ground

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.

The methods discussed on this forum cannot replace medical treatment where medical treatment is necessary.

Theravada Buddhism does not teach non duality.

@Arhattobe Are you trying to mix buddha dharma with something else? I am asking because you are negating 'individuated self' whereas buddha dharma is negating self. your negation could be understood as an implicative negation whereas the negation of buddha dharma is a non-implicative negation. But maybe I am getting you wrong. Anyway if your intention is to disseminate buddha dharma then this forum certainly isn't the right place to do so and if you are trying to mix buddha dharma with something else then why? Anyway, I am sure you will ignore my words and do as it pleases you

As to like and dislike or pleasure and suffering there are different levels of being conditioned: 1. Conditioning on the level of human conscious being (being conditioned as a human being) and 2. Conditioning on the individual level of human conscious being (being conditioned as Peter or Mary or John or Jenny)

Nothing is predetermined. How could anything be predetermined since there is no inherently existing causality?

It is impossible not to identify with fear because fear arises exactly because of deceptive identification(s). In your case it is obviously social fear, fear of others and their judgement. The reason is low self esteem. Funnily a big ego actually would be helpful in case of such social fears. But this of course contradicts the spiritual intention to undermine ego. On the other hand seeing self as that what it is goes hand in hand with seeing others as that what they are and the result is also loss of fear. But be aware that the result of egolessness is not only loss of fear of judgement by others but also loss of erotic interest in girls. So maybe not get involved in egolessness too deeply?

Painfulness may arise through identifying with what arises in one's mind. But the 'I' is not the thoughts/recollections arising. And the 'I' is not feelings or emotions arising due to thoughts. If you could spontaneously remove the sentiment of 'I' then thoughts where 'I' occurs would still arise. So just let thoughts be just thoughts. 'I' actually is like space because no substance of 'I' can be found, neither in thoughts nor feelings/emotions. So since 'I' is like space let thoughts arise, don't follow them, don't identify with them and they will simply dissolve in that space leaving no trace. you can trust in that space that you are. Space cannot be hurt. Space is imperturbable. Space has neither center nor periphery. Space is unbounded openness. Relax into that space that you are. Meditate according to these lines.

you do not have to get rid of anything because enlightenment will manage everything. you should know however that emotions are as delusional as thoughts are and you should neither let them be your unquestioned guides nor cling to them as 'my' or 'mine'.

If you experience sth, i.e. 'sth' meaning that the experience can be named as this or that, then it is merely a conceptual fabrication. All names/labels are fabrications. In actuality there is no true insight and talking about 'insight in' in the affirmative is ultimately delusional. As a matter of fact many spiritual traditions nevertheless are talking of/about insight. If so it should be understood as an instance of preliminary teaching. All teachings are preliminary because you have to start somewhere. If you keep investigating into the answer you've found then you'll find out that it cannot bear analysis. Why? Because it is just conceptual fabrication.

'conducive' was the word I used. E.g. when due to conditioning one would - without discipline - impulsively act in a way that would have results which are not conducive to the goal of liberation. In such a case discipline that entails refraining from impulsive action is advisable and conducive.

Vipassana is also called 'insight meditation'. Usually concentration is the primer on the basis of which vipassana is conducted because concentration leads to calm abiding which is the prerequisite for insight. Breath can be used as both, as an object of concentration to attain calm abiding and/or as an object to attain insight into impermanence. Deepened concentration meditation can also lead to entering the form realm or even the formless realm. These are just other modes of consciousness which have nothing to do with vipassana and are temporary, i.e. they do not last longer than the meditation session does last ... with a little bit of 'hang-over' during a short period of post-meditation. In contrast to this the fruits of vipassana meditation do affect post-meditation perceptions/experiences. What I have sketched here is buddhist view. So maybe Leo uses the same terms 'vipassana' and 'concentration' but defines those terms differently ... ?