Duality and its implications

I wanted to talk a bit more about the ideas of subject-object duality (and other dualities, such as existence versus emptiness) that are prevalent throughout the readings on Mahayana Buddhism. I’ll first share my own thoughts, then try to tie these thoughts back to my previous understanding of duality. Then, I’m sure I’ll have a few questions!

So when we think of subject-object duality we think of Person A and Object B. Person A is a conscious, self-aware being who perceives Object B – some inanimate, not conscious, not self aware being. This is a fairly straightforward concept. But what happens if we add a Person C? Person C is also conscious, also self aware, and also a subject. From the perspective of Person C, both Object B and Person A are objects. Only Person C is the subject now (from the perspective of Person C), as subjectivity is contingent upon there being something to perceive and objectivity  (existence beyond consciousness?) is contingent upon there being something to perceive it (if a tree falls into the woods and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?)

According to Mahyama Buddhism, the First (conceptualized) Nature is simply a construct of the mind that is qualified with human language (a chair, the ocean, a car) and thus does not exist at all. This nature  “is the world as it is experienced by everyday unenlightened folk, the world of (assumed) really existing subjects confronting really existing and separate objects (Williams 90)”. But again, it’s all about perspective. What is our reference point when we talk about subject-object duality? If I call myself the subject (which I certainly do in just about every context), then everything else becomes an object, including other conscious beings – beings who surely consider themselves to be subjects as well. So we clearly have some disagreement between the subjects as to whom the subject really is. If there is no consensus among the subjects regarding who or what the subject is, then does this incongruity not imply that there is no absolute reality, given that reality is subjective?

With that said, here is my question to all of you: is the stance that subject-object duality does not exist consistent with our previous understanding of Buddhist thought? And perhaps of equal importance, is the idea that the only eternal reality “is also emptiness, explained for this tradition as meaning that one thing is empty of another (Williams 91)” consistent with our previous understanding? I think both ideas do fit well into our current framework with a few caveats.

For one, I’m not quite sure any conception of a “dependent nature” makes sense if one flat out denies any notion of subject-object duality as this duality forms the basis for all dependence (the subject depends on the object to be a subject and vice versa). Second, I really am still struggling with this whole idea of non-existence. I don’t see how emptiness can exist in the mind and at the same time the mind can become enlightened?  Perhaps this is the point. Enlightenment is something that cannot be a conscious process. Thoughts?