[Fekliopas]

How does this "individuality" differ from a "mindstream"?

It differs in no small order in that it is not part of a karma/reincarnation scheme.

Both terms refer to conventional reality; That is a contrivance of your own concoctions; the Buddha and I do not share your chosen paradigm.

however "mindstream" suggests flux and impermanence, whereas the concept of an individual has connotations of substantiality and self. Only in the framework of your concocted paradigm.

And this "person" -- how does this concept avoid "even a subtle suggestion about Self", which Kaarine warned us about? It is not party to a karma-and-reincarnation scheme.

What does Namdrol have to do with it? Sounds like you have added "guilt by association" to your arsenal of logical fallacies. It is a reminder of your previous attempts at army-gathering, and that the arguments you present may not be your own, in which case you probably do not fully understand what is being discussed, as has been shown by your misrepresentations elsewhere of what has been discussed here, and you probably do not understand the arguments you are being spoon-fed to present here, as has been the case previously.

(Lazy Eye): "I'm embroiled in a huge angry discussion on another forum, and the argument seems to be that Shakyamuni Buddha's teaching of dependent origination (in the nikayas/agamas) did not necessarily extend to all phenomena -- whereas sunyata clearly does. Therefore, the argument goes, sunyata represents an unwarranted ontologization of D.O. and thus a departure from the Buddha's intent." If you think that I have presented any logical fallacies in my arguments, do not hesitate to point them out. Otherwise, your claim "your arsenal" is merely presumptuous ad hominem, which is already a part of your own arsenal.