Any real life examples these days of Tetralemma (Catuskoti) fourfold negation? What would be the fifth ('true') corner?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 4637
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Any real life examples these days of Tetralemma (Catuskoti) fourfold negation? What would be the fifth ('true') corn

Post by Coëmgenu »

A "lemma" is a proposition. When there are four of these, you have a tetralemma. "Tetra" is four like "di" is two. So-called "dilemmas" with four outcomes are tetralemmata. I am not rejecting Wikipedia's "definition." I am explaining to you one area in which Wikipedia's discussion of the tetralemma is insufficient. The article only deals with one form of tetralemma.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
It is because the valleys are empty that they echo. It is because the mirror is empty that it reflects. It is because the flute is empty that it affects sound. It is because the ears are empty that they can listen. It is because the eyes are empty that they can see. It is because the nose is empty that it can smell.

If these were of substance inside, then there would be obstruction in these.

(from the writings of Master Liè, Daoist text, ~370AD)
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 4637
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Any real life examples these days of Tetralemma (Catuskoti) fourfold negation? What would be the fifth ('true') corn

Post by Coëmgenu »

chownah wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 5:13 am
Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:30 pm
chownah wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:11 pmThe wording does not restrict this instruction to just some of the undeclared issues so likely it is applicable to all undeclared issues.
Before we continue, do we have a shared agreement that this restriction of matters to "the undeclareds" is correctly described as a "restriction of the purview" of the Buddha's statements in the sutta? I'm just wondering if we agree that the purview is necessarily restricted at all. If the purview is not restricted, views like "right views" also come under it.
I have not restricted the matters to the undeclareds.
Well, that just means that we have a very fundamental disagreement as to what the words in the sutta even mean. We can talk more about it tomorrow.

I don't think the non-declaration tetralemma you've given us is functional or indicative of how this conversation has went thus far. More on that tomorrow.
It is because the valleys are empty that they echo. It is because the mirror is empty that it reflects. It is because the flute is empty that it affects sound. It is because the ears are empty that they can listen. It is because the eyes are empty that they can see. It is because the nose is empty that it can smell.

If these were of substance inside, then there would be obstruction in these.

(from the writings of Master Liè, Daoist text, ~370AD)
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 4637
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Any real life examples these days of Tetralemma (Catuskoti) fourfold negation? What would be the fifth ('true') corn

Post by Coëmgenu »

I don't have the computer today for as long as I thought I would.

Do you have access to JStore through a Google account?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/29757086

In the abstract of this article, you can see Poussin stuck on the Buddha's tetralemmata (I am rendering "tetralemma" in the plural here to refer to various applications of so-called "four-cornered logic," not just "1 = A," "2 = not A," etc.) in typical Western fashion. I've seen this sort of hang-up before. IMO He thinks they constitute a logically positive thesis that is defined by way of negation; i.e. as I understand, he thinks that you can use the four rejected theses to come to a fifth "true thesis" that is either implied by the four or hidden "between" the four.

He's not the only one. A few of those I've seen looking for "fifth corners," not necessarily the OP of this thread, are in the same boat as Poussin. Rather, instead of negating to posit, an "affirming negation," the Buddha negates to reject, a "non-affirming negation," what you describe as "non-declaration."

I might have to wait to address our disagreements about the Abyākatasutta until tomorrow. Apologies.
It is because the valleys are empty that they echo. It is because the mirror is empty that it reflects. It is because the flute is empty that it affects sound. It is because the ears are empty that they can listen. It is because the eyes are empty that they can see. It is because the nose is empty that it can smell.

If these were of substance inside, then there would be obstruction in these.

