The Sanlun school, literally the “Three Treatise School” (三論宗), is the Chinese adaptation of Indian Madhyamaka, the “Middle Way” philosophy. It takes its name from three foundational treatises: the Zhonglun (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, “Middle Treatise”) by Nāgārjuna, the Bailun (Śataśāstra, “Hundred Treatise”) by Āryadeva, and the Shiermenlun (Dvādaśamukhaśāstra, “Twelve Gate Treatise”) by Nāgārjuna. These texts, translated and studied in China, became the scriptural backbone for a distinct school that sought to articulate the Middle Way in a Chinese intellectual and spiritual milieu. The tradition was systematized by the master Jizang (549–623), who is regarded as its central figure and principal interpreter. Through his efforts, the school developed a rigorous hermeneutic that both honored the Indian sources and responded to Chinese concerns about language, practice, and realization.

At the heart of Sanlun thought lies the doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā), the insight that all dharmas lack inherent, independent existence. This is not a denial of the functional world but a refusal to grant any phenomenon a fixed, self-subsisting essence. In this vision, all things arise only in dependence upon conditions, and their very relativity is what makes change, relationship, and liberation possible. The school also employs the framework of the two truths: conventional truth, which operates within the world of names, distinctions, and practical dealings, and ultimate truth, which sees the emptiness of all such constructs. These are not two separate realities but two ways of regarding the same dependently arisen world.

Sanlun is especially known for its dialectical method, a disciplined deconstruction of all views, including any attachment to the view of emptiness itself. Drawing on Nāgārjuna’s “eight negations” — neither arising nor ceasing, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither identical nor different, neither coming nor going — its analysis undercuts every attempt to solidify reality into fixed categories. By exposing the limitations of conceptual thought, this method points toward a Middle Way that avoids both eternalism, which clings to enduring essences, and nihilism, which denies the efficacy of phenomena altogether. In this sense, the teaching does not rest in any final doctrine, but continually turns the mind back from reification to a more fluid, relational understanding.

Although the Sanlun school did not endure as a long-standing, separate institution, its spirit did not simply vanish. Its subtle treatment of emptiness, its use of the two truths, and its insistence on the provisional nature of all teachings deeply informed later Chinese Buddhist traditions. Schools such as Tiantai, Huayan, and Chan drew upon its insights, integrating Madhyamaka-style reasoning into broader systems of doctrine and practice. Through this transmission, the Sanlun perspective came to function less as a closed school and more as a pervasive undercurrent, shaping how Chinese Buddhists contemplated language, reality, and the path to liberation.