Buddhist philosophy is full of contradictions. Now modern logic is learning why that might be a good thing
Graham Priest
Anyway, what did Nagarjuna make of this [noumenal/phenomenal] problem? Nothing much. He didn’t even comment on it. Perhaps that’s not so surprising: after all, he thought that certain things might be simultaneously true and false. But later Buddhist philosophers did try to wriggle out of it, not least the influential 15th-century Tibetan philosopher, Gorampa.
Certain things? How about actual things in particular? Things which through the language of philosphy or religion can be described as both "simultaneously true and false". And then demonstrated to be so. For Buddhists, in regard to either karma and enlightenment here and now, or reincarnation and Nirvana there and then.
What on earth are they talking about?
Gorampa was troubled enough by the situation that he attempted to distinguish between two ultimate realities: a real ultimate reality, which is ineffable, and a ‘nominal’ ultimate reality, which is what we end up talking about when we try to talk about the real ultimate.
How might one then connect the dots here between Plato and Buddha? Or is there an "ultimate reality" inside the cave as well as outside of it?
Okay, let's go there. But only in regard to a particular set of circumstances. And only in regard to things we think and feel are true about the situation are able to be demonstrated to others as in fact true for all of us. How far would that go?
But wait a minute – the nominal ultimate is obviously effable: by definition, it is the reality that we can talk about. In that case, if we say that ultimate reality is ineffable and we are actually talking about the nominal ultimate, what we are saying is false. Thus Gorampa’s proposal refutes itself.
Really, "serious philosophers" here, like Buddhist theologians, can go on and on and on discussing this sort of thing in intellectual contraptions such as these.
And all I can do is to challenge folks in places like this to bring them out into the world that they live in and explain how these ideas are applicable to the lives that they live.
Especially in regard to contexts in which value judgments come into conflict...precipitating discussions about here and now and there and then. Before and after we die.