Gods, Buddhas, and the Theory of Consideration: Salvation Derived from Reductio ad Absurdum

Introduction: Religious Promises and Contradictions

Modern religious organizations often make two claims simultaneously.

“God (Buddha) loves everyone.”
“However, salvation requires faith (donations, rituals, understanding of doctrine).”

Can these two be reconciled?

This essay answers this question using reductio ad absurdum. To anticipate the conclusion—they cannot be reconciled.
To be sincere, religion must choose one of two paths.

One isrigorism (chosen people ideology)and the other is
thetrue universalism (acknowledgment of the unspeakable).
Pseudo-universalism, which tries to take the best of both, fails logically.

More importantly, there are people in society who are structurally “unable to pay the price of faith.” Patients with severe dementia, stillborn infants, and those with severe intellectual disabilities—they cannot perform religious practices in any sense. If so, are they not saved?
If they are saved, what is the basis for it?
This question is the core of this essay.

Chapter 1: Proof of the Principle of Consideration

Definitions

Before beginning the discussion, I will define the terms.

Gods and Buddhas: Transcendent beings that humans make the object of faith, prayer, and devotion. What is important is that gods and Buddhas are defined in their relationship with humans.

Relationship: The interaction between humans and gods/Buddhas. This includes recognition, discourse, faith, prayer, rituals, etc.

Consideration: Resources that humans invest to maintain and execute the relationship. Time (worship, meditation), money (donations, offerings), psychological effort (maintaining faith, understanding doctrine), opportunity costs (suppression of secular pleasures), etc.

Those unable to pay consideration: Those who structurally lack the ability to pay consideration. Dementia patients, stillborn infants, those with severe disabilities, patients in a vegetative state, those who died in infancy, etc.

The unspeakable: Beings outside of all human relationships. The “God beyond God” in negative theology, the “Dharmakaya” in Esoteric Buddhism, the “Pleroma” in Gnosticism, the “One” in Neoplatonism, etc.

Theorem 1: The Principle of Consideration

Claim: Gods and Buddhas that can be spoken of always demand consideration.

Proof (reductio ad absurdum):
Assume that a god/Buddha without consideration exists. That is, a god/Buddha that demands no consideration whatsoever.

For a god/Buddha to be a “god/Buddha,” a relationship with humans must be established. A relationship includes at least recognition (mentally holding the concept of the god/Buddha). Recognition requires the allocation of memory and attention. These consume time and psychological energy. In other words, they are consideration.

If the consideration is zero, recognition requires neither time nor attention. This means there is no need to recognize it. If recognition is unnecessary, the relationship with the god/Buddha is not established. If the relationship is not established, it is not a “god/Buddha.”

This contradicts the assumption. Therefore, a god/Buddha without consideration does not exist. End of proof.

Corollary: Recognition is the minimum compensation. This is because speaking, faith, and prayer all presuppose recognition. Furthermore, religious organizations amplify compensation. The establishment of periodic rituals, the construction of donation systems, the complication of doctrine, and the demand for belonging to a community—all these increase compensation more than personal faith does.

Lemma: The Exceptionality of the Unspeakable

Assertion: The concept of compensation does not apply to that which cannot be spoken of.

Proof: That which cannot be spoken of is, by definition, outside of relationships. Compensation is the cost of maintaining a relationship. The concept of compensation does not apply to things outside of relationships. End of proof.

Corollary: The act of speaking about that which cannot be spoken of is a self-contradiction. This is because to speak is to establish a relationship. Wittgenstein's seventh proposition, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent," is a logical necessity.

Note: However, a distinction is made between "pointing out" and "speaking." The Zen metaphor of "pointing at the moon"—the finger points to the moon, but the finger is not the moon. Much of religious language possesses this function of indication.

Chapter 2: Those Unable to Pay Compensation and the Difficulty of Salvation

The Existence of Those Unable to Pay Compensation

According to the principle of compensation, gods and Buddhas that can be spoken of demand compensation. However, in reality, there are those who lack the ability to pay compensation.

Patients with severe dementia: Cannot recognize the concept of God. Cannot remember the words of prayer. Their self-identity is lost. Someone who was once a pious believer has forgotten everything due to dementia. Will this person be saved?

