>>17896332
You say enlightenment can’t dissolve suffering because the world still appears solid, yet you trust that very appearance to define what is real. You cling to the illusion of separation while claiming to see through it. But all that arises does so dependently, without essence and because of that, samsara and nirvana are not two. They are the same empty display, seen through different eyes. You start from the right place, knowing the table is 99.9% empty, but then cling to the illusion it casts as your final truth. That 0.1% is not the particle itself, it’s your point of view clinging to form. The particle has no awareness of itself, no boundary, no separation; it exists only through relation, through dependent arising.

That is your inversion. You use emptiness to argue for permanence and interdependence to justify essence. You call unity a dream because you still believe the separation was ever real.