Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pbradley
Yeah, a good argument clearly leads to its conclusion. Unfortunately I'm too tired to consider logic any further so I guess that will have to do as a reply.
Well intuitively we see that a building doesn't move but it does in that it rest upon a planet that revolves around the Sun. Revealing non-dual truth is like a koan:
Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?" |
1) If you're untired in the future I'd like to revisit this. Others can join in if they want, but just try not to muddle my fragile illustration. Summary: Logic is a freeway, can the freeway ever end without breaking its structure? Could a paradox be an end point for the freeway? If not, then what comes together to make a conclusion? Anything? There has to be some change right? Does anyone know how to examine the process of stepping off the freeway / logic and into a conclusion?
2) a - good point. Something itches about it though, I'll have to think more.
b - Very interesting. I think that might be the starting point before the argument. Though I don't see how calling it a short staff opposes its reality. But that's probably ignorance here. Anyway, say that's right - that you can't call it a staff and you can't deny the fact - then there's still a third choice, do nothing but exist. So is that the point of synthesis?
Regardless, if one did neither deny or ignore but zenned it up with a few crates of aphid ridden buffalo medallions then doesn't the one immediately enter a new dualistic set?