catmoon wrote:Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:catmoon wrote:I also found the terminology strongly misleading. The question came to mind, "If there is no self then what eats dinner?"
It really does read like a total denial of the existence of human beings. There is quite a difference between saying the self is empty and saying it does not exist.
"Lack of existence" is better? It's all upaya emptiness, concept-emptiness, not real emptiness.
"Lack of existence" is even worse! It makes the same error, while deceptively camouflaging itself in the from of an emptiness statement.
I would say, "Lack of inherent existence" is the most accurate statement of emptiness. There are various types of existence, and inherent existence is the only one negated by emptiness doctrine as it has been taught to me. It is probably important to note the source of my beliefs here, they are mostly drawn from HHDL's books and therefore are sort of Gelug with a pan-Tibetan seasoning.
Hi, Catmoon! Lack of inherent existence. Regarding this, never solid looking appearances have coming into existence, but they appear in interrelationship.
There is only interrelationship and nothing more.