Wittgenstein famously ended his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus with exactly the same sentiment:

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

 

(Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent)

That a famous philosopher, coming from a very different time, with a very different philosophical project comes to a similar conclusion one can say that this silence has to be taken seriously. One can say that his silence is at least authentic - rather than a 'cop-out'.

At the limits of thought, that is at the limits of what can be expressed there is only paradox. This conclusion is one chased by Graham Priest who developed a theory of true contradictions - dialethism.

Coming back to the Buddha, one of the questions he was asked is:

Is the world eternal?

 

...or not?

 

...or both?

 

...or neither?

This follows the logic of Catuskoti ; which elaborates the truth-conditions in Indian nyaya philosophy (true/false/both/neither) - or perhaps the origin of it.

After six centuries of debate, it was Nagarjuna who fixed 'answers' to these questions in terms of Sunyata (nothingness/fullness) and Pratiyasamutpada (dependent arising or becoming). They are noticably the first two terms in Hegels logic: Nothing & Being which are identified; and synthesised into Becoming; which points to a possible (and not neccessarily direct) influence.

Nagarjunas work, like Hegels work is cryptic, and unlike his compact.

So are the unanswered questions, actually answered?

To the extent that Nagarjuna does - yes (and one is possibly forced to add no, and both, and neither).

Wittgenstein famously ended his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus with exactly the same sentiment:

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

(Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent)

That a famous philosopher, coming from a very different time, with a very different philosophical project comes to a similar conclusion one can say that this silence has to be taken seriously. One can say that his silence is at least authentic - rather than a 'cop-out'.

At the limits of thought, that is at the limits of what can be expressed there is only paradox. This conclusion is one chased by Graham Priest who developed a theory of true contradictions - dialethism.

Coming back to the Buddha, one of the questions he was asked is:

Is the world eternal?

...or not?

...or both?

...or neither?

This follows the logic of Catuskoti ; which elaborates the truth-conditions in Indian nyaya philosophy (true/false/both/neither) - or perhaps the origin of it.

After six centuries of debate, it was Nagarjuna who fixed 'answers' to these questions in terms of Sunyata (nothingness/fullness) and Pratiyasamutpada (dependent arising or becoming). They are noticably the first two terms in Hegels logic: Nothing & Being which are identified; and synthesised into Becoming; which points to a possible (and not neccessarily direct) influence.

Nagarjunas work, like Hegels work is cryptic, and unlike his compact.

So are the unanswered questions, actually answered?

To the extent that Nagarjuna does - yes (and one is possibly forced to add no, and both, and neither).

Wittgenstein famously ended his Tractatus with exactly the same sentiment:

Woven man nicht sphrechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen.

(Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent)

That a famous philosopher, coming from a very different time, with a very different philosophical project comes to a similar conclusion one can say that this silence has to be taken seriously. One can say that his silence is at least authentic - rather than a 'cop-out'.

At the limits of thought, that is at the limits of what can be expressed there is only paradox. This conclusion is one chased by Graham Priest who developed a theory of true contradictions - dialethism.

Coming back to the Buddha, one of the questions he was asked is:

Is the world eternal?

...or not?

...or both?

...or neither?

This follows the logic of Catuskoti ; which elaborates the truth-conditions in Indian nyaya philosophy (true/false/both/neither) - or perhaps the origin of it.

After six centuries of debate, it was Nagarjuna who fixed 'answers' to these questions in terms of Sunyata (nothingness/fullness) and Pratiyasamutpada (dependent arising or becoming). They are noticably the first two terms in Hegels logic: Nothing & Being which are identified; and synthesised into Becoming; which points to a possible (and not neccessarily direct) influence.

Nagarjunas work, like Hegels work is cryptic, and unlike his compact.

So are the unanswered questions, actually answered?

To the extent that Nagarjuna does - yes (and one is possibly forced to add no, and both, and neither).

Wittgenstein famously ended his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus with exactly the same sentiment:

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

(Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent)

That a famous philosopher, coming from a very different time, with a very different philosophical project comes to a similar conclusion one can say that this silence has to be taken seriously. One can say that his silence is at least authentic - rather than a 'cop-out'.

At the limits of thought, that is at the limits of what can be expressed there is only paradox. This conclusion is one chased by Graham Priest who developed a theory of true contradictions - dialethism.

Coming back to the Buddha, one of the questions he was asked is:

Is the world eternal?

...or not?

...or both?

...or neither?

This follows the logic of Catuskoti ; which elaborates the truth-conditions in Indian nyaya philosophy (true/false/both/neither) - or perhaps the origin of it.

After six centuries of debate, it was Nagarjuna who fixed 'answers' to these questions in terms of Sunyata (nothingness/fullness) and Pratiyasamutpada (dependent arising or becoming). They are noticably the first two terms in Hegels logic: Nothing & Being which are identified; and synthesised into Becoming; which points to a possible (and not neccessarily direct) influence.

Nagarjunas work, like Hegels work is cryptic, and unlike his compact.

So are the unanswered questions, actually answered?

To the extent that Nagarjuna does - yes (and one is possibly forced to add no, and both, and neither).