Buddhist Dialectics, Logic and Emptiness

Enlightenment appears to be the realisation of the exact mid-point between these four positions of logic, but is not limited to any of the propositions. Things are ‘empty’ because they are not ‘full’, but it can equally be said that things are ‘full’ because they are not ‘empty’ – but these statements are relative positions for the interpretation of ‘truth’.

Working With The Mind.

‘Even this material plane with its apparent solidity and predictable behaviour is a manifestation of the mind itself. It is not an illusion, nor is it real. Language and concept break down when the mind reaches beyond its innate conditioning. What is seen (or perceived) is reported through the limitation of human language, which is itself the product of living within a material world. It is not designed to formulate concepts that lay beyond its normal cognitive reach. This explains why advanced science, insightful philosophy and transcendental religion appear to be expressing truth in a nonsense language that appears incomplete and often irrational. To explain that which lies just beyond the senses stretches conventional language to its limit. Logic dictates that such descriptions can not be soundly provided and that to stay true to the originating perception, the descriptions provided must be open ended – as if the open end in the logic is in fact a map pointing the way toward the truth. The material plane assumes a completeness and totality for itself that is blatantly not true. The logic based upon the observation and measurement of matter, likewise also assumes a completeness that is incorrect from the position of the multiverse. Of course, closed systems of logic are complete within their respective operational boundaries, but this completeness is highly localised and not indicative in any way of a possession of higher knowledge or wisdom. The use of enclosed (local) logic systems to explain the entirety of what exists outside of itself – is itself an error in philosophical speculation. Rigid thought patterns are reflective of the rigid material forms that they measure. The multiverse is neither rigid nor flexible and it can not be assessed or limited to a set of binary opposites, or conceptual dichotomies.’