ground

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.

No, you're not consciousness. you are not. This body does exist the same way as consciousness does exists: no inherent existence. Again, you are not (ultimately). Consciousness is not (ultimately). This body is not (ultimately). But for the time being, don't confuse the relative and the ultimate.

If feeling gratitude is beneficial for you then it would be unwise to reject it. Why? Because your rejection of gratitude wouldn't be beneficial for anybody.

Neither are emotions to be mastered nor is there anything that could be purified. If emotions arise they are freed in their own place because they are empty of true existence from the outset. Everything being empty of true existence purity is spontaneously present.

The question isn't a paradox but simply irrational. How can one ask about a location of something that has been generally negated? you may ask after a location only if the negation is restricted to a specific location, e.g. 'If there is no I in this body (of mine), then where am I?'

Great! That's evidence for your enlightenment.

A pleasurable sensation can even turn into pain if it endures over a longer time. Or there are people that find pain pleasurable (masochists). I don't think that the 'why' is important but that it is important to clearly see that feelings are only conditioned and that the liked/disliked qualities are not characteristics inherent in the objects perceived. I would say that thoughts and emotions are mutually conditioning each other. There won't arise feelings and emotions if intuitions and concepts do not arise upon perceiving phenomena.

Maybe you should not interprete experience but directly perceive it as such? I think that 'peace' or 'confusion' are interpretations but not experience.

What are you mindful of when you're mindful?

you're wrong. Such fantasies should not be taken as true. Mind is very creative at times.

Sometimes this and sometimes that.

Even the effect of words is kind of magic. Why? Since words are inherently without meaning. One may hear sounds or see forms/concatenation of characters and the mind synthesizes meaning. The meaning synthesized by the hearer's/reader's mind does not necessarily correspond to the meaning that arose in the speaker's/writer's mind and that he tried to express through linguistic sounds/forms - actually often it is quite different.

Well there are two speculative assumptions. 1. that the child isn't taught anything and 2. that 'certain sensations' arise. as to 1: all cases I have been observing are cases where an adult first smiles at the child before the child smiles back. So there may be learning involved. as to 2: Since you cannot know what actually is going on 'inside' the child you can only project your own experiences onto the child. Initially something is taken to be true. That 'something' may be a sense appearance or merely an idea. This then causes a feeling on a scale from dislike to like. If this is taken to be true further intuitive or conceptual associations may arise and lead to emotions. These then again may be taken to be true and cause further proliferation.