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?
Post Reply
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

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

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

??

:thanks:
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
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 »

There is no corner, literally. It's an unsolvable tetralemma. There is no valid "solution" to it. Any "fifth thesis" designed to "solve" it is ruled out by the four theses themselves. A real example would be how, in real life, you can't have any sort of valid state or postulated entity that is not A, not not A, not both of those, and not neither of those. "All of the positions," or "all of the theses," or "all of the corners," are covered by and included in the "four theses" (四句).

The Buddha says that he does not praise even a tiny amount of existence, not even for as much as a finger's snap. Beings stuck on the polarity of "is" and "is not" actually entertain their own hidden theories of eternity and annihilation. These, referring to views concerning the existence of existence and nonexistence, are refined metaphysical versions of eternalism and annihilationism. They apply to "reality" instead of "my reality." When they are "my reality," they can be called "eternalist self-view" and "annihilationist self-view" respectively. In order to destroy attachment to the two views, the Buddha taught Venerable Kaccanagotta the teaching via the middle.

Over time, crafty men with clever, but not clever enough, minds started to come up with metaphysical theories that try to find the "quasi-existence" or "refined subtle existence" that was between "is" and "is not." They reformulated rejected imponderables of the Buddha into new philosophical refined forms. They said things like "The Tathagata both is and is not after death, that's why the Buddha declares that he neither is nor is not," or they said "The Tathagata has an ineffable vajra essence, neither existing nor not existing, that is forever unaltered both before and after the ending of the physical body." These are "both" and "neither," respectively, and it is part of the project of Ven Nagarjuna and his students to take these Buddhologies to task, to refute them, to show that these "new two" are merely the "old two" refurbished, and to correct these errors according to what they understand to be the truth of the Buddha's Dharma taught according to "the middle" -- from which "Madhyamaka" gets its name. The most likely opponent of the Madhyamaka polemics, the most likely locus for these outlandish theories, were the Pudgalavadins with their mysterious ineffable "pudgala," neither being nor not being, neither conditioned nor unconditioned. The Vimalāksa commentary to the MMK specifically frames Venerable Nagarjuna's interlocutor as being an Abhidharmika of the Saṃmitīya sect.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

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

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

Thanks a lot 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

The explanation is deep and I may need to re-read quite a few times.

Yesterday, after posting this topic, I found a paper with a few examples:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ed ... n-Mind.pdf

For example, I like the example of:
  • Neither happy nor unhappy. (results in neutral)
imo, negation to that would result something like:
  • Not [Neither happy Nor unhappy] (results in happy or unhappy)
or
there may be some other takes.
(here, unhappy may need to be defined: whether opposite spectrum from happy, or just "not happy" which may include both unhappy & neutral.)

:heart:
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

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

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

Some quotes from above paper:
The third lemma ...
  • The third lemma obviously seems to violate the law of non-contradiction by Aristotle. It, however, often appears in the sutras of Buddhism and the eastern tradition of thought and culture. Daoists and Zen Buddhists, for example, see the two sides of any apparent contradiction existing in a harmony, opposed but interconnected, interpenetrating interpermeating and interdependent (Nisbett). The third lemma includes multi-faceted meanings such as
    - the consciousness of the one-sidedness of mere is or mere is not (Murti), for example, ‘God exist and does not’,
    - a combination of the contrary characteristics such as ‘the universe is finite in one dimension and infinite in another’,
    - rhetorical use of the oxymoron that combines two words that seem to be the opposite of each other, for example, an open secret, too much of a good thing (bear’s service), a happy scream, a deafening silence and so on.
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

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

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

I think the truth must lie in the domain which is not any single one of the four corners.
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
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 »

Each one of the "four theses" is a "heretical" ponderance on an imponderable. Each one tries to answer as to whether Nirvana exists or not, or whether the Tathagata still exists or not after the cessation of his jīvitindriya, or the origin of the world and sentient beings, etc.

Thesis 1 suggests that the Buddha exists after the cessation of his jīvitindriya, Thesis 2 suggests that he does not, etc. You can fill in the blanks.

The author describes the third lemma as "see[ing] the two sides of any apparent contradiction existing in a harmony." I would say that this is correct. The wrong view that corresponds to Thesis 3 is ""The Tathagata both is and is not after death, that's why the Buddha declares that he neither is nor is not."

This might seem like bizarre nonsense, but it is actually internally coherent in its way, hence why it is a dangerous thesis. The Buddha does not declare that he exists "after death." The Buddha does not declare that he does not exist "after death." Why these two undeclareds? Thesis 3 argues that the Buddha can say that he neither is nor is not precisely because he both is and is not -- these two states, is and is not, mysteriously and deeply co-mingling in such a way that negation or affirmation of either is impossible. It is simply "both." So I think the authors nailed what I consider to be the wrong view inherent behind Lemma 3.