Stillborn or miscarried infants: Died before possessing consciousness. Any act of faith is impossible. No opportunity to receive baptism.

Individuals with severe intellectual disabilities: Cannot understand abstract concepts (God, soul, salvation). Verbal communication is difficult. Cannot recognize the meaning of rituals.

Those who die by suicide: Died at the limit of despair due to depression. No opportunity for repentance or reaffirmation of faith. At the moment of death, they might have cursed God.

People in unevangelized regions: Have had no opportunity to encounter a specific religion. They hold their own traditional beliefs. They never had the opportunity to choose the "correct faith."

These people are structurally unable to pay compensation.

The Theological Dilemma

Many religions assert two propositions simultaneously.

Proposition A: Salvation requires faith (compensation)
Christianity: "Those who believe will be saved"; Islam: "One cannot enter heaven without the profession of faith"; Pure Land Buddhism: "Those who recite the Nembutsu will be reborn in the Pure Land."

Proposition B: Gods and Buddhas are merciful and omnipotent
Christianity: "God desires that all people be saved"; Islam: "Allah is the most merciful"; Buddhism: "All sentient beings possess the Buddha-nature."

Contradiction: Regarding those unable to pay the compensation, Proposition A leads to "not saved," while Proposition B leads to "should be saved."

There are only three logical ways to resolve this contradiction.

Resolution 1: Maintain Proposition A, abandon Proposition B -- Strictness. Those who cannot pay the compensation are not saved. Divinities save only the chosen.

Resolution 2: Maintain Proposition B, revise Proposition A -- True Universalism. All can be saved. Therefore, a mode of salvation exists that transcends compensation.

Resolution 3: Continue to assert both -- Pseudo-Universalism. While claiming to "save everyone," it actually demands compensation.

In the next chapter, I will prove that Resolution 3 is logically impossible.

Chapter 3: Three Positions and Their Consequences

Classification of Positions

Position A: Strictness
Only those with the ability to pay the compensation are saved. Does not claim universal mercy. Chosen people ideology, predestination, covenant theology. Logically consistent. No contradiction arises.

Specific examples: Judaism (classical covenant theology), Calvinism (predestination), Shinto/ancestor worship. Since these do not claim that "everyone is saved," there is no contradiction in the fact that those unable to pay the compensation are not saved.

Position B: True Universalism
All can be saved. Therefore, a mode of salvation exists that transcends compensation. The subject of that salvation is "that which cannot be spoken of." Logically consistent.

Specific examples: Jodo Shinshu (the Primal Vow of Amida Buddha), Zen Buddhism (original enlightenment thought), Sufism, modern Catholicism (God's direct mercy).
These all have a two-layer structure: a practical layer (with compensation) and a mystical layer (without compensation).

Position C: Pseudo-Universalism
While claiming that "everyone is saved," it actually demands compensation and does not present a mode of salvation for those unable to pay the compensation. Logically contradictory.

Theorem 2: The Impossibility of Pseudo-Universalism

Claim: A position that simultaneously satisfies the following is logically contradictory.

1. All can be saved (universal mercy)

2. Salvation requires compensation

3. The subject of salvation is only the speakable divinities (religious organizations)

Proof (Proof by contradiction):
Assume that pseudo-universalism holds true.

From Theorem 1 (Compensation Principle), speakable divinities demand compensation. Those unable to pay the compensation cannot pay the compensation (empirical fact). Therefore, those unable to pay the compensation are not saved.

However, from Assumption 1 (Universal Compassion), all beings can be saved. This includes those unable to pay the compensation.

Contradiction. Therefore, disguised universalism is impossible. Q.E.D.

Corollary: The Necessity of a Binary Choice

Religions that claim universal compassion must choose one of the following:

・Abandon Assumption 1 and move to Position A, or
・Abandon Assumption 3 and move to Position B.

Assumption 2 (The Necessity of Compensation) is a logical necessity according to Theorem 1 and cannot be abandoned.

Chapter 4: Case Studies

Medieval Catholic Church: The Desperate Measure of Limbo

Medieval Catholicism was a typical Position C. While claiming that "God loves everyone," it maintained that "baptism is necessary for salvation." What happens to infants who die before being baptized?

