Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Beaten By Avicenna.
Citta
Veteran
Avicenna said " He who denies the law of non- contradiction should be beaten until he admits that being beaten is not the same as is not being beaten "
Now much as I deplore the use of the imagery of violence..I reckon he was on to something.
I think its particularly relevant in discussions around a certain kind of understanding of non duality..
What do you say ?
1
Comments
All sorts of fun things you can do with the law of non-contradiction! Except the things that you can't do with it, of course.
Where it becomes relevant in Buddhist discussions is with those who take non duality to mean that actually neither they nor you exist..therefore the law of non contradiction is null and void for them...
Not common on New Buddhist, but very common on certain Buddhist websites.
non-duality means you cannot pin things down as I am sure Citta has heard of considering I believe he did studies with Trungpa Rinpoche.
Citta, for our purposes, it depends on the binding of words (and their source, concepts) to matter and activity. Recognizing the relationship between name and form is critical in the expansion away from limited thought processes which originate from shallow and crude understanding of matter, movement, time and other measurements.
I'm assuming that you're indicating some arguments or standpoints you've heard which are based on mahayana texts which contain purposefully contradictory statements. In these arguments they may assert an exemption from, or a refutation of, logic.
They may not realize that these finely crafted and fragile doctrines are in fact a language above language and the inherent limitations _of _language. This is particularly useful in preventing solidification of yet more stunted conceptual reference frameworks in the student's learning process. They are also useful is preventing dogmatism and misuse of the doctrine. And, most importantly, they indirectly illuminate higher principles that language can probably never be refined or extensive enough to express properly.
In the context of buddhism I disagree with your assessment that he was ' on to something'. In our context, his is an echo of a very common sentiment of frustration and anger towards that which one cannot, or refuses to, examine carefully enough to apprehend. I'm sure, however, that his saying was specifically in reference to some particular group or philosophy which only bears a superficial resemblance to prajna doctrines. Even in a case where someone is selectively applying due to limited understanding, which is I'm sure what you are referring to, it certainly doesn't do any good to proclaim THIS IS SO with a scimitar raised above your head.
Discussions of non-duality, contradictions, non-existence, are always fertile ground for consciousness expansion until someone starts freaking out and screaming..which someone almost always does unless one uses language that is intricate enough to bypass the interest of the argumentative.
Case in point, in prajnaparamita sutras the 'distressing' sections, where the substance of the are, ,..sunyata, intentional logic contradictions, etc are totally and intricately encased in language that has no other purpose but to say: this is important, this is more that what it appears in to be, this is rare, this will probably frighten you, this is not easily understood, this is epic in cosmic proportions, etc, etc....line after line after line, layer after layer of adjective in rhythm pointing to key segments that could be otherwise carelessly discarded.
Among other things it was because this is a way to preserve the subtle message in the face of the inevitable torrent of window shoppers and brash naysayers..people think that they are being vital realists when they tread upon such things they consider to be some foolish error, not stopping for a second to actually look at what they are passing over,
On an unrelated, irrelevant, irreverent and mostly humorous note, im sure our friend Ibn Sina would have a heck of a time reconciling this statement of his with certain quantum and relativistic observations of the last hundred years.