ground

How could I know for you?

Fear of enlightenment is not a good start. if everything is ok and fine why bother about enlightenment at all?

you can use an alarm clock that rings every x minutes to remind you to check if you slipped out of mindfulness. Not necessarily. Only if 'I'-'my'-'mine' makes itself felt as if being true.

'middle way' short form of 'middle way vision' or 'middle way contemplation'. "'middle way' is not name of Nothing" is an appropriate expression.

Something is empty of self which means something is empty of something or what appears is empty of that as which it appears. If something is conceived as full then one should investigate what could be the substratum of fullness. One can impute whatever one likes to emptiness. The question simply is whether one's imputations can bear rational analysis. Same applies to 'void'. Every object (or subject) is void of self, i.e.it is void of that as which it appears. That as which it appears is not nothing, but something. Being void of something however does not qualify it as nothing according to the middle way.

So far so good. you are speculating: 'what would happen if ...', 'I would finally be free ...', 'I would no longer exist', 'I would see the world as ...' I'd suggest you distinguish first hand direct perception from speculation and concepts you learned from others.

'does exist' does not apply 'does not exist' does not apply 'both, does exist AND does not exist' does not apply 'neither does exist nor does not exist' does not apply. That's the exhaustive expression of the middle in terms of existence. The middle way is difficult to fathom due to habitual imputations of truth and habitual affirmation and negation, habitual acceptance and rejection. But once the vision or contemplation of the middle way is established through rational analysis the decisive step towards liberation has been made and there is no way back.

'seeing the truth' is affirmation and a thus deviation from the 'vision' or 'contemplation' of the middle way. Where the vision of the middle way is applied truth is impossible as is its opposite.

As the expression 'mu'-state is likely to complicate things I will not comment on that. 'something' and 'nothing' may be likened to 'yes' and 'no' because the former implies affirmation and the latter negation. Since I have said above that language doesn't have a word for the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' this means that the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' is beyond words and thus beyond concepts. From that follows there actually can't be an idea of the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' because an idea would require a concept. If one would argue: but to use the expression 'the middle' is an idea then I would say; yes but this idea/concept is not meant to be an idea/concept of the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' but to be only a pointer to the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' for which there are no words and which is thus beyond concepts. There is also no 'true middle' of 'something' and 'nothing' because where would one want to find truth? Since both 'something' and 'nothing' are not true how could the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' be true? Regardless what object you choose it is always a question of yes/affirmation or no/negation and thus the middle applies. When the middle applies, truth cannot apply and perception is no problem. If one cannot understand 'knowing' other than 'it is this' or 'it is not that' then one is bound to the extremes of 'is' and 'isn't' and trapped in conceptuality.

The middle way does not teach 'Nothing', that's right because 'Nothing' is considered one extreme and 'Something' is considered the other extreme from the perspective of the middle way teachings.

The middle way does neither teach 'Nothing' nor nihilism but teaches the middle way in terms of extremes. you are free to reject the middle way teachings, no problem.

you are free to express your philosophy. However above I was referring to the middle of 'something' and 'nothing' that is beyond language because language does not have a word for it. Then you wanted me to answer your question where such a middle is mentioned. I have answered your question. What's your intention now? It is obvious that we are not talking about the same.

'Middle way' is also the meaning of 'madhyamaka' and 'madhyamaka' teaches the middle as I have expressed it.

See first you said 'if they do not love they can not accept something, someone,' that is a categorical statement. Then you said 'love seems like most reasonable,easiest way how to accept' and with that you affirmed that there are other ways to accept and that contradicts your categorical statement above. Now if after I have pointed out the contradiction of these two statement of yours you now say that I do not have the capacity to love then this is an unfounded statement. Why? Because this cannot be concluded from my words and because I can even accept if you do not want to admit the contradiction. So this then is an instance of acceptance on my side where love is not involved. But do no misunderstand this to mean that aversion would be involved. How this? Actually the middle of love and aversion is involved.

The middle is mentioned in teachings of the middle way.

If so then I am not human because I find it very strange to label acceptance as 'love', If love 'seems like most reasonable,easiest way how to accept.' then that contradicts your first statement 'if they do not love they can not accept something, someone'. why? Because love is only a 'way how to accept.' If love is a way then there should be other ways, too, and one should be able to accept without love, too.

Sorry but the context was the expression 'knowing the middle' not the expression 'knowing nothing'.

'knowing' can be understood in different ways and the understanding of 'the middle' depends on the understanding of 'something' and of 'nothing'. Since - as I said above - language has not word for the middle of the extremes 'something' and 'nothing' 'knowing' in 'knowing the middle' cannot be a conceptual knowing.

@Arhattobe First, it was you who brought up the topic 'true and full non duality' in the context of Theravada buddhism, not me. Second, It is quite straightforward to dissolve inappropriate opinions about Theravada buddhism and 'non dualiity': you just have to study the Theravada tradition's scriptures, i.e. the pali suttas - meanwhile all have been translated into English - and see whether you can find a single sutta where the Buddha is said to teach 'non duality'. you won't find one but If you think you have found one, please let me know. Having said that if you are inspired by both, Theravada buddhism and spiritual teachings of/about 'non duality', that's perfectly fine and you are of course free to synthesize your own mixture through interpreting Theravada buddhism from a 'non duality' perspective. If that is helpful for you then you should do so. But to claim Theravada buddhism to be identical with your private synthesis would not be respectful regarding the Theravada tradition.

They are neither the same nor different. If they were the same then every individual that has consciousness would love without interruption which is not the case. If they were different then one should be able to love when being unconscious.

Depends on how you understand 'knowing the middle'.

Some spiritual teachings do and others do not. Some spiritual teachings do fabricate a contradiction between spirituality and Science and Empiricism and others do not. Some even outrightly reject Science and Empiricism. Some spiritual teachings assert non-existence of the body and others do not. Not all spiritual teachings assert 'Oneness and inter-connectedness of all beings'. If a spiritual teaching asserts that you are 'God'/'Consciousness' then you should investigate how this teaching answers your question. I think you should ask yourself why you are interested in spirituality at all and why you are focusing on a specific spiritual teaching if this teaching causes you distress and confusion. I mean are distress and confusion compatible with the reason why you initially were interested in spirituality? Having said when thinking about a spiritual teaching you should always consider the possibility that you are simply getting it wrong if it causes you distress and confusion.

Because language does not know the middle and thus causes this deceptive duality and ordinary mind is craving affirmation/support.

Actually awareness is like a mirror. Why? It has the potentiality to display anything and does not choose. It does not perceive 'this' or 'that'. It does not discern 'good' or 'bad', 'beautiful' or 'ugly'. The forms it displays are neither different from it nor identical with it like the reflections on the surface of a mirror. It is empty and clear like the surface of a mirror.