*grins*

Actually, Buddha got there first!

A common problem in zen is the "unanswerable question" - when a question is asked which, in its asking, contains implicit contradictions or falsehoods.

The traditional answer is "mu", meaning in this case "no-question". Another common answer was to respond with a seemingly nonsensical answer, reflecting the question.

So, the question: "What is the meaning of life?" could be answered with "Mu", or the phrase, "Sunlight in the trees."

Yes, although that's always struck me as a bit smug and irritating compared to the much more helpful response of pointing out what the implicit contradictions or falsehoods actually are, or asking questions in return to help clarify the point.

I accept "mu" as an answer in humorously pedantic contexts, or when the implicit falsehood is entirely obvious, or if the rudeness is deserved (due to persistent repetition of the question, for example, or a thoroughly insulting question in the first place), or other such mitigating factors; but when I see it in Zen koans my instinctive thought tends to be that if I'd been in the novice's place at that moment I would have been strongly tempted to grip the master firmly by the throat and shout "Go on then, you with all the answers, what's wrong with my question?".

Well, understand that "mu" would only be given as an answer in certain contexts; in the context you describe, there was a contract in place between the novice and the master. The novice had come to the master to learn and had accepted the master as, well, their master. (The concept of this may be a little unnatural to the modern, western mind, but was fairly standard in the cultures I think we're discussing.)

I agree that a master who only ever answered "mu" wouldn't be a very helpful master. But, the answer "mu" was given in the context of many other interactions between the master and the novice, and some would contain more of the kind of direct instruction that you describe.

I think it's a bit similar to martial arts work with an experienced instructor. Sometimes, it's helpful to get feedback from an instructor as you train with them on why your technique is failing. But, sometimes, they just need to stand there and be the place-where-your-technique-fails so that you are forced to find improvement within yourself.

I think Zen masters probably lived and worked in the time before tuition fees. Students don't put up with that kind of shit any more. Unfortunately, they often don't put up with anything which does even slightly less than acknowledge them, as a consumer, as the unique centre of the universe.

The advantage of Belnap, and Arieli and Avron's approach over that of Buddha is that they defined latices, drew up truth tables, and then explored various implication operators and proof algorithms.