>< KH: We can see from Lukas's quote that the view "everything is empty of both existence and non-existence" was not the sort of view held by the Buddha. It was just as wrong as "everything exists" or "everything does not exist." "
> T: I think the view "everything is empty of both existence and non-existence" was found in the Samyutta sutta (Samyukta sutras).
KH: I couldn't find the Samyatta Sutta, but are you aware of a formula (found, not only in the Kokanuda Sutta quoted by Lukas, but frequently throughout the suttas) describing wrong views as, for example, "The self exists, the self does not exist. The self both exists and does not exist. The self neither exists nor does not exist"? Or, in another example, "I shall be reborn, I shall not be reborn, I shall be both reborn and not reborn, I shall be neither reborn nor not reborn."
I am assuming that the same formula would apply to your example of "everything exists" and it would show clearly that "everything is empty of both existence and non-existence" was a wrong view.
Basically, all wrong views assume a permanent existence of some kind. And so they are all wrong, no matter what they say. They are doomed from the start.
The view "everything exists" is a view about lasting (conventionally known) things. It is not a view about the conditioned things described by the Buddha. Therefore, that view, along with "everything neither exists nor does not exist," must be wrong.
> T: Existence and non-existence are linked to the view "everything exists" and "everything does not exist." These views all come from self-attachment, and are regarded as the two extremes (see SN 22.90).
KH: I am not sure what you mean by "come from self attachment." It sounds suspiciously like something Thanissaro B might have said on Access to Insight. I hope you are not saying that anatta is a mere mediation technique (in which attachment to thoughts of self and no-self are temporarily suppressed).
If you are saying that then some serious re-education is urgently required. :-)