user-1: The term "non-emptiness" appears in the literature. For example from Chi-tsang (madhyamaka):

When the sutras speak of "the emptiness of visible form" this refers to its emptiness and lack of a true substantive nature; therefore it is called empty. It does not mean that conventional visible reality is empty (nothingness?). Since the substantive nature is an empty nothingness, therefore it is called empty. This is the real truth. The non-emptiness of conventional reality is called the worldly truth.

I just mean the opposite of emptiness.
Is non-emptiness empty, and in what way?

user151: If non-emptiness means what it sounds like then it is indeed empty. All is empty within the reality of our individual experience. Everything that can be experienced is empty of self, complexity, and substance.

user6994: From a Madhyamika viewpoint, while emptiness [of true existence] is an existent, non-emptiness [of true existence] is a non-existent.

There is no fault in predicating a negation to a non-existent subject. For instance, you can say "Taking the subject 'a unicorn', it follows it is not white." Or "the horns of a rabbit lack this or that."
There is a fault in predicating a positive phenomena to a non-existent subject. This is because a valid knower can not realize a non-existent reason. For instance, you can not say "unicorns are white; rabbit's horns are made of ivory; non-emptiness is realized by way of this or that".

All in all, you can assert that non-emptiness is empty, because it amounts to associate a non-existent (i.e. non-emptiness) with a negative predicate (the lack of something).

-1: <p>The term "non-emptiness" appears in the literature. For example from Chi-tsang (madhyamaka):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>When the sutras speak of "the emptiness of visible form" this refers to its emptiness and lack of a true substantive nature; therefore it is called empty. It does not mean that conventional visible reality is empty (nothingness?). Since the substantive nature is an empty nothingness, therefore it is called empty. This is the real truth. The non-emptiness of conventional reality is called the worldly truth.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I just mean the opposite of emptiness.</p>

<p>Is non-emptiness empty, and in what way?</p>
 151: <p>If non-emptiness means what it sounds like then it is indeed empty. All is empty within the reality of our individual experience. Everything that can be experienced is empty of self, complexity, and substance.</p>
 6994: <p>From a Madhyamika viewpoint, while emptiness [of true existence] is an existent, non-emptiness [of true existence] is a non-existent.</p>

<ol>
<li>There is no fault in predicating a negation to a non-existent subject. For instance, you can say "Taking the subject 'a unicorn', it follows it is not white." Or "the horns of a rabbit lack this or that."</li>
<li>There is a fault in predicating a positive phenomena to a non-existent subject. This is because a valid knower can not realize a non-existent reason. For instance, you can not say "unicorns are white; rabbit's horns are made of ivory; non-emptiness is realized by way of this or that".</li>
</ol>

<p>All in all, you can assert that non-emptiness is empty, because it amounts to associate a non-existent (i.e. non-emptiness) with a negative predicate (the lack of something).</p>