(from the writings of Master Liè, Daoist text, ~370AD)
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 4637
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Any real life examples these days of Tetralemma (Catuskoti) fourfold negation? What would be the fifth ('true') corn

Post by Coëmgenu »

Before I go, I want to draw specific attention to the way in which the author uses the word "negated" in the 3rd paragraph of page 123 which comes after the quote from R.H. Robinson.
Let us briefly consider the statement: This world is neither finite nor infinite.
This is a version of Lemma 4 that comes from a tetralemma that must necessarily start with "1) The world is finite, 2) the world is infinite." This is a similar tetralemma to "1) Suffering is created by oneself," "2) Suffering is created by another," etc., in that it does not start with a simple proposition followed by a straightforward negation of it. Instead, an "opposite" is asserted in Lemma 2. You can also have Lemma 2 be an "opposite" of Lemma 1, just as "A" and "not A" can be thought of as opposites, whether A is "the existence of the Tathagata after death" or not. Continuing:
The reasoner, the individual who is "addicted to logic," says that the epithets "finite" and "infinite" cannot be predicated of the world. Thus, this forth proposition seems to point beyond a two-valued logic. Early Buddhism (and subsequently Nagarjuna) refuses this hypothesis, remaining faithful to a truth-versus-false logic. This represents a second, more fundamental reason for rejection. It also means that the fourth alternative, in the case of legitimate questions, was viewed to be false (i.e. was negated).
(p.123 of above-linked article)
It is because the valleys are empty that they echo. It is because the mirror is empty that it reflects. It is because the flute is empty that it affects sound. It is because the ears are empty that they can listen. It is because the eyes are empty that they can see. It is because the nose is empty that it can smell.

If these were of substance inside, then there would be obstruction in these.

(from the writings of Master Liè, Daoist text, ~370AD)
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 4637
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Any real life examples these days of Tetralemma (Catuskoti) fourfold negation? What would be the fifth ('true') corn

Post by Coëmgenu »

So I've a few points regarding our disagreement over the Abyākatasutta, and I'm going to order them from least pertinent to most pertinent. The most pertinent will be in a separate post. The least pertinent will be Wikipedia references, in the mediary we will have the words of some bhikkhus, and at the end I'll actually look at the words of the sutta in question -- the most pertinent to our discussion.

From Wikipedia we have the so-called "fourteen questions" which I will cut-and-paste:
1. Is the world eternal?
2. ...or not?
3. ...or both?
4. ...or neither?

(Pali texts omit "both" and "neither")

5. Is the world finite?
6. ...or not?
7. ...or both?
8. ...or neither?

(Pali texts omit "both" and "neither")

9. Is the self identical with the body?
10. ...or is it different from the body?
11. Does the Tathagata (Buddha) exist after death?
12. ...or not?
13. ...or both?
14. ...or neither?
You'll note that certain of these tetralemmata are "artificial," meaning that the Buddha only uses Lemmata 1 & 2 in the Pali Canon itself. This is what I referred to earlier here:
Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 1:51 pmAs I see it, Lemmata 3 & 4 are essentially clarifications to the matter that are technically redundant, technically "slippery" to use your wording.

Depending on how we read it, do you see how Lemma 3 has 2 & 1 contradicted within it? It depends on how we read "both."

To illustrate how they are "technically redundant," we can note how the Buddha with Ven Kaccanagotta does not go into fourfold negation, merely twofold negation of "it all exists" and "it all doesn't exist."
The Wikipedia compilers neglected to form an artificial tetralemma to correspond to questions 9 & 10. That same Wikipedia article linked here also gives an account of "ten questions" that is closer to the Pali Canon's textus receptus without the artificially-generated tetralemmata. Wikipedia cites the sources for these ten questions as MN 63 & 72. The artificially-generated tetralemmata are formed from applying a "general tetralemma type" to the twofold negations that the Buddha gives. This "general tetralemma type" can be either a tetralemma that begins with "1) A, 2) not A" or a tetralemma that begins with "1) A, 2) B" if we understand B here to be "the opposite" of A for our purposes. That same Wikipedia article gives 16 undeclareds from the Sabbāsavasutta at MN 2:
What am I?
How am I?
Am I?
Am I not?
Did I exist in the past?
Did I not exist in the past?
What was I in the past?
How was I in the past?
Having been what, did I become what in the past?
Shall I exist in future?
Shall I not exist in future?
What shall I be in future?
How shall I be in future?
Having been what, shall I become what in future?
Whence came this person?
Whither will he go?
This one is more outrightly related to wicked self-view.