As a desperate measure, "Limbo" was invented. It is a realm that is neither Hell nor Heaven. There is no suffering, but there is also no Beatific Vision (seeing God). However, this is not salvation. In other words, the claim that "everyone is saved" was false.

In 2007, the International Theological Commission of the Holy See effectively abandoned the doctrine of Limbo, stating that "there is hope that infants who die without baptism can be saved through the mercy of God."
This can be recognized as a move toward a kind of Position B.

Jodo Shinshu: The Logic of the Primal Vow

Jodo Shinshu is (or should be) a clear Position B.
(*Though it can hardly be said to be so in practice)

At the practical level, there is the Nembutsu (Namu Amida Butsu). Is this compensation? In traditional understanding, it is compensation (if you recite the Nembutsu and have faith, you will be reborn), but in Shinran's understanding, it is not.
The Nembutsu is not the cause of salvation, but an expression of gratitude for Amida Buddha's Primal Vow.

The basis of salvation lies in the mystical layer.
Amida Buddha's Primal Vow—the vow to save all sentient beings. This transcends compensation.

A good person is one who can pay the compensation (a practitioner), and a wicked person is one who cannot pay the compensation (an ordinary person full of blind passions). The Primal Vow saves precisely those who cannot pay the compensation.

Dementia patients have become unable to recite the Nembutsu. However, the Primal Vow does not depend on the presence or absence of the Nembutsu. Stillborn infants died before they could possess consciousness. However, "all sentient beings" also includes fetuses. The Primal Vow precedes consciousness and action.

Author's note: Are there contradictions even within the Tannisho?

However, it seems that faith is being preached as necessary around here, but this is (presumably) the practical level.
The divergence between this practical level and the mystical level will be discussed later.

New Religions and Spiritualism: Commercialized Universalism

The most blatant Position C is commercialized spiritualism. While proclaiming "The universe loves you," "All souls are divine," and "Unconditional love," it demands high-priced seminars (300,000 yen), specific practices (daily affirmations), and merchandise sales (100,000 yen bracelets to raise your vibration).

This is the most deceptive Position C, which demands the highest compensation while proclaiming "unconditional love." Moreover, those unable to pay (dementia patients, the impoverished) are completely excluded. The claim of universality is a complete falsehood.

Chapter 5: The Structure of Position B—The Two-Layer Theory

The Necessity of a Two-Layer Structure

True universalism (Position B) necessarily has a two-layer structure.

Practical Level:
Religious organizations, rituals, and doctrines. Can be verbalized. Involves compensation. Salvation for those with the ability to pay compensation.
If we cite the example of Shin Buddhism, it is also the argument that "faith is necessary."
In Zen Buddhism, it is practice such as Zazen. In Shingon, it is various ritual procedures.

Mystical Level:
Transcends language and concepts. That which cannot be spoken. Transcends compensation. Salvation for those unable to pay compensation.
If we cite the example of Shin Buddhism, it is the argument that "because it is ineffable and indescribable."
In Zen, it is the doctrine of not relying on words. In Shingon, it is attaining Buddhahood in this very body.

The practical level is an instruction toward the mystical level.
The Zen metaphor of "pointing at the moon"—the finger points to the moon, but the finger is not the moon. Once you reach the moon, the finger is unnecessary.

What is important is that the practical level does not deny the mystical level. Rather, it prepares for it.
The two are not in opposition, but are complementary.

The Limits of a Personal God

There is a deeper problem.
A personal god (a god who possesses will and speaks to humans) verbalizes that will.
The moment it is verbalized, it becomes "that which can be spoken."
According to Theorem 1, a god that can be spoken of demands compensation. Therefore, a personal god structurally cannot save those who are unable to pay compensation.

If those unable to pay compensation are to be saved, the subject of that salvation must be the "impersonal absolute" behind the personal god.

In Christianity, there is the Godhead (Deitas) behind the Triune God (a personal god).
In Islam, there is the Dhat (essence, without attributes) behind Allah (a personal god with 99 beautiful names).
In Buddhism, there is the Dharmakaya/Emptiness behind Amida Buddha (a personal Buddha who speaks of the Primal Vow).
Kukai preached Mahavairocana as the omnipresent Buddha.

A personal god reveals its limits by speaking. A personal god is merely a partial manifestation of that which cannot be spoken.

