Can Emptiness Be an Affirming Negative?

The essential meaning of emptiness is that no phenomenon exists as an independent entity. One aspect of this view is that minds and their objects are interdependent. This means that the existence of any “object” is directly related to the state of the mind observing it, and vice-versa. For example, one person may see a woman and develop love whereas another person will see the same woman and develop hatred. The reason that the same woman can be perceived in different ways (by different minds) is that the she lacks inherent existence. If she were inherently existent, the woman would always be perceived in the same way, by every mind.

The Prasangika school is very skillful at showing how most phenomena lack inherent existence but it sometimes fails to apply the same understanding to emptiness itself. Emptiness is a phenomenon that also lacks inherent existence. The essential meaning of this is that emptiness will appear differently from different perspectives. Since emptiness lacks inherent existence, its appearance is directly related to the state of the mind observing it. Thus, a different state of mind will perceive emptiness differently. This insight alters the normal, literal interpretation of Prasangika tenets.

For example, emptiness is always classified as a non-affirming negative by the Prasangika school and any suggestion that it could be an affirming negative is vigorously denied. However, if emptiness is indeed empty, then its classification as a non-affirming negative must reflect the view of a particular mind and so a different state of mind could justifiably classify emptiness differently; from a different perspective emptiness might possibly appear as an affirming negative. In order to understand how emptiness could appear as an affirming negative we need to understand the distinction between affirming and non-affirming negatives and the state of the mind that classifies phenomena as one or the other.

First of all, we need to understand the Prasangika interpretation of negatives. In this school, negative phenomena are those that are realized through negating something else. For example, if we think of money we realize a positive phenomenon. By negating money we realize a negative phenomenon – "non-money" or "lack of money". This is relatively straightforward but the essential point is that a negative phenomenon is a reflection of how a mind realizes its object. There are no objective negative phenomena, only phenomena that are realized by means of a negation.

Having distinguished between positive and negative phenomena, the Prasangika then divides negative phenomena into affirming negatives and non-affirming negatives. Briefly, affirming negatives are negative phenomena that, when realized, induce a subsequent realization of another (positive) phenomenon whereas non-affirming negatives do not induce any other realization. Put simply, non-affirming negatives are the mere realization of a negation without any implications. A realization of a non-affirming negative is simply the realization of that thing and nothing else. On the other hand, affirming negatives indicate that the negation carries an implication which will be realized as a direct result of the negation. Basically, an affirming negative implies something else whereas a non-affirming negative does not.

(It should be mentioned that it is logically consistent to say that positive phenomena could also be classified as affirming and non-affirming – and that it might be more convenient to speak of affirming and non-affirming phenomena, rather than just negatives – although the Prasangika generally avoids this aspect of the discussion.)

A non-affirming negative is the realization of one thing – that particular negation. We could call it a singular realization because nothing else is realized; the mind simply realizes an absence or a lack without drawing any further conclusions from it. In general, most realizations are non-affirming. We simply realize the object of mind without consequentially realizing anything else. For example, if we see an empty table and realize that there is no food on the table we have realized a negative (lack of food) which is non-affirming. Similarly, the realizations of no water, no clouds, lack of money, or lack of energy are all non-affirming, in general. However, in specific situations these non-affirming negatives can transform into affirming negatives. For example, the realization that there is no food on the table could induce the realization that the food is in the refrigerator; the realization that there is no water in my glass could induce the realization that dinner has not yet been served; and the realization of lack of money could induce the realization that i have been stolen from. By contemplating these examples it is possible to understand how all negatives can be either non-affirming or affirming depending on the context in which they are realized.

This is not the normal Prasangika understanding of negatives. Usually, in the Prasangika school, a negative phenomenon is thought to be either (always) affirming or (always) non-affirming. So, an affirming negative is always affirming and a non-affirming negative is always non-affirming, regardless of its "context". A non-affirming negative cannot "transform into" an affirming negative. However, with a closer look at the relationship between a negative phenomenon and its context we will see how it can change from non-affirming to affirming.

