Emptiness is a trick word. It means empty of determinate semantic content. Anything that describes, limits. Anything that types, reduces. Any positive attribution deletes all others. The solution: use a designator like The Totality or The Ultimate Ground. Why the stress on emptiness?

My guess: Because the point is not to turn to the richest ordinary language concept, or to inflate it until it become infinitely rich, or to invent a new concept that does for ontic richness and priority what Anselm does for “God.” The point is to go even richer than that—by denying not this or that term content, but the institution of term use altogether. “Emptiness,” as Roger Corless used to say, “Was intended to be written under erasure”—i.e., as Emptiness. By using no words as pointers, you finally get outside of (necessarily) bounded (and interdependent) meaning—but there’s more. You also get outside of meaning as such. And you also get outside of the subject/object split. If you intend “The Totality” and mean the vast one under all levels of being, you have, in that very act of utterance, split the world in two. Because you now have The Totality out there, and “I” in here talking about it, even transcending it, insofar as meaning-making places the subject in a causal position over meaning (and being), via the Platonic-Thomist principle that the cause is greater than its effect. To avoid splitting, darüber muss man schweigen.