The Correct Use of "Inscrutable" and "Divine Mystery"

Religious figures often use the terms "inscrutable" and "divine mystery." However, these are used in two distinct senses.

True Mystery: Refers to that which cannot be spoken. The realm of the mystical layer. While impossible to verbalize in principle, it is possible to point toward it.

False Mystery: An escape from inconvenient questions in the practical layer. "It is unknowable, so do not ask." The concealment of contradictions. A cessation of thought.

Criteria for Judgment—Those who speak of true mystery acknowledge their own limitations, distinguish between the practical and mystical layers, and clearly state, "My words are merely a finger pointing."
Those who speak of false mystery maintain their own authority, confuse the practical and mystical layers, and use "mystery" to silence criticism.

Religious figures should clearly state which layer they are speaking about.
In the case of Shin Buddhism, for example:

The language of the practical layer: "What is necessary is only faith and the Nembutsu. However, the Nembutsu is not the cause of salvation (it is for gratitude and repayment of kindness)."

The indication toward the mystical layer: "The basis of salvation is the Primal Vow. It cannot be exhausted by words. Even those who cannot (or are unable to) recite the Nembutsu are within the Primal Vow."

This is how it should be. Mystery must not be used as an excuse for contradictions in the practical layer.
However, in reality, this confusion is so prevalent that there are almost no clergy worthy of trust (though, very rarely, they do exist).

I have discussed the inevitable corruption of religious organizations in this regard in a separate paper, so please refer to that as well.

Chapter 6: Dimensional Interpretation

My teacher offered an interesting metaphor.

"Humans live in four dimensions: length, width, height, and time. We can speak of and overlook things in four dimensions or less, but we do not know anything beyond four dimensions. Gods and Buddhas watch us from the fifth dimension and above."

This metaphor geometrically expresses the structure of that which cannot be spoken.

Those existing in n-dimensions can overlook n-1 dimensions or less and experience n-dimensions (though they cannot see the whole). However, n+1 dimensions or more are unrecognizable. When a three-dimensional object passes through a two-dimensional plane, a two-dimensional being (a flatlander) can only see the cross-section (a circle, etc.). They cannot see the entire sphere.

Humans are four-dimensional beings. We experience three spatial dimensions and the time axis. However, the fifth dimension and above are unrecognizable. If gods and Buddhas are five-dimensional beings, they can overlook the entirety of the four dimensions (our spacetime). However, the entirety of the fifth dimension cannot be spoken of by us.

A personal god is the form of a five-dimensional being projected into four dimensions. Because it is a projection, it can be spoken of. However, it is not the entirety of the fifth dimension. An impersonal absolute is the entirety of the fifth dimension (or higher). It is unrecognizable to us. This is that which cannot be spoken.

Compensation (language, rituals, offerings, etc.) are all acts within the four dimensions. In the fifth dimension and above, the concept of compensation is inapplicable. Those unable to pay compensation (dementia patients, stillborn infants) have lost their cognitive ability within the four dimensions or have not fully manifested within the four dimensions.

However, from a five-dimensional perspective, they are also visible. Five-dimensional salvation does not require four-dimensional compensation.

What the fifth dimension is remains unknown. It may not be a physical dimension. Possible candidates include the dimension of consciousness (from individual consciousness to universal consciousness), the dimension of the mode of existence (from phenomena to emptiness), and the dimension of value (from relative value to absolute value).

In any case, the fifth dimension cannot be spoken of. This is because our language is composed of concepts within the four dimensions.

Conclusion: Two Forms of Sincerity

I will summarize the core arguments of this thesis.

Theorem 1 (Principle of Compensation): Gods and Buddhas that can be spoken of necessarily demand compensation.

Theorem 2 (Impossibility of Pseudo-Universalism): A position that claims to "save everyone" while demanding compensation and refusing to acknowledge the unspeakable is logically contradictory.

Corollary (Necessity of a Binary Choice): Religions that claim universal compassion must choose between rigorism or true universalism.

The Dichotomy of Religion

Religion can be divided into two types.

1. Rigorism (Chosen People Ideology): Religion for a select few. Only those who can pay the compensation are saved. It does not claim universality. Logically consistent. Examples: Classical Judaism, Calvinism, Shinto.

