Emptiness and Objects

[Tiff]

Gonzo wrote: My own investigations have followed a different path than yours, yours more towards the intellectual, mine more towards the sensual.
Well, based on forum interactions I can see how you conclude this, but in life, I am a very sensual person I really love life, and the things that happen as we observe around us. I just spent half a week in Beijing, went to the Tibetan Lamasery, also Beihai Park, Summer Palace, and prince's mansion, and more... I was so taken in by all the beauty the ancient Chinese surrounded themseleves with and the gradeur of bringing their sense of spiritualism into manifestation in a "here and now" reality experience. Really grand temples and enormous statues all devoted to spiritual attainments. And now we have the modern, us people, who frequent these places and bring a new dimension to it all.
Tiff wrote:Fullness. Why can't this fullness be empty of essence? Why do you see empty as desolate, null, void? I have never spoken of it this way. Are you not truly reading my words and instead bouncing your own ideas off and back to yourself without taking anything new in? Seems so to me. At the very least, try to let go of this null, blah, void thing. Its not even what I've been talking about.
I wasn't aware I saw empty as desolate, null or void.  I saw it as empty, and I continue to disagree with it.  Rather, the notion is of no value since I'm willing to accept what I perceive at face value and to enjoy it as it seems to be.
Well, I just think you view Nagarjuna this way (like blase), and the approach to realizing emptiness this way. The Middle Way treatise is only one of his authorships. Its very mechanical in logic purposefully and that's in order to dislodge the entrenched views of erroneous logic.
Tiff wrote:So order you a steak, pour some wine, and light up a stoogie and we can discuss Nagarjuna...or not...it matters not to me. Seems you are pretty much through with the discussion anyway. But I'm always willing to engage if you are.
Nah...I found the aforementioned essay on Nagarjuna, and I intend to spend some time with it.
Ok, but I believe its an indirect approach, correct? Nagarjuna seemed hard to understand for me too at first, but then it just begins to sink in. I still recommend you read him directly, even if we don't discuss it here. If you read indirect, you will be getting another person's take on it. Which can be a good supplement sometimes but better to have that combined with accessing him directly yourself.
Tiff wrote:When I was born, the three dog night tune was the top song that week...its in my bones, I love this world. Joy to it! So that much we have in common. Drama...I've had enough drama, can do without that...but will take adventure any day.
Heh.  Seems to me adventure=drama.  Drama usually has a bad name, since every family seems to have a drama queen of sorts, and most everyone else seems to be tired of it...but they aren't, really.
Yes, I was just posting about stigmas in the woman's forum. Remember, men can be just as dramatic (look at Hitler, John McEnroe, Mel Gibson, and just about any coach at a sporting event...you know... hurling chairs through the air temper tantrums and such).
To me this difference between drama and adventure is the heaviness of emotion involved. Ok, that's a distinction I make and now clarify to you. To me life is exciting, it doesn't have to be dramatic though...which means emotions do not have to be the source of excitement, instead awe and wonderment can be excitement. So its moving from emotional expereinces to spiritual realms of expereinces. Maybe it can be said spiritual experience is just higher levels of emotional experience...either way it avoids the feeding off drama in these upper realms and upper, of course, is just a phrase (not meant literally).

[Tiff]

Gonzo wrote:
Garrison Keelor once said something like, "We are juicy beings", as indeed we are...mostly water - the whole business of being human is a senuous experience and I suspect one of the reasons we are here is to enjoy that.  
It dawns on me Gonzo just how much you love this sensual approach so I just wanted to add that I still believe you are grossly misinterpreting Nagarjuna (I wouldn't say it if I didn't believe it was so) I even went back to reread my words in the event I was being a drama king (lol, just kidding).
Here's what I'd say though. Nagarjuna can help one enjoy the sensual experience even more. So that's why I conclude you have been grossly misinterpreting him because you seem to view him as so far removed from sensuality...and true he does not speak directly about it, but I have been saying for a few posts now that its not about giving anything up in terms of what we do action-wise, such as enjoying sensual pleasures. What's let go of are the types of views that would actually inhibit the enjoyment of our experiences.
So maybe its not that you are consciously not letting the new in, but I still feel that after I tell you Nagarjuna is not about giving anything up, you proceed as if he were. As if he was removed from sensual experience. So you base this on how you perceive him, but I tell you I have read him and gotten results that do not add up to what you conclude. What he writes is not a way of life, a way to live. He strictly is targeting the entrenched logic, helping us up-root it, and then one can be free of that. And again I add, the logic up-rooted is the very inhibiting kind.

