ground

With that position you are in agreement with respected traditions that gave birth to many enlightened masters.

That may be two examples since these are often discussed here. But my impression is that many people involved in these are not beyond belief. So since you said 'I want to purify myself of all beliefs' I do not know whether these are a good choice. But as 'conventional' refers to what is being agreed upon by a group of individuals there are certainly other options since there are more teaching traditions than only one. A drawback however is that all teachings traditions/communities do advocate some kind of belief system which may lead to what you expressed as 'creating positive ones upon the already existing layer of beliefs.' So in the end it may boil down to your capacity to extract from their teachings only what is necessary to correctly apply their methods and to discard the rest.

This won't happen if you don't fabricate some esoteric/metaphysic narrative about binaural beats that go against current conventional beliefs. But actually you have already begun to fabricate such a narrative through assuming that binaural beats may function accordding to your wishes. So either you keep going or you drop this idea and focus on sth more conventional.

Of course if they left they would most likely die soon and couldn't teach for a longer time. Sure but they use different methods depending on their tradition.

That's actually cultivating the deceptive view of true 'I'-'my'-'mine' and trying to escape its truthlessness.

Not different, not same, not both, not neither.

Question not applicable.

Neither different nor the same. If they would be different then communication would be impossible. If they would be the same then everybody would experience the same and asking/answering would be pointless.

Some people are interested in spirituality and practice but will never get to where others are from the outset who don't care about spirituality at all. Some people are enlightened without having ever perceived any of these enlightenment narratives/fantasies others are obsessed with. It is a great error to see enlightenment in a framework of causality.

Consider a frog that has been born in the depth of a well shaft and spend his whole life down there only seeing the sky though the opening above. How could the frog imagine the world 'out there'?

One shouldn't get obsessed with meditation. Meditation is only a primer for the 'I'.

That nicely describes your problem. What? 1. your belief in 'Truth' 2. your wanting to know what can't be known 3. your dissatisfaction with not knowing

Forget about metaphysics, it is just speculation. Be content with being laid-back. Everything's fine.

In the sphere of science, yes.

Meditation based on affirming sense perception is very deceptive.

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.