Two Levels of Emptiness

[5:58 PM, 10/28/2019] John Tan: Now as I told you, there are two level... one is seeing through conventional constructs as empty and non-arisen. As I always asked you, why not just say the constructs are non-existence?

[6:00 PM, 10/28/2019] John Tan: Is non-existence a more appropriate phrase than "emptiness" and why DO? why do we say whatever arises in dependent is empty and non-arisen? why brings in DO at all?

[6:01 PM, 10/28/2019] John Tan: Isn't non-existence I mean.

[6:04 PM, 10/28/2019] John Tan: I told you that the purpose of telling you that is to allow you to understand the nature of mind/phenomena. It is to train the mind so that when it comes face to face, it recognizes that is the nature of presence.

[6:11 PM, 10/28/2019] Soh Wei Yu: Emptiness is not non existence because emptiness is empty presencing/appearing, which is not the same as non existence but neither is it existent, rather empty presencing is like reflections that appear via dependencies but empty

[6:13 PM, 10/28/2019] John Tan: So what is the purpose of teaching us the idea of conventional constructs are empty and non-arisen? What is the purpose of teaching DO?

[6:16 PM, 10/28/2019] John Tan: For this recognition right?

[6:16 PM, 10/28/2019] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah

[6:17 PM, 10/28/2019] John Tan: So that when you come face to face this empty presencing you can directly recognize it...appears but not found..

[6:19 PM, 10/28/2019] John Tan: When you look at this empty display, you realize it cannot be said to be mind nor not mind, neither internal nor external, either here nor not here...

[6:19 PM, 10/28/2019] John Tan: Nothing to do with non-conceptuality

[6:19 PM, 10/28/2019] John Tan: But the nature of it.

[6:19 PM, 10/28/2019] John Tan: Get what I mean?

[6:21 PM, 10/28/2019] John Tan: That is you see through conventionalities and recognize the nature of what appears...