How are the monks talking about the actual situation

I read your consultation.

It is said that they are influenced by the Heart Sutra, so how do you perceive things when they are based on empty ideas? I wonder if that's the point of the question...

To be honest, it's difficult for me and I don't really understand it, but in the first place, the purpose of Buddhist teachings is not to “not have” what is “there” right in front of me, and it's probably about “me,” which “exists” what is in front of me as a problem?

We use “words” as a common means of communication, but is what those “words” indicate really the same for me and others?

When I express the phenomenon in front of me by cutting it out with the “words” I think, it does not represent the reality of the thing itself. If I had to say it, it's fiction. I'm at a loss because I separate my thoughts based on that “fiction of words.”

We should observe the “me,” which makes that sense of thought, as the main target, and if we try to discuss “things,” which are the objects of thought separation, I think it would be like a game of knowledge.

Oh, it would be nice if an answer comes in from a monk who has properly learned how to play the middle ground... I'm sorry for my lack of strength.

[Postscript]
<中観>・Buddhist Thought 3 “The Logic of the Sky” by Yuichi Kajiyama and Shunpei Ueyama Kadokawa Sophia Library

Please be sure to read it.

Also, as you said, the sky is not something you think about with your head like a language game, and it is probably something you can feel by developing wisdom through the practice of meditation, so you may not understand it if you try to understand it with your head without it.
However, when practicing meditation, self-study is dangerous, so please do not do it.

[Added again]
If everyone keeps quiet and doesn't tell me when it comes to talking about the sky, isn't it because they don't understand them? The same goes for me when I say that. I don't know.

But if what you're looking for is how to express the sky in language, be sure to read the book above. The logical form of Dragon Tree is interesting. It's difficult for me, but...

Also, no matter how hard you try to say that there is no “I,” you can't escape to Katsuyoshi Gijin alone as long as you live in the world.
Even without “me who always presides over,” there is “me as a chain of momentary destruction.” It may also be a “talk about time,” but I can't explain it well.
If you're really interested, don't give up and learn and practice.

According to Roselyn,
Even though the desk didn't do anything
It seems like it's there or not.

Why is that?

“Because Roselyn's heart is moving.”
The more I read the content of your post
It just looks like that to me.

the desk itself is not the problem
The fact that “the way you see” is changing from place to place
I think I'm saying that.

By the way..
Well, I'll go to Roselyn's post
Have you answered?
Are they not responding?

Which do you think it is?

Mahahannya Haramitsu Gassho

The fact that there is no reality means that it is not permanent, but that is not on the physical side of things.
It's on this side that detects it.
What I had seen and been in contact with until now is not happening to me.
Many scholars and Buddhists probably explain that there is no reality as an external substance. So it becomes like talking about science, science, and chemistry at school.
That's not about Buddhism; it's about science.
That is not the true meaning of what Buddhism is trying to say.
Things change and change is probably something that this body originally knows all the time, even if you don't learn from people, and you experience it regardless of whether you know it.
Well then, the substance. How do you explain that there is no reality?
It is a physical and mental manifestation of this. There is a law saying that the appearance of things is once in a lifetime and only for that time, that stupid cut, and only that.
Please focus on receiving things and receiving things.
What this self's body and mind are listening to, projecting, and experiencing right now.
What happened when that appeared there?
It is said that there is no reality.
In Zen, it is also called noncontemplation, and it explains that when looking at something and experiencing the appearance of something, there are places where there are places where no human meaning, word naming, likes and dislikes, evaluations, reviews, or twists are involved, so experience that without mixed opinions.
Then the truth of the matter becomes clear.
It is a figure where human acquired knowledge and meaning have not been handled.
If you compare it in karuta, it looks untouched, and Hirose Suzu from “Chihayafuru” that hasn't been worked on looks like an untouched “hokefuru” figure.
A clean scene before a person's foot gets in on a snowy road. Snow, rain, and people are coming, and it's an unprecedented “hoarse” appearance without the steps or steps of anyone else.
That is probably the reality of things.
It's not that there isn't an actual situation; the true reality, the true state, is the form of the law, the minister of law.
The law minister is “Ninagara Falls,” where this body is instantaneous, moment by moment, flowing away, coming and going, and there is no such thing as Arina, which remains unstoppable.
Waterfall is a human word. Every drop of water is something else.
The waterfalls referred to here are Sound Falls, Video Falls, Ki Falls, Aji Falls, and Sensory Falls.
That's probably the end.
That is the true form of the appearance of things. Isn't that the reality?
Once you are aware of that, you can understand the sky without logic.

That is in Buddhism
It is viewed as “various acts are impermanent.”

Nothing and nothing is immutable; it changes continuously.
Of course the past and present are not the same as the present and future.
Thinking about that at the same time may seem like Buddhism.

I want things that are convenient for me to stay the same forever
I'm afraid that things that are not convenient for me will never change and I will suffer all the time
There's absolutely no need to.