thanks.does anyone actually think that although everything is dependent there is real existence in form?
i believe that one cannot fall into the extreme of emptiness, since ultimately there is no form. i think it would be misguided to say that those things which are dependent still are real. they may be real in a personal sense, but not truly any more than flowers in the sky, mirages in the destert and the reflection of the moon in a pond.
ie, dependent objects appear to be real, but truly they are not even appearances, nor are they arisings.
please correct me if i am wrong. just because emptiness may be seen on one level, does not mean that dependent objects still do not have some form of reality, albeit a personal one.
as for self
, if one has a relative self, it can be perceived in relation to the 5 skhandas, but ultimately there are no skhandas, nor is there any perceiving... so how could there be a self? the relative self is impermanenent, it is also impure. a buddhist would seek to move in his experience from atman to sunyatman, and then ultimately to tathagatman. but why seek when there is already nothing to be found. 'this is it', just as you are. not a thing to seek, not a thing to be found... only emptiness (to see). no need to even see emptiness, no need to even see your original nature. this is it.
as the patriarch said (parphrase), let it be known that everyone is liberated.
seeing your own nature and the emptiness of all things is normal for everyone. they just dont see what they have always seen.
best wishes, White Lotus.