deepbluehum wrote:Emptiness is not a ground of being, unlike the Brahman posited by Advaita.
Nonetheless, dharmas can be said to abide in non-abidance. While Emptiness is not a ground of being, it is not a non-ground-of-being either. Moreover, the Avadhuta Gita explicitly rejects both "is" and "isn't", so how can its Atman be a one-sided storehouse of "is"?
deepbluehum wrote:To really get into the important difference you have to go beyond philosophy to the method of practice. Emptiness can also be thought of as a name for a method.
The Buddha indeed taught a set of skillful means without a Dharma since the Buddhadharma cannot be taught, but Emptiness cannot be boiled down to a method of practice. Otherwise "Emptiness" would be a dharma consisting of actions and/or inactions, perhaps with accompanying mental states, and would thus transcend itself.
deepbluehum wrote:Here you don't look, grasp, like, etc.
Provisionally, sure, but as a method, this can never be Emptiness, because where does it end? Why is it that you do not look and yet you do breathe? Is Emptiness an arbitrary ritual? If, in Emptiness, one neither looks nor breathes nor eats nor sleeps, then this statement reflects a perfect understanding of Emptiness. Otherwise, this is not a perfect understanding because I can say it's not so. If I can point at X and say it isn't Emptiness, X cannot be Emptiness. That is why all ultimate negations of "Emptiness" (or anything else for that matter) represent a stage in the realization of Emptiness, whereas Emptiness that even averts characterization as "Emptiness(es)" can never be denied.
deepbluehum wrote:Then, the practice of buddhist meditation and resulting bliss is easy to understand.
Pardon my misunderstanding of your intent, because if things were as simple as you make them appear to my clouded mind, Emptiness would be nothing more or less than a ritual of inaction. Ultimately, Emptiness cannot be clarified by comparing it to sensory dharmas. Eg. "Platonic Buddhism" is an understandable philosophy: ultimate Emptiness, relative Platonism. But "Platonic Emptiness" is merely Platonism. This can be generalized to "X Emptiness" is X, Emptiness being the negation of ultimate X. There is no way around this, because Emptiness is simply that which cannot be negated.
Of course, all your statements can be understood as skillful means leading to the realization of Emptiness, but so can the Avadhuta Gita. (especially my inadequate reading of it)