[Buddha-l] Pali Canon: Tetralemma

[jkirk]

Hi David,
First: I avoid the term "absolute" anything (except when applied to the
toxic idiocy of politics, anywhere). Otherwise, not being a logician and not
desiring to become one either, for me there is conventional truth and then
there is reality truth. Reality truth is difficult to ascertain, as we have
found out by trying to be Buddhist. The tetralemma is in the domain of
logic. Logical propositions, IMO, belong to the domain of conventionality.
They are games. However, I don't hassle trying to deal with this in the Pali
canon, or in any other canon.  
If this response comes across as gross ignorance, so be it--however, some
"redemption" may be in sight as I shall soon be able to read a recent book
on the two truths in Madhyamaka that, presumably, is not embedded in a
framework of unintelligible jargon. 

That's all I have to say a this time. 
Cheers, Joanna
===========================

-----Original Message-----
From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com
[mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of David Andrews
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 10:50 AM
To: Buddhist discussion forum
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Pali Canon: Tetralemma

Hello Joanna,

I assume you mean the conventional and absolute truths of Madyamika. I would
be interested to hear how you apply them to the standard instances of the
form:

    X does not apply
    (not X) does not apply
    (X and not X) does not apply
    (Neither X nor not X) does not apply

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1270 - Release Date: 2/10/2008
12:21 PM