[adesseridopaw]

There's been some debate on this table about this phrase, "empty of natural existence," a phrase that probably is better linked to the historical Madhyamka strategy. Nagarjuna describes the concept in the Madhyama-kakarika 15 like this: [Things with] natural living don't happen by means of causes and problems. [Things with] natural existence which are made by circumstances and causes could be produced. But how can [something with] natural lifestyle be produced? For [things with] natural existence are uncreated, and independent of other [things].There are varying opinions about that particular expression. As a statement to imply that nothing exists it is taken by some people. as a "turd") (One individual with this panel has referred to it. Others don't go this way at all. There's legitimate conflict about how exactly to comprehend these terms. Regardless, the phrase itself occasionally has been employed as a boilerplate phrase to simply help demonstrate an aspect of anatta, of not-self. This probably isn't the best method to help describe anatta, due to the organizations with this expression. But taken on its experience, and something to simply help strategy anatta emptied of its luggage, the expression does actually work. The Buddha language similar was used by himself to this, as in the Dhammapada 277-297: Whenever you see with foresight, 'All fabrications are inconstant' you grow disenchanted with tension. This is actually the route to chastity. Whenever you see with foresight, 'All fabrications are demanding' you grow disenchanted with tension. This is actually the route to chastity. Whenever you see with foresight, 'All phenomena are not-self' you grow disenchanted with tension. This is actually the route to purity.The expression "all phenomena are not-self" might be considered an ontological statement. It covers how things are. view the expression also might be viewed. But we all know that it's neither. Similarly, the expression "empty of natural existence" doesn't fundamentally indicate an ontological speculative view. Instead, it describes something which we are able to see with foresight, whilst the Buddha taught in their own terms. When some one uses this expression, especially in a dialogue that attract Theravada and Mahayana views, it's not really a mistatement of the Buddha's teachings. Instead, is is one window in to the Buddha's teachings. Undoubtedly, this specific expression is just a screen with some streaks on it, since therefore their fingers have been poked by many people at it through the years. But at its core, there's nothing wrong with by using this expression. It generally does not need certainly to suggest "nothing exists."