"Existence" and "nonexistence" in the Kaccānagotta Sutta

[thomaslaw]

@Vaddha

It reminds me of the common dichotomy people sometimes mention, where they say the Prajñāpāramitā claims that the five aggregates are empty, but Theravāda says only self is empty. But in the suttas, the Buddha says the self is empty because five aggregates are empty!
They aren’t necessarily different doctrines. I do think there are differences that emerge, especially in language and emphasis.

As I stated previously in another relevant topic, according to Choong MK’s The Notion of Emptiness in Early Buddhism (pp. 22-42), there are two levels (pp. 23, 32) on which to understand the “emptiness” of conditioned genesis (i.e. paṭiccasamuppāda) in early Buddhist texts:

1. Emptiness from the viewpoint of conditioned genesis as impermanence
2. Emptiness from the viewpoint of conditioned genesis as the middle way

The Kaccāna tradition/lineage, or proto-Mādhyamika belongs to the second one in the early Buddhist period. That is, the five aggregates are empty. This is also based on the notion of “the middle way” of conditioned arising dharmas (phenomena) is neither “existence” nor “non-existence”, neither eternalism nor nihilism. The five aggregates are empty of the two extremes: the self-based view of existence and the self-based view of non-existence. In SN 22.95 (= SA 265) it simply states that the five aggregates are void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asāraka).

The Pali tradition that says “only self is empty” belongs to the first level. The five aggregates are not empty, but empty of self only.

I consider they are in fact different levels of teaching on emptiness.

Mahākaccāna and “Proto-Madhyamaka”? - Discussion - Discuss & Discover

Mahākaccāna and “Proto-Madhyamaka”? - Discussion - Discuss & Discover