On Jul 2, 2009, at 9:40 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
Relativism sets out to reduce every element of absoluteness
to a relativity, while making a quite illogical exception
in favor of this reduction itself.
Do you even *understand* the issue? Can you state
it in your own words?
I'm not Barry, but I think it refers to the paradox that the claim
that there are no absolutes in the relative world is itself not
absolute.
It's a big debate question among some of the schools of Buddhism (and
later, Vedanta) and often among Buddhists in general, esp. those with
differing Views or Way-s-of-Seeing Reality: these are the infamous
"Two Truths", the relative and the absolute. In general it's
fruitless to argue across differing Ways-of-Seeing as each View
contains it's own logical base. It just ends up being a 'you say to-
may-toe I say to-mah-toe' kinda thing. Even if one argues from the
POV of the Fruit (i.e. the enlightened POV), presumably the "highest"
POV, if the person you are arguing with is stuck in their mindset and
has little realization, it makes little difference, without some one
knowledgeable enough to coach the debate. Although some very skillful
teachers can use it as a way to "point out" the Natural Condition,
IMO that presumes the arguer is willing to remain open to
vulnerability. Fuggetaboutit in an email argument.
