ground

How do you do this? I do not know reiki so I looked it up in wiki where it is told that applying reiki is done by a reiki therapist to his patient. So do you have a reiki therapist? They also tell that reiki cannot replace conventional medical/psychological treatment but only accompany it. Why do you bother at all? Just forget religions.

I have added the intended addressee (but you could have understood it correctly even without that because I have written 'you have already launched several similar threads'). Nevertheless being annoyed through inherently meaningless linguistic expressions can entail valuable insight.

@NadosaAre you giving a show? I am asking this since you have already launched several similar threads

Emotions are illusions, yes. Without thought associations there wouldn't be emotions in the first place. And yes, any 'cause' (what is it?) may make itself felt as positive or negative effect depending on the conceptual/intuitive setting.

Now that you have experienced this think about the innumerable sentient beings who suffer from such kinds of emotions like you do. Try to develop compassion towards them wishing they get rid of their suffering forgetting your own situation for the time being. The more compassion you will be able to generate for these innumerable sentient being the less you will be plagued by such emotions. Cultivate the selfless wish that they be free from suffering. That will release you from your own suffering.

Don't worry, videos can't make a difference

Exactly. That is why only seeing the emptiness of 'I' or self dissolves the feeling of dissatisfaction. If effort is directed against the feeling then it's futile.

But if nothing satisfies you that's perfect. Why? Because this prevents attachment to and craving sth. It is just that you have to get rid of the feeling of dissatisfaction, i.e. his has to be neutralized to evenness. How can this be done? Through seeing the emptiness of 'I'.

It seems that still another type of emptiness, i.e. emptiness of feelings, could be helpful. Now if someone objects that this would be negative or depressive then that's impossible. Why? Because emptiness of feelings and negative or depressive feelings are incompatible!

There are innumerable types of emptiness. E.g.1. The glass is empty of water (emptiness of water); 2. The purse is empty of money (emptiness of money); 3. sometimes my head is empty of thoughts (emptiness of thoughts); 4. the house is empty of people (emptiness of people) etc etc etc

if you're interested in the essence of thoughts then you have to mindfully follow them where they go and identify their final destination.

If there is the urge to do something, this nagging restlessness, but you don't know what to do then the best thing to do is just sit !

Birds do not bother about reasons for singing. Birds are singing because it's their nature. The same applies to humans expressing ideas, i.e. expressing ideas is their nature. There is only the intellect that confuses itself through 'why should I do this? why do I do that?'

They are the same since they are merely ideas. 'They are the same since they are merely ideas.' is an idea, too. => 'awakening' = 'enlightenment' = 'They are the same since they are merely ideas.'

Now 'self' is what everybody feels from the outset. However if someone claims to have found 'true self' that's something special.

None. Hehe ... how can one realize that one is already enlightened from the outset? Everything is primordially enlightened. How to realize this?

if they are taken to be truths then yes.

Thanks for your report. I think that it may be helpful for those cultivating unrealistic ideas about India and gurus etc. Also your experience with psychedelics may be a warning for others. So you have done a good deed. Of a course manifest depression should be treated. Advice like "Take a rest" or "Relax for some time" would certainly appear just as shallow wording although a break certainly is necessary to get things straight and to reorientate. All the best!

From my perspective 'enlightenment' is not appropriately expressed as 'something to be attained' but as 'something to be realized as having been present from the outset'. 'ego' is a term that I know from psychology only, so for me it is strange that this term is so commonly used here, but I guess that this may have to do with Leo's use of language. I prefer to use the terms 'I', 'my', 'mine' or 'self' instead. 'soul' I do know from christian religion only and I do not believe in 'soul'. Also I do not believe in 'God'. But honestly, if being asked what I do believe then I would be completely at a loss how to answer. This is because 'believe [in] sth' for me means 'to take sth as truth' or 'as truly existing'. Also I find the expression 'ego death' inappropriate since what does not exist in the first place cannot die. There are mental habits of imputing 'I', 'my', 'mine' or 'self' as truths or as truly existing. These habits may cease.

Depends ... if the goal is the cessation of speculation by means of enlightenment then every disillusioning remark may be welcomed. Also one may learn about techniques of mindfulness, contemplation or meditation that may silence speculative mind on such a board. Or one may learn that every topic can be regarded from countless perspectives and get to know relativity of language and conceptual thinking.

Whatever narrative you develop it won't matter as long as you do not seek affirmation from others. So you should keep your narrative to yourself and make sure that the narrative is conclusive for you. If it is conclusive for you there is no need to seek affirmation from others. Another option would be to simply avoid speculation because speculative thought is and will always be baseless.

The context was "concomitant assumptions" as you mentioned "ontological assumptions" above. Of course in order to understand linguistic expressions, i.e. the conventional meaning of a term, in the context of communication this meaning has to be imputed to the empty signs or sounds. But concomitant assumptions like the "ontological assumptions" you mentioned depend on the mode of consciousness. These concomitant assumptions usually kind of merge with the mere conventional meaning if imputed by a conscisouness

Language is either concatenation of signs/forms (writing - seeing) or sounds (speaking - hearing). The meanings of those concatenation arise in the mind of the writer and/or seer/reader or speaker and/or hearer and so do all concomitant assumptions. Sure. No, I do not posit this. What I posit however is that there are different modes of consciousness of which some impute concomitant assumptions whereas other modes are free from these imputations. So here we seem to agree (s. above)

Ok, e.g. I could also give the money to a third party .... nevertheless this all is covered by free will. No. How can you know simply through reading my words? Maybe ontological assumptions are your bias? I for my part can apply words without ontological assumptions. Even forgetting about self-concept, there's no reason to belief the decision is fated and that the options aren't validly expressed through language. I have several options and freely decide for one. What is there to be "entirely conscious of the machinery of my decision-making"? See, you cannot assess an alleged machinery of my decision-making. How would you do that? If you believe you can then simply because you believe in your philosophical concepts as truths. But your concepts cannot contact my decision making. Why should the mere concepts of your philosophy be more reliable than other concepts?

Well, how does - from your perspective - the philosophical concept of Free Will differ from everyday's concept of Free Will? E.g. if I walk after a person and see that this persons drops money. Then it is subject to my free will, or in other words it is my decision, to either pick up the money and keep it or to notify the person that he/she has dropped money and give it to him/her. Therefore I have free will, both conventionally spoken and from a philosophical point of view which of course is equally expressed in conventional language.