It says:
- the consciousness of the one-sidedness of mere is or mere is not
(Murti), for example, ‘God exist and does not’,
...and I have no clue what that means. Do you?

I can't comment too much on this paper because it is comparing Madhyamaka to things that I know nothing about, like for instance the reference to the theories on paraconsistent logic programming in computers by Blair and Subrahmanian that constitutes the first citation.

It has been a long time since I once ventured into the realm of symbolic logic. A backwards "E" is an existential quantifier, I think. Either way, I'm sufficiently rusty and unlearned in symbolic logic to make sense of their actual arguments, all presented in the esoteric but very interesting language of symbolic logic.

The paper as a whole seems to be dealing with the "positive tetralemma" or the "affirmed tetralemma" at MMK XVIII.8:
一切實非實
亦實亦非實
非實非非實
是名諸佛法
All is real, unreal,
and real and unreal,
and neither real nor unreal.
This is called "the many Buddhas' Dharma."
(T1564.23c16)

This is one of the most difficult and most abstract places in the MMK. Exegetes that I follow take this as referring to the conventional, not the ultimate, i.e. that the affirmed tetralemma is only true of the conventional and conditioned. The statement "This is called 'all Buddha's Dharma'" is read as referring to the fact that the Buddhas use the conventional to point to the ultimate in those readings by the exegetes I alluded to (who are Vens Candrakirti and Vimalaksa). Venerable Vimalaksa comments on the passage:
The many Buddhas have immeasurable implementations of appropriate methodologies, and the many phenomena have no fixed natures. To liberate beings, they say "All is real," or they say "All is unreal," or they say "All is real and unreal," or they say "All is neither real nor unreal." "All is real," because, inquiring into the true aspect of all phenomena, each and every enters into the highest truth of equality and oneness of characteristic, which is to say with no characteristic. It is like the many rivers of different colours and different tastes entering into the great ocean of the same colour and the same taste. At the time of not having entered into the true aspect of all phenomena, each is unreal, yet with the many conditions aggregating, they are caused to exist. Living beings are of three kinds: a superior, a middling, and an inferior. The superior sees the characteristics of all phenomena as neither real nor unreal. The middling sees the characteristics of all phenomena as either all real or all unreal. The inferior, on account of his shallow intellect, reasons seeing the characteristics of all phenomena as slightly real and slightly unreal. He sees nirvāṇa as the unconditioned phenomena and imperishable and reasons it as the real. He sees saṁsāra as the conditioned and the false and reasons it as the unreal. "Neither real nor unreal" is taught to break "Both real and unreal."
The Sammitiya interlocutor responds:
The Buddhas in other places say "separate from neither existence nor nonexistence." In light of this, why say "neither existence nor nonexistence" are the Buddhas' words?
And the rest is in the Classical Madhyamaka thread.

Above, when Ven Vimalaksa says "To liberate beings, they say [...]," he is also commenting on MMK XVIII.6, two verses above the earlier quotation from the MMK:
諸佛或說我
或說於無我
諸法實相中
無我無非我
The many Buddhas either speak of the self
or they speak of what is not the self.
Within the true aspect of the many phenomena,
there is neither the self nor what is not the self.
They speak of "self" or "what is not the self," but in reality neither of these are concrete entities. They use the language of positive and negative existence, but these only point to the ultimate. They are merely conventional designations in and of themselves. To liberate sentient beings, the Buddhas dabble in the conventions of the world and the worldling. They speak to him according to his own language, the only way they can. There is no Buddha-activity aside from the helping instruction of sentient beings, which is all carried out in the realm of the conventional. Madhyamaka rejects the "ultimate analysis" of the Abhidharmikas and that you can speak of "ultimates" in scholastic terms at all. When the Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha says "In an ultimate sense the categories of Abhidhamma, mentioned therein, are fourfold in all: (1.) consciousness, (2.) mental states, (3.) matter, and (4.) Nibbāna," the Madhyamaka disagrees full-heartedly. To them, there is only one ultimate, and it has as its names "the true aspect of the many phenomena" (諸法實相), "Nirvana," and "reality," among other names.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

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

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:29 am Each one of the "four theses" is a "heretical" ponderance on an imponderable. Each one tries to answer as to whether Nirvana exists or not, or whether the Tathagata still exists or not after the cessation of his jīvitindriya, or the origin of the world and sentient beings, etc.

Thesis 1 suggests that the Buddha exists after the cessation of his jīvitindriya, Thesis 2 suggests that he does not, etc. You can fill in the blanks.

