"emptiness" and "awareness"

Are these equivalent terms?

Technically, I'd say no.

I think it's safe to say that Emptiness and Cognizance are distinguishable fundamental characteristics of the Ultimate reality. But, since Ultimate reality is considered non-dual, Emptiness and Cognizance cannot be fundamentally separate either.

Not two. Not one. You don't find one without the other, but that doesn't mean they're equivalent.

As always, I could be wrong.

~Jackson

I was going to type out my own response but found something even better Dzogchen master Dilgo Khyentse Rimpoche (link: keithdowman.net/dzogchen/khyentse_meditation.htm )

Emptiness, the ultimate nature of Dharmakaya, the Absolute Body, is not a simple nothingness. It possesses intrinsically the faculty of knowing all phenomena. This faculty is the luminous or cognitive aspect of the Dharmakaya, whose expression is spontaneous. The Dharmakaya is not the product of causes and conditions; it is the original nature of mind.

These two aspects, emptiness and Awareness, cannot be separated. They are essentially one, like the surface of the mirror and the image which is reflected in it.

(my own two cents: Emptiness is the nature of Awareness, this is done skillfully so that there is no grasping or identifying with awareness. If one does this, then one is reifying awareness, giving it self-nature, and grasping. To have non-dual awareness that is not empty, i.e. is Real, and has Self, is to misunderstand why the Buddha strayed away from his Hindu Gurus and taught a path of negation; awareness without emptiness is like the Brahman of the Upanishads)

Interesting thoughts, michaelz!

At first I thought Jackson was punting - after a bit I decided maybe not. The relationship between these two terms seems relevant to "The Controversy."

Emptiness is not Awareness
Awareness is not without Emptiness.

"Emptiness is not Awareness
Awareness is not without Emptiness."

Yeah, that's kind of what I was going for. Thanks for putting it so succinctly.

~Jackson