ground

There's nothing to shake.

you are just another fool.

you aren't worth it.

Now you have exposed your main error. Do you want me to comment your main error?

This thread is incredible bullshit. Obviously there manifests the will of the deluded to keep everybody else on the same level of delusion.

you shouldn't impose your delusion on them. So don't touch them, don't teach them unless you are enlightened. For the time being They know better than you.

There is no limit to delusion. Therefore of course each deluded may be restricted to its own sphere of delusion.

Basically enlightenment is not in opposition to any of the human capacities and characteristics/properties. So the intellect and enlightenment are fully compatible. Without the intellect nobody would head for enlightenment and enlightened one's could not teach. Generally if one tries to renounce any of the human capacities and characteristics/properties because one thinks that such renouncement is a prerequisite for enlightenment then this is called ignorance and ignorance is the biggest obstacle for enlightenment. However this does not mean that one acts out the human characteristics/properties called 'passions' - like hatred, greed etc. So there is an essential difference between 'not renouncing' and 'acting out'.

The sutra path in Mahayana buddhism is said to last eons. The vajrayana path in Mahayana buddhism is said to last up to 7 lifes depending on the specific vajrayana path. But since they believe in rebirth it is unclear at what stage someone is in her/his present life. The progress in this life will show.

However often some preliminary practices are useful to somehow 'mature' the mind as a prerequisite for advanced practices to have effects. The traditions I know all have such preliminary practices. E.g. ethical conduct is said to be necessary and patience, or joyous perseverance or humility.

Innumerable. The best is the one that meets your circumstances in a given time-space. Since time and location continually change the best methods may change as well. When all times and locations have become equal then one method might do.

Ethics is the basis of all religions and religions pick up ordinary people where they are. One who is liberated has gone beyond religions and ethics but appears to ordinary people as if strictly following ethical guidelines. Why? Because he is liberated he embodies ethical guidelines without following any ethical guidelines.. And being asked by ordinary people to teach he would teach them ethical conduct first. Why? Because he would know the ignorant minds of ordinary people and because his intent would be to mature the immature. One who needs to attach will attach and one who's ready to detach will detach. 'Dualism vs non-dualism' is just another dualism. Being fixated on non-dualism is the trap of taking this dualism to be true.

Very creative.

Neither does this quote imply the assertion that you were nothing nor the assertion that you were something. The quote makes explicit that you are empty of truth. Also, what do you want the expression 'I am to be/recognize' to imply? Do you meant that you have a task to accomplish? If so then that's an instance of belief in destiny, a god's determination or similar. Everything occurs as it occurs. Nothing to affirm, nothing to negate. Nothing to accept, nothing to reject. Occurence doesn't establish any truth. Everthing is neither something nor nothing, nor both, nor neither. There is unbounded openness in spontaneous presence. Everything's perfect. you know exactly when you slipped out and re-integrate again. That's the perfect yoga.

Question does not apply since there's been no negation.

Physical exercises may support energy balance. Without this balance emptiness of ego cannot be directly perceived. However what applies to meditation does apply to physical exercises, too: an inappropriate intention or attitude makes it futile or even hindering or harmful.

Because belief is imputation of truth. And it is impossible to impute truth and see emptiness [of truth] at the same time. Consciousness may switch from one mode into the other - even at high frequency - but it can never have these two modes at the same time. Of course you can conceive 'this is [merely] a belief' but even if you conceive so there is still the apparent hand. And if you dissolved the label 'hand' but not directly perceived the nature of belief there still would be 'something', at least intuitively not necessarily a full-fledged concept. If there were no belief at all there'd be neither something nor nothing.

"Please Master, teach me." "A B C D E F." "I do not understand ... ?" "G H I J K L." Translated and taken from Zen Worte vom Wolkentor-Berg - Meister YUNMEN, Urs App

That illustrates nicely how experience and conceptuality are related. If one imputes the tiniest bit of truth to conceptuality one will never let go of beliefs and 'lean towards' belief. It is thus: you think the key you are searching may be on the table in the adjacent room. you go into that room but on the table there is no key.

And all you see is your beliefs.

Now I've learned that there are thinkers and meta thinkers. Obviously meta thinkers are beyond reason and like to cultivate speculations and beliefs, right? This of course shall not mean that regular thinkers are always thinking reasonable. But regular thinkers at least have safeguarded a sense of sceptical mindfulness for instances of drifting off into speculation.

Do you remember the time before you were born?

A strange question of a follower of the religion of non-duality.

Why care about 'we'? Why care about 'you'?

As I said: you can believe this or you can believe that. I can't do anything about your beliefs. I can't make you drop your beliefs to liberate you. My words are empty of meaning. your mind synthesizes meaning upon your eyes seeing my word. i do not know the meaning your mind sythesizes. When I type words this is my enjoyment. It is like enjoying dancing. The dance is enjoyed regardless of whether someone is watching or not. The dance doesn't have any meaning.