ground

Nothing 'is'. That may sound to some as 'there is nothing' but even nothing 'is' not.

Everything is equal. There is nothing more or less important.

Maybe, maybe not ... it depends

From the perspective of science yes. From the perspective of spirituality it is an inner intelligence that displays conventional reality in a way that applies to our conditioning.

Perfectly fine. However my point was the sentiment 'I' not the concept 'I'. I think that 'I' often is negated on a merely intellectual level and that this is why many people run into more and more merely intellectual issues about 'I'. Therefore if 'I' is identified on an experiential level it can be quite straightforward to realize the truthlessness of this sentiment and the negation of it can be final and doesn't lead to intellectually fabricated 'monkey mind' proliferations.

Sure. If language is applied it is applied from within a framework of philosophical view or a network of concepts.

yes. it is neither arguing nor trying to convey a point. It is applying language appropriately depending on context.

yes. Nevertheless it is possible that there would be compassion or love directed to those who talked.

'Knowing' exists only for you if you impute 'existence'. It is wrong only for you if you are subject to 'innate existence' habits.

Since the answer requires a conventional linguistic expression: there is a knowing but no knower.

Sorry but I do not rely on any ideas or concepts. So it is impossible to be fooling myself. you must not project your delusions on me. I am saying: 'Nothing whatsoever exists.' and I declare this to be the authentic expression of enlightenment.

No, I am applying conventional language for the purpose of communication only. you are erroneously imputing 'existence' on the objects my words cause in your mind.

Only if you feel that way. In actuality your delusions don't exist. No problem. If you believe that 'existence' conventionally isn't meant to be an objective property then forget everything i have written.

if you feel that way then for you these exist. That is called delusion. Look what has been written above: But 'existence' as used in common parlance is meant to be an objective reality and in this context I said that nothing whatsoever exists.

Whatever. No need for you to explain and no need for me to understand.

It is as you say: existence and feeling are not different. why? because existence is felt existence, existence is a subjective feeling. But 'existence' as used in common parlance is meant to be an objective reality and in this context I said that nothing whatsoever exists. Got it?

Well, nothing whatsoever exists.

Monkey mind likes endless thought proliferations.

Well folks, there is certainly no end of ideas, human fantasy is limitless.

Well, for you it may be an intriguing idea. For me it's merely an idea. 'I am the creator of the universe' is merely an idea too which for me is intriguing.

No we aren't 'within a mind'. And the universe isn't 'a giant mind'.

then it is actually an inappropriate linguistic expression. why? because 'I' is not qualified. 'I' has to be qualified to appropriately negate this qualified 'I'. What does that mean? That means it is of utmost importance to identify the sentiment 'I', i.e. how I am allegedly 'perceiving myself' ('I') spontaneously in any kind of situation in everyday life without the slightest bit of analysis. What is the mode of appearance of myself in consciousness? What is it?

At death ... at the latest. Temporarily during samadhi.

Wisdom and knowledge can be transferred. E.g. through receiving transmission from a qualified master or being directly introduced by a master. Nobody can discover anything without anyone else.

Ultimately you are not, so ultimately your question does not apply. Relatively, you are korbes and korbes may be defined e.g. according to social standards, his own standards, what his family and/or friends consider korbes to be ... as you like.