Question on Schools of Buddhism and emptiness

[ground]

I realize at this point I'm conceptualizing and much, much more work needs to be done. But at some point isn't a working understanding of these concepts required in order to realize phenomenon's true nature through meditation?

There are different views about that. However those that outrightly reject conceptuality in this context are not very consistent. Why? Because even they do not rejected to teach - often metaphorically or in poetic style - about the futility of conceptuality as a means. But even these uncommon "instructions" are conceptual messages conveyed by one who is conceptualizing and are to be understood by another by means of apprehending these concepts which again implies conceptuality on the listeners side. So it seems that the meaning of "conceptualizing" is very indefinite in the context of considering the pros and cons of "conceptualizing" in the context of the means to get to "directly see" emptiness.
To me it seems that the type of conceptuality which is "counterproductive" is involved in analysing the object (of mind) "emptiness 'as such' " driven by the motivation to mentally grasp what cannot be grasped but only "experienced" (i.e. "directly seen") simply because it - like all other phenomena - does not exist independently of subject and phenomenon (which is empty - which again is not independent of subject and further phenomena - which again are .... {infinite regression}). Thus conceptuality appears to be not only a valid but also an inevitable means in the sense of "path towards" "directly seeing" emptiness.

Kind regards

[rowyourboat]

The way to propel the mind towards nibbana is to keep on seeing anicca with a sense of unsatisfactoriness (rather than merely watching anicca and oh let me go have a cup of tea after that ). When this is applies to all the 6 sense doors the world is caught-enveloped in your practice. The mind then rejects-pushes away (not develop aversion) the world little by litte. Then at one point it pushes away all sensory phenomena (read conditioned phenomena)- this is nibbana. This is true emptiness. The path is through developing revulsion leading to dispassion leading to cessation. It is not easy, but it the only way to get there.

So the important thing to know about emptiness is that it is the byproduct of the practice, rather than a practice. THe mind knows how to reach it- you dont need to teach it- infact I suspect all the contortions of views around emptiness might contaminate the process. Emptiness as an object might take you to the sphere of emptiness and not nibbana.

with metta

[ground]

So the important thing to know about emptiness is that it is the byproduct of the practice, rather than a practice.

Different strokes for different folks.

Emptiness as an object might take you to the sphere of emptiness and not nibbana.

Emptiness being a non-affirming negation may show you the "real" "truth" of "nibbana" (and "samsara").

Kind regards

[ground]

Emptiness being a non-affirming negation ...

What is negation?

The success of negative behaviour is only owing to a negative cognition of the form decribed above, because when a real object is present (it is perceived and it) becomes superfluous (to imagine its presence), because otherwise, (sc. if the absent thing has not been imagined as present, its absence, and the entailed successful actions, cannot follow with logical necessity), because when entities do not conform to the conditions of cognizability, when they are inaccessible in space and time and (invisible) by nature, since all human experience is then excluded, apodictic negative judgements are not possible.
Negative behaviour is successful when a present or past negative experience of an observer has happened, provided the memory of this fact has not been obliterated.
It is exclusively on the basis of such (negation) that absence can be ascertained with (logical necessity).

Dharmakirti

"Negative behaviour" here does not imply "moral/ethics" but non-directedness/non-intentionality of activity towards an object that has been negated.

[ground]

Since the quote above mentions "imagination" it is crucial to get the import of "imagination" which actually has been partially covered in this thread (in some places there):
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3404

This then may reveal that "logic" ("logical necessity" above) is necessarily conjoined with "introspection" in this context.
Thus "non-affirming negation" in the context of "emptiness" is an instance of logical necessity conjoined with introspection.

There may be other interpretations of "emptiness" than that. I have no idea about the results entailed by different understandings.

Kind regards