May it not, perhaps, be misleading continually and almost exclusively to stress the emptiness of apparent objects and the illusory character of the conceptual universe?
It is equally true to say that there is nothing but the conceptual universe, and there is not any thing outside it.
The source of its appearance is not apparent for there is no 'thing' to conceive its source in order to render it apparent. And that is because all that appears is appearance and there can be no other appearance than what appears.
'We' are looking at it, perceiving it with our five senses and conceiving it with our sixth, and it is what 'we' are that 'we' are thus conceiving as appearance, for there is nothing else whatever at any time but what 'we' are, nor anything but what 'we' are that 'we' could ever experience.
That also is why there cannot be such a thing as existence since there cannot be such a thing as non-existence, and vice versa, for there is no thing to be present or absent, since what appears is an image in mind.
That, too, is why there cannot be an entity, since there cannot be a non-entity, and vice versa, so that all appearance can only be described as such-as-it-is or 'Suchness' - which term also denotes its origin.
Thus every sentient being is the source of the apparent universe by means of his experiencing it as what he is, for his 'objectivity' is only an appearance in mind, and his 'subjectivity' is the source of all experience.*
For true-perceiving is absolute functioning in this-here-nowness, and the apparent universe is this; so that the fundamental nature of all phenomena is the perceiving of phenomena.
Herein positive and negative vision approach integration, and the superficially contradictory statements of the Sages find their re-solution in Whole-mind.
* Here the relative (philosophical) sense of 'subjectivity', denoting the conative (volitional) posturing of an I-concept, evidently is not in question.
Note: This should explain the famous three degrees of understanding, a rational elucidation of which is not vouchsafed: (1) mountains and rivers are perceived as such, (2) mountains and rivers are no longer perceived as such, (3) mountains and rivers are once more perceived as mountains and rivers - which is as sages perceive them.
* * *
The 'question' of existence or non-existence is not a question, and is quite simple.
Phenomenally - for instance, as science sees it - only that which is objective can be said or known to exist.
Noumenally - as metaphysics sees it - since every object is appearance in mind - nothing objective can be said or supposed to exist.
Since subjectivity has no demonstrable existence, having no objective quality, it cannot be said to exist.
In short - objectivity and existence can be said to coincide.
