None

None

None then to worry about (we build our own cages in our minds, not from somewhere else).

No one can find a substantiation of anything. Appearances and impressions seem to arise and go away. They are not there in the first place. Just empty mind. Distractions do not impute but are like imaginations. sans

These are the findings of those intrepids who thoroughly explore what there is at all. But no one wants to look there! So I briefly base my lectures above, upcoming, on these amazing finds that are truly old but for some reason are only recently in less than 50 years are coming to fore. It seems all the "great brains" of known world history could not bring theirselves to this conclusion and revelation. Only a few intrepid do, example, see  the "Perfection of Wisdom" literature of about 100 A.D.

As is known in most modern science, material which makes up anything is at best detected by less than a blink of an eye. This is also held by the ancients in their literature. The virtual  particles which permeate everything we know arise and last but a very tiny miniscule of a second. It would not register with our senses. Hence, physical existence changes in less than a blink of an eye. We might fool ourselves that it seems connected and lasts longer but the ancient and new level of science would dispute that. Therefore it is at best an hallucinatory presence. Not to mention what we "think" is the play of existence. 

 But, different from other pursuits which tend to override the experiences and assign them to illusions and/or control by another nature, etc., this analysis style starts out declaring what is experienced in any way is applicable for that level, and will not dismiss experiences. This allows that every cognition is valid.

 However, this analytic purpose is intent on investigating and getting to the nature of what is experienced. Assertations of experience are accepted provisionally. Thereafter, closer examinations will ensue, analytically, toward that. It will not end with something else being a final resolution after all the details are resolved (usually after performing sustained introspection.)

Yet, other intrepids challenged even this, and wrote about it 1,800 years ago in treatises. For all the claims and postulations, theories, etc. for all these centuries, no one has brought forth this documentation, which is now in writing, and has been so in various degrees in English for only a little over 100 years at best in a broad, comprehensive format. As far as can be traced. it is only in the last 60 years that these particular treatises have been available as themselves in the English language, translated from India languages and surviving documents from Tibet, China and others. 

The special, analytical impact is only recently investigated and the import is suchly realized, if but belatedly. It was occluded by other positings of others for centuries and the texts were, as a body, kept away from even scholars even in its home country. By the analysis and logic, words and ideas can't be fully comprehended and thus can't be sustained.

Put in short, the "Mad" claim shakes every possible conception to the core. In its shocking results, there can be no thing of eternity, unity, cyclic, continuums, or negation. Because all of that does not arise in the first place. If it does not arise in the first place, then there is no beginning-without a beginning there is no form of ending. No form of ending then likewise no beginning in any way or form. No birth, no ending, no death, no stasis. Those are not substantiated, thereby no claim can be formulated. Indeed, further, there is nothing substantiated then there is no real reason to substantially assert anything. And from that, likewise, nonexistence cannot apply. Likewise, there can be no "other" that can be substantiated.  Recondite. This is the Madhyamaka school.

That's right!! When this is realized, this message and any other has no bearing and will not exist!!!!

What is left?....NONE

That is the result of the analysis. Does this mean everything is abolished?

Different from so many other systems, nothing need change and so likely will continue in its own way as is perceived, but its true nature status of the objects remains unreachable. 

To know it well, then the analysis is applied and it is effective at the key points for propounding any conception, which will result in realization that all that is experienced is insubstantiable and thus, void. "that there was no realm of reality behind the veil of appearance-made European acceptance...impossible." Voidness, itself, is not real.This occupies several concise founding treatises.

To declare something  to be apart from being subjected to this analysis, it needs to be totally self sufficient, intrinsic without any dependency on anything else for its status. Not in any way conditioned and also it must perpetually endure with no change whatsoever in its nature. So far there has not been found any thing that is independent or self sustained from any condition. Even space is subject to conditioning factors, it occupies dimension. The stars are dependent upon space as their background, and they use fuel. When the fuel is used up, there will be no more stars because the conditioning factor and dependency, fuel, is no longer being supplied. Hence, they are insubstantial.

 Many factors comprise the makeup of thoughts, external and internal, they don't develop or exist by their own. The factors change, hence the variation of thoughts. This is called mutual dependence and is used pervasively as part of the analysis and works to prove there is no one, findable unitary  or combined presence. It is demonstrable that "there is no necessary connection between a phenomenon and a theory."

An example of delineation:..."if a concept is taken as referring to reality (as realists generally do), it is delusion....To think that the existence of a concept means the existence of a thing is a notion which is utterly false; to think that a concept exists because there are other concepts is a truth. The former has its repercussions in the form of bondage; the latter has no repercussions in the sense that bondage, being a relative concept, has a contentless existence. It is possible to have a wrong notion about truth. If it is propounded that the concepts are empty existences, it may be taken by some deluded person to mean that these concepts exist."

Notion and truth, it is said, should be carefully distinguished. These people first deny what is truth and then proceed to accept what is not so. One who says that there are realities first denies that there are relative concepts (a truth) and then forms a notion that these concepts must be real in themselves because they exist. "There is therefore, an obvious, though very important, distinction, between a thing as it is  and a thing as we know"

There is a pivotal focus on this analysis.  A central approach with the Madhyamaka is that they use this double analysis as follows throughout most of their technical treatments: They hold that there is to be an "object", whatever is experienced. Those objects can hold in their own natures, be it fleeting virtual particles, or mind contrived. For analysis, any illusionary or empirical experience will be treated as the same, they will not be differentiated because all experience(s) is in the mind. Madhyamaka will tolerate no contradiction in the experiences of any kind. They will not allow sidetracking, all experience that is provisionally accepted will be categorized as the same-as in the mind. Everything will be examined for consistency and internal consistency with its alleged nature. Each kind of assertation, including the investigative, will be checked for consistent exposition. Predication is examined.

