Plato's Parmenides, Samsara and Nirvana

Plato's Parmenides contains the following eight deductions: > *(D1) If the G is, then the G is not F and not con-F in relation to itself.* > > *(D2) If the G is, then the G is F and con-F in relation to the others.* > > *(D3) If the G is, then the others are F and con-F in relation to the G.* > > *(D4) If the G is, then the others are not F and not con-F in relation to themselves.* > > *(D5) If the G is not, then the G is F and con-F in relation to the others.* > > *(D6) If the G is not, then the G is not F and not con-F in relation to itself.* > > *(D7) If the G is not, then the others are F and con-F in relation to the G.* > > *(D8) If the G is not, then the others are not F and not con-F in relation to themselves.* > > *(where ‘con-F’ refers to the property contrary to the property of being F):* Do the eight deductions within the dialogue offer a convoluted view of the two truths? Deductions 1, 4, 6, 8 have conclusions only stated in the negative. Deductions 2, 3, 5, 7 have conclusions only stated in the positive. If the classical concept of Form (that from which Essence is acquired) is kept, then: D1 through D4, which assume "the one is" demonstrate that "the one is not". D5 through D8, which assume "the one is not" demonstrate that "the one is". Is this not dissimilar to the duality that the Buddha stated, where "being" and "non-being" 'reinforce' each other - are dependently originated? Are the eight deductions a kind of logical (binary) glimpse of Samsara?