From the "blurb" (and, yes, that is a technical usage in modern English apparently) of Ven Sujato at SuttaCental corresponding to the Abyākatasutta:
The Buddha explains why a noble disciple has no doubt when it comes to the unexplained points.
"When it comes to the unexplained [and/or undeclared] points" is what I'll focus on in quoting that. My last quotation of bhikkhus is from Ven Thanissaro:
MN 72 lists the reasons why the Buddha does not take a position on any of these questions. In each case he says that such a position "is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full awakening, Unbinding."

These reasons fall into two categories. The first concerns the present drawbacks of taking such a position: It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, and fever. The second category concerns the effects of such a position over time: It does not lead to awakening or Unbinding. AN 10.93 further explores the first category of reasons. MN 63 further explores the second.

Some of the discourses in this samyutta explore a third category of reasons for why the Buddha does not take a position on any of these questions: Such a position is based on attachment to and misunderstanding of the aggregates and sense media. When one sees these things for what they are, as they're actually present, the idea of forming them into any of these positions simply does not occur to one.
This is from his introduction to the Abyākatasaṃyutta. I don't always agree with Ven Thanissaro. Most recently, I disagreed with his rendering of the Doṇasutta at AN 4.36 where he rendered questions in the future tense as in the present, as far as I understand the matter. If that's a wrong understanding, I invite correction from anyone. I've bolded the paragraph that I think is most pertinent, but I will note that he leaves the matter open, and that the previous two paragraphs, I think at least, you will find more congenial to your reading of the sutta. The third paragraph, as I read it, amounts to "they start from the wrong premise," as was stated earlier in the thread.

Analysis of the sutta itself coming hopefully shortly.
It is because the valleys are empty that they echo. It is because the mirror is empty that it reflects. It is because the flute is empty that it affects sound. It is because the ears are empty that they can listen. It is because the eyes are empty that they can see. It is because the nose is empty that it can smell.

If these were of substance inside, then there would be obstruction in these.

(from the writings of Master Liè, Daoist text, ~370AD)
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 4637
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Any real life examples these days of Tetralemma (Catuskoti) fourfold negation? What would be the fifth ('true') corn

Post by Coëmgenu »

Regarding analysing AN 7.54 directly, we have the opening question of the sutta and the opening elaboration by the Buddha, the rest of the sutta being something that will necessarily follow this exposition. Not only suttas, but sutras also do this, in the Mahayana sense of "sutra." Sutras like the Flower Garland, the Lotus, and Prajnaparamita open with a question that the entire sutra wishes to answer -- and these are compendious Mahayana vaipulyas, not short EBT suttas. If the vaipulya in question does not begin with such a question, the question that it does begin with will be treated as if it contains within it the seed for all of the material presented in the sutra. The opening question of the Flower Garland, for instance, lays out the original textual structure of the Flower Garland:
“It is not possible for celestials or humans to understand or enter into or focus on or know or cognize or think about or perceive clearly or distinguish or elucidate or establish in the body and mind of other beings the sphere of the enlightened, the realm of knowledge of the enlightened, the basis, the power, the fearlessness, the concentration, the state, the mastery, the body, or the knowledge of the enlightened, except by the support, the magic, the empowerment, and the past vows of the enlightened, by having the qualities of roots of goodness perfected by past buddhas, by being in the charge of spiritual benefactors, by purification of faith, liberative means, and knowledge, by attainment of illumination of higher devotion, by purification of the higher will of enlightening beings, and by the proceeding of the higher will on the undertaking of realizing omniscience? May the Buddha show us, enlightening beings and sentient beings — according to our dispositions, different mental capacities, different orientations, different perceptions, different languages, different attainments, different masteries, different stages, different purity of faculties, different mental efforts, different realms of thought, focus on different qualities of buddhahood, and orientation toward various teachings — his past procedure toward omniscience, and show us his past undertaking of the vows of enlightening beings, his past purification of the spheres of the transcendent ways of enlightening beings, the wonder of his past accession to the stages of enlightening beings, his past fulfillment of the undertakings of the spheres of practices of enlightening beings, the appearance of his past accomplishment of the vehicle of enlightening beings, his past purification of the embellishment of the path of enlightening beings, the arrays of his past accomplishments of the ocean of ways of emancipation of enlightening beings, the splendors of the ocean of spiritual transformations he experi- enced in the past as an enlightening being, the oceans of his past efforts as an enlightening being, the oceans of his spiritual transformations on the threshold of perfect enlightenment, the power of his spiritual manifestations in turning the wheel of truth as a buddha, the oceans of spiritual transformations involved in buddha-land purification, the Buddha’s methods of guiding sentient beings to liberation, the Buddha’s lordship of the city of principles of omniscience, the Buddha’s revelations of the paths of all sentient beings, the Buddha's transfigurations entering into the states of all beings, the Buddha’s receiving of gifts from beings, the Buddha’s presentations of teachings on right giving to all sentient beings, the Buddha’s projection of the image of Buddha into the mental states of all beings, the Buddha’s displays of miracles to sentient beings, the Buddha’s miracles of teaching and admonishing sentient beings, and the Buddha’s inconceivable manifestations of the realms of concentration of Buddha to all beings — may the Buddha show us these things.”
(opening of the Flower Garland, Cleary translation)

