I think you misunderstand my point. I agree with you for the most part, though we could quibble about whether we are actually on the same page discussing the same thing.Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:50 pm When one's analysis fails to find something, one discovers the absence of inherent (a.k.a ultimate) existence, otherwise known as the absence of existence with respect to any of the four extremes. This analysis is not endless, since one only needs to discover the emptiness of one thing to realize the emptiness of all things. To echo Āryadeva, those who propose any sort of existence must prove the existence of each and everything they propose as existent, whereas those who make arguments via emptiness need only to prove the emptiness of one thing in order to prove the emptiness of all things.
My point, and I'm not sure where you stand based on this statement, is that the realization of emptiness is not possible without the Buddha pointing it out to you first.