deepbluehum wrote:Not sure if this is addressed to me, but I didn't say DO is not emptiness.
None of them said dependent origination is emptiness.
You are not catching my meaning friend.
I'm trying to make Gorampa's point, perhaps in an unwieldy way....the thought that, having broken through the reification of grasping at truth, conceptualizes [things] to be mere imputations, is also said to be a form at grasping at the self of phenomena.
--lta ba'i shan 'byed
If you say "DO is emptiness," it is just a convention, a label. That is different than saying, "DO is emptiness. The Tathagata is emptiness. Therefore, the Tathagata is DO'd, and is just a mere label in my mind." This reasoning reifies the conventional as truth. Then, a Madhayamakan has to show that no, she or he has not made the logical argument that DO is emptiness, and that DO and emptiness are just labels. So just because that which arises conditionally is labelled "emptiness," does not mean the Tathagata is an object which we called "emptiness." In fact, the Tathagata cannot arise conditionally, because that would mean that which has transcended impermanence would not have done so. A "Tathagata" has relinquished grasping at truth and falsity, and so having cut the root of samsara, is unarisen.
"I didn't say DO is not emptiness," because first off a Madhyamakan doesn't make claims, and second of all because this conventional parlance is convenient, like bowing to a Buddha photo, because you can't bow to the nonarising essence.
"None of them said DO is emptiness," because Nagarjuna explicitly stated that "empty" and "DO" are just a labels. The key point being these labels do not justify negating the Buddha, karma, etc., by claiming the Buddha is a mere imputation.