🚀 go-pugleaf

A radical critique of language which essentially denys its ability to
characterize reality is one of the foundations of Buddhist thought
(or more accurately, of Mahayanic Buddhist thought).  Mapped onto
ordinary bimodal logic, this is something like asserting that all
statements are false, and there is even a system of "systematic
denial" invented by a major figure in the formation of Mahayanic
"theory".  Of course, this quickly becomes self-referential
(the statement that all statements are false is itself false) and
thus paradoxical from a two-valued point of view.  However, it is
seen as an advantage (a feature not a bug) in the Buddhist context.

Taoism contains a similar anti-linguistic theme (independently derived?)
expressed by aphorisms such as "Those who speak do not understand; those
who understand do not speak" (a suitable slogan for the net?) and
"The Tao which can spoken is not the true Tao."

It is, thus, unsurprising that the branch of Mahayanic Buddhism
(Ch'an or zen) formed under the influence of Chinese Taoism rejects
language most forcefully and defines itself as a means of transmission
of the truth "by direct pointing of the mind" without reliance on any
words or scriptures.

Systems of Buddhist logic which are sometimes described as multi-valued
are more understandable in this framework.  In some sense, the various
possible values which can be assigned to a statement are intended to
indicated how much or in what general way a statement errs (or, in more
Buddhist language, the degree and nature of the delusion it expresses).

If this clears anything up, I'll be surprised.


--
Ed Turner			"There ain't no answer.
elt@astro.princeton.edu		 There ain't going to be any answer.
				 There never has been an answer.
				 That's the answer."
                                             - Gertrude Stein