2. Universalism: Religion for everyone. However, this is always accompanied by a two-layer structure.

• Practical Layer: Involves compensation. Handled by religious organizations.

• Mystical Layer: Transcends compensation. The realm of the unspeakable.

Examples: Jodo Shinshu, Zen Buddhism, Sufism, Modern Catholicism.

Anything other than these two types is, without exception, a deception.

Structural Connection to the Theory of Wisdom

This thesis (Theory of Compensation) and the author's "Structure of Wisdom" (Theory of Wisdom) are structurally isomorphic.

Both are two sides of a single unified theory. Individual internal activity (wisdom) and social activity (religion) share the same two-layer structure. Topologically, it is the relationship between the space that can be spoken of and the space that cannot. Categorically, it is the relationship between a subcategory and a supercategory. Dimensionally, it is the relationship between the fourth and fifth dimensions.

Final Proposition

Compensation in religion is a feature, not a bug.
Compensation is logically necessary (Theorem 1). Therefore, criticizing the existence of compensation is unjustified.

However, claiming to "save everyone" while demanding compensation is a deception (Theorem 2).

Two forms of sincere religion—

・Sincere Rigorism: We can only save some people. We acknowledge that.
・Sincere Universalism: Our organization can only handle some people. However, the unspeakable encompasses everything.

Common to both is the acknowledgment of one's own limitations, logical consistency, and the rejection of hypocrisy.

Open Questions

What is the "unspeakable"? This essay has demonstrated its necessity. However, its content is (by definition) unspeakable.

Does the "unspeakable" actually exist? This essay has shown its logical necessity: "If universal salvation exists, the unspeakable is necessarily required." However, whether universal salvation actually exists is a matter of faith.

Is the "unspeakable" the same across religions? This essay has shown a structural similarity. However, whether the "divinity of Christianity" and the "Dharmakaya of Buddhism" are identical is an open theological question. Nevertheless, both are functionally isomorphic in that they are unspeakable, transcend compensation, and lie outside the limits of the practical realm.

Conclusion

There is no god who does not seek compensation—except for the unspeakable. This proposition does not disparage religion. Rather, it clarifies the two dimensions of religion: the human dimension (language, organization, ritual, involving compensation, finite and incomplete) and the dimension of transcendence (silence, mystery, the unspeakable, transcending compensation, infinite and comprehensive).

True religious maturity is to distinguish between both dimensions, to respect both, to acknowledge the limits of the human dimension, and to point toward the dimension of transcendence.

And most importantly—dementia patients, stillborn infants, and the severely disabled, even those who possess no language, no consciousness, and cannot practice faith, are within the mercy of the unspeakable. They may be outside the range of religious organizations, but they are not outside the range of salvation.

Acknowledging this is true mercy. Logically requiring this was the purpose of this essay.

Appendix: Integration of Structures—The Topology of Wisdom and Salvation

This essay (Theory of Compensation) and "The Structure of Wisdom" (Theory of Wisdom) appear to deal with separate issues. However, both possess a deep structural isomorphism. By clarifying this isomorphism, a unified theory emerges.

Common Two-Layer Structure

Common to both essays is the two-layer structure of human activity.

First Layer (The Speakable Layer):

• Verbalizable

• Conceptualizable

• Involves compensation

• Organized and institutionalized

• Measurable

• Accessible to the majority

Second layer (the unspeakable layer):

• Impossible to verbalize

• Beyond concepts

• Beyond compensation

• Impossible to organize

• Impossible to measure

• Reached only by a few (or embraced by grace)

In the theory of wisdom, the first layer is intellect/personality, and the second layer is wisdom. In the theory of compensation, the first layer is the practical layer (religious organization), and the second layer is the mystical layer (the unspeakable).

Topological expression

This structure can be expressed as a topological space. Let the entire space be X. X is the totality of human experience. Within it, there is a speakable space A. A is neither an open set nor a closed set. This is because the boundary of A is undefinable. It is impossible to clearly draw a line between where 'speakable' ends and 'unspeakable' begins.

The unspeakable B is the complement of A. B = X \ A. However, B is not merely the 'remainder.' Rather, B is the basis of X. A is established upon B.

Metaphorically—A is the part of an iceberg above the water, and B is the vast part below the water. But even this metaphor is inaccurate. This is because B is not 'below,' but rather 'envelops' A.

Category-theoretic expression

Or, expressed in terms of category theory—

The category of A (the category of the speakable) has objects and morphisms. In the category of intellect, objects are propositions/concepts, and morphisms are inference/analysis. In the category of the practical layer, objects are believers/rituals, and morphisms are compensation/relationships.

The category of B (the category of the unspeakable) is a larger category that encompasses the category of A. However, the objects and morphisms of the category of B are undefinable in the language of A.

There exists a functor (inclusion functor) from A to B. This is 'pointing.' The practical layer points to the mystical layer. Intellect points to wisdom. However, pointing does not guarantee arrival.

Dimensional interpretation

To use the metaphor of a master and disciple—

Humans live in four dimensions (three spatial dimensions + time). The layer that can be spoken of (A) is a structure within the four dimensions. That which cannot be spoken of (B) is a structure of the fifth dimension (or higher).

As four-dimensional beings, humans cannot perceive the fifth dimension. However, fifth-dimensional beings (gods, Buddhas, or wisdom itself) overlook the entire four-dimensional space. A personal god is a projection of a fifth-dimensional being into the four dimensions. Because it is a projection, it can be spoken of, but it is not the entirety of the fifth dimension. The impersonal absolute (divinity, Dharmakaya) is the entirety of the fifth dimension.

Compensation (language, ritual, thought) are all acts within the four dimensions. In the fifth dimension, the concept of compensation is inapplicable.

The Position of the Non-Compensator

Dementia patients, stillborn infants—they have fallen out of the layer that can be spoken of within the four dimensions. However, they are enveloped by the layer that cannot be spoken of in the fifth dimension.

In the theory of wisdom, dementia patients have lost their intellect and personality, but they are not outside of wisdom. Rather, as a state where the ego has become transparent, they may be closer to wisdom.

In the theory of compensation, stillborn infants cannot participate in the practical layer, but they are enveloped by the mystical layer. The compassion of that which cannot be spoken of precedes language, consciousness, and action.

In Buddhism, there is a philosophy that a newborn baby is actually closest to the Buddha because they are the most innocent. Shinto also suggests that the younger the child, the closer they are to the gods.

In both theories, the non-compensator is excluded from the layer that can be spoken of, but is enveloped by the layer that cannot be spoken of. This is the core insight of the two-layer theory.

Formulation of the Unified Theory

Summarizing the above, the framework of the unified theory becomes visible.

Axiom 1 (Two-Layeredness): Human activity has a two-layer structure consisting of a layer that can be spoken of and a layer that cannot be spoken of.

Axiom 2 (Principle of Compensation): The layer that can be spoken of necessarily involves compensation.

Axiom 3 (Inclusion Relation): The layer that cannot be spoken of encompasses the layer that can be spoken of.

Theorem A (Position of the Non-Compensator): Those who cannot pay compensation are excluded from the layer that can be spoken of, but are enveloped by the layer that cannot be spoken of.

Theorem B (Impossibility of Disguise): Claiming that the layer that can be spoken of alone "encompasses everything" is logically contradictory.

This unified theory applies to both the theory of wisdom and the theory of compensation. Not only that, it can be applied to all human activities—art, ethics, and love.

Practical Implications

Practical implications are derived from this unified theory.

Implication 1: Limits of Organizations
Whether it is a religious organization or an educational institution, every organization functions within the layer that can be spoken of. Therefore, in principle, an organization can only handle a portion of reality. Acknowledging the limits of an organization is a form of integrity.

Implication 2: The Value of Silence
To be verbose about that which cannot be spoken is deception. The true sage, the true religious person, remains silent before that which cannot be spoken. Silence is not ignorance, but respect.

Implication 3: The Role of Indication
The role of the speakable layer is not to reach, but to indicate. Religious organizations do not "provide salvation," but "point toward salvation." Education does not "bestow wisdom," but "suggests the path to wisdom."

Implication 4: Consideration for the Non-Compensating
Society functions within the speakable layer. However, we must not forget those who cannot provide compensation (dementia patients, the severely disabled, stillborn infants, etc.). They are excluded from the speakable layer, but they are enveloped by the unspeakable layer. This recognition is true compassion.

