Source: p 63, Introducing Philosophy for Canadians: A Text with Integrated Readings (2011 1 ed) by Solomon, McDermid
How can 'Emptiness', or nothing, be 'Fullness' or 'Oneness'?
I ask not for an exhaustive answer, but a helpful synopsis, because I would need (but lack the time to) study ancient Indian Vedic literature to comprehend this paradoxical equalisation (of emptiness, to fullness or oneness). The following explanation did not demystify the paradox for me:
[p 61:] The 'seeking' expressed in the early Upanishads centres on 'Brahman', considered the ultimate secret both of ourselves and of the universe. The Upanishadic notion of Brahman is a seeking of a 'Unity' underlying all individual selves and things, So too, the 'Emptiness' and absolutist notions of much of Buddhist thought are concerned with 'the One', this underlying unity. Buddhisms view of the supremely real as 'Emptiness' or 'Openness' developed out of similar notions suggested in the early Upanishads. In these texts, the 'Absolute' is considered to have a peculiar 'logic', or 'nature', unlike that of everyday, finite, physical things. It is important not to think of the 'Emptiness' suggested in the following passages as merely nothing. the absence of all things. Paradoxically, it is rather a 'fullness', but unlike anything in our ordinary experience.