[vipBrooriErok]

Here, it can also be mentioned that the Theravada tradition maintained that between pleasure and pain there is the third position of Indifferent feeling in the middle. Please show where the Buddha teaches "neither-pleasurable-nor-displeasurable" as a "middle" between the two. The middle between the two would be "both pleasurable and displeasurable".


To the Buddhist logician, the last moment of the series of darkness is the cause (in the sense of dependent origination) of the first moment of light. If this is "Buddhist logic", then please show in the Nikayas where the Buddha taught this. And please show where the Buddha taught that paticcasamuppada had anything to do with physical events of light and darkness.

The cause of what is perceived as the "first moment of light" is the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun, or the heating or charging of a substance by some physical means. Darkness does not cause light. Darkness is simply the either partial or complete absence of light. Paticcasamuppada is a teaching model which describes mental processes, that has nothing whatsoever to do with light or darkness.


Real causation belongs to a single moment only. On the other hand, efficient opposition is between one set of moments (duration of time) and another set which is constructed by our intellect. It is not ultimate reality. It is constructed phenomena. It is not any sort of reality at all. It is papanka, monkey-chatter, word salad that the Buddha did not teach.


The Laws of Contradiction is one of the main tools... ....of sophistry...


....used by the Buddhist logicians.... ....to use the term extremely loosely....

in establishing their theory of Instantaneous Being, for Instantaneousness is the very essence of every real thing. ....a theory the Buddha did not teach, and an irrelevant speculative wilderness of views the Buddha did not teach.

The logical law of contradiction does not apply to the ‘Things-in Themselves’, as logic is thought and thought is imagination and not ultimate reality. Ultimate reality in Buddhist philosophy is the reality of a point instant. It is the efficiency of a point instant. There is no relation of opposition between entities. This is simply word salad. The Buddha did not teach "Ultimate Reality", nor are any such nonsensical speculative views useful or relevant at all to his liberative teachings. This sort of sophistic wheel-spinning is just irrelevant papanca, useless mental masturbation that buries the Buddha's teachings under a pile of superstition and speculation in the tibetan religions. The great drum is long gone, and only a mass of pegs remains.