Cleary is a bizarre translator, btw. "Enlightening beings" for "bodhisattvas" is bizarre.

That aside, the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra (lit. "Sutra of the Buddha's Flower Garland") is often nicknamed "The Complete Sutra" because of its extraordinary length. The opening question we deal with in the Abyākatasutta is considerably shorter, being from a Pali sutta and not a Mahayana vaipulyasutra:
"Sir, what is the cause, what is the reason why an educated noble disciple has no doubts regarding the undeclared points?"

"Mendicant, it’s due to the cessation of views that an educated noble disciple has no doubts regarding the undeclared points.[...]"

[then straight into a tetralemma]
(AN 7.54)

So we see that this sutra, just as Ven Sujato has described, is restricted in purview to "the undeclareds," or "the undeclared things." These undeclared things given in the sutta are views corresponding to the tetralemma. The "cessation of views" that it talks about, based on the Buddha's summation in the beginning of the sutta, is the reason why there are "no doubts" concerning the undeclared/rejected views. The Buddha does not link the "cessation of view" to "all views" or "right views."

In this particular sutta, there are four undeclared/rejected views, but the Buddha has several other undeclareds in other suttas. It is possible that this sutta only refers to four undeclared/wrong theses, namely these...
‘A Realized One exists after death’ [...] ‘A Realized One doesn’t exist after death’ [...] ‘A Realized One both exists and doesn’t exist after death’ [...] ‘A Realized One neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death’ [...]
...but I think that we can reasonably assume that all of the undeclareds listed in, at least, the "ten questions," the "fourteen questions," and/or the "sixteen questions" above are to be treated according to this sutta.

That all being said, I hope no one thinks that I can't see both sides of a coin. The "parable of the raft" is very congenial to Chownah's reading, as I see things at least. The esoteric and quixotic instructions to abandon "the Dharma" in addition to "what is not the Dharma" is very mysterious indeed IMO and closer to my interlocutor's position regarding abandoning "all views" and of "'direct knowledge' being sort of like a better alternative to constructing views." "Abandoning the Dharma," however, IMO, is a larger leap than "all views." Abandoning the Dharma itself seems to entail abandoning "direct knowledge" itself, since directly knowledge of suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path is what "the Dharma" is, more or less. So if we're to abandon "the Dharma," it strikes me as likely that we're to abandon "direct knowledge" in addition to "all views." This is presuming that "abandon the Dharma" is actually how you're supposed to read the parable of the raft anyways. There are multiple other alternative readings.

Ven Nagarjuna will also, more or less, instruct his students to "abandon views." This is either well-followed or poorly-followed by his students depending on your reading of them.
It is because the valleys are empty that they echo. It is because the mirror is empty that it reflects. It is because the flute is empty that it affects sound. It is because the ears are empty that they can listen. It is because the eyes are empty that they can see. It is because the nose is empty that it can smell.

