Is the glass completely empty?

I like to think that I have some sort of worldly purpose. I get up every morning, go to class, complete chores, and accomplish tasks to help advance my current stage of life. I’m not yet sure about my ultimate reason for being, but I have the hope that I will find it.
This fact might be why I was slightly taken aback by the section in last nights reading on emptiness and intrinsic existence—the incompatible rivals. Oxford English Dictionary defines emptiness as “the condition of being void of contents, of not being filled, furnished, or inhabited”. This definition, particularly the use of the word “condition”, matches how I had previously viewed emptiness. It was always a way of describing a lack of something, based off of my, perhaps incorrect, idea that something real was missing. The reading shifted my perception by discussing how emptiness was not a thing but everything: “Emptiness is the ultimate truth in this tradition in the sense that it is what is ultimately true about the object being analysed, whatever that object may be. Emptiness is hence a property, a property possessed by everything” (70 Williams). Here emptiness as “a property” rather than a “state” dramatically differs. It does not actually exist. The fact that emptiness can be an “ultimate truth” is chilling, using the way that I usually view the word.
        On the other hand, one could argue that if everything has emptiness that everything has something. This argument however prolongs the grasping onto some entity, which an understanding of emptiness as everything is supposed to halt.