[Espacamlisa]

[...]

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."

There is a section of the Lankavatara Sutra which I quite like:

___________________________
Like a master of painting or his pupils, who arrange colours to produce a picture, I teach. The picture is not in the colours, nor in the canvas, nor in the plate; in order to make it attractive to all beings, a picture is presented in colours. What one teaches, transgresses; for the truth (tattva) is beyond words. ...

The teaching itself is thus variously given, subject to transgression; the teaching is no teaching whatever, if it is not to the point in each case.

According to the nature of a disease the healer gives their medicine; even so the Buddhas teach beings in accordance with their mentalities.


Lankavatara Sutra, Chap.2, section IX, v.117 - 124.
http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm
___________________________


AIUI, suttas (and sutras) are generally records of a specific event, when the Buddha gave a particular teaching to a particular person, or group of people, in answer to a particular question, or in order to clarify a particular aspect of his teaching. He tailored his words to the occasion, much like a doctor would give a specific medicine to treat a specific ailment. Its not (generally) a medicine, if you don't have the relevant ailment.

These sutta records were later written down in Pali, and subsequently translated into various languages. So there can be quite a large element of 'Chinese whispers', in that quite a lot of the original context, and nuances in the original language, may be lost. So in that sense, a phrase like 'empty of inherent existence' may be largely empty of inherent meaning, unless you have some knowledge of the original context, and unless also it is relevant to your own particular mentality and preoccupations at that particular time.

I do not know who first came up with the phrase 'empty of inherent existence', or what specific term it was intended to translate. I interpret it to mean that, because all phenomena are the result of causes and conditions outside of themselves, then all phenomena are empty or void of self-nature. That is, there is no part or aspect of any phenomenon which is independent or apart from these ongoing processes of 'external' causation. Strictly speaking, there is no 'external' or 'internal' either. Everything is part of the whole, the whole is reflected in everything.

But everything is unique. Every snowflake is unique, even though they are all the product of external circumstances. And all circumstances are unique, at least once you get down to the finer details.

The phrase 'empty of inherent existence' seems the kind of phrase where you have to already understand the meaning and the context, if you are to understand the (intended) meaning. But I suppose much of language is like that. The phrase definitely doesn't mean 'nothing exists' , it means nothing exists independently of all the other things that exist.

So I agree with Jechbi when they say: '[ The phrase 'empty of inherent existence'] 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." '