[preachadaq]

It does not have to mean "nothing exists."

Hi Jechbi,
You are right here. This most certainly does not mean that nothing exists. It is an uninformed error to claim that the doctrine of inherent existence is claiming that nothing exists. The tenets of the Prasangika school present their teachings in terms of the middle way, avoiding extremes of eternalism and nihilism.

At no point do they claim that nothing exists. To assert this is to misrepresent the tenets.

The doctrine of the 'two truths' is a logical and philosophical analysis of what we call existence. It posits that things exist conventionally and thus serve the purpose of their designation. Upon investigation, however, they are found to not have the characteristics we attribute to them, (ie. a solid, independent existence from their own side). They are 'empty' of this mode of being but not non-existent.

Nagarjuna was making a valid point from this perspective, thus: As we can all see that phenomena arise in dependence on causes and conditions, there can be no solidly existing 'thing' from it's own side. If there were, then paradoxically it could not ever be created. It's just pointing out the obvious absurdity of that idea and was used to counter the Hindu assertion of an eternal unchanging Atman amongst other things.

Furthermore, the understanding of this doctrine is a key factor in gaining enlightenment, as emptiness is in fact the 'emptiness of inherent existence' and not some mere 'space' or such.

Would you agree?