Q: It seems to me you are just refuting everything we say, trying to avoid our questions. How can we communicate without conventional reality, and if we don't use words?; we'll just end up in confusion! Let us leave this question of ultimate and conventional truths for now if we may. I want to know what you understand by the Buddhist term "emptiness".
A: Everything looks confused to a confused eye. But when all falsity is abandoned, there is no confusion. As for "emptiness", this word cannot be defined. If I were to be really verbose, and risk losing my tongue, I could say what is normally said - that emptiness is the way in which all things really exist; that is, lacking inherent existence.
Q: What's wrong with that definition?
A: Saying that all things lack inherent existence is an assertion about things, and is therefore guaranteed to be in error. If all things lack inherent existence, then what is inherent existence? Is inherent existence something real to be able to talk about it? If inherent existence is not something real, then we cannot rightly talk of a lack of inherent existence. Furthermore, what is it that possesses the quality of lacking inherent existence? Does it have inherent existence?