If these were of substance inside, then there would be obstruction in these.

(from the writings of Master Liè, Daoist text, ~370AD)
chownah
Posts: 9321
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Any real life examples these days of Tetralemma (Catuskoti) fourfold negation? What would be the fifth ('true') corn

Post by chownah »

I think that several recent posts have demonstrated that among modern philosopher/logicians there is considerable consternation around the construct called catuskoti or tetralemma. I think if one goes and reads what is available on line one will find that a lot of the conversation is concerned with what are seen to be the illogical logic that it contains from the standpoint of the "usual" interpretation of the logic which it implies/embodies. It seems that these modern academics all see some logical errors with respect to the classical positions of famous logicians and they do their best to try all kinds of varous logical ideas to try to "fix" those "errors" or "anomolies" or whatever one wants to call the features they discuss.

This is fine....I have no problem with them doing this....the thing that I want to discuss derives from the fact that I have not been able to find any of this kind of analysis of logic in the suttas. I have never found a sutta where the buddha talks about the logic of the various views that modern people group together and then label as being "a tetralemma".......I have never seen in the suttas where the buddha bundles views together and then calls them anything other than "views"!!!

I'm wondering if the suttas even contain a pali word which can be translated as "tetralemma" or "catuskoti".....I really doubt that there is one because I have been looking at suttas where modern academics point to tetralemmas or catuskotis so I would think that if there was a pali word for either of those and the buddha wanted to consider those collections of four views to be some sort of aggregate called a tetralemma or catuskoti then he would have declared that somewhere in those suttas where I have been looking.....but.....I have not seen it anywhere.

If anyone can find a sutta reference where the buddha or anyone else uses the word "tetralemma" or "catuskoti" I would be delighted to see it.....otherwise I think it is a misrepresentation when people talk about "the buddha's tetralemmas" with respect to the suttas....frankly I do not see anything anywhere in the suttas where the buddha expressed anything with respect to "tetralemma" or "catuskoti".....there is nothing to indicate that those terms were used by him or even by anyone else in the suttas.

It may be that nagarajuna used the word "catuskoti" and I am not familiar with what all he proclaimed but I did skim quickly through the Mulamadhyamakakarika which is one of his most famous disertations I guess and is supposed to be where he introduces the idea of the catuskoti but when I searched it I could not find the word "catuskoti" anywere in it. Could it be that nagarajuna never used the word "catuskoti" and it is just other people who used that term to indicate a grouping of four views and that nagarajuna never actually gave a name to a grouping of four views?....that it is just the addition of others?

After many days of further sutta reading I am more firmly than ever before of the opinion that the buddha never gave a fourfold negation of a tetralemma and now I am very close to an opinion that in the suttas the buddha never even acknowledged the construct that modern people call "tetralema" or "catuskoti".

Many people may be rolling their eyes :roll: or shrugging thier shoulders :shrug: asking "why is chownah going on and on like this?". I'll tell you why: it is because the idea that the buddha was teaching about a construct of four views logically connected is an important concept to deal with in his teachings then they seem to not only be wrong but they also are detracting from the things the buddha was actually teaching...they are detracting and destracting from the reasons the buddha explicitly places in so many suttas. These lessons the buddha gives might be difficult to understand but they have nothing to do with the logical constructions that people see when they look at certain groupings of four views....
chownah
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 4637
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Any real life examples these days of Tetralemma (Catuskoti) fourfold negation? What would be the fifth ('true') corn

Post by Coëmgenu »

chownah wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:26 pmIf anyone can find a sutta reference where the buddha or anyone else uses the word "tetralemma" or "catuskoti" I would be delighted to see it.....otherwise I think it is a misrepresentation when people talk about "the buddha's tetralemmas" with respect to the suttas....
You are moving the goalposts yet again. Now you want the word "tetralemma" in a Pāli sutta.

