Idea / problem overview

Emptiness in Buddhist philosophy

An overview of emptiness as a challenge to reifying persons and things, beginning with two Indian Buddhist approaches and linking into their distinct arguments and purposes.

Guiding question

What does it mean to say that persons or things are empty, and what philosophical work is that claim meant to do?

Current scope

The current thread compares one argument associated with Nāgārjuna and one associated with Vasubandhu, then identifies live disputes about interpreting their projects.

Current limits: These two contributions do not represent Indian Buddhist philosophy as a whole, establish a single shared doctrine, or cover the later histories of Madhyamaka and Yogācāra.

Highlight contributors in the atlas →

A shared concern with mistaken construction

These readings question how things are taken to exist and how that mistake sustains attachment. The wider Buddhist rejection of a permanent self provides orientation, but the selected authors extend analysis in different ways. A shared religious purpose does not guarantee agreement about what conventional explanation requires.

Buddha ·

Two argumentative tasks

Nāgārjuna tests intrinsic nature against dependence; Vasubandhu interrogates what appearance warrants about objects and develops a causal account of cognition. Reading one as merely completing the other hides differences in method. Later Madhyamaka and Yogācāra discussions include both disputes and attempts to combine their resources.

Madhyamaka · Vasubandhu ·

Historical perspectives

Each entry introduces one formulation; open its profile for the reasoning, objections, context, and primary readings. Dates locate contributions approximately. Only explicitly labelled relationships claim transmission, criticism, reformulation, revival, or comparison.

  1. Nāgārjuna · c. second–third century CE

    approximate

    Can conditioned things possess independent nature?

    The Root Verses challenge accounts that make things self-established while explaining them through conditions. Emptiness names this absence of intrinsic nature. Its point includes preserving the possibility of a path out of suffering: a fixed nature could not be transformed. The account therefore requires conventional teaching even while criticizing reification.

    Works or evidence: Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 15 and 24.

    Nāgārjuna · Life, method, causation and emptiness;

  2. Vasubandhu · c. fourth–fifth century CE

    approximate

    Must structured experience have an external object?

    Representation-only questions whether the subject and object appearing in cognition exist as they appear. Vasubandhu combines replies to realist objections with an account of conditioned experience. His target is bound to Buddhist non-self and liberation, and should not be reduced to an assertion that one individual invents the world.

    Works or evidence: Twenty Verses with commentary, opening objections; Thirty Verses.

    Vasubandhu · Life, works, Yogācāra; bibliography;

    comparison: Nāgārjuna — Both accounts resist taking appearances as self-established. This comparison concerns their philosophical problems; it does not claim that Vasubandhu learned this argument directly from Nāgārjuna. Their explanations of convention and cognition require separate study. sep-vasubandhu;

Contemporary discussion

Reviewed 2026-09-09 · next review 2027-09-09

Interpreting anti-reification today

Contemporary scholarship disagrees about how to characterize Madhyamaka’s relation to philosophical theories and everyday convention. The status of arguments and the interpretation of later commentators remain live issues. An account that turns emptiness into a final substance defeats the work it was introduced to do.

Madhyamaka;

The limits of “idealism”

Debate about Vasubandhu concerns both what his arguments deny and whether modern idealism accurately describes their purpose. An interpretation must account for his critique of external objects and subject–object construction, alongside the path of transformation. Cross-tradition comparison needs specified points of agreement and difference; no historical link to the freedom thread is asserted here.

Vasubandhu;

Sources

  1. Buddha · Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · Suffering, non-self and dependent origination · consulted 2026-09-09
  2. Nāgārjuna · Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · §§1–3; primary bibliography: Garfield 1995, MMK · consulted 2026-09-09
  3. Madhyamaka · Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · Indian developments and modern interpretations · consulted 2026-09-09
  4. Vasubandhu · Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · §§1, 3–5; primary bibliography · consulted 2026-09-09
  5. Vasubandhu · Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy · Life, works, Yogācāra; bibliography · consulted 2026-09-09