I think there is a peculiar similarity in understanding both Communisation and the Buddhist concept of Emptyness (Śūnyatā). Nāgārjuna’s revitalization of the Madhyamaka (Middle Way) principle developed by Gautama Buddha was intended to negate all substantialist metaphysical dogmas that were accumulating in the scholastic traditions after the Buddha’s death. The concern was that these substantialist metaphysical articulations of the Buddha’s originally more praxical teachings were creating Ideas that prevented the practitioner from achieving liberation, or enlightenment, due to their attachment to fundamental assumptions and concepts which function like chains restricting total freedom from all constraints. So he situates his opponents into each category of the Tetralemma (a dialectical logical matrix outlining all possible metaphysical world views), and immanently undermines each opponent by calling into question fundamental assumptions taken by the opponent hithero uninvestigated by the opponent themselves. At the end we wonder if after Nāgārjuna has annihilated the positions of all his opponents, is there anything positive left for him? His positivity is a silent one: it does not come in the form of a nameable thing, an articulated Idea, but in the form of praxis. Using thought to negate itself, reveals the absolute void of that which we used to think were substantial entities—this is what’s called Emptiness (Śūnyatā), and it is the very basis of interdependence. This revelation is a realization at the intuitive level however, not intellectual, so even the concept of Emptiness risks substantialization. Similarly, Communisation will gain momentum and will do so silently, but when enough gains ground, everyone will know what is happening, and everyone will join if their interest lies in liberation. Madhyamaka is the praxis of individual liberation; Communisation is the praxis of social liberation.