user8157: I read the following on the internet:

According to Wikipedia by the way, Nagarjuna wrote, in the
  Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, "[A]ll experienced phenomena are empty (sunya).
  This did not mean that they are not experienced and, therefore,
  non-existent; only that they are devoid of a permanent and eternal
  substance (svabhava) because, like a dream, they are mere projections
  of human consciousness. Since these imaginary fictions are
  experienced, they are not mere names (prajnapti).

Is Nibbana devoid of a permanent and eternal substance? 
Also, is Nibbana a mere projection of human consciousness?
Also, are all things "mere names"? 

user43: I know based on your tags that your point is "those crazy Mahayanists love to speculate and philosophize, their minds consumed by papanca". And yet, the release from papanca through a kind of philosophical catharsis is exactly what the authors aimed at (as we know from numerous commentaries and sub-commentaries).
So you are asking questions which have been endlessly debated, nitpicked, and split-haired all over commentarial literature for centuries. Don't expect a simple answer.
One way to look at it: if things (dharmas) are called "empty" because they are conditional, constructed (samskara), and dependently originated - is Nirvana, too, dependently originated OR is Nirvana the Dependent Origination itself?
If it's the second, then is Dependent Origination itself dependently originated or is it unconditional, unborn, and undying?
Another way to look at it, is: if all experiences (vijnapti) are relative to the experiencer and the experiencer's model of perception/interpretation, isn't experience of Nirvana also such? Is Nirvana experienced (vijnana) by an experiencer according to his models and interpretations or is it cessation of all models and interpretations that we call Nirvana? If so, can it be called "an experience"? Can we call Nirvana "an experienced phenomena"? If no, then "all experienced phenomena are empty" may not apply to Nirvana. If all experience ceases in Nirvana, can we really say "Nirvana can be seen by the wise" other than as a metaphor for realizing the limit of models and interpretations?
Yet another way to look at it. If Nirvana is metaphor for cessation of craving, is this cessation conditional on being attained or is it unborn and undying? In other words, does peace exist "primordially" even when we are at war, or is it a "projection of mind" at that moment?
Can these questions be answered conclusively, or is any answer necessarily dependent on our definitions and interpretations? Where does this leave us? ;)

user471: From this page, according to Nagarjuna's MMK, XXIV, 18 - 19:


Whatever is relativity, we proclaim that emptiness. It is dependent designation. It is also the central way.
Nothing whatsoever is found which is not relativistically originated. Therefore, nothing whatsoever is found which is not empty.


A fish spends all its time in water, but may not understand what water means, unless it leaves it momentarily.
Similarly, from my understanding of Nagarjuna, if you have no samsara, then no one would understand what Nirvana means. Nirvana is identified only to contrast it with samsara. Hence, Nirvana is empty of an intrinsic essence, because its definition is relativistic i.e. relative to samsara.
Also, from this page:

Nevertheless to assert that all things are empty of any intrinsic
  reality, for Nāgārjuna, is not to undermine the existential status of
  things as simply nothing. On the contrary, Nāgārjuna argues, to assert
  that the things are empty of any intrinsic reality is to explain the
  way things really are as causally conditioned phenomena
  (pratītyasamputpaṅhā).

This means Nagarjuna does not say that Nirvana does not exist or is nothing. Rather he says that it depends on something else. Nirvana does not substantially depend on samsara i.e. it is not conditioned or compounded by anything. However, it depends on samsara for its relativistic definition i.e. Nirvana depends on samsara semantically, rather than substantially.
Another analogy is this - if a tree falls in a forest, but there is no one there to listen to it, does it still make a sound? The sound of a tree falling is only defined relative to a listener. If there is no listener, then it does not make sense to identify sound as such. But it does not mean that it doesn't exist. Similarly, in the case of Nirvana, it is defined relative to samsara.
Nagarjuna is really discussing the mental concept of Nirvana, rather than Nirvana itself.

