ground

Do you really expect to get answers from Preetom or Leo Gura that are more close to actuality? Or is it that the buddhist answers left you dissatisfied? if the former the energy of your belief will determine. if the latter that's close to actuality

A recommendation: If you're interested in the ultimate (??) difference between hinduism and buddhism in terms of conceptual teachings then investigate into the difference between advaita (hinduism) and advaya (buddhism). If you're interested in the ultimate difference between hinduism and buddhism in terms of the fruits of the paths then investigate into the difference between nonconceptual fruit of hindu path and nonconceptual fruit of buddhist path. Good luck!

No and no. If you have negative thoughts or feelings in your body then it's just that. What? you have negative thoughts or feelings in your body. if you don't have resistance to anything then you may suffer nevertheless. I don't understand. All is just in your mind, be it negative thoughts, feelings, acceptance or resistance/rejection. Acceptance it just letting go of resistance.

you are right, it is nonsense Having said that I do not assert truth as I do not assert happiness.

Neither I am in a space. Nor am I outside of a space. Nor am I both. Nor am I neither. But basically: Neither do I and space exist. Nor do I and space not exist. Nor do I and space both. Nor do I and space neither.

you're funny. But I understand that your insistance on alleged 'direct experience' is the basis of your authority. I.e. one can always claim 'direct experience' of this or that and reject 'direct experience' of this or that of an opponent. 'Direct experience of having sex' is just a mere fabrication. Otherwise 'direct experience' would just be conceptuality. My understanding of whatever is mere conceptuality and fabrication.

Since there is no god and any god is mere fiction that is really a good question. Why? Because it hints at the dependency of so called 'realization' or perception and belief. I.e. cultivating belief may cause realization/perception that corresponds with belief. Actually all has to do with conceptuality and intuition. One has to understand that intuition is no different from conceptuality and that conceptuality and the practice of a specific conceptuality, i.e. cultivation of belief, determines intuition that corresponds with conceptualiity. All is fabricated and mentally fashioned. Nothing is real or true from its own side.

Such alleged 'direct experience' is mere fabrication.

Both, buddhism and hinduism are empty of truth. Mere fabrications.

although 'the absolute' doesn't exist either. So 'the absolute' is paradoxically relative as every linguistic expression is. But 'collapse of dualities' is nevertheless an appropriate hint. However those who follow advaita teachings usually have trouble to grasp this because advaita teachings are based on affirmation of true existence of 'oneness' or 'nonduality' or 'awareness' and the like. They obviously think that duality has to be overcome and that it can be overcome through choosing one side of it and reject the other, but neither the former nor the latter applies.

'Nothing' isn't a some-thing so the expression is 'nothing' for 'no-thing'. The sentiment of 'thinginess' in relation to the concept 'nothing' is the creation of your habitual mind. And since this habit applies to all concepts all concepts are revealed to actually be no-thing and 'Nothing whatsoever exists.' applies.

This is funny, isn't it? Mind is always looking for support. When all there is has been denied then there has to be at least one remainder. So let's take 'awareness'. And since mind needs support and all there is has been denied - except 'awareness' - the ontological monism so typical for Hindu-like thinking ensues. Because - please please please be true! - at least this 'awareness' has to truly exist. However having said that 'Mind is always looking for support' is actually implicitly asserting a support. Why? Since 'mind' has been applied in the affirmative. Ok, then: 'Nothing whatsoever exists.' To this it may be replied 'Who/what is saying this?' It's only language. Therefore: 'Is awareness all there is?' - 'No, everything exists.' 'But wait, above you have said Nothing whatsoever exists.' - 'yes'. 'you're contradicting your self!' - 'No.' 'But why?' - 'Because it's only language.'

Attached to the good one is attached to the bad and sometimes one does the good and sometimes one does the bad. Not attached to anything at all one does always the good. Why? Because one does not do anything.

Nothing 'is'. That may sound to some as 'there is nothing' but even nothing 'is' not.

Everything is equal. There is nothing more or less important.

Maybe, maybe not ... it depends

From the perspective of science yes. From the perspective of spirituality it is an inner intelligence that displays conventional reality in a way that applies to our conditioning.

Perfectly fine. However my point was the sentiment 'I' not the concept 'I'. I think that 'I' often is negated on a merely intellectual level and that this is why many people run into more and more merely intellectual issues about 'I'. Therefore if 'I' is identified on an experiential level it can be quite straightforward to realize the truthlessness of this sentiment and the negation of it can be final and doesn't lead to intellectually fabricated 'monkey mind' proliferations.

Sure. If language is applied it is applied from within a framework of philosophical view or a network of concepts.

yes. it is neither arguing nor trying to convey a point. It is applying language appropriately depending on context.

yes. Nevertheless it is possible that there would be compassion or love directed to those who talked.

'Knowing' exists only for you if you impute 'existence'. It is wrong only for you if you are subject to 'innate existence' habits.

Since the answer requires a conventional linguistic expression: there is a knowing but no knower.

Sorry but I do not rely on any ideas or concepts. So it is impossible to be fooling myself. you must not project your delusions on me. I am saying: 'Nothing whatsoever exists.' and I declare this to be the authentic expression of enlightenment.

No, I am applying conventional language for the purpose of communication only. you are erroneously imputing 'existence' on the objects my words cause in your mind.