Relationship between Mādhyamika School and Yogācāra School on the Concept of Emptiness: A Textual Study on Yogācārabhūmi-śastra By Sherry Shi (Dan B.W. Yang), 2019. Though the title of this paper is Relationship between Mādhyamika School and Yogācāra School on the Concept of Emptiness, textual quotations are mainly from the Chinese translated text Yogācārabhūmi-śastra. Among modern scholars, Nagao, G has written at least four works on the relationship between Mādhyamika School and Yogācāra School. 1 There are also other scholars, such as Hirabayashi, and lida, Shotaro’s teamwork of Another Look at the Mādhyamika vs. Yogācāra Controversy Concerning Existence and Non-existence. In this chapter, ideas on this topic are mostly from Richard King ’s Early Yogācāra and its Relationship with the Mādhyamaka School. By a series of overview on this relationship between two schools, it is hard to give clarification on the interpretations of emptiness concept, just as Richard King says; “Conventional language just cannot do the work required of it because of the inevitable tendency for the unenlightened listener to reify its referents.” 2 This paper tries to investigate the relationship between two schools on the concept of emptiness in selected Chinese translated texts from the following points: interpretation of emptiness concept, relationship with Dependent Arising, and understanding on the Middle Way. 1 Interpretation of the Concept Interpretations of emptiness concept are dynamic and flexible, varied with empty and not empty, or being and non-being, or real and unreal, or existence and non- existence, with different designations but similar meanings, which are two characteristics of Dependent Arising and in accordance with the Middle Way. In expression, emptiness concept in Yogācāra School is different from that in Mādhyamika School, as is commented by Rita M. Gross; 3 in essence, both of them follow Buddha’s Dependent Arising, as is claimed by Richard King. 4 Unable to understand this point because of dharma ineffability and language limitations might lead to some misrepresentations, such as the emptiness concept in Mādhyamika School commented 1 Nagao, G. 1972. Madhyātavibhāga. Tokyo: Suzuki Research Foundation. Nagao, G. 1978. “What Remains in śūnyatā: A Yogācāra Interpretation of Emptiness.” In Kiyota 1978, pp. 66-82. Nagao, G. 1979. “From Mādhyamika to Yogācāra, an Analysis of MMK XXIV.18 and MV 1.1-2.” The journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 2:29-43. Nagao, G. 1991. Mādhyamika and Yogācāra. New York: SUNY Press. 2 By Richard King, Early Yogācāra and its Relationship with the Madhyamaka School, Philosophy East & West, Volume 44, Number 4, 1994, by University of Hawaii Press, p673. 3 Buddhiīm after Patriarchy, A Feminist History, Analysis, and Reconstruction of Buddhism, by Rita M. Gross, Published by State University of New York Press, Albany. “Whereas for the second turning sunyata is explicitly presented mainly as the non-being of our verbal and conceptual versions of reality, for the third turning sunyata is explicitly presented mainly as the fullness of the Buddha’s wisdom and compassion.” 4 By Richard King, Early Yogācāra and its Relationship with the Madhyamaka School, Philosophy East & West, Volume 44, Number 4, 1994, by University of Hawaii Press, p.669: “All the schools, however, were unanimous in focusing upon the notion of dependent co-origination (pratītyasa-mutpāda) as the central conception for explaining the phenomenon of change. The fact that all dharmas arise interdependently was subsequently turned on its head by the Madhyamaka School, which declared that dependent origination was no origination at all (anutpāda).”