8157: <p>I read the following on the internet:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>According to Wikipedia by the way, Nagarjuna wrote, in the
  Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, "[A]ll experienced phenomena are empty (sunya).
  This did not mean that they are not experienced and, therefore,
  non-existent; only that they are devoid of a permanent and eternal
  substance (svabhava) because, like a dream, they are mere projections
  of human consciousness. Since these imaginary fictions are
  experienced, they are not mere names (prajnapti).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Is Nibbana devoid of a permanent and eternal substance? </p>

<p>Also, is Nibbana a mere projection of human consciousness?</p>

<p>Also, are all things "mere names"? </p>
 43: <p>I know based on your tags that your point is "those crazy Mahayanists love to speculate and philosophize, their minds consumed by papanca". And yet, the release from papanca through a kind of philosophical catharsis is exactly what the authors aimed at (as we know from numerous commentaries and sub-commentaries).</p>

<p>So you are asking questions which have been endlessly debated, nitpicked, and split-haired all over commentarial literature for centuries. Don't expect a simple answer.</p>

<p>One way to look at it: if things (dharmas) are called "empty" because they are conditional, constructed (samskara), and dependently originated - is Nirvana, too, dependently originated OR is Nirvana the Dependent Origination itself?</p>

<p>If it's the second, then is Dependent Origination itself dependently originated or is it unconditional, unborn, and undying?</p>

<p>Another way to look at it, is: if all experiences (vijnapti) are relative to the experiencer and the experiencer's model of perception/interpretation, isn't experience of Nirvana also such? Is Nirvana experienced (vijnana) by an experiencer according to his models and interpretations or is it cessation of all models and interpretations that we call Nirvana? If so, can it be called "an experience"? Can we call Nirvana "an <em>experienced</em> phenomena"? If no, then "all experienced phenomena are empty" may not apply to Nirvana. If all experience ceases in Nirvana, can we really say "Nirvana can be seen by the wise" other than as a metaphor for realizing the limit of models and interpretations?</p>

<p>Yet another way to look at it. If Nirvana is metaphor for cessation of craving, is this cessation conditional on being attained or is it unborn and undying? In other words, does peace exist "primordially" even when we are at war, or is it a "projection of mind" at that moment?</p>

<p>Can these questions be answered conclusively, or is any answer necessarily dependent on our definitions and interpretations? Where does this leave us? ;)</p>
 471: <p>From <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/religion/nonduality/classnotes/oct08/nagarjuna_quotes.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this page</a>, according to Nagarjuna's MMK, XXIV, 18 - 19:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="18">
  <li>Whatever is relativity, we proclaim that emptiness. It is dependent designation. It is also the central way.</li>
  <li>Nothing whatsoever is found which is not relativistically originated. Therefore, nothing whatsoever is found which is not empty.</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>A fish spends all its time in water, but may not understand what water means, unless it leaves it momentarily.</p>

<p>Similarly, from my understanding of Nagarjuna, if you have no samsara, then no one would understand what Nirvana means. Nirvana is identified only to contrast it with samsara. Hence, Nirvana is empty of an intrinsic essence, because its definition is relativistic i.e. relative to samsara.</p>

<p>Also, from <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-india/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this page</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Nevertheless to assert that all things are empty of any intrinsic
  reality, for Nāgārjuna, is not to undermine the existential status of
  things as simply nothing. On the contrary, Nāgārjuna argues, to assert
  that the things are empty of any intrinsic reality is to explain the
  way things really are as causally conditioned phenomena
  (<em>pratītyasamputpaṅhā</em>).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This means Nagarjuna does not say that Nirvana does not exist or is nothing. Rather he says that it depends on something else. Nirvana does not substantially depend on samsara i.e. it is not conditioned or compounded by anything. However, it depends on samsara for its relativistic definition i.e. Nirvana depends on samsara semantically, rather than substantially.</p>

<p>Another analogy is this - if a tree falls in a forest, but there is no one there to listen to it, does it still make a sound? The sound of a tree falling is only defined relative to a listener. If there is no listener, then it does not make sense to identify sound as such. But it does not mean that it doesn't exist. Similarly, in the case of Nirvana, it is defined relative to samsara.</p>

<p>Nagarjuna is really discussing the mental concept of Nirvana, rather than Nirvana itself.</p>
