May be or May not be.
But, take Buddha - he had liberated from sufferings/desire. If he is enlightened - he is emptiness or still temporary/ought to change? This enlightenment is ought to change or permanent?.
Yes - i will start those.
Where there is no beginning or end,
How could there be a middle?
This is fully said about ‘emptiness/nothingness/Brahman’. The middle are just the physical forms and thoughts. The Brahman has no beginning/middle/end - unborn/non-dying one. It is present there always. Nothing (which is temporary and born from it) can affects it’s existence.
Whatever comes into being dependent on another
Is not identical to that thing.
Nor is it different from it.
Therefore it is neither nonexistent in time nor permanent.
Is this universe to be identical to the ‘emptiness’?. It is the power of ‘lllusion/maya’ which confuses every being who inquires that ‘nothingness’. theoritically, the temporary things have the properties of ‘Permanent’ things. But here, how can we inquire/research the ‘subtle/emptyness’ in temporary things. How can we say this ‘emptiness’ is nor permanent?
If everything is temporary - ‘emptiness’ is also temporary - and so - emptiness can be found - only when universe disappears. So, emptiness is not present now. If there is no emptiness now, how buddha enlightened and found ‘emptiness’?
Nirvana is said to be
Neither existent nor non-existent.
If the existent and the nonexistent were established,
This would be established.
What is meant by ‘non-existent were established’? - See, if the Universe is existed and nothingness is existed - we can say - There is ‘Nirvana’. If there is only ‘Brahman/nothingness’ is existed and ‘universe’ disappears are non-existed - then there is no purpose of ‘Nivana’ - isn’t it?
After Nirvana - is the ‘nothingness’ is permanent or it will change? (I’m not asking the state of ‘nirvana’ as it is neither existent nor non-existent) but I ask - whether after enlightenment - one again have to go through sufferings - and attain ‘nirvana’ become Buddha and again suffer in a loop - as everything is temporary?
Katyayana was Buddha’s disciple noted for his debating skills. He asked Buddha: “What is the side of existence? What is the side of non-existence?” Buddha said to him: “Generally speaking, when people see the appearance of a thing, they assume that it is an objective existence, so they fall onto the side of existence; when they see the disappearance of a thing, they assume that it is objectively non-existent, then they fall onto the side of non-existence. A learned Buddhist will not react this way. When he observes the coming about of something in the world, he understands that everything can make its appearance under the appropriate conditions, so he does not harbor a view of non-existence. When he observes the destruction of something in the world, he understands that there is no objective existence for anything, because if something exists objectively, it will be impossible to relinquish or to destroy. Thus a Buddhist will leave the side of existence, as well as the side of non-existence, leading to sunyata, or emptiness. The middle path is built on this “Pratityasamutpada” or “dependently arisen”, “Because this existed, therefore that exists; because this arose, therefore that arises.”
Here, they speak only about objectively (physically) - Isn’t it?. If so, Of course - physically we cannot take side in Permanency of existence and non-existence. But in emptiness, it is present always - and from there everything arises. If there is no existence of objectivity - can we find ‘what is emptiness’? - Because the emptiness is unlimited - and so nothing to compare - it is there or not - and so neither existent nor non-existent - objectively/physically.
The nature of ‘Emptiness’ is being compassionate which is said in many scriptures. Say after becoming Buddha - one will be compassionate always or will again fall into ‘sufferings’ as nothing is permanent?
If they don’t again fall into this loop of ‘ignorance’ or ‘desire and sufferings’ after ‘enlightenment’ - then the ‘emptiness’ is there always and permanent - ever lasting and compassionate. Isn’t it?. In Upanishads - whatever said as ‘God’ is nothing but ‘emptiness/Brahman’ but is permanent - which we are ignorant to see and when we see it (enlightened) - then there is no difference between ‘seer’ and ‘seen’ - and we are merged with that permanency - not falling again to ignorance.