If you know what a tetralemma is, look at AN 7.54 and see one. If you don't, then just rhetorically stand around puzzled and be bewildered by the Buddha's rejection and/or non-declaration of four theses. Either is fine.
chownah wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:26 pmI think that several recent posts have demonstrated that among modern philosopher/logicians there is considerable consternation around the construct called catuskoti or tetralemma.
Rather than this, you've merely been encouraged to take a harder look at what the sutta you are talking about actually says and actually read it, all of the words not just some, and reflect on what you've read. Unless your disparagement was directed at Poussin alone, you smear this as "considerable consternation" by "modern philosopher/logicians." You are aware that Ven Vimalaksa and his Madhyamaka peers are from before 400 AD? If you don't understand any of the papers, just ask for clarification. They aren't particularly difficult ones IMO. You can get it, just work at it. You have a whole forum if you need help getting this. Some of the people on it are helpful, some the opposite. You'll need to use your own discernment to see who is telling you what the suttas says and who is selling you snake oil. You can only do that by reading deeply, reflecting, and by not assuming that you know what someone is talking about. So far, you haven't demonstrated an ability to read AN 7.54.
It is because the valleys are empty that they echo. It is because the mirror is empty that it reflects. It is because the flute is empty that it affects sound. It is because the ears are empty that they can listen. It is because the eyes are empty that they can see. It is because the nose is empty that it can smell.

If these were of substance inside, then there would be obstruction in these.

(from the writings of Master Liè, Daoist text, ~370AD)
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 4637
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Any real life examples these days of Tetralemma (Catuskoti) fourfold negation? What would be the fifth ('true') corn

Post by Coëmgenu »

chownah wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:26 pmIt may be that nagarajuna used the word "catuskoti" and I am not familiar with what all he proclaimed but I did skim quickly through the Mulamadhyamakakarika which is one of his most famous disertations I guess and is supposed to be where he introduces the idea of the catuskoti but when I searched it I could not find the word "catuskoti" anywere in it. Could it be that nagarajuna never used the word "catuskoti" and it is just other people who used that term to indicate a grouping of four views and that nagarajuna never actually gave a name to a grouping of four views?....that it is just the addition of others?
It's not about "who uses words." You can have a dilemma without calling it a dilemma. This argument is very bad. Ven Nagarjuna doesn't need to invent the terms "tetralemma," etc., nor does he even need to call them by that name in order to use them in his writings.
It is because the valleys are empty that they echo. It is because the mirror is empty that it reflects. It is because the flute is empty that it affects sound. It is because the ears are empty that they can listen. It is because the eyes are empty that they can see. It is because the nose is empty that it can smell.

If these were of substance inside, then there would be obstruction in these.

(from the writings of Master Liè, Daoist text, ~370AD)
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 4637
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Any real life examples these days of Tetralemma (Catuskoti) fourfold negation? What would be the fifth ('true') corn

Post by Coëmgenu »

chownah wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:26 pmThese lessons the buddha gives might be difficult to understand but they have nothing to do with the logical constructions that people see when they look at certain groupings of four views....
Several of the papers you've been directed to argue the opposite of what you talk about here, namely they argue that the "four views" are not a logical proposition to work through. Independent of them, it's what I've been arguing the whole time I've been posting on this thread.
It is because the valleys are empty that they echo. It is because the mirror is empty that it reflects. It is because the flute is empty that it affects sound. It is because the ears are empty that they can listen. It is because the eyes are empty that they can see. It is because the nose is empty that it can smell.

If these were of substance inside, then there would be obstruction in these.

(from the writings of Master Liè, Daoist text, ~370AD)
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 4637
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Any real life examples these days of Tetralemma (Catuskoti) fourfold negation? What would be the fifth ('true') corn

Post by Coëmgenu »

This should be simple. The Buddha does not use the word "stratagem," but teaches several to end craving. Because the Buddha did not use the word stratagem, it would be foolish to then assert that stratagems, maybe even strategy itself, is absent from the Buddha's teaching. Similarly, the Buddha never says "biological matter" as opposed to "inorganic matter." It would be foolish to argue that the Buddha does not distinguish between sentience and insentience in his Buddhadharma. It would be even more foolish to dismiss analysts who use these terms because the Buddha did not use them.
It is because the valleys are empty that they echo. It is because the mirror is empty that it reflects. It is because the flute is empty that it affects sound. It is because the ears are empty that they can listen. It is because the eyes are empty that they can see. It is because the nose is empty that it can smell.

