and forget to negate the 'you, i.e. 'i' from your perspective

Just empty words. Don't let yourself be fooled by empty words. Rationality can be very helpful to avoid being fooled by words and concepts.

Whatever there is that may relax,whatever there is that may let go, still there is knowing. Lucid emptiness knowing itself.

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).