--- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > On Jul 2, 2009, at 9:40 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: [quoting emptybill quoting Frithjof Schuon's "Logic and Transcendence"] > >>>> 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.
Close. I'd take out the "not." The claim is *for* the existence of an absolute, i.e., that there are absolutely no absolutes. The person declaring that there are no absolutes is making an absolute claim. > 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. Lectures Vaj, missing the point entirely. I'm not "arguing" in favor of absolutes. I'm pointing out that Barry doesn't grasp the logical paradox in his claim.
