A Critique and A Clarification of Nagarjuna’s Notion of Emptiness

In recent discussions with a friend, we delved into the teachings of the Buddha, particularly the concept of Anatta (non-self) and its connection to Nagarjuna’s notion of “emptiness.” My friend argues that denying the reality of the self implies denying the reality and usefulness of all concepts related to it, including the Four Noble Truths. He referenced Chapter 24 of Nagarjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), stating:

“If all this is empty, then there is neither rising nor decline, which implies the absence of the Four Noble Truths.”

He critiques Nagarjuna for what he calls “word-mongering,” suggesting that Nagarjuna’s distinction between śūnyam idam sarvam (all this is empty) and sarvam śūnyam (everything is empty) is merely a semantic game, arguing that ultimate truth (paramartha) has only a value-driven (axiological) application rather than an ontological one.

Word-Mongering or Precision?

The claim of “word-mongering” misinterprets Nagarjuna’s philosophical approach. His method relies on logical rigor to challenge deep-seated assumptions about existence and nonexistence. The distinction he makes between śūnyam idam sarvam and sarvam śūnyam is not trivial; rather, it is a critical clarification: