Nick:
How is saying that the Totality is form and formlessness not a violation of A=A?
In the same way one might come to meaningfully understand:
David Quinn, et al: the Totality neither exists nor does not exist.
And:
Sue Hindmarsh: the Totality cannot possess any thing, for there is no thing that is not The Totality.
The underlying issue is, of course, the matter of thingness.
I make a few assumptions here, namely that we all agree:
1. A thing is defined by its boundaries, which constitute its form and thus differentiate it from other things.
2. Things exist (appear as form), but are not self-caused (emptiness/interdependence) and are thus impermanent.
3. The only existence the Totality can be said to have is as absolute truth (pure logic).
4. Given 2 and 3, if the Totality existed in the same manner as things then it too would have a beginning and be a finite form rather than infinite (as with causality).
5. Thus, formlessness infinitely gives rise to finite forms (things) and the Totality (all that there is) by logical necessity constitutes both form and formlessness therefore.
When we give the Totality the characteristic of formlessness, it just means that we are changing how we view it. We can view reality in finite forms, or we can "view" it as it's whole, neither one is wrong, but we can't do both at the same time.
One views things, but one does not “view” the Totality. One deduces it, especially if it is formless!
L: In the same way, a thing is necessarily not strictly form. Therefore, things are impermanent, i.e., without infinite, unchanging form. (You can, at the very least, observe this as the cycle of birth, growth and decay.)
N: Are you saying A could potentially equal B?
Wash your mouth out with soap!
A thing is always what it is and nothing else. Another absolute, purely logical truth. The question is, what role do you think permanence plays in the fact of a thing being itself and nothing else?
If I am talking about my dog one moment and finish what I am saying about him 5 minutes later, has he ceased to change in any way or be what he is? That is, has there been a violation of A=A?