I would like to ask about interpretations of Mādhyamaka (non-Gelugpa) that affirm the possibility of predicating svabhāva of śūnyatā—understood as something self-sufficient, free, and complete. I assume that readings in line with Madhyamaka Shentong may be more open to this perspective, as opposed to Rangtong interpretations. But I would like to learn more about this. Thank you!

There Can Only Be Two Types of Realities(Dharmas): 1.Conditioned Reality: Any reality that depends on something for its existence. For example, a Cow depends on its organs, the organs depend on cells, the cells depend on molecules, which depend on atoms,wich depend on electrons,wich depend on Quarks and so forth. This dependence is simultaneous at every moment the conditioned reality exists. 2.Unconditioned Reality: Any reality that is self-sufficient, i.e. does not depend on anything else for its existence. This is what is called “Brahman''(The one Spirit ''or ''Ishwara''(God). any conditioned reality depends upon another reality in order to exist by definition. Any conditioned Dharma, must depend upon: a finite number of conditioned Dharmas alone or an infinite number of conditioned Dharmas alone or a finite number of conditioned Dharmas and at least one unconditioned Dharma A conditioned Dharma cannot be caused by a finite series of conditioned Dharma: If there is a linear series of conditioned Dharma, what would the first one depend on? Since it must depend on something, and there is nothing before it, the whole chain ceases to exist. Thus a linear chain of conditioned realities cannot exist. Additionally, a circular finite chain of conditioned Dharmas could not exist either. This would simply result in each conditioned reality fulfilling their own conditions, which is against the definition of a conditioned Dharma. Conditioned realities cannot exist in an infinite Series either. A very large unlimited of number conditioned realities cannot exist,. As the number of conditioned realities in a series increases, the result continues to be non-existence. Continuously adding to the end of the chain would never allow for the conditions of existence to be satisfied, thus the entire infinite chain of conditioned Dharmas would never have its conditions fulfilled. If an infinite (I am granting You guys the notion that a actual Infinite can exist in quantity for the sake of argument,I do not Believe this)series of conditioned Dharmas could exist on its own, the complete set of infinite conditioned Dharma would be an unconditioned Dharma. However, this is impossible because an unconditioned dharma cannot depend upon an aggregate of conditioned dharmas . if this were the case, it would be conditioned. Therefore, a set of infinite conditioned realities is itself a conditioned reality, and fails to exist on its own. Since any model made up entirely of conditioned Dharmas can never have their conditions fulfilled, every conditioned Dharma must be caused by a series of realities that ends (or begins its ontological Series) with an unconditioned Dharma. Thus it Seems that a intrinsic Existance does exist?So how can Shunyata and sarva dharma anatta be True?

I've been a practitioner of Vipassana and Mahamudra for 2 years now. One thing quite bothering me is various explanations from different teachers on emptiness logically disturbing... Usually, it goes like this: > The flower before you seems real. Now get closer, you no longer see flower, but just leaves, stem. Even closer, you "see" atoms, electrons, etc. See? the flower is "empty" of inherent existence. The same goes for "self". Try search for the "self" in your thoughts, arm, leg, etc. and you would find nothing. Of course I could appreciate this mentally helps in someway in practice. But something falls short. First, it feels "outdated" to me, in a post-calculus world, that it denies the validity of an aggregate object, by pointing towards an infinitesimally small part of it. Zeno paradox? Secondly, the requirement of "look closer" (or farther) seem to assert the perceiver model. That logic (or its inverse) would seem to imply that, "in order for something A to be *truly existent*, that thing needs to be A in all perceivable cases". That A would then seem to be only possible as some kind of "totality", or awareness itself. So that felt like a semantics game then. I'm sure there're better ways to explain the Buddhist emptiness logic in a more modern compatible way. Please enlighten me.

I recently heard from an Indian Guru that Lord Buddha taught a meditation technique called Shoonya to his closest disciples. Is there any technique like that or resembling it which is mentioned in the Buddhist scripture? Related question ---------------------------- Edit: What was meant by close disciples was not that there was some kind of secrecy, but as Lord Buddha was a travelling monk, and this meditation technique takes time to teach, he could only teach it to the close disciples who were travelling with him.

I've read here , that: > As Dza Patrul Rinpoche candidly says (AKC 15): Ritual sessions four > times a day without the generation and completion stages, pounding > drums and clashing cymbals without reminding ourselves of pure > perception, droning mantras without any concentration: all that gets > us no further on the path to liberation. What is meant by "pure perception"? As I understood it, it means recognize Shunyata – but to recognize this, you need to be enlightened (?). **As a lay practitioner at the beginning of the path what is meant by "pure perception"?**