[Boripiomi]

There has been some discussion on this board about this phrase, "empty of inherent existence," a phrase that probably is best associated with the historic Madhyamka approach. Nagarjuna explains the idea in the Madhyama-kakarika 15 like this:
[Things with] inherent existence do not occur by way of conditions and causes. [Things with] inherent existence that are produced by causes and conditions would be created. But how could [something with] inherent existence be created? For [things with] inherent existence are uncreated, and independent of other [things]. There are differing views about this particular phrase. Some people take it as a statement to mean that nothing exists. (One person on this board has refered to it as a "turd"). Other people do not take it that way at all. There is valid disagreement about how to understand these words.

Regardless, the phrase itself sometimes has been used as a boilerplate phrase to help illustrate a facet of anatta, of not-self. This probably is not the clearest way to help explain anatta, because of the associations with this phrase. But taken on its face, and emptied of its baggage, the phrase does in fact work as a tool to help approach anatta.

The Buddha himself used language similar to this, as in the Dhammapada 277-297:
When you see with discernment,
'All fabrications are inconstant' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity.

When you see with discernment,
'All fabrications are stressful' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity.

When you see with discernment,
'All phenomena are not-self' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity. The phrase "all phenomena are not-self" could be viewed as an ontological statement. It discusses how things are. The phrase also could be viewed as a speculative view. But we know that it is neither. Likewise, the phrase "empty of inherent existence" does not necessarily imply an ontological speculative view. Rather, it describes something that we can see with discernment, as the Buddha taught in his own words.

When someone uses this phrase, particularly in a discussion that draw in Theravada and Mahayana perspectives, it is not a mistatement of the Buddha's teachings. Rather, is is one window into the Buddha's teachings. Admittedly, this particular phrase is a window with some smudges on it, because so many people have poked their fingers at it over the years. But at its core, there's nothing wrong with using this phrase. It does not have to mean "nothing exists."