You talk of compounded and uncompounded as two different things. Rather, because appearances are compound phenomena they are empty, dependent. Because things are born they are unborn. Unborn means that there is no actual fixed independent essence that is really born of something (or nothing, from itself or another...). If there were such an essence it could not be born, either it was existent or non-existent but change could never happen. That's why emptiness is not different from appearances at all.Sherab wrote:So the core of the compounded is uncompounded, the core of the born is unborn, the core of the transcended is untranscended?Malcolm wrote:The core of the conditioned is unconditioned.
If yes, then it simply means what is experienced as conditioned is really unconditioned, what is experienced as compounded is really uncompounded, what is experienced as born is really unborn, and what is experience as transcended is really untranscended. That would simply mean that there is no conditioned, no compounded, no born, no transcended. And that would simply mean that all that is experienced is nothing but an illusion, a hallucination.
And since, in a non-dual state, the experiencer is the experienced, the experiencer must also be an illusion. So we could all be merely part of a computer simulation such as The Matrix and the Buddha is part of that as well. Or the Hindu belief that we are all the dream of the God Brahma is correct and Buddha is also part of the dream.
And that would be a problem.
There is neither an experiencer nor an experienced, there is just experience, and even that is empty.