[Vitoethiche]

please accept me as your disciple the quarks, gluons,positrons, photons, bosons, etc, vanished my mind

hehehe....those are a few remnants of "a brief history of time" read many years ago. so let us both bow down to the great Stephen Hawking himself.

as you have alluded to, "thing-ness" can certainly vanish, which can bring the mind to a state of "non-being" & clear consciousness. to be thoroughly familiar with "non-being" is certainly something highly recommended

completely agree. even in the 12 links, the very first link which initiates the whole cycle is ignorance and cutting off the repeated play of this cycle will require addressing ignorance right at its heart. what is the most basic or sticky or fundamental ignorance we are harbouring? when the buddha or the great masters say that it is grasping at a true self or an inherent essence for everything, it does make a lot of sense......hence attachment, hence anger, fear, hatred, jealousy and so on as we are clinging on to objects as existing from their own side.

i think understanding of interdependent coorigination even at an intellectual level from the begenning through proper analysis definitely paves way for its direct realisation through meditation later on in the path if the practices of morality and compassion are simultaneously carried on to supplement the analytical and meditative practice.

therefore, since ignorance is at the heart of dependent origination, the very fetter that keeps us bound to samsara and not realising the lack of "inherent existence" or emptiness of phenomena is regarded as the most ignorant view, any exercise, whether analytical or contemplative aimed towards realising the emptiness of phenomena, will serve as a valuable tool in gradually opening the gates of wisdom and severing the chain of links IMO. therefore i cannot agree more when you say "to be thoroughly familiar with "non-being" is certainly something highly recommended ".

however, my confusion has still held its ground. the statement "everything exists depending upon an infinite number of other factors" seems to me very self-contradictory loaded with assumptions of those factors for granted without further investigation. perhaps its the limitiation of conventional language in expressing emptiness. if we search for the supporting factor, it disintegrates into a number of other supporting factors, each subsequent supporting factor disintegrating as we analyse in a neverending process. if there is no particular "basis" designated by the word factor, how can we even take the statement "everything exists depending upon a multitude of other factors" as a valid one in the first place? or is it just a skillful tool used for our conventional minds to have a working idea of emptiness in the begenning? it makes me wonder whether description of emptiness is beyond the scope of conventional language.

it is just amazing to realise that the world (or phenomena) is somehow able to manifest itself even when there is no ultimate essence to anything in it, nor in any other things held to be responsible for the identity of any one particular thing. its almost scary!