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: 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 »

chownah wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:13 pmCLEARLY IT IS MY STATEMENT DESCRIBING THE THOUGHTS OF THE MONK WHICH IS MISTAKEN.
No need for caps. I've been quite civil with you. Why is the thought of the monk mistaken? Do you think that it is called mistaken on account of a reason other than his thesis being mistaken? Why would it be a mistake for something to believe that a "realized" mendicant would hold the position that the Tathāgata exists after death? I know an answer to all three of these, but I'm curious what you would say.
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.
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 »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 9:21 pm
chownah wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:13 pmCLEARLY IT IS MY STATEMENT DESCRIBING THE THOUGHTS OF THE MONK WHICH IS MISTAKEN.
No need for caps. I've been quite civil with you. Why is the thought of the monk mistaken? Do you think that it is called mistaken on account of a reason other than his thesis being mistaken? Why would it be a mistake for something to believe that a "realized" mendicant would hold the position that the Tathāgata exists after death? I know an answer to all three of these, but I'm curious what you would say.
I used all caps for emphasis...nothing uncivil about that........it appears that even though I emphasized the statement for your special consideration it seems that I was not explicit enough in that you misconstrue its meaning. I will try to make it more explicit:
The buddha is saying that if I say that a monk who is fully released will have the view that the tathagata exists after death then I am mistaken because a monk who is fullly released will not have that view. I am the one who is mistaken...in what way am I mistaken?...I am mistaken because I have said that the monk will have a view which the monk will never have...

It is a mistake to say that the monk will have that view....therefore I am mistaken.
I hope this clarifies things.

Edit: I'll add one more thing.....if you said "a fully realized monk will have the view that the tathagata exists after death" then the buddha would say that you are mistaken......this is a view that a fully realized monk will never have....

I'll comment on other issues later.
chownah
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 »

I don't think that you are going far enough with your inquiries. You still haven't addressed why a realized monk would not hold that position. Why is it a mistake, i.e. why does the monk not hold the position?

You argumentation above seems to be "It is a mistake because it is a mistake." I'm aware that the stance is called a mistake. I pointed that out myself. I think you need to go deeper than "He is mistaken because the monk will never hold that position." You should be able to explain why it is mistaken on a deeper level than "It just is," or as you put it:

"In what way am I mistaken?...I am mistaken because I have said that the monk will have a view which the monk will never have...It is a mistake to say that the monk will have that view....therefore I am mistaken."

"It is a mistake therefore he is mistaken." That's your argument as I understand it put forward by you. You should address the reason, the "why" of the matter, IMO. You don't need to though.
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.
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 »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:45 pm I don't think that you are going far enough with your inquiries. You still haven't addressed why a realized monk would not hold that position. Why is it a mistake, i.e. why does the monk not hold the position?

You argumentation above seems to be "It is a mistake because it is a mistake." I'm aware that the stance is called a mistake. I pointed that out myself. I think you need to go deeper than "He is mistaken because the monk will never hold that position." You should be able to explain why it is mistaken on a deeper level than "It just is," or as you put it:
The primary point I am making is that the buddha did not negate any of the four statements concerning the condition of the tathagata after death in DN15. The buddha said that to make a statement claiming that a totally unbound monk would hold any of the four possibile views concerning the condition of the tathagata after death would be mistaken.....the buddha says nothing about the four possibilities themselves....he only talks about the false claims about the views of such a monk.

If you want to know why then just look at the sutta.....it says why explicitly:
Why? Having directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment, the extent to which the cycle revolves: Having directly known that, the monk is released.
Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:45 pm "In what way am I mistaken?...I am mistaken because I have said that the monk will have a view which the monk will never have...It is a mistake to say that the monk will have that view....therefore I am mistaken."

"It is a mistake therefore he is mistaken." That's your argument as I understand it put forward by you. You should address the reason, the "why" of the matter, IMO. You don't need to though.
I have not argued that the monk is mistaken.....that is what you misconstrue. If you read carefully I say that it is the statement made by others about the views of the monk which is mistaken.....I have not said that the monk is mistaken...the buddha has not said that the monk is mistaken....only you keep bringing in the idea that the monk is mistaken.

I will be going past this issue soon. My view is that a fully released monk would not be mistaken in holding views......and I think the buddha's explanations as to why indicate the same thing.
chownah
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 »

So I take it that you think that there is no reason as to why a fully released monk would not hold that stance other than what you have listed. Does the reason listed demonstrate why the thesis is wrong or why the monk wouldn't hold it to you?

The stance itself could be correct, the Tathāgata could well exist after death, but for an unknown reason, a released monk doesn't hold it. This not holding it is irrespective of its correctness or wrongness. Do I have your position correct? If I don't, please correct me, but it seems that this is what you argue when you insist that the thesis itself is not mistaken and that it is merely wrongly attributed to a disciple of the Buddha. Can you come up with the reason, any reason, why a monk wouldn't hold that position or would you prefer to wait longer before exploring this?

This is an interesting statement:
My view is that a fully released monk would not be mistaken in holding views
But we aren't having a discussion about whether or not a fully released monk would be mistaken in holding any view. As I understand it, we're having a conversation about a fully released monk holding the position that the Tathagata exists after death, as well as about three other theses. Also, you seem to think that this is a clear statement and not a mysterious statement:
Why? Having directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment, the extent to which the cycle revolves: Having directly known that, the monk is released.
Care to elaborate what you think is clear here? I also think it is clear, but I think that it supports my side of the disagreement, so I'll be interested in seeing how you interpret this as supporting your perspective.
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
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 »

Instead of just encouraging you to give me more detail, I'll actually give you something from me. That way, it isn't just me inquiring about how you interpret the above passage.
It is to this extent, Ānanda, that one can be born, age, and die, pass away and re-arise, to this extent that there is a pathway for designation, to this extent that there is a pathway for language, to this extent that there is a pathway for description, to this extent that there is a sphere for wisdom, to this extent that the round turns for describing this state of being, that is, when there is mentality-materiality together with consciousness.
This is re-stated further along in the sutta, but I'm mixing translations. The meaning of all three, Ven Sujato's, Ven Bodhi's, and Ven Thanissaro's, are all the same:
A mendicant is freed by directly knowing this: how far language and the scope of language extend; how far terminology and the scope of terminology extend; how far description and the scope of description extend; how far wisdom and the sphere of wisdom extend; how far the cycle of rebirths and its continuation extend. It wouldn’t be appropