What can divide emptiness, if not the divisive aspect of emptiness itself? And what does it divide into? Into its divisive aspect and its non divisive aspect. And is its non divisive aspect singular, and what are its properties, and what does it do in stead of dividing?
And what should we call these two aspects, in respect to emptiness? As to make no mistakes, and in the terms we've come to know them: divisive emptiness and non divisive emptiness.
The questions that remain: is non divisive emptiness dividable, and from it, the others, on its properties and on its active aspect or whether it is fully passive or whether it is partially active and in respect to what, which can be though also in terms of the properties of this what.
If non divisive emptiness is not dividable, let us call it not dividable non divisive emptiness. And thus we have come to terms with our nomenclature, and are left to study the divisive aspect of emptiness and the not dividable non divisive aspect of emptiness, so as to study emptiness itself. It is also wise to assume simpler things first, so that if we make a wrong assumption we can simply expand on our framework in stead of backtracking from everything that followed from it.
Make no mistake, backtracking will definitely occur, such is the case of studying unknowns. And why call it an unknown? So as to not assume that you know it, which is actually not the simpler assumption, for if we assume that we don't know it, we might find out that we know it partially, or know ways to address it, and can thus expand on our knowledge from these knowns, while if we assume that we know it, completely or not, flawlessly or not, since these questions never arise in an assumption, tbere is nothing to expand upon until we are shown to be in error, or, arriving at a contradiction, forced to backtrack on our assumptions without a clear view of what is correct and what isn't (or what was correctly assumed and what wasn't); that is, without a method.