In order to understand how a negative which is usually non-affirming can "transform" into an affirming negative, we need to examine the context of affirming negatives. First of all, affirming negatives are necessarily the negation of something. Upon closer examination it is clear that the object of negation is a particular type of phenomena; it is always one of only two possibilities. This is precisely what makes the negation affirm something else. One possibility is negated and thus the other possibility is affirmed. If there are three or more possibilities and one is negated, there would still be two or more options available and so there could not be a definite affirmation. If i say that the light switch is not on, you know that it is off. The switch's being "not on" is an affirming negative because it induces the realization that the switch is off. It induces this realization because there are only two possibilities - on and off – and one of them is negated. However, if i say that the switch for a fan (which could be on low, medium, or high) is not on low, although this is a negation it is not an affirming negative because it does not induce a subsequent realization. The reason it does not induce a subsequent realization is that the negation leaves open the possibility of two other options (medium and high) and so a definite affirmation is not possible. In short, affirming negatives only exist when the object of negation is one of only two possibilities.

This is supported by a glance at the examples that the Prasangika uses for explaining affirming negatives. The most familiar example (used by Geshe-la) may be "my cousin's lack of being female" (in Heart of Wisdom) which is a negation that affirms the realization that my cousin is male. Obviously, someone's cousin must be either male or female and so the negation of one affirms the realization of the other. The Prasangika also uses examples like the opposite of non-pot and a fat man's not eating during the day. These examples all conform to the stipulation that an affirming negative must negate one of only two possible choices.

What makes this study of negatives interesting and relative to my main point is that they are a direct reflection of the mind that realizes them. This is most clearly seen in the case of affirming negatives. An affirming negative can only exist in a situation where there are only two possibilities. But different minds will be aware of different possibilities so there are no absolute affirming negatives which hold for all minds. Every affirming negative is affirming only for a particular mind or type of mind. For example, the negative "my cousin is not female" is an affirming negative only for a mind that knows that a human must be either male or female. This might seem unimportant since everyone who reads Heart of Wisdom will certainly know that someone's cousin must be male or female, but the point is that this "information" must be present in the mind in order for the negation to affirm a subsequent realization. If this information is not present in the mind that realizes "cousin's not being female", the realization that "cousin is male" will not occur. (One might think that it is impossible to conceive of a mind that understands "cousin's not being female" but not be able to draw the inference that "cousin is male" but i think the minds of some children qualify for this category. There are stages of a child's developing mind when they understand negations (e.g. not boy, not mother, not food) but do not yet understand the implications of those negations.) This "information" which limits the realm of possibilities to only two choices is the mental context in which the negative is realized. If the mind that realizes the negation hasn't framed it in the context of these two choices it will not subsequently realize another phenomenon and so the realization would be considered non-affirming rather than affirming. Thus, the distinction between affirming and non-affirming negatives depends on the information or knowledge possessed by the realizing mind, not on the particular phenomenon that is realized.

Perhaps this can be clarified with an example. Imagine that John and Mary work together and they decide to ask their boss, Michelle, for a raise. So, they both go looking for Michelle. On their way to Michelle’s office they bump into two co-workers, Chris and Sarah. John asks Chris if he knows where Michelle is while Mary asks Sarah the same question. Chris tells John that Michelle is either in her office or having lunch with clients while Sarah simply tells Mary that she doesn’t know where Michelle is. John and Mary then continue on their way to Michelle’s office. They look inside and discover that Michelle is not in her office. Both John and Mary realize a negative phenomenon: “lack of Michelle” in her office. However, this negation is an affirming negative for John but a non-affirming negative for Mary because their minds contain different knowledge which provides a different context for the realization. John knows (from Chris) that Michelle must be in one of two places – her office or out to lunch – and by negating one he automatically realizes the other. For him, Michelle’s absence in her office is an affirming negative because it induces the realization that she is out to lunch. Mary’s mind, however, does not contain the same information and so finding a lack of Michelle in her office does not induce any other realization; her mind simply realizes that Michelle is not there. Thus, the same negative phenomenon can be either affirming or non-affirming.

