madhyamaka sunyata history Doesn’t put forward own view But undermines all possible views Things lack self nature Nagarjuna 1 AD a new teaching Or re-discovered? If things had self nature… They would be independent They must be indivisible (ie not merely a combination of other things) They would have to come into being in some way 1. Rainbow example… If the sun/rain disappears…no rainbow. It is nothing other than the sun and rain. They must have a building block eg atoms From itself: but this would mean… a) a ‘thing’ would have to exist before it comes into being! b) There would never be any change!! Is nothing other than From something ‘other’ which would mean that a rice seed could produce a…dog 2. ‘High’ only exists dependent upon ‘low’ Light/dark; small/big; good/bad etc Is nothing other than dharmas From both self and other This is doubly wrong (see above) Is nothing other than And so on From no cause at all Experience tells us this is wrong.. ‘A house doesn’t build itself!’ The significance/purpose Through recognising sunyata, one is able to give up even subtle clinging and grasping.

Madhyamaka contradicts the Buddhas teaching Yes No Undermines the idea of karma, rebirth etc. These are empty Accepts karma as relatively true. A practical teaching, which isn’t ultimately true – skilful means Samsara = conditioned Nirvana = unconditioned. They are separate states, whereas Madhyamaka says they are the same. If there is such a thing as ‘true samsara’, it would never change, This contradicts buddhas teaching on anicca. True dharmas are not anatta or anicca If Nirvana were separate reality then people will cling to it as an object Theravada reject samsara. Whereas Mahayana try to see the truth within samsara itself It is the true meaning of anatta. It is the true meaning of anicca. Due to clinging at objects as real (not empty) beings suffer Theravada can’t become a Buddha whereas Madhyamaka say that all beings minds are empty which is the same nature as a Buddha – hence one can become a Buddha by realising the empty nature of ones own mind It is authoritative word of the Buddha…Nagarjuna ‘retrieved’ it from the Nagas Mahayanists would dispute the assumption behind the question – since they accept Madhyamaka as the Buddhas teaching, hence the statement is nonsense! It is a personal invention as it was written long after the Buddha taught, hence it is not the Buddhas word. It is the logical extension of the four noble truths. Eg craving should be overcome. Even subtle clinging to existence or non-existence. Therefore itis the proper ‘middle way’ as it is beyond eternalism and nihilism