It is the basis. You can call it the nature of the mind, if you like, thought that is not perfectly accurate.
Your logic, not mine.
Appearance is Nothing in the final analysis.
But Appearance is not Nothing.
Therefore, Nothing is Not Nothing
See the problem in the logic?
I said appearances were not found, I never said they were nothing. You keep saying that. If appearances were nothing, there would be nothing to search or examine. But if they are not found, there is no basis for asserting them to be nothing, since one could not find them to be something.
As usual, according to you, I never answer your questions satisfactorily. It makes me wonder why you bother asking.Whether you use the adjective "illusory" or not to describe senses and sentient beings, it still does not answer my question.
I never said that ultimate phenomena arise. I also never said there were any ultimate phenomena, apart from including "ultimate" to indicate there if there were such phenomena, they wold be included in the state of Dzogchen."Arising from conditions" too does not answer my question because it is an answer that makes sense only to relative phenomena.
Again, your language, not mine. I would never said causes and conditions are nothing, since they appear.Also since in the final analysis, relative phenomena are nothing, causes and conditions are also nothing.
This is an error in your logic. If you assert there are no relative phenomena, they cannot be illusions since they are nothing. But I never said relative phenomena were nothing. You did.Therefore, there are no relative phenomena. Therefore, relative phenomena are illusions.
I already answered this question.Therefore, the question remains, namely, how do illusions arise when there is nothing for any senses (illusory senses if you like) to perceive?