[MD] emptiness

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Hello 188,
nice to meet you.

4.1.2012 2:58, 118 kirjoitti:
> Is existence inherent?  Hmmm...  What the Buddhist would say is: NO!
> They would treat everything like a rainbow.  A rainbow does not exist
> inherently because it requires causes.  Therefore, there is nothing
> one could point to as the actual essence of a rainbow, or anything for
> that matter.  A waterfall would be another example.  Again, I do not
> see this as Nihilistic, but more a shirking of responsibility, if this
> was the sum total of Buddhism.  This is what Marsha does not
> understand.  Buddhists are very responsible for Self.  Therefore it
> does exist.

Could you tell me why a Buddhist would say so?

Isn't "not requiring a cause" also just another cause? Why does the 
absence of inherent existence require a cause? Shouldn't it be the other 
way around?

-Tuukka