The author describes the third lemma as "see[ing] the two sides of any apparent contradiction existing in a harmony." I would say that this is correct. The wrong view that corresponds to Thesis 3 is ""The Tathagata both is and is not after death, that's why the Buddha declares that he neither is nor is not."

This might seem like bizarre nonsense, but it is actually internally coherent in its way, hence why it is a dangerous thesis. The Buddha does not declare that he exists "after death." The Buddha does not declare that he does not exist "after death." Why these two undeclareds? Thesis 3 argues that the Buddha can say that he neither is nor is not precisely because he both is and is not -- these two states, is and is not, mysteriously and deeply co-mingling in such a way that negation or affirmation of either is impossible. It is simply "both." So I think the authors nailed what I consider to be the wrong view inherent behind Lemma 3.

It says:
- the consciousness of the one-sidedness of mere is or mere is not
(Murti), for example, ‘God exist and does not’,
...and I have no clue what that means. Do you?

I can't comment too much on this paper because it is comparing Madhyamaka to things that I know nothing about, like for instance the reference to the theories on paraconsistent logic programming in computers by Blair and Subrahmanian that constitutes the first citation.

It has been a long time since I once ventured into the realm of symbolic logic. A backwards "E" is an existential quantifier, I think. Either way, I'm sufficiently rusty and unlearned in symbolic logic to make sense of their actual arguments, all presented in the esoteric but very interesting language of symbolic logic.

The paper as a whole seems to be dealing with the "positive tetralemma" or the "affirmed tetralemma" at MMK XVIII.8:
一切實非實
亦實亦非實
非實非非實
是名諸佛法
All is real, unreal,
and real and unreal,
and neither real nor unreal.
This is called "all Buddhas' Dharma."
This is one of the most difficult and most abstract places in the MMK. Exegetes that I follow take this as referring to the conventional, not the ultimate, i.e. that the affirmed tetralemma is only true of the conventional and conditioned. The statement "This is called 'all Buddha's Dharma'" is read as referring to the fact that the Buddhas use the conventional to point to the ultimate in those readings by the exegetes I alluded to (who are Vens Candrakirti and Vimalaksa).


To my understanding, all four views/questions are wrong/irrelevant because there is no Tathagata in the first place, in ultimate sense. It is said to be somewhat like asking: what is the color of your car that you have never owned? The questions themselves are meaningless in ultimate sense. Here, it's less concerned with the sense of middle, imo.

Thanks much for "positive tetralemma", some would say four-fold affirmation, imo.

Referring back to the topic title:
I would very much like to know the every day examples of four fold negation, four fold affirmation, and any combinations (of trues & falses regarding four corners) in between.
eg:

- - - -
+ - - -
+ + - -
.
.
.
- + - -
- - + -
.
etc.
.
+ + + +

... if such things ever exist.
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
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 »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:07 amI would very much like to know the every day examples of four fold negation, four fold affirmation, and any combinations (of trues & falses regarding four corners) in between. [...] ... if such things ever exist.
R is red, B is blue, and P is purple. The letters below represent a line segment with 15 sections differently coloured.

RRRRRPPPPPBBBBB

If we have to describe the sections of the line segment as "one set," we cannot describe the set as "red," because there are blue and purple elements in it, and we cannot describe the line segment as "blue" as a whole for similar reasons. The line segment, as an entire set of sections, is neither red nor blue, yet both red and blue. It is neither red nor blue precisely because it is both red and blue, as an entire set. Even the P sections, the purple bits, can be re-analyzed as comprised of red and blue after a detailed analysis. This is one way how you can sort of fudge your way around the tetralemma using very specifically-applied amateurish set theory.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

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

Post by Ceisiwr »

Isn’t it invalidated by the law of the excluded middle?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

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

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 2:31 am
Beings stuck on the polarity of "is" and "is not" actually entertain their own hidden theories of eternity and annihilation. These, referring to views concerning the existence of existence and nonexistence, are refined metaphysical versions of eternalism and annihilationism.
I still don’t understand this argument?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
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 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:48 am
Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 2:31 amBeings stuck on the polarity of "is" and "is not" actually entertain their own hidden theories of eternity and annihilation. These, referring to views concerning the existence of existence and nonexistence, are refined metaphysical versions of eternalism and annihilationism.
I still don’t understand this argument?
As I understand: people do not need to look to the "Self" for solace, and can find the "Self" in places they went looking in specifically not to find the "Self." We see pseudo-anatta arguments from, for instance, scientific materialists and/or scientific skeptics to this day. Consider this narrative that I've certainly encountered from those who "don't believe in a soul," namely that when we die, we return to the universe, which is eternal and constant. Our bits rejoin the cycle of moving energy and matter, which is eternal and constant, which is to say we rejoin with the existence that we've never left. Existence is eternal. We are existence. Or, here's another common one, "Information cannot be destroyed."

