None of the four options of the tetralemma (is, is not, both is and is not, and neither is nor is not) are invalid because they are based on a false assumption -- the assumption of a "thing" that inherently exists. Since this assumption is false, all four options that are based on the assumption are invalid. This is why Tilt keeps pointing you back to dependent origination, which is the key to understanding this. Nothing "exists" independently. Something only appears to exist when certain conditions are present. If any of those necessary conditions cease, the apparent "thing" ceases as well.davidbrainerd wrote:There's that "just shut up" sutta on parinirvana I mentioned way back. Thanks for finding the reference.tiltbillings wrote:Interesting. That the Buddha said about himself:cappuccino wrote:It is the Everlasting
the Refuge, the Beyond.
~ S 43.1-44
Looks like you are stating that the Buddha somehow or other is, but he says that is inappropriate. Also, this goes directly to davidbrainerd's "true self" idea.
- Since a tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him – of the Uttermost Person, the Supernal Person, the Attainer of the Supernal – that after death the tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not SN III 118-9
To me this sounds like the Nicene Creed. Just where Constantine invented a creed to unify the chuch onto 1 position where there were 3 before, because he needed a unified church to convince Greeks to convert, Asoka apparently favored the "you are not allowed to take any position" method for presenting a unified face of Buddhism to try and convert the Hindus in his empire. It makes sense that a king could add such an outrageous sutta after Buddhism was well established and the monks would passively put up with it and largely ignore it (how else did the position that Buddha was anihilated become so common when this sutta clearly disallows it?). But if Buddha actually taught this way then I can't imagine him ever gaining even 1 follower. "There's this Nirvana our whole religion is about going to, but if you try and say anything about it you're a retard." "Oh wow, isn't he the best teacher ever? I totally want to follow him." The "just shut up" suttas are like blasphemy against Buddha.
For example, if someone asked you, "Do your friends know you're an axe-murderer? Yes, no, or some do and some don't?" If those were the only options, you couldn't answer (I'm assuming you're not actually an axe-murderer....If I'm wrong, then my apologies, sir, and please don't hurt me). That's because the question is based on wrong understanding, an incorrect assumption.
I write this not to convince you, as I think that's not possible at this time (though hopefully a seed might be planted), but for newer practitioners who might be reading and may be confused.