"Either/or" or "both/and".

The debate was about A and non-A. Aristotle logic verses Nagarjuna's rejection of it.

“The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject in the same respect.” Aristotle

So in formal logic, something cannot be A and not A at the same time.

An alternative statement would be the ‘trilemma.’

Nagarjuna interprets the limitation implied by the dilemma “A or non-A” as an arbitrary ‘dualism’ on the part of ordinary thinkers. Nagarjuna was not trying to defend a tetralemma that things are both A and non-A, – but wished to get us to look altogether beyond the distinctions of conceptualization and the judgments of logic. To look without conceptualization. Without words. If one is not naming, there is not even an A to think about.

Nagarjuna was a practicing Buddhist. He was not into formal logic which is wholly conceptual by nature. What is, is, before we think about it. It can be known, experienced, prior to thought. Dualism is what is plus what I think about what is, take away including what one thinks in the experience is non-dualism.

"I am not, I will not be. I have not, I will not have." Nagarjuna

In Buddhism, one is enlightened or not enlightened. Buddhism did not really reject Aristotle logic. Buddhism rejects an emphasis on thinking and thought.

[The Cobbler's Apprentice]

Life,/truth can lived but not "thought".

That is potentially very egalitarian the more you think (!) about it.

[snowyowl]

Originally Posted by AbodhiSky

In Buddhism, one is enlightened or not enlightened.

Does this mean that enlightenment is a sudden, all-or-nothing event? I'm not a Buddhist myself, but in my readings I've come across different schools of thought, some sudden like Rinzai Zen, and others gradual like Theravada.

If we allow shades of grey across the board (and perhaps quantum mechanics can be included here), then we can have a fuzzy logic with a fuzzy reality, not fuzzy knowledge about a clear-cut reality.

Buddhist is said to have transcended self interest.

[sky]

" Isn't it remarkable, all beings are already enlightened."
The Buddha...
According to Buddha's Teachings it is not about attaining ' Enlightenment ' but to realize it.

[The Cobbler's Apprentice]

Originally Posted by snowyowl

Does this mean that enlightenment is a sudden, all-or-nothing event?

Back to the Middle Way! "Not a position between two extremes but a no-position that transcends both.'

Gradual or sudden?

Dogen, the 13th century zen master, is one to study (if "study" is the right word)

The Circle of the Way. Each moment is "enlightenment" itself, yet there is a movement towards Buddha.

[snowyowl]

In the Buddha's story, he became enlightened suddenly, sat under the Bodhi tree, but after a long time practicing and seeking.

In later traditions you can have kensho, satori, insights etc which I might call glimpses, there's still something to be done to shed light on or wake up to what's already the case. I regard words like enlightenment and awakening as metaphors. It's ok if there's a variety of experiences for different people, sudden or gradual, you're waking up to yourself anyway and why should we all be the same.

[sky]

Originally Posted by snowyowl

In the Buddha's story, he became enlightened suddenly, sat under the Bodhi tree, but after a long time practicing and seeking.

Not to forget His past life Karma....

Originally Posted by The Cobbler's Apprentice

Back to the Middle Way! "Not a position between two extremes but a no-position that transcends both.'

Depends on what part of Buddhist Philosophy one is focusing on.

The Noble Eightfold Path is clear, Right View, Right Resolve, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration

Obviously this means there is Wrong View, Wrong Resolve, Wrong Speech, Wrong Action, Wrong Livelihood, Wrong Effort, Wrong Mindfulness, and Wrong Concentration

Two extremes. The Christian "Sin" is basically the same thing as not following the Noble Eightfold Path. Doing or Being the wrong things.