What would be the fault of trying to show the limits of logic without using logic?
— Shmuel

How would you go about that? — Wayfarer

I could use illogical ways. For example, just assert that a specific idea is beyond the scope of logic (and nevertheless true), not providing any cogent reasoning for it.

This does appear to me as somewhat silly.

Howewever, the mere fact that it seems to me to be silly, isn't "proof" that it really is silly, unless I offer some reasoning.

I was reading a text book on Buddhist logic the other day, which pointed out that while Buddhism is explicit about the fact that Nirvāṇa is beyond ‘mere logic’, Buddhist logicians are nevertheless quite scrupulous in their use of logic [as indeed was the Buddha]. Indeed Nāgārjuna’s technique was to use logic to show the limits of logic [via a technique called the ‘tetralemma’.] So they don’t hold that logic is all-knowing, but at the same time, they use logical argument.

Hello,

Do the Buddhists explain why to show the limits of logic, one needs to use logic?
What would be the fault of trying to show the limits of logic without using logic?

I would be interested in your own perspective on this as well.

Thank you.