That which is dependent origination
is explained to be emptiness.
As you know one sentence can be taken out of context. Which this one is. But you two are free to continue with the same short shrift nonsense ad nauseam, if it makes you feel warm and cozy.
Readers should not think these two have settled the issue with DO=Emptiness. This simplistic formulation based on a quote taken out of context of what it was meant to teach has led apparently both of them to negate the efficacy of karma.
I was purely responding to your assertion that dependent origination does not equal emptiness. The two terms are in fact synonyms.
I nowhere stated that I negated the conventionlly observed efficacy of karma and its results, nor would I.
However, we can examine karma too if you like. Nāgārjuna states:
"Why? This action
does not arise from conditions,
and does not arise without conditions,
therefore, there is also no agent.
If there is no agent,
how can there be an result which arises from an action?
If there is no result,
where will a consumer be observed?
Just as the Teacher's emanation
is emanated through his consummate magical power,
if likewise the emanation also makes an emanation,
there is again a further emanation;
in same the way, though that agent
performs an action, it has the form an emanation.
For example, it is like another emanation created by an emanation
making a [third] emanation.
Affliction, actions, bodies,
agents, and results
are like fairy castles
mirages, and dreams.
I take Nāgārjuna's view. All phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions.
*in my previously rendered verses from the 4NT chapter in the other thread, through a fault of vision I misread brten (བརྟེན) as bden (བདེན) as so mistranslated "desginated through relation" as "designated through truth". My apologies. I was unable to fix it as the thread is locked.