Hello again Bhante. Good to see you here. 
How about those who follow the examples of Snp5.7 and the Tathāgata Tetralemma, to posit “it isn’t the case that there is something or nothing” and who consider both formulations as irrelevant deliberations / proliferations?
We are on the same page, those who refuse to address the question needs more time to get to know them to see which side they are actually on. Anyway, I don’t think we need to discuss it here. Already a lot of discussion there.
I thought it’d be healthier here, precisely because other board can get dramatic with something campers.
Why does it need to be one or the other? Perhaps we can make a thread about that if you want.
I believe in law of excluded middle then, simple, basic logic.
Tetralemma also seems to betray LEM at face value.
If we stop equating Something & Nothing as two parts of bivalence as in:
“It isn’t the case [There is something]” = “There is Nothing”
Then we can solve it applying LEM:
“There is nothing.” => This is wrong.
“There is something.” => This is wrong.
It transcends classical logic at this point, which I think very much the essence of the Tathagata Tetralemma as well, no?
This applies when there’s a soul to talk about. When talking about experiences, 6 sense contacts, there either is or not. Neither perception nor non-perception seems like a middle, but actually falls under having experience still.
We both agree that there’s no khandas, no subtle mind, no sense fields, so on that, we’re good.
However, there’s obviously an ontological difference between the state that gives rise to conditions, and the state that is no longer able to provide new conditions. But perhaps you find the distinction “There’s nothing to talk about” vs “There’s nothing” pedantic.
Yes.
Agreed
Welcome to the forum Dogen!
You might like to read this old thread
this is pertinent:
Bhikkhu bodhi note to Yamaka sutta
Spk: If he had thought, “Formations arise and cease; a simple process of
formations reaches nonoccurrence, this would not be a view (diṭṭhigata) but
knowledge in accordance with the Teaching .But since he thought, A being is
annihilated and destroyed,” this becomes a view. What follows is paralleled by
MN I 130-31 and I 256-57.