If these were of substance inside, then there would be obstruction in these.

(from the writings of Master Liè, Daoist text, ~370AD)
chownah
Posts: 9321
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Any real life examples these days of Tetralemma (Catuskoti) fourfold negation? What would be the fifth ('true') corn

Post by chownah »

Great! It seems that coemgenu agrees with me that the buddha never used any word or made any reference to any bundle of any four views being any sort of logical aggregate.

THe buddha addresses views as being views....the buddha takes no position with respect to many views for various reasons which are given in the suttas.....the buddha never makes any comment about any view being part of an aggregate of views in a logical construction. It seems that it is incorrect and misleading to refer to "the buddha's tetralemmas".....it seems that the buddha didn't have tetralemmas....it seems that various philosophers may have had tetralemmas and then asked the buddha about the views they contained.....it seemms that the buddha answered to the views they contained but he did not comment on any aggregation of those views but rather he dealt with them individually.....modern philosophers and logicians have tetralemmas.
chownah
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 4637
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Any real life examples these days of Tetralemma (Catuskoti) fourfold negation? What would be the fifth ('true') corn

Post by Coëmgenu »

You need to learn what a tetralemma is first obviously. Have seven pages of this thread not helped you? You seem to not read what other people say in the thread and only show up to make statements that have nothing to do with the discussion on the thread as of late. If you demonstrated a willingness to read the thread and critically engage with its participants, your participation would become more relevant.

It's a curious statement bordering on lying saying that moderns have tetralemmata and not the Buddha and Ven Nāgārjuna. As for whatever you mean by "aggregation of views," I can't guess. I just have to assume that you can't follow the conversation. On terms of "the buddha takes no position with respect to many views for various reasons which are given in the suttas.....the buddha never makes any comment about any view being part of an aggregate of views in a logical construction," this is blatantly false. The sutta in which "cessation of views" appears is speaking about the four "views" or "theses" that the Buddha rejects and does not declare in that sutta itself. That this applies to "all views" is actually your fancy. You also, according to your fancy, don't like the word "negates" for "rejects." In other places, the Buddha has no trouble with logic and logical statements. So to go from "many views" to "any view" in such an unrefined way is simply your modern interpretation. The four views, numerous versions of four views, are those identified as a thicket of views, etc., not "right view" and not views that correctly correspond to reality.

Particularly bad is your argument that the Buddha and Ven Nāgārjuna do not use the tetralemma because the Greek word "tetralemma" and the Sanskrit word "catuṣkoṭi" which tetralemma is a translation of do not appear in the MMK and the Pāli Canon. It's a very bad argument. The Buddha never mentioned "meditation" either in the Pāli Canon. There is no such singular word in Pāli or Sanskrit or Chinese that corresponds to the English "meditate." If you say "jhāna," I will dispute that. A myriad storm of words are used, "vihārati etc.," but no such word corresponding to meditation. "Meditation" in English, ignoring English Buddhist meanings, technically refers to mulling something over in your mind via discursive thought. It would be very foolish to say that meditation is introduced into Buddhism by modern analysis because moderns use words differently.
It is because the valleys are empty that they echo. It is because the mirror is empty that it reflects. It is because the flute is empty that it affects sound. It is because the ears are empty that they can listen. It is because the eyes are empty that they can see. It is because the nose is empty that it can smell.

If these were of substance inside, then there would be obstruction in these.

(from the writings of Master Liè, Daoist text, ~370AD)
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 13314
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Any real life examples these days of Tetralemma (Catuskoti) fourfold negation? What would be the fifth ('true') corn

Post by Ceisiwr »

This is just as bad as the whole “Ah, but we never find “exists” next to Nibbana” non-argument.
"Besides the two categories of paramattha (the real) and paññatti (concept), a third category does not exist. One who is skilful in these two categories does not tremble in the face of other teachings."

Abhidhammāvatāra by Ven. Buddhadatta
Post Reply