My views: "the relinquishment of all experience" means not attaching to experience. I was going to say "not attaching to any experience" but then I realized that this might be taken to mean that experience comes in lumps or pieces as if it was an object but it is not....it is a process at most so I decided to go with "not attaching to experience" to stress the non-object ness of experience.Lastly, in the culmination of the process, there is the remainderless relinquishment of all experience. There is a complete acceptance of all that
arises and no confusion about the fact that all patterns of experience are of
the same dependent, insubstantial nature.
[What do they mean by: "the relinquishment of all experience"? "... a complete
acceptance of all that arises .."? or "... that all patterns of experience
are of the same dependent, insubstantial nature"?
How can one relinquish all experience? None of the things in DO arise
any more - they have ceased. There is nothing dependent about experience,
the Buddha still sees forms with the eye, even after all DO links have
ceased.]
"complete acceptance of all that arises" is like "the relinquishment of all experience" but complete acceptance emphasizes non-aversion.
"all patterns of experience" I take to mean all fabrications and I take "are of athe same dependent, insubstantial nature" to mean that they all are dependently co-arisen and are ephemeral and lacking in inate substance.
It is the "self" which tries to capture experience and to mold it to its own ends and which will not relinquish experience....it is the "self" which does not want to accept things as they are but would rather create a delusional view to give the appearance it desires....it is the "self" which is one pattern of experience which must be seen as being dependent on conditions and is insubstantial in nature.
The middle way is to neither view the "self" as existing nor to view the "self" as not existing but rather to have no doctrine of "self" whatever.
My views only....
chownah