[loyalgagora]

one of the most interesting teachings of the buddha that really inspires my admiration is the teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. it really gives reality a completely unrigid and new perspective. i can appreciate the fact that since everything dependently exists on a multitude of other factors, an inherently existing essence or self is nowhere to be found.

however, my dilemma arises on account of the following: when we say everything exists dependent on other factors, are we not implying the existence of other factors as somewhat inherently existing, otherwise the same fact will have to hold true for the factors themselves and they too will be lacking an essence in themselves being dependent on other factors themselves but as i make this latter statement, it gets kind of cyclical and it feels as if emptiness cannot be truely expressed in such language (dependent on factors etc) as it gets caught up in cyclical reasoning without a proper reference point(factors). i am not quite sure if i made
myself clear. i am sure this dilemma has come about due to a lack of proper understanding of emptiness.

would be happy to build a better understanding. your replies are highly welcome.

with metta.