Nothing exists inherently.
Nothing exists inherently. Nothing exists in and of itself. Nothing exists by its own power. (They all have the same meaning.)
Any thing that exists must exist in dependence on something other than itself.
There is no 'itself' in dependent origination. There is nothing apart from, created by, or underlying the assumed dependencies. On top of that, the dependencies themselves are only such because the deluded mind draws associations and decides there is allegiance between the characteristics in question. The supposed 'thing' is a conventional designation which is inferred onto a certain collection of appearances which are deemed objective due to falling victim to the notion of a subject in the first place. The entire house of cards is a fallacy.
Sherab wrote:What does liberation means than?
If liberation means to be free from existence, then liberation = non-existence.
Not at all. You aren't understanding how this works and are assuming that there is indeed inherent existence. There is nothing which inherently exists, therefore there is no non-existence, both or neither.
Sherab wrote:If liberation does not mean to be free from existence, then the state of liberation will always be a state that depends on something else. Therefore if that something else change, then the state of liberation will change. This means that there is no guarantee that the state of liberation is stable. If there can be no guarantee that the state of liberation is stable, how can that state be called a state of liberation?
Liberation means a freedom from ignorance [avidyā] and the various implications of ignorance; such as deluded notions of existence, non-existence, both and neither. Buddhahood is an innate quality, it only becomes obscured by affliction. Why is it an innate quality? Because there is nothing which isn't empty. Empty things are empty by nature, therefore emptiness is always already implied, we simply don't see it due to being caught up in ignorance.
Your line of reasoning is faulty because it's predicated on a false premise.
Sherab wrote:This is just to illustrate my point that all debates issue using mutually exclusive terms such as existent and non-existent, whether directly or indirectly, can never come to a resolution because when you push the argument to its logical conclusion, you will end up with one extreme or another. To come to a resolution intellectually, you will need to think using an approach that does not need to use such mutually exclusive terms. The other approach for resolution is to have direct realization.
Really this just illustrates that you don't understand dependent origination or emptiness. There is no establishment of mutual exclusivity, existence and non-existence are figments of delusion, and so there's no way they obstruct a resolution. As for direct realization being a resolution, that is a redundant point.