Nagarjuna’s thought within the Madhyamaka, or “Middle Way,” tradition turns again and again around the insight of śūnyatā, or emptiness. All phenomena are said to be empty of svabhāva, any inherent, independent essence that would make them what they are from their own side. This does not amount to a claim that nothing exists at all; rather, it is a denial that things exist as self-contained, permanent substances. Phenomena arise and function, but only in relation to other factors, and even the notion of “emptiness” itself is not a hidden absolute but is likewise empty of any fixed nature. To see emptiness clearly is to loosen the grip of reified concepts and to recognize that what appears solid and self-standing is, in fact, contingent and relational.

This vision is articulated through a deepened understanding of pratītyasamutpāda, dependent origination. For Nagarjuna, whatever arises does so only in dependence on causes, conditions, parts, and conceptual designation, and precisely for that reason it lacks any fixed, intrinsic nature. Dependent origination thus becomes another way of speaking about emptiness: what depends on other factors cannot be self-grounded. This interdependence is not confined to a single level of reality; it characterizes both ordinary experience and the most refined philosophical analysis. To contemplate dependent origination is to see that isolation and independence are illusions, and that all things participate in a web of conditions.

Nagarjuna’s analysis is framed by the doctrine of two truths: conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) and ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). On the conventional level, persons, tables, causes, and moral responsibilities are spoken of and relied upon; they function in everyday life and in the path of practice. On the ultimate level, these same phenomena are understood as empty of inherent existence. These are not two different worlds but two ways of describing the same dependently arisen reality, and both are necessary and complementary. Ultimate truth does not abolish the conventional; rather, it reveals its lack of fixed essence while allowing its practical efficacy to remain intact.

To express this “middle” vision, Nagarjuna employs the tetralemma (catuṣkoṭi), systematically rejecting four extremes: existence, non-existence, both, and neither. By showing the limitations and contradictions that arise when any of these positions is clung to as final, this method exposes the inadequacy of ordinary conceptual categories for grasping ultimate reality. This is closely tied to the Middle Way itself, which avoids both eternalism—the assertion of permanent, substantial being—and nihilism—the denial of any reality or moral order. Phenomena are neither solid, independent entities nor sheer nothingness; they function conventionally while being empty ultimately. In this light, the distinction between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa also softens: both are equally empty, and the difference lies in whether there is ignorance or insight into this emptiness.