Bert, “all things lack inherent existence†is a rational, logical conclusion -- and an absolute truth.
How did you come to this conclusion from beginning till end,explain.
Existence is a logical conclusion “to [of] a reasoning faculty we know.†The only thing irrational in attempting to rationalise existence is not realising that any attempt to do so first assumes logically that existence is. Anything else you may be alluding to is not, therefore, existence.
You answer ,i think,in error:
It is not said that :existence is an alogical conclusion,but that existence is alogical.So you have to say:existence is logical to any/a reasoning faculty we know.
The evolution, devolution and involution of things does not change the truth of Emptiness. Neither does the possibility that most experiential knowledge -- more things to know -- is subconscious.
We may see the same thing by the labour of time differently,did you never experience that?
Do you understand everything that you read from the first time as it is,never changing?Your conception as you enter familiar places is always the same?
Do you deny the 'flesh'?
Not subconscious,but unconscious.
The subconscious is the epitome of all experience.
The unconscious what we do not realise.
To my experience you can only think of one thing at a time.Am I wrong?
That fact that you seem to deify this unconsciousness -- its power, influence and apparently its ability to be excluded somehow from Emptiness -- is more telling of your own prejudices and reasoning faculty than anything else.
What am i reasoning?
My consciously control my hands,my hart bouncing,my walking,my eyelids blinking,my ... ????
all these things are done for me.My subconscious takes care of me.If things become more conscious to me - when I experience more of myself sensationally - my unconsious is triggered (and becomes conscious)to supply new conceptions.A more unitarian experience overcomes me.And I understand things better .
