Suchness is neither real nor illusory.

My 2c! Lol!

This encapsulates the whole thing very neatly, for me. Things are not as they seem, so on a first glimpse they indeed are illusory. And yet, neither are they otherwise, so on a final analysis, they are not illusory either (which should not compel us back into thinking that they are real as they appear). Things simply are devoid of any and all conceptual fabrications (innate or acquired) - be it empty or non-empty, real or unreal, etc.

Secondly, I don't understand why the tetralemma does not suffice you or strike you as the best way to describe the inconceivable nature of all phenomena?

Tetralemma suffices. Actually, only it is sufficient.

Emptiness as nisprapanca points to the inconceivable nature of phenomena (or the inconceivable fact that they are devoid of any nature, even emptiness). Emptiness as nisvabhava does not point to such inconceivable nature. Actually, as nisvabhava, emptiness is quite conceivable and conceptual, thus its conventional nature.

For me Emptiness, inconceivable nature of phenomena, and nisprapanca are synonyms.

That was strange.

Then there is no point of Dharma seals

As it is said in the Middle-Length Prajñāpāramitā,

"O Subhūti, phenomena are like dreams, like magical illusions. Even nirvāṇa is like a dream, like a magical illusion. And if there were anything greater than nirvāṇa, that too would be like a dream, like a magical illusion."

Why should one accept a "higher" than Nirvana. That makes Nirvana like samsara.

Emptiness (realising nirvana) is empty.

Put succinctly

Shows that you are not understanding Nirvana.

Or maybe it's to do with nisprapanca vs nisvabhava?

For me nirvana is nisprapanca. Though, since I am not a Buddhist scholar, I cannot comment on whether nisvabhava can be conflated with nisprapanca. My limited knowledge in this says that they can be conflated.

Not only nirvana but samsara is also inconceivable and empty at all times but this is understood only when one attains Nirvana. And only then it can be said that Samsara is Nirvana. (Not before) It should be clear that Nirvana and Samsara are not ontological realities but modes of cognition.

John Tan has used the word "illusory", synonymously with the word "empty".

Contemplate on this..

It would be rather unfortunate to proclaim to be in a state beyond reference points and simultaneously as possessing the reference point of being illusory.

However to me, for a path that is based on reasoning and analysis, negation should be non-implicative because practitioners along the path are always dealing with a dualistic and inherent mind. If there is no dualistic and inherent mind, then there is no need for any path as there is nothing to sever. Hence, affirming-negation imo is less skillful as that would promote rather than sever the habitual tendency which is not the import of the analytical path.

If one wants to talk about the self-arising wisdom, it should not be by way of reasoning and analysis, the padaegogy will have to be radically different. It will probably have to be like dzogchen that takes the result as path. Then emphasis should not be just non-referential ease and space-like emptiness but includes all the magic of clarity's radiance.

André A. Pais says that he is moving away from the Gelug school towards Nyingma school but I still read more of Gelug like approach in his writings.

And about self arising wisdom, reason and analysis are definitely part of the praxis but the end is the self arising non-conceptual insight.

Anyway, my discourse in these "debates" is more sutric than tantric, thus my emphasis on deconstructive analysis, rather than positivistic affirmations of "what's left" after the analysis. On the other hand, outside "debate" I've often written in more celebratory terms.

Sooner or later we can come to realize, for instance in contemplation or meditation, that we aren't any longer - nor perhaps have we ever been - a corporeal being investigating its physical environment or human condition. Instead, there is just experience unveiling itself, knowingness contemplating and questioning its own nature, mere existence or reality touching and (un)mapping itself, luminous appearances displaying information. As we get to this point, no longer tethered by limiting notions of materiality, solidity and embodiment, things can start opening up, unblocking the way to a type of perception where anything can happen and appear. We are no longer a human being inside a physical world in a substantial universe, and therefore a new whole level of insight is possible.

It's no longer a subject analyzing myriad objects, but a seamless sphere of luminous processing, an unknoting of perception, a release of crystallized categories. It's just an activity of open inquiry moving through and as appearances, an active but gentle flowingness of curiosity. The whole process can become less of a cry for peace and more of a celebration of inquiry itself, the glorification of an ever-deepening wisdom, an upward spiraling love of knowledge.

~

(this following one actually makes sense in this post:)

If there is no self at all,

How could it be inside the head,

Behind the eyes or in the chest?

Implode notions of in & out,

Internal or external,

Subjective & objective,

Material or mental.

Dissolve into centerlessness;

Into borderless experience.

There is no agent, no observer.

In this very experience

There is actually no experiencer.

Rest in sheer non-dual luminosity.

In mere unestablished appearance.

Now, finally,

Having dropped such notions,

Transcend their very absence.

There is neither self

Nor any lack of it.

There is no essence

Nor its emptiness.

There is no center

nor non-duality.

Since a negation still implies

Its refuted object,

Drop all views.

This dropping goes on.

It goes deeper.

Endlessly.

Rest.

Dissolve.

Eyes wide open,

Drop all views

And shatter the universe.

Anurag Jain I think Andre has made his clarifications to u and the abv is the relationship between nisprapanca and nisvabhava.

Yes. I get the fact that the debate centres around the notion of Gelugs retaining the notion of the conventional self.

I used to have long dialogues with Greg, a couple of years back. Today, I can see that he had a very Gelug orientation while I had a very Nyingma one, so it was difficult at times for us to understand each other

(I fully agree to what is written, though)

But as John Tan has mentioned, prapanca is mostly based on reification of existence, so nisprapanca is strongly based on nisvabhava (but not limited to it).

PS - I fully agree with the fact that lack of perception of the miracle in a peace of turd is what makes one project some comprehensible "ultimate reality". Mind sees clearly that the living miracle are not to be understood.

I hope I can invite you for lunch one day in Singapore...!