Middle way :
One extreme way : adding thoughts which make is seem as though there is more than what is present.
Other extreme way : adding thoughts of ‘nothingness’ which make is seem as though there is less than what is present.
Another way of adding is thoughts that say “this is mine” and another way of taking away is thoughts that say “this is not mine”.
I’m trying to confirm my interpretation of what you said: you seem to be saying that Theravada Buddhism is not about attaining nothingness (because that would be “extreme”) but rather about following the “middle way”.
What I am saying is that nothingness is not part of the tradition whereas emptiness/voidness is and it is defined as per the quote I provided (which is also the middle way)
Ok, I see. For me, “nothingness” vs. “emptiness/voidness” is splitting hairs, so we’ll go with emptiness/voidness. My thoughts are that the original aim of Theravada Buddhism was to attain this emptiness/voidness. Mahayana Buddhism, in my limited understanding, grew out of those who came to recognize in themselves something underneath the clutter and noise that Theravada Buddhism helped wash away–it wasn’t a true nothingness/emptiness/voidness–just like “there is this” is not a true nothingness/emptiness/voidness–but a natural (you might say “hardwired”) love and compassion for the suffering of other human beings–enough so to motivate them to enter back into the mundane world in order to help others attain peace and enlightenment. I say that this isn’t necessarily the inevitably result of anyone who walks the Theravada path because I believe this has demonstrably neurological roots (I’m even willing to say: the limbic system or the mammal brain), which means that there is bound to be a few aberrants, a few whose brains work a little differently (sociopaths to take an extreme view). ← but even for these guys, there is hope: wouldn’t the ideal solution to the problem of sociopaths–those who simply aren’t capable of love and compassion, or feeling for other human beings–be to seclude themselves away from society in something like a monastary, a place where they can find inner peace and have no need to bother anybody? ← That’s what Theravada Buddhism promises.
I think you have come to the wrong conclusions about Theravada as being a solitary path which it definitely is not (maybe falling to the false belief that it is a Hinayana path which it is not).
Then again, I ask you: what do you know about Theravada Buddhism (and Hinayana Buddhism for that matter)?
But sociopaths are not bothered by lack of love or compassion for others … so they have no need to seclude themselves to find inner peace. Why would they want to go away to a monastery?
What do you want to know?
This assumes that concern for the welfare of others is the only thing that might cause unrest in a person’s mind. The sociopath may still worry about going to prison, or be frustrated by the fact that he has to follow social rules, or if he doesn’t care about any of that (and consequently goes to jail one day), will certainly be disappointed about how his life ended up.
The point is, the sociopath, though without feelings of guilt or concern for other people, isn’t ultimately any more free of the mundane material worldly attachments than the rest of us. It’s true that he is not burdened by guilt (at least not as much as the rest of us) but that’s quite different from saying he isn’t burdened by any negative feelings or angst in general. The peace of mind that Buddhism promises (not just Theravada Buddhism) is a matter of quieting the mind (so they say). Is this the state of mind of the sociopath in your opinion?
Oh for fuck sakes!
This just tells me you’re talking out of your ass.
Gib, I am not in the business of reading your mind and I have enough resilience to take on as many insults that you can throw at me (so keep them coming).
=D>
As I have said Gib, your confusing Hinayana and Theravada Buddhism: “In 1950 the World Fellowship of Buddhists declared that the term Hīnayana should not be used when referring to any form of Buddhism existing today.”
^ Oh, well we should certainly abide by that, then. Let’s not speak of the H word ever again. 
BTW, is the World Fellowship of Buddhists anything like the Fellowship of the Ring?
The uncomfortable moment when a person is found out to be misinformed.
Sure, there are other reasons why a sociopath may want to got to a monastery. But I doubt if these are really strong motivators for such an action. Sociopaths are also egotistical and they blame others for their own problems. It seems more likely that a sociopath would try to solve his problems by manipulation and lies rather than a retreat from society.
I wonder what the statistics are regarding the number of sociopaths in monasteries.
Top 10 professions selected by sociopaths (although clergyman/person is #8, I don’t think that it means lowly monk) :
Well, I’m not saying being a sociopath draws you towards Buddhist monasteries. I agree that he would probably try to solve his problems by other means, but I think this is true of anybody, not just sociopaths. What I’m saying is that the peace of mind that Theravada Buddhism promises should be just as applicable to the sociopath as it is for everyone else (at least I see no reason why it wouldn’t be).
^ Might be interesting.
I would like to know why trees do not hug me back when I’ve hugged them. 
How do they actually get these statistics? Do they interview everyone at the job and ask if they are sociopaths?
Probably from sociopathic convicts and the jobs they held before being convicted.