[The Fool]

Not being a great lecturer, forgive me to just throw from time to time in this very interesting discussion a few of my thoughts.

About the difficulty to understand Nagarjuna, Tiff, in the previous post, just gave the clue to understand him. He is definetly easier to understand once we can see that what he's doing is simply to demonstrate that a binary/dualistic (Aristotle legacy to the West?) way of trying to realize the truth is doomed to failure and would be a neverending process, a bit like a dog trying to catch its tail. In my understanding of Nagarjuna, i see him as having gone in a successful way to the complete exhaustion of binary/dualistic thinking.
My suggestion to complete a reading of Nagarjuna would be the study of the Vimalakirti Sutra.

Gonzo said : "What we begin to approach is the age-old question of purpose. That is, why are we here? Which will also ask, what/who are we, really?"

Yes, "who am I?", THE question! That should in my opinion come before the question of purpose. Finding the answer to this question – if there is an answer – cancel inevitably the question of purpose, which to my knowledge and understanding is not adressed in the buddhadharma where no creator can be found anywhere and where everything is described as just the magical display of Mind (at least in Mahayana – for a study of this, try the Lankavatara Sutra).

[lex icon]

the experience of sensual being Gonzo
At the risk of seeming pedantic, what do you mean by "the experience of sensual being?"
Are you speaking only about the information experienced by the 5 senses or do you mean something more?
sensual |ˈsen sh oōəl|
adjective
of or arousing gratification of the senses and physical,

[lex icon]

Gonzo said : "What we begin to approach is the age-old question of
purpose. That is, why are we here? Which will also ask, what/who are
we, really?" Gonzo
If you get "serious" about what Nagarjuna is pointing out...at some point you will ask, "Why do I think I am here?" Lol.

[lex icon]

Please give a an example of how Nagarjuna works in reality. Ninth
That is because of your idea of reality! I am very familiar with the type of loaded resistance in this kind of question. It goes something like this.
"Oh he is so spiritually minded he is no earthly good", churches are fond of that one. Or slowly but surely as people fail to comprehend the spiritual insight it begins to be relegated to merely "intellectual" and therefore pretty irrelevant (like they know what spirit is lol), because people do not wish to face the fact that they are deficient when it comes to spiritual insight.
Your question Ninth would have us assume you know what reality is. It is precisely this idea of reality with which you are so casual that Nagarjuna is undermining. Why do you not see that?
It  just
appears as all talking in circles for now without any real example to
see. Ninth.
Now why does it appear this way to you?

[ninth octave]

I do see it this way. I had seen reality like this, it gets to roll off your shoulders after you lived like it for so long. Nagarajuna hits too close to home for me. I thought their was a little more to his way. lol. But I can see why there is no first cause in Buddhism. No first cause = no first blame either and the wheel of life can keep spinning around freely for the next one to get on .   Buddha steered away from a god figure to allow his disciples to figure the self  out rightly. The transient  wheel called life is the teacher. Know thyself, trust thyself and the pure workings of the mind since everything stems from the mind. Everything we see is just as it is and the rest is only speculation.

[lex icon]

But I can see why there is no first cause in Buddhism. Ninth
Ninth why do you personally think there is a first?

[ninth octave]

Why do I personally think there is a first cause?
I will use the metaphor of  a fish tank with a some different fish swimming around inside.
From my human view the fish seem like they are imprisoned inside a small  glass container only somehow they look  perfectly content just swimming around inside 4 corners waiting for the next bite when they get hungry.  I ask how are they  really content and wouldn't want to disturb them inside that glass container. How will they ever never know there is an ocean out there?  The human only knows there is a better a place and wants to see the fish make it to the ocean one day.
Humans are the most divine form of creatures on this earth. It would only make sense that there is another higher wisdom above us that is also knowing of this better place too- even if its not available to our perception yet until we shake off our earthly body.

[Tiff]

This does not explain first cause, this only shows dimensions to awareness. How enlightened awareness can become almost forgotten, obscured (blocked) by ignorance, and yet the faint spark of remembrance lights the way.



There is an old Chinese legend of two scholars arguing over a bridge about the life of fish underneath. Finally one asks the other "How do you know what fish thinks?"

[lex icon]

Well I guess you cannot even appreciate the question.

Humans are the most divine form of creatures on this earth.
It would only make sense that there is another higher wisdom above us
that is also knowing of this better place too- even if its not available
to our perception yet until we shake off our earthly body.  

Ninth
OK why are humans the most divine form of creatures on this earth? And why does that lead to there being a better and higher wisdom beyond this that is not available until we shake off this earthly body? And why would there not then be higher place than that and a higher one than that and a higher one than that ad infinitum?

[ninth octave]

lol, figure it out yourself.  Everything is speculation in the subjective mind.

[Tiff]

Ok, conventional truth can be explored, but like The Fool said, its like a dog chasing its tail. So why aim to make conventional truth an ultimate truth when it can never be, as you even said ninth, if its always going to be just speculation of subjectivity? Then at least we can understand its limitation and not strive to assign it an intrinsic quality it lacks.



So in other words, your belief in god is your speculation, but you hold it as ultimate and are being shown how its not so and still you defiantly cling to it.

[ninth octave]

yes , i defiantly cling to something that has no proof of existence. How is it any different than clinging on to your last breath. or clinging onto a hand at death.

[Tiff]

Well, we participate here in conventional truths we can't escape that, but we don't have to cling to them. So the difference is we just don't when we see its not ultimately true. It takes time to fully realize this, its not like "ok I used to cling and now I don't" takes time to shake off beliefs. But once we see they are futile, why choose to consciously cling to them?
When DJ talked about controlled folly I think he was talking along these lines that phenomena still occurs (after stopping the world) and we have to deal with it, but...

[Tiff]

And the reason to not cling...there are many reasons actually, but the ultimate reason is because then the door to Buddhahood is opened. I know you read Siddhartha and know that he had to let go of all attachments. So its no different for any of us. If you are attached to the idea of god, this too must be let go of. We can experience god-like-ness by letting go of the idea of "a god". Ironic but if you think about it its true. Ideas "about things" serve only to create separation, dual exisitence.

[Tiff]

Another analogy...learning to fly



A bird would never learn to fly by believing his mother or father had the power of flight and he did not. At first it may seem that only his mom or dad fly, then when he makes effort, he too flies. You cannot put your belief in god as separate from you and expect to fly like him. So the idea of him is false, he's no more a god then you, just as the birds parents had no superior abilities than he. But as long as he perceived it was the case, he would stay in the nest in fear of what he thinks he cannot do. So clinging to ideas is an obstruction. Everyone must see this to dart past the eagle or god or void.

[Tiff]

Ok, may seem after the fact to talk about introduction, but I believe we need to be introduced again and again until we fully realize. Simplicity is a wonderful thing sometimes.
Who is Buddha? (link)
Here's the rub...its not about worshiping Buddha, but until the improper intrinsic view is shaken off, anyone clinging will be lost to their clinging. And its not just with god, buddha and allah etc. So many view-forms take to clinging to intrinsic nature that is not.
Nagarjuna helps shake off the improper views. To the Matrix movie, neo has to be unplugged from the tubes and such that connect him to "the machine world". Ok, Nagarjuna is like Morpheus and Trinity coming to get Neo while he is "Thomas A. Anderson" in samsara. I heard even that the cohen brothers were referencing Buddhism when makign the movie. Not sure if its true but definitely they referenced spiritual works.

[ninth octave]

These words, My God, my God, why have though forsaken me? were spoken by Jesus well after Buddha's death.He was breathing in his last earthy breaths on the cross.
Many different interpretations for this scripture.
If anyone might have the privilege to be in the presence of a dying person as they make transition to their last breath. The days and hours leading up to the last breath appear transient to the one dying. Maybe a thousand life times pass in a second. Just as Siddhartha found the river and entered the stream and internalized the nature of the river its pure abandonment. The letting go of attachments , the clinging, the forsaking of God  must happen too. I am not sure when or how it is asked to forsaken God , but, the self, the will and desire must go along with the surrender. The mind totally gives up and surrenders its will, the self to die. My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? Are you willing to forsake and abandon self to give up your last breath? After the suffering and or watching the person cling to their last inhale the last exhale is glorious sight. The whole dying process is the letting go of the lifetime of suffering. Siddhartha Buddha found the way to end our suffering during our breathing years.

[Gonzo]

Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lema sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"


This phrase has haunted me ever since I encountered it. Nice post, ninth.

[Gonzo]

@Tiff -
I don't disagree with Nagarjuna.  I cannot because in order to disagree with him, I would have to understand him.  I do not.  That has been the crux of my commentary.  
I've tried again to read and to understand what was posted titled "What's Happening?"  Perhaps the meaning is echoed in the following from "The Blue Cliff Record":
By the real truth we understand that it is not existent; by the conventional truth we understand that it is not nonexistent.  That the real truth and the conventional truth are not two is the highest meaning of the holy truths.
(So...the following discourse)
"What is the highest meaning of the holy truths?"
"Empty, without holiness."
(Commentary)
If only you can penetrate 'Empty, without holiness', then you can return home and sit in peace.  
(Final comment)
All this amounts to is creating complications.
I really appreciate that final sentence.  However, as with Nagarjuna, I don't understand.

Elsewhere, this comment:
Tiff wrote:Nagarjuna's view is that (contrary to nihilism) there does exist a world of selves and things, namely, the world that appears before us (the phenomenal world), but that (contrary to essentialism) all such phenomenal entities are impermanent, continually changing, interdependent, insubstantial — in other words, "empty" (shunya) of essence."
How can a thing be empty of essence?  Logically, that makes no sense.  Either a thing is, or it is not.  If it is, it has essence, which is the meaning of the word.
The last thing I want to ask, is, what does the pursuit of understanding through Nagarjuna's guidance provide you?  Do you understand being in a different form?  Is it a better way of being than before encountering his teachings?

[lex icon]

How can a thing be empty of essence?  Logically, that makes no sense.  Either a thing is, or it is not.  If it is, it has essence, which is the meaning of the word. Gonzo
How can a thing be empty of essence?
Nagarjuna, has been asking how can a thing have an essence?
Thank you Gonzo! This is the crux of it all isn’t it?  
So no one is denying the appearance of things. How could we? It just that things are not how they appear. Things appear to be independent, separate, distinct and different. But are they? Can that be established? Gonzo said, If it is, it has essence, which is the meaning of the word.
is |iz|
third person singular present of be .
be |bē|
verb ( sing. present am |am|; are |är|; is |iz|; pl. present are; 1st and 3rd sing. past was |wəz; wäz|; 2nd sing. past and pl. past were |wər|; present subjunctive be ; past subjunctive were; present participle being |ˈbēi ng |; past part. been |bin|)
Either a thing is, or it is not. Gonzo
 Ok, how about a mirage? The mirage appears but what it represents, does that have existence? Is it really there? If we were to chase after that oasis appearing in the desert would we ever find it? Could we ever grasp it and slate our thirst?
The last thing I want to ask, is, what does the pursuit of understanding through Nagarjuna's guidance provide you?  Do you understand being in a different form?  Is it a better way of being than before encountering his teachings? Gonzo
When we do not examine the objects that appear they have an effect. We are impelled to impute inherent existence to the objects. We are impelled to account for them, instantly. These objects accumulate and we become bewildered amidst their perceived presence.
inherent |inˈhi(ə)rənt; -ˈher-|
adjective
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from Latin inhaerent- ‘sticking to,’ from the verb inhaerere, from in- ‘in, toward’ + haerere ‘to stick.’
So when we encounter “objects”, if we refer to the origin of the word inherent, and we admit them, (accept their appearance as something more substantial than it actually is) we are granting them access and they adhere within, as if they really existed. Our minds become cluttered with the perceived presence of all these objects, billions upon billions manifesting, appearing and disappearing in a dizzying array until the vast spaciousness of all encompassing all accommodating mind cannot be found. It is as if the mind has been enclosed, surrounded by myriads of objects sticking to it (crude example) when in fact Mind is much more than this and accommodates and encompasses all manifestations. The further result of this is an implied “I” subject, that is surrounded by an objective universe full of individual separate objects. The actor, the agent, the one doing the doing, whatever it is.
When we can, even tentatively, admit or entertain Nagarjuna’s words then we find the stickiness of objects releasing, like the flight inhibiting oil on those contaminated birds in the gulf when subjected to degreasing agents. The independence of objects loosens.
Like this; I go back to the mirror example. We know the objects appearing in the mirror do not really exist other than as a reflection. But look closer. Are there really many different objects even? There is only one reflectiveness of the mirror!  The appearance of objects reflected cannot be separated from the reflectiveness of the mirror itself. One all accommodating reflectiveness appearing myriad. We project a holographic universe in like manner. Now do you see all the myriad objects at the expense of the one reflectiveness? Do you see many individual, independent objects or do you know the sameness.
The deeper question would be: Why do we keep on mistakingly accounting for objects to begin with? Is it simply because we do not look close enough? If it is why do we not look close enough? Or is it as Buddhism states we are ignorant about our true face?

[Tiff]

Hi Gonzo,



I like your questions.



With Nagarjuna, a cathartic release will come as you read all sections. Its not meant that you latch onto any ideas from him, or gain a perspective via a chapter you read etc...so you read each section and each is like peeling away layers.



I recommend, strongly, that you read other parts. The Happening chapter is a part of the whole but its the entire text that is whats ultimately the blow to logic. The when you feel the release, you'll see where he's going with all this.



So here is the entire Middle Way text again. What you do is copy the link, paste in browser and then when you access it you have to save the pdf. I could not find him on a website but maybe he's there somewhere. Please do not try to understand Nagarjuna by the Happening chapter alone. It would be incorrect, because the other parts are missing!
www.bergen.edu/phr/121/NagarjunaGC.pdf
I'll be answering your questions in the post to follow

[Tiff]

Gonzo wrote:Elsewhere, this comment:
Tiff wrote:Nagarjuna's view is that (contrary to nihilism) there does exist a world of selves and things, namely, the world that appears before us (the phenomenal world), but that (contrary to essentialism) all such phenomenal entities are impermanent, continually changing, interdependent, insubstantial — in other words, "empty" (shunya) of essence."
First a correction from previous post...the Wachowski brothers wrote the
Matrix, not Cohen.
How can a thing be empty of essence?  Logically, that makes no sense.  Either a thing is, or it is not.  If it is, it has essence, which is the meaning of the word.
"Things" have form, energy, awareness, perception, sensation, ... but essence? Not necessarily, it just appears so. So it must be explored in order to see for oneself!
Nagarjuna discusses what a real thing would be. A real thing with essence. The essence would make the thing impenetrable, permanent, unable to change due to its intrinsic essence. Think of what it would mean to have an intrinsic nature. A part of you that never changed and that part was the real you. Ok, if its the real you and you are complete in this realness, then why would you need anything else?! Why would you have to have any kind of exchange with other beings whatsoever? You are real and complete, end of story. Being a complete essence, you stand frozen like a statue in your completeness, you never age, you never move you never change, because having a real essence means you do not exchange (give or take) any part of this essential you, because it is essential you and not essentially anything else. So you are permanent and immovable.
Ok, we are obviously not this. We are constant flux, ever changing, its emptiness that makes this possible. We have no essences so we flow because ultimately we are nothing. Its not that we are nothingness itself, even nothingness is no-thing. But lets not try to go too far right now. I think this idea of what your real essence would entail is enough for you to see its not possible. If you read NJ's chapter Agent and Action...that's a good one on essence. Another one is Arising, Enduring and Dissolving.  Both these chapters will get into how essences cannot "be".
I think at this point you have been trying to understand NJ based on the Happening chapter posted plus my and Lex's commentary here in this thread. If so, that's not enough, truly.
The last thing I want to ask, is, what does the pursuit of understanding through Nagarjuna's guidance provide you?  Do you understand being in a different form?  Is it a better way of being than before encountering his teachings?
Its not just I understand my being different than I perceived myself, Gonzo, I understand everything and everyone is different than perceived...appeared to be previously. Now one looking at this from the outside of realization could get confused and make it what its not. Lets go back to Neo When he was unplugged from  the Matrix he didn't necessarily do cartwheels and shout "yea I'm free, wee this is fun" lol. Existence was still there to be dealt with. But look at how he viewed the Matrix...
Before he had thought he was Thomas A. Anderson living as a computer programmer. Then, after being disconnected of the tubes and told the secrets by Morpheus (Nagarjuna lets say) he saw it was all an illusion. So that's power right there! Not power to conquer anything, but power to not be lost to ignorance living life blind to the truth of exisitence. So his clarity began to accumulate which is what needs to happen for those seeking Buddhahood, and in Shamanism, "Total Freedom". (BTW, the Mongolian Shamans made alliances with Tibetan Buddhists so the both combined efforts here in China, during Qing dynasty, the emperor himself enabled this to happen. Mongolians are Shamans just like in Native America. One of the only surviving mansions I visited in Beijing has rooms for both Buddhism and Shamanic practices, because they were harmoniously incorporated at that time.)
Anyway, back to what I was saying...clarity is a most important ally. Without it the practitioner has nothing because they cannot see beyond the illusions of the mind, mental obscurations. Buddha cleared completely his emotional afflictions and cognitive distortions and then he attained full enlightenment. So this all here puts you on the path and paths are merely streams of consciousness.
So I'm on the path of realizing emptiness directly. I still have to work to clear afflictions and obscurations. This is hands-on work, meditation, and effort, but to see the Matrix for what it is is power and the same goes with existence here.
Is it a better way? Yes because I don't get attached, I don't seek Absolutes nor do I swing to Nihilism. I just have to deal with the residue of my previous actions (karma you could say), so I have work to do, but in terms of getting lost now, it's not going to happen. I am free in many regards and it makes me feel joyous. But don't think I'm doing cartwheels, or even suggesting such, lol. But yes, its better   And I just keep going with it and it becomes more and more exquisite. I'm not a Bodisattva, lol, I'm a learner and have gratitude for the teachers. But I have found compassion also has to be consciously cultivated, even after realizing emptiness, afflictions still have to be worked upon to resolve.  Empowerment is interesting, instead of feeling you are getting bigger and bigger you feel you get smaller and smaller and this is like expanding,... an irony. Did you ever watch the Incredible Shrinking Man?, its a black and white flick (1957), at the end he says some pretty profound stuff before he "disappears".
[closing soliloquy narration]



Scott
Carey:
I was continuing to shrink, to become... what? The infinitesimal? What
was I? Still a human being? Or was I the man of the future? If there
were other bursts of radiation, other clouds drifting across seas and
continents, would other beings follow me into this vast new world? So
close - the infinitesimal and the infinite. But suddenly, I knew they
were really the two ends of the same concept. The unbelievably small and
the unbelievably vast eventually meet - like the closing of a gigantic
circle. I looked up, as if somehow I would grasp the heavens. The
universe, worlds beyond number, God's silver tapestry spread across the
night. And in that moment, I knew the answer to the riddle of the
infinite. I had thought in terms of man's own limited dimension. I had
presumed upon nature. That existence begins and ends in man's
conception, not nature's. And I felt my body dwindling, melting,
becoming nothing. My fears melted away. And in their place came
acceptance. All this vast majesty of creation, it had to mean something.
And then I meant something, too. Yes, smaller than the smallest, I
meant something, too. To God, there is no zero. I still exist!

Ok so now I introduce God, capital G, lol. Not meaning to confuse what my position is (so please excuse the god reference, its the script writer's, not mine), but I really like this quote. He shrinks into nothing (emptiness) and finds he still exists and nature depends on him as much as he on nature, so exisitence still is, always was! Only man's erroneous conceptions made him conclude otherwise. He sees he is empty yet still here. Exhilarating!
Now I am sort of taking what he says out of context, because he says "to God there is no zero", so its like he is saying no emptiness, but remember, he shrinks into nothing to discover this (realizing emptiness directly in metaphorical terms), to be aware of this, so the emptiness (his awareness of) is in phenomena and his experience of it! So he looses fear of the annihilation of his intrinsic nature because he sees he has no intrinsic nature (to be destroyed). Always he is something (without essence) due to interdependency that needs him as much as he needs everything else. This something he is changes (and is comprised of parts, remember the car?) so what is it really? How can we give it "an essence"? Don't you see we don't even need to? If nothing (not one speak of anything) can ever be destroyed, it also cannot have ever been created, so it does not endure,... its empty of essence! Empty of being essentially as a fixed thing. Dependent arising, everything dependents of everything at all times and this interdependency is a complete exchange in which no- thing remains unchanged because its never was any-thing to start with. No-thing has inherent essence so there is no such thing as independent phenomena, thus no threat of destruction or exclusions, no fear of annihilation from other independent phenomena because there is no independent phenomena!
Think of this and think of how he was even able to become aware of this given that, when he realized he was nothing at all, this is when he truly understood his exisitence. Before this he was kicvkign and screaming his way through his life as he headed to his death as he was shrinking. His ignorance made him suffer. Until he realized the true nature of existence.

[ninth octave]

http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJGESRc3XfY Sounds like the dissolve and resolve of  essence