Closing Remarks: The Path to Transparency

This treatise has employed the logical tool of reductio ad absurdum. However, logic must ultimately transcend itself.

That which cannot be spoken cannot be grasped by logic. Logic can demonstrate the necessity of that which cannot be spoken. But that which cannot be spoken itself lies outside of logic.

Then why use logic?

The answer is—to eliminate falsehood through logic. Position C (disguised universalism) is logically bankrupt. By clarifying this bankruptcy, the path to an honest position (A or B) is opened.

However, whether one actually walks the path opened by logic is a decision that transcends logic.

Whether to choose rigorism (Position A) or true universalism (Position B)—this is a matter of value, not logic.

I do not criticize those who choose Position A. They are honest. They acknowledge their own limits. There is no hypocrisy.

But to those who remain in Position C, I ask: Are you honest? Does your religion not harbor contradictions?

There is no god that does not seek compensation—except for that which cannot be spoken.

This proposition does not deny religion. Rather, it reveals the depth of religion.
Religious organizations function in the speakable layer. That is a necessity. But when religious organizations forget that which cannot be spoken, religion becomes corrupt.

The true religious person lives in both layers. They speak in the practical layer and remain silent in the mystical layer. They handle compensation in the practical layer and transcend compensation in the mystical layer. They maintain the organization in the practical layer and acknowledge the limits of the organization in the mystical layer.

To hold this tension between the two layers, not as a contradiction to be avoided, but as a tension to be maintained—this is religious maturity.

Similarly, the true sage lives in both the layers of intellect and wisdom. They analyze with intellect and integrate with wisdom. They speak with intellect and remain silent with wisdom. They question with intellect and let go of questions with wisdom.

And—dementia patients, stillborn infants, those who possess no words, no consciousness, and cannot pay compensation, are also within the compassion of that which cannot be spoken.

They are not excluded.
They are enveloped.

To believe this, or at least to acknowledge it as a logical possibility—this is the final request of this treatise.

Supplementary Note 2: Reductio ad Absurdum = The Phase of Immovability—The Buddha as Incinerating Thought

Finally, let us attempt an even more audacious topological connection.

Reductio ad absurdum is a self-incinerating action within the structure of logic.
By positing a proposition, deriving a contradiction, and causing the self to collapse, it brings the truth to light.
This operation is not merely a technique of negation.
It is an act of "burning away deception" within thought, and ontologically, it functions as a kind of purifying fire.

What is noteworthy here is the topological form of this incinerating action.
Could this reductio ad absurdum, and the development described above, be re-grasped as the manifestation of Fudo Myoo?

The flames of Fudo Myoo are not for burning external enemies, but for burning away delusion itself.
The exposure of contradiction in reductio ad absurdum also does not burn the exterior of a proposition, but rather the attachments of its internal structure.
In other words, it does not "negate the other," but "incinerates the form of the self to reveal emptiness."
This structural isomorphism establishes the equation: Reductio ad Absurdum = The Phase of Immovability.

Logically, one could say this:
The extreme form of reductio ad absurdum is not in the direction of "infinitely refining thought so that no contradiction arises," but in the direction of "exposing and incinerating the very structure that necessitates the emergence of contradiction."
What remains unburned here is the
neutral phase that encompasses even contradiction = the Dharmakaya. In short, what reductio ad absurdum burns is the
"finite god or Buddha," and what remains unburned is the "infinite Dharma." This is a precise logical mapping of the Esoteric Buddhist paradox that Fudo exists within the Garuda flames.

In other words—
Reductio ad absurdum is not a "logic for finding the Buddha," but a "logic for burning everything except the Buddha."
That which remains unburned is the truly "immovable (Fudo)" .
That is to say, Fudo Myoo is the figure of the reductio-ad-absurdum limit that thought itself reaches, and reductio ad absurdum is the logical presence of that function.

To practice reductio ad absurdum is to cast thought into the Garuda flames, and as a result,

only the ineffable Dharmakaya (emptiness) is exposed. Is this not what Kukai spoke of, that Mahavairocana (Dharmakaya) and Fudo Myoo correspond as a single phase?
In other words, I even think that reductio ad absurdum is
a formula that realizes the function of Fudo Myoo in logical space—that is what I believe.