The tradition contains two apparently opposed vocabularies for the ultimate. One speaks of purna, fullness, plenitude, that from which everything proceeds without diminution. The other speaks of shunya, emptiness, void, that which has no content whatsoever. Read as descriptions of a thing these are contradictory. Read as instructions about how to approach it, they are the same instruction given to two different kinds of error.
Consider what each is protecting against. Anyone told the absolute is full will begin imagining a vast reservoir of something, an infinite stuff, and will have replaced the absolute with a very large object. Emptiness is the corrective: nothing you can picture is it. Anyone told it is empty will begin imagining a blank absence, a nothing, and will have replaced it with a different object, the object of a negation. Fullness is the corrective for that. Each term is the antidote to the other’s characteristic misreading.
This is why the same practitioner can use both without inconsistency, and why the traditions that emphasise one tend to be arguing with a context rather than with each other. What neither vocabulary permits is the assumption that the referent is a thing with a quantity of content, whether maximal or minimal. That assumption is the target in both cases, and the method for dismantling it is the one described under neti neti, which arrives at a remainder that can be called either.
Full and empty are not rival answers. They are two warnings about the same mistake. To see the method that removes it, explore more of The Living Sanatan Timeline.
Part 13 of 100 — Series I: From the Beginning
Series I: From the BeginningThe Five KoshasIndexFAQThe Timeline