There are ways to get around "you will die" where the object of your clinging, the object of your "selfing," is not your body or your person. It's like, "There may be no me, but this existence which it seems I am a part of will continue on. What was me will continue to transform into other modalities of existence." Entertaining strong theories about the external world that is "the universe" and "existence," perhaps even of your eventual transformation "into it" upon death as a kind of "continued existence by proxy," this can make "the world" appear "regular," fixed," and even like you belong to it, and give the illusion that it all is under some kind of control. It is "clinging to the world (as a self by proxy)." This what I call in my head "the scientist's self," not to paint you with a bad brush. To the New Ager, it is "the universe," to some, it is "the flux of materiality," to some, it is the soulless reality that is continually permutating into new variations -- always progressing, always evolving. These are all sorts of what I would consider "self theories by proxy." The dharmas are ultimately what is being identified with, not the mind or body in such cases. There is a faux non-identification that is only surface deep.

"It is," without any qualifier, is a view of reality that suggests that existence is and always is, i.e. "eternity." "It is" needn't be a view of the self as "this person" per se. When "eternity" in such a way framed becomes "my eternity," when "that which is" becomes "mine which is," we call it "self view," and in particular "eternalism." To the annihilationist, things, including their "Self," fundamentally "are not." It is the eternal state of things to "not be." Things are impermanent and, in time, they pass into eternity, "not existing." Not existing is the eternal destiny of all things and their true nature, because nonexistence is the "default" state of being in the logic underpinning such thinking. There is no "it is," truly, because the various objects and events, when viewed from the perspective of their ultimate destiny and thus their ultimate reality, when viewed from what they will spend eternity as, "are not."

More technically, I can assemble a post about dharmanairātmyatā either in the afternoon or tomorrow either here or on a different thread.
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:46 amIsn’t it invalidated by the law of the excluded middle?
The trick is that the person who poses that as a solution to the tetralemma is using a criteria to describing a set, i.e. "all of one uniform colour," that is producing "neither red nor blue" because it is deficient and does not describe the set. The reason why it cannot describe the set is because it is red and blue collectively. The one who poses that as a solution to the tetralemma can then say, "It is neither red nor blue because it is both red and blue," however now he has violated his criteria for classifying the set of all sections of his line segment. I didn't say it was a good solution. It is something I thought up one day in university while trying to "get" Tiantai Buddhism. This was maybe five or six years ago. It doesn't necessarily hold up water, hence my unflattering description of it. It's all I could think of in response to the OP though. "Real life" examples.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

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

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:15 am
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:07 amI would very much like to know the every day examples of four fold negation, four fold affirmation, and any combinations (of trues & falses regarding four corners) in between. [...] ... if such things ever exist.
R is red, B is blue, and P is purple. The letters below represent a line segment with 15 sections differently coloured.

RRRRRPPPPPBBBBB

If we have to describe the sections of the line segment as "one set," we cannot describe the set as "red," because there are blue and purple elements in it, and we cannot describe the line segment as "blue" as a whole for similar reasons. The line segment, as an entire set of sections, is neither red nor blue, yet both red and blue. It is neither red nor blue precisely because it is both red and blue, as an entire set. Even the P sections, the purple bits, can be re-analyzed as comprised of red and blue after a detailed analysis. This is one way how you can sort of fudge your way around the tetralemma using very specifically-applied amateurish set theory.


Many thanks. I especially like this.
  • neither red nor blue, yet both red and blue
I want to know about these, because I wonder what was in the thoughts of those who asked these questions to the Buddha. All four corners might represent familiar ways of thinking around common issues at the time of the Buddha, like RPB example, with the last two corners gradually falling out of use in the later eras.
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

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

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

Related:

Book reviews of:
The Fifth Corner of Four: An Essay on Buddhist Metaphysics and the Catuṣkoṭi (by Graham Priest)

by Ronald S. Green
https://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhisteth ... Four-1.pdf


by Matthew Kepstein
http://www.shin-ibs.edu/documents/pwj4/ ... review.pdf


by Mark Siderits
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-fifth-c ... catuskoti/

I haven't read the reviews in details (seem somewhat approachable for me), nor the book.
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
chownah
Posts: 9336
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 »

In the suttas isn't the tetralemma always about exists and does not exist? If it covers something else can you bring the reference?
chownah
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

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

Post by SteRo »

Don't let yourself be bothered by nonsense. The question however is "What's the boundary between nonsense and non-nonsense?"
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Post Reply