Affirming Negation or Non Implicative Negation

 John Tan wrote:

André A. Pais  Similar to no-self of ATR, if the pointing does not result in the direct recognition of suchness (pure appearances) free from apprehender and apprehended or recognition of appearances as one's radiance clarity, then it is not anatta proper.  Which is what imo Shentong Madhyamika is trying to emphasize with affirming-negation.

However to me, for a path that is based on reasoning and analysis, negation should be non-implicative because practitioners along the path are always dealing with a dualistic and inherent mind.  If there is no dualistic and inherent mind, then there is no need for any path as there is nothing to sever.  Hence, affirming-negation imo is less skillful as that would promote rather than sever the habitual tendency which is not the import of the analytical path.  

If one wants to talk about the self-arising wisdom, it should not be by way of reasoning and analysis, the padaegogy will have to be radically different.  It will probably have to be like dzogchen that takes the result as path.  Then emphasis should not be just non-referential ease and space-like emptiness but includes all the magic of clarity's radiance.