ground

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.

With that position you are in agreement with respected traditions that gave birth to many enlightened masters.

That may be two examples since these are often discussed here. But my impression is that many people involved in these are not beyond belief. So since you said 'I want to purify myself of all beliefs' I do not know whether these are a good choice. But as 'conventional' refers to what is being agreed upon by a group of individuals there are certainly other options since there are more teaching traditions than only one. A drawback however is that all teachings traditions/communities do advocate some kind of belief system which may lead to what you expressed as 'creating positive ones upon the already existing layer of beliefs.' So in the end it may boil down to your capacity to extract from their teachings only what is necessary to correctly apply their methods and to discard the rest.

This won't happen if you don't fabricate some esoteric/metaphysic narrative about binaural beats that go against current conventional beliefs. But actually you have already begun to fabricate such a narrative through assuming that binaural beats may function accordding to your wishes. So either you keep going or you drop this idea and focus on sth more conventional.

Of course if they left they would most likely die soon and couldn't teach for a longer time. Sure but they use different methods depending on their tradition.

That's actually cultivating the deceptive view of true 'I'-'my'-'mine' and trying to escape its truthlessness.

Not different, not same, not both, not neither.

Question not applicable.

Neither different nor the same. If they would be different then communication would be impossible. If they would be the same then everybody would experience the same and asking/answering would be pointless.

Some people are interested in spirituality and practice but will never get to where others are from the outset who don't care about spirituality at all. Some people are enlightened without having ever perceived any of these enlightenment narratives/fantasies others are obsessed with. It is a great error to see enlightenment in a framework of causality.

Consider a frog that has been born in the depth of a well shaft and spend his whole life down there only seeing the sky though the opening above. How could the frog imagine the world 'out there'?

One shouldn't get obsessed with meditation. Meditation is only a primer for the 'I'.

That nicely describes your problem. What? 1. your belief in 'Truth' 2. your wanting to know what can't be known 3. your dissatisfaction with not knowing

Forget about metaphysics, it is just speculation. Be content with being laid-back. Everything's fine.

In the sphere of science, yes.

Meditation based on affirming sense perception is very deceptive.