(© HKU Press, 1965)
What can be the utility of exposing this or that object, or all objects, as 'empty' or 'void', en détail ou en bloc? It is not the objects as such that are this or that, 'real' or 'empty', for they are not anything we can call them, except the mind which is perceiving them, and that 'mind', being only a name, is just the perceiving itself.
Objects are neither k'ung (empty) nor not-k'ung: they are just their subject, their source.
Judging objects is as futile as all 'problems' are, for only the mind itself is concerned. All judgements and 'problems' vanish when split-mind is made whole. Judgements and 'problems' are like cutting off the heads of a Hydra, which grow again; let us turn to the source and tackle the Hydra! The revelation of Hui Neng in the monks' dispute as to whether the flag or the wind was moving, settles that perfectly for all time.
Object-subject (absence of both as separate concepts, before they are split) are not then dual; i.e., subject becomes object, and object becomes subject, or being becomes 'empty', and 'emptiness' becomes being, duality is non-dual and non-duality is dual. In short, if you return objects to their source, that source is the responsible cause of their appearance, but their appearance is nevertheless inseparable from its source, so that trying to affect (act upon) objects as such is as absurd as trying to cure diseases via their symptoms, to affect substance via its shadow, or objects themselves via their reflections.
If your phenomenal objects are returned to whole-mind, instead of being judged by split-mind, there will be nothing to judge - for they too are whatever that whole-mind itself is.