Eighteenth Those aggregates, constituents, and so forth-primordially devoid of obstruction, un differentiable, of equal taste, endowed with all noumenal aspects-are other than, supreme to, and transcendent over external and internal conventional aggregates, constituents, and so forth. other-emptiness means empty of the conventional, which themselves are empty of their own entities. However, it seems to me that conventional and noumenal aggregates, for instance, are not totally unrelated in that when the obstructions of afflictive conventionalities are removed, the noumenal versions are revealed.  Why the conventional are called “other” can be seen from Döl-bo-ba’s description of the difference between defilements and the basis of purification. The defilements to be purified and the basis of purification are different, and those also not just different isolates since they differ by way of an extremely great number of differences: because there is the difference of fabricated adventitious and natural fundamental and because there is the difference of conventional and ultimate and because there is the difference of phenomenon and noumenon and because there is the difference of extreme and centre and because there is the difference of other-arisen and selfarisen and because there is the difference of imputational other powered and noumenal thoroughly established and because there is the difference of consciousness and element of attributes and because there is the difference of mundane and supramundane and because there is the difference of suffering and bliss and because there is the difference of contaminated and uncontaminated and because there is the difference of incomplete and complete qualities of the body of attributes and because there is the difference of destructible and indestructible. and because there is the difference of destructible and indestructible. Based on the two purities, the otherness of the conventional and the ultimate is pronounced.

Eleventh  He says that “subjects that cannot withstand analysis and finally disintegrate are empty of their own entities.” Self-empty phenomena do not appear to wisdom of reality, since they do not exist in the mode of subsistence. Conventional phenomena only provisionally exist in that they exist only for   consciousness, which is necessarily mistaken, and thus what appears to pristine wisdom does not appear to consciousness and what appears to consciousness does not appear to pristine wisdom. Hence, conventional phenomena do not appear to buddhas; even conventional buddha-qualities of body, speech, and mind do not appear to a buddha, being only for the sake of trainees to whom they appear.  Nevertheless, buddhas are omniscient, since they implicitly know the phenomena of cyclic existence, for when they explicitly know the ultimate, they implicitly know that these conventional phenomena do not exist. As he says: These three realms, which are appearances of ignorance, do not appear to the pristine wisdom of one awakened from the sleep of ignorance because these three realms are appearances of consciousness and whatever is consciousness is ignorance. The spheres of wisdom and consciousness are separate. Döl-bo-ba argues that if emptiness were only self-emptiness, then since self-emptiness would be thusness (the ultimate), all phenomena that are self-empty (and thus are self-emptiness) would themselves absurdly be thusness. He rubs in the point by elaborating that all of the following would absurdly be the ultimate. those with perverse attachment adventitious things changing into something else and again into something thing else.