So, it should be clear that negative phenomena (or all phenomena) can only be classified as affirming or non-affirming in dependence upon the mind that realizes the negation. With this understanding we can now look at how this relates to emptiness. The Prasangika always classifies emptiness as a non-affirming negative. In general, we can say that this is a valid description of the mind that realizes emptiness. When a mind realizes emptiness, it will simply realize that negative phenomenon without subsequently realizing anything else. But could there be special cases in which the mind that realizes emptiness subsequently realizes another phenomenon? Could there be a mind that contains specific knowledge that would transform emptiness into an affirming negative?

We know that, hypothetically, if emptiness were to be an affirming negative it would have to be realized in a specific mental context. In other words, the object of negation of emptiness (inherent existence) would have to be understood as one of only two possibilities. If a mind possessed this form of knowledge, the realization of emptiness would be framed in such a way as to induce a subsequent realization and emptiness would have to be classified as an affirming negative. Are there any instances in the Prasangika philosophy in which inherent existence is presented as one of only two possibilities??

In Heart of Wisdom Geshe-la says “…being dependent-related is the direct opposite of being inherently existent.” Although this statement doesn't explicitly say that dependent-relationship and inherent existence are the only two possible states of existence, that is the clear implication. Indeed, does the Prasangika mention any other possible state? If we accept that the Prasangika posits dependent-relationship and inherent existence as the only two possible states of existence, then the mind that contains this knowledge and negates inherent existence will necessarily realize dependent-relationship. For that mind, emptiness is an affirming negative which induces the realization of dependent-relationship.

A more subtle example of Prasangika tenets that cast emptiness as an affirming negative is the view of the two truths as the same nature. Because they are the same nature, the two truths are inseparable (for a non-conceptual direct perceiver). This means that the mind that realizes emptiness directly does not perceive the two truths as separate. Therefore, this non-conceptual direct realization of emptiness (i.e. ultimate truth) must simultaneously realize conventional truths and the union of the two truths. Thus, a direct realization of emptiness affirms a realization of conventional truths. For a mind that knows that the two truths are the same nature, a direct realization of emptiness is an affirming negative.

I believe there are other examples that can be found of depicting emptiness as an affirming negative simply by using Prasangika tenets but hopefully these two are enough to illustrate my point. My main point is that since all phenomena (including emptiness) depend on the mind, they can only be described and classified with respect to the mind that realizes them. Thus, emptiness can be classified as non-affirming in general but, in particular instances, when the mind realizing emptiness contains a specific type of knowledge, it must be classified as an affirming negative. If the Prasangika insists on always classifying emptiness as a non-affirming negative, despite the state of mind realizing it, it is implying that emptiness is not dependent on mind. This is tantamount to saying that emptiness has (some) inherent existence.

The Prasangika's presentation of emptiness as a non-affirming negative simply indicates that it is describing emptiness from the perspective of someone who does not yet have the knowledge that dependent-relationship and inherent existence are "direct opposites" and that the two truths are the same nature. This is important to keep in mind when studying emptiness because we can easily assume that the Prasangika philosophy always represents the perspective of Buddhas. Actually, there are several similar examples in the Prasangika system that indicate that the philosophical tenets often reflect the perspective of ordinary beings, or practitioners who have not realized emptiness directly, and not the perspective of Buddhas. This is not a criticism. There is great wisdom and benefit in presenting a philosophy in such a way that it appears to novices as understandable and attainable rather than presenting it as technically precise but yet incomprehensible (as the view of Buddhas may appear to ordinary beings). We should always bear in mind that every statement and tenet in the Prasangika system (and all philosophies) reflects the perspective of a particular mind and try to understand what that perspective is.

In conclusion, it should be clear that the Prasangika assertion that emptiness is a non-affirming negative should not be interpreted literally. This assertion is valid for particular minds – especially those with little familiarity with emptiness – but not for all minds. From the perspective of some minds, emptiness appears and functions as an affirming negative.