Points of Controversy
19.2. Of Emptiness
Theravādin: Do you then imply that the “Signless,” that the “Desireless” is also so included? If not, “Emptiness” cannot be, for you cannot predicate of the last that which you deny of the former two.
Moreover, is the “emptiness” of the material aggregate included under the fourth aggregate? Or the “emptiness” of the second, third, and fifth aggregates thereunder? Or is the “emptiness ” of the fourth aggregate itself included under any of the other four? If the one inclusion is wrong, so are all the other inclusions.
“Empty is this, bhikkhus—the saṅkhāras—either of soul or of what belongs to soul”