funny thing popped up in last night's meditation/contemplation. For there to be emptiness, there must a thing that is empty. Without a thing, the emptiness applies to nothing.
Put another way, there must be something behind the characteristics we impute on things. It may be ever changing, and impermanent, and unseen by our minds and senses, but
If it is not there, what has the character "emptiness"?
Does this make any sense to anyone?
Not necessarily. The term emptiness is used in one of two ways:
1. X is Y-empty ==> here, there is a thing X which is does not contain Y.
2. X-empty ==> here, it refers to the absence of X.
Even in case #1, the X is often only implicit. Hence, both are sometimes written as just "X-empty". But, careful, the first states "X-empty" but refers to the absence of Y and presence of X, whereas the second also states "X-empty" but refers to the absence of X. This presence / absence of X format, with identical phrasing "X-empty" has made for some major misunderstandings over the centuries.
Don't be fooled by reading in meanings of the English word "Empty" to understanding the term "sunya(ta)". Although "empty/ emptiness" may be the closest English word, it is not exactly the same. Thus, it's grammatical and doctrinal usage is not the same either. Sometimes, in the case of #2, the word "absent" (sunya) or "absence" (sunyata) is more appropriate.