However, to get to the real nature of those, their school says one needs to "know" the nature.  It is unmitigated knowledge that is to be brought forth, at all situations. Recondite. It is certain that everything cannot be sustained, it is impermanent e.g. what we detect with our senses are composites and composites will break down, proving unsustainability. [In the founding works, it is said there are but four "relativities", and there is no fifth.] Likewise, through examination and polemics, it will be found that there is no intrinsic nature nor any reasonable way to assert that.

"As pointed out before knowledge is here roughly equated with perceptual knowledge. But it would be entirely wrong to hold that this perceptual knowledge is the knowledge that sciences seek...This being the case knowledge is not concerned in any indispensable sense with objects or their nature."

Knowable objects and ideas cannot be dovetailed together as facts. "An idea is not a means of valid knowledge, because it is said to be a knowable (object)"

"But, if contrary  to all usage, we want to call a negative fact reality or the Absolute, we are free to do so....relativity of concepts is a truth about the relative concepts, but cessation of all concepts is a truth about relativity itself. Just as no reality is involved  in the relativity of concepts, no reality or Absolute is involved in the cessation of concepts." Accordingly with this treatment, "No claim for the validity of a cognition can be made unless the validity of that cognition is known." A cognition is not soley of an object: it includes also the mode in which the object is given."

Through a series of criteria and analysis thereof, it is found that an object cannot become known at all. Nothing can speak for it, be it pro, con, or neutral. The object does have its "own nature" but we will not "know" it. Everything we contrive to illume an object is always inexact, that is because we impose our sense of practical utility upon it, and the senses do not detect complete spectrums or continuums. They lack internal consistency. " if a consciousness and its object cannot exist independently of each other, then neither can ever arise. Thus, a simplistic theory of dependent origination collapses. Nothing can arise dependent on something else if that something else cannot arise in its absence." To put it in brief, if nothing can be known, there is nothing to be said with any certainty, i.e. all that can best be known in a sense is zero. But that too is mind contrived, unsustainable and inadmissible. This is found so because if there is asserted zero then there must be something for zero to contrast with, e.g. non-zero. But non-zero, including imaginary or hallucination, is found not supportable, in theory or observation, hence with the non-event of non-zero there is no rationale to assert zero, it does not contrast with anything.

 Eventually.  knowledge which is comprised mainly of particulars and so narrows the capacity to understand gives way to implications which are derived but must be accurate and honed by logical analysis e.g. when there are peculiarities (seen) they are as it is, if no peculiarities are found then it is no knowledge.  Under the analysis, this even results in null, not nihil. There is no space for a nihil or negativistic finding. To negate, there has to be something positive. The Madhyamaka analysis finds there is no positive or negative thing and so such assertions do not apply. This puts the analysis results at a terrifying counterpoint for understanding any thing in the accepted way: no ideas, words, or language can completely describe any object encountered ever, i.e. [sans] language is inefficient for describing any thing. "If concepts cannot give us a glimpse of realities, how can we expect language to describe it?" The mind is clear, ergo there is no mind.  The Madhyamika does not assert or proclaim anything since it will also be subject to the same scrutiny and the same result. LEARNING IS TERMINATED. Hence, with at least this school, silence is the most accurate expression.

Again, these are findings of examination of natures. In other words, in accord to one of the founding 1,800 year old treatises, these are examination findings, but are not declaring that their system "makes" the outcome that way but rather is pointing out the result of examination of the alleged experienced natures results suchly e.g. modern scientist, Dr. Rebecca Smethurst in 2019 wrote "The human brain cannot truly comprehend what 'nothing' is. Simply by thinking of nothing, we turn it into something.". A progression of this genre of treatises may be found even up to date under various authors, titles, polemics and scholastics. Now certain ones may be found online as individual or in collected works eastern and western.

[Tautologies:

An examination of a few common tautologies, these may reflect on the notions of possession:

1) John is walking

2) The works of Nagarjuna

3) Adele's dress is for sale at a sales event-

1) How can it be said that a subject, John, is walking? Walking is not a part of John. John is not a part of walking. John is John, not walking (Law of Identity).  How is it that walking arises? What is involved with the arising of walking. There must be the demonstration that walking is substantial as its own and not a character of John. So how can it be identified that walking is John? Too presumptive. John and walking are separate, unassociated particles. Lacks true incidence of connection by identity.

2) The works "of" Nagarjuna. It presumes that there is some kind of possessive relation assumed between Nagarjuna and the works. First, Nagarjuna has been deceased over 1,000 years, no longer a physical connection is plausible. And hence, he cannot be consulted. Overreach. Second, the use "of" is engaging the  concept of 'universal'. A universal is complete on its own, by category. If there is some other article that could be added, then there would be two universals to work with, and that cannot be. The presence of a second set for universal of course then cancels, by definition, the use of 'universal'.  Any particular might not fit the defining quality ascribed for a universal. Once again the uniformness of universal is obviated. The particle use on "of" is inconsistent with the sustainable facts. Produces a false sense for possession.

3) The idea of possession when there is no possessor is addressed here. The dress is no longer with Adele and thereby there is no ground to say it is Adele's dress.

Further, upon the examination, the establishment of beings, e.g. John, Adele, Nagarjuna and others, those continuities are found composite and thereby void. Once it is determined that there cannot be a subject then no action may be ascribed for lack of an substantiated subject. With the fallacy of reifying exposed, then the Law of Identity will be obviated. This also is derived through examination of predication.

These articles produce misnomers which in turn produce misleading statements. It also shows it can be treated free of accidental adjuncts.

Note: to be effective, one must have this full realization.

The above material is a compilation of several different factors. It does not present an absolute singular theme. It does not exhaust sources and their presentations from which this is mainly derived.