The point of that characterization is that the "difference" between "nothing exists" and "things have no inherent existence" is merely specious and semantic, and that it is the same sort of speculative view that the Buddha refuted: Things exist: That is one extreme of speculative view Things do not exist: that is another Things both exist and do not exist: the third Things neither exist nor do not exist: That is the fourth Things have inherent existence: That is one extreme of speculative view Things have no inherent existence: That is the second, Nagarjuna's assertion things both have inherent existence and do not have inherent existence: that is the third Things neither have nor do not have inherent existence: that is the fourth. The only difference is the vague equivocation "inherent".