mr. gordo wrote:
I don't think that Trungpa is saying "you don't exist." That would be an extreme and not void of abstraction.
It is an extreme if one attaches to a "you" and says that it either exists or does not exist. Emptiness is the absence of anything that can be pointed to as existing or not existing.
However, we can speak in conventional terms of a false view of "you" that actually is illusory- meaning there is nothing there at all. This "you" does not exist.
" Shunyata simply means emptiness, nothingness.....Shunyata, or emptiness, is empty of subject-object relationship. Nonexistent subject, nonexistent object. Perceiver and perceptions do not exist......."
From a Gelug Madhyamika perspective (sorry have to do that, but the same terms can have wildly varying interpretations amongst different schools) there is a trend in English to use the term illusion-like
, which doesn't mean nothing is there at all. It just means that its mode of existence is not how we see it. The term is only used in the context of conventional truth, and in fact perceiving it properly would not be a false view at all, though it might be a correct view of the false.
Illusory basically means deceptive, which for example refer to sense perceptions because even valid cognitions of the sensory kind can easily give rise to the idea that what is perceived has it's own independent nature.
In fact a correct apprehension of the illusion-like nature of all phenomena, which entails a perception of their dependent nature, would totally reinforce the mind's capacity to perceive shunyata. This is especially important as shunyata too is a dependent phenomena which is permanent and non-composite (therefore not constantly changing for as long as what it depends on exists).