The emptiest form of human logic (Tetralemma)

[BipolarGrowth]

 

[softlyblossoming]

Thank you, great share 

I liked his perspective of the four alternatives (the tetralemma) as difinitve of Buddha's philosophy:

1. Is
2. Is not
3. Both is and is not
4. Neither is nor is not

Edited April 15, 2022 by softlyblossoming

[WokeBloke]

16 minutes ago, softlyblossoming said:

Thank you, great share 

I liked his perspective of the four alternatives (the tetralemma) as difinitve of Buddha's philosophy:

1. Is
2. Is not
3. Both is and is not
4. Neither is nor is not

3 and 4 are illogial and contradictory.

1 and 2 are the only possibilities for everything and everyone.

Edited April 15, 2022 by WokeBloke

[BipolarGrowth]

33 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

3 and 4 are illogial and contradictory.

1 and 2 are the only possibilities for everything and everyone.

Looks like you didn’t watch the video. 

[WokeBloke]

5 minutes ago, BipolarGrowth said:

Looks like you didn’t watch the video. 

lmao no but am I wrong or does the video agree?

[JuliusCaesar]

35 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

lmao no but am I wrong or does the video agree?

Yes

[BipolarGrowth]

8 hours ago, WokeBloke said:

lmao no but am I wrong or does the video agree?

The video gives some examples of cases where option 1 and 2 do not cover things fully. Nagarjuna’s point with many of these types of deconstructions of typical ways of viewing things was that there are things that cannot even be covered adequately using any of the four options of the tetralemma. This especially applies to more complex metaphysical “things”. 
 

For example, you could look at the question “does the present moment exist?” 
 

The most common response would be yes. But the thing that was called the present moment at the point/time of consideration has already changed entirely by the time the question can even be processed.
 

One could look at this change and say that anything pointed to as a present moment does not exist in that sense as it essentially disappears as soon as it arises and is replaced by a fresh, new field of sensations. 
 

This does not feel correct though for obvious reasons to say that there is no present moment as there certainly is the appearance of something existing, and the present moment is in many people’s minds one of the most constant and unquestionable things. 
 

This might lead someone to conclude that the present moment both exists and does not exist as there appears to be something yet what that something was is gone as immediately as it can be perceived. 
 

To consider that even saying that the present moment both exists and does not exist is not sufficient takes the realization that what is being pointed to is in a sense transcendent of that possibility. This would be examined at a very subtle level, and in most cases a “normal” state of consciousness would not allow someone to sense that this explanation is not sufficient. 
 

This could lead someone to think the present moment neither exists nor does not exist. It is too slippery of a “thing” to be explained by it both existing and not existing. In a similar fashion, even the neither existing nor not existing way of categorizing the present moment could be seen as too narrow in scope to properly explain what is being pointed at. 
 

In practice, what this way of thinking about metaphysical concepts ultimately leaves you at is the recognition that the human logical mind has no possibility of fully grasping what is being considered in typical ways of approaching understanding. It essentially turns the only way of “understanding” such topics as the “being” of the thing itself. It brings one into seeming immersion into the direct experience of the present moment or whatever else is considered, in the case of other potential examples, in a way that still feels to be recognizing something yet no language or thought process can properly encapsulate that something.