Eastern "Both-And" logic is supposed to believe that there is no law of non-contradiction.  In fact, it says that we cannot use "Either-Or" logic but we must use "Both-And" logic.  It claims to be the exclusive way to think, and coerces its followers to think in Both-And style . . . but the funny thing is that it is using "Either-Or" logic to coerce.

If the "Both-And" method of logic is so good, why can't we use both the "Both-And" logic and the "Either-Or" logic.

Dogmatic Relativism demands its own way, contradicting itself as it goes.  It says, “I am passionate about this, therefore I must be right.”  It says, “I am angry about this, therefore I must be right.”  It cares not that it does not make sense.  It only wants its own way.

You can prove the law of non-contradiction; if you will argue against the law of non-contradiction, you prove it.

If you try to clobber the law of non-contradiction, it will clobber you.

Ravi Zacharias states that if you want to try to imagine a world without the law of non-contradiction, you may as well try to imagine a one-ended stick.

Some things are indeed "Both-And."  We have language to talk about this.  Sometimes, the Sun and the Moon are both visible.  On the other hand, the God of the Bible is either the only, almighty, all present, all knowing God, or else He is not.  When Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, that was an "Either-Or" statement.  You may say that He was not telling the truth, but you would be insane to say that He was both making the claim and not making the claim.

The problem with our philosophy system is in trying to embrace everything we will ultimately end up strangling ourselves ~ Rava Krishnand