user8157: I read on the internet the following doctrinal statement regarding Buddhist Philosophy:

Furthermore, they believe that the dhammas are "not empty" because they are merely empty of "yourself."

If the above is true, is there a "self" beyond "your self", such as "universal self", similar to Brahma or Atman?

user11241: I said that. This thread is an attempt to engage me personally.
IMO, the text at the end of your question about Brahman is a strange projection and is a critical misunderstanding of what it means to be "empty of attā." The original context was asking users to compare Madhyamaka with non-Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka teaches that all dharmas are empty both of "yourself" (pudgalanairātma) and "themselves" (dharmanairātma). Theravāda traditionally only teaches emptiness of a self or anything to a self belonging. Some modern Theravāda teachers are highly influenced by Madhyamaka and hold the opposite stance.

8157: <p>I read on the internet the following doctrinal statement regarding Buddhist Philosophy:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Furthermore, they believe that the dhammas are &quot;not empty&quot; because they are merely empty of &quot;yourself.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If the above is true, is there a &quot;self&quot; beyond &quot;your self&quot;, such as &quot;universal self&quot;, similar to Brahma or Atman?</p>
 11241: <p>I said that. This thread is an attempt to engage me personally.</p>
<p>IMO, the text at the end of your question about Brahman is a strange projection and is a critical misunderstanding of what it means to be &quot;empty of attā.&quot; The original context was asking users to compare Madhyamaka with non-Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka teaches that all dharmas are empty both of &quot;yourself&quot; (pudgalanairātma) and &quot;themselves&quot; (dharmanairātma). Theravāda traditionally only teaches emptiness of a self or anything to a self belonging. Some modern Theravāda teachers are highly influenced by Madhyamaka and hold the opposite stance.</p>
