Question for the Dalai Lama and his answer

[Kerby W-R]

Question: If a person views the self and other phenomena as being empty of any inherent existence, is it then, in that state, possible for them to take any animate or inanimate phenomenon as their object, and through the power of imputation or words, enable that object to actually take on a manifesting role with the qualities which we view objects to have?
His Holiness: This is an instance of not properly understanding the meaning of "lack of inherent existence." If we think that "emptiness" means things cannot function, then, with an improper understanding of the view of emptiness, one will have fallen into nihilism. So, because one has failed to reconcile emptiness and the fact that things work, this view is incorrect. That is why it is said that the meaning of emptiness is to be understood in terms of dependent arising.
Now, since the meaning of emptiness is to be explained in terms of dependent arising, we can only explain something as arising dependently if there is a basis, that is, some thing that is dependent. Hence, such a basis must exist. We see then that when we speak of dependent arising, we are indicating that things work. Dependent arising proves that things have no inherent existence, through the fact that things work in dependence on each other. The fact that things work and the fact that they do so in dependence, one on the other, eliminates the possibility of their being independent. This in turn precludes the possibility of inherent existence, since, to inherently exist means to be independent. Hence, the understanding of emptiness, of the the emptiness of a kind of inherent existence that is independent, boils down to understanding dependent arising.
--from Answers: Discussions with Western Buddhists by the Dalai Lama, edited by Jose Ignacio Cabezon, published by Snow Lion Publications