1. 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.

2. 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