3-pages, 12-pont font, 1-inch margins, doubled spaced, you only have to cite the Conze translation but you can cite other if need be. Why does the Buddha say: There is not any being whom the Tathagata has set free. Again, if there had been any being whom the Tathagata had set free, then surely there would have been on the part of the Tathagata a seizing of a self, of a being, of a soul, of a person. “seizing of a self,” as a no-seizing, Subhuti has that been taught by the Tathagata.” (25, p.62 in the Conze Book)? How does this teaching express Mahayana Prajnaparamita based on an understanding of emptiness? Do you think that such an understanding is possible – why or why not?
