[leyliana]

before the Buddha and even now, to use Kris's example, the thought is that unicorns exist.

Thanks for the replies guys and taking the time to read. I’d dearly love the opportunity to investigate this unicorn business because perhaps there is ‘something’ in it - no smoke without fire, as they say. We may at least discover a beautiful white horse with a plastic horn. Worth a look.

Okay, so the crux of the matter is the following:

“Form is empty, emptiness is form”
Question: Of what is form empty?
Answer: Inherent Existence!

So, what is inherent existence?

Definitions point to the idea that we perceive self and other as substantially, autonomous, existent entities, existing from their own side. The idea being that we project this notion onto our sensory experience and that we thus remain ignorant of the true nature of both the objects and the experiences. This ignorance keeping us bound into samsara.

According to my Mahayana training, saying that all things are empty (as a blanket statement per se) is wrong (nihilist). They are rather empty of inherent existence. It has to be qualified, as things do exist conventionally, just not ultimately. So the concept of inherent existence is crucial to this.

Is that a fair, if somewhat brief, assessment?

As far as I can see, there are two things going on here:

The first is the acknowledgement that we grasp at self and other. This can even be seen amongst animals, is visceral and innate. We are drawn to objects we desire and repulsed by those we dislike. We are saddened when things we like cease because we cling to them - so far so good, no qualms here. (Beautiful White Horse). Budddha laid out a path to help us directly see how this process unfolds within our minds and how we can relinquish and be unbound from it.

The second is the imposition of an ontology. Following on from takso's observation that if things existed inherently they could never change. The problem is, nobody imposes such criteria on sensory data. Run of the mill, uninstructed people all acknowledge the fleeting nature of life. In fact it may even encourage them to “get it while they can” and “live for today”. No one (apart from some long dead and rather silly Indian philosophers) has ever tried to impose eternal, unchanging characteristics onto sense data but precisely this is what is being refuted. (Found the Plastic Horn).

An allied strand of thought is very similar to the advaitin philosophy of Maya. One which does not stop at comparing phenomena to illusions but rather says that they are illusions! The only concession to Buddha is to replace Brahman as the ultimate ‘real’ substratum with emptiness (as an ultimate state). More ontology. more “this exists / doesn’t exist / both exists and does not exist” as per Vacchagotta.

So... is it a little clearer?

Perhaps we don’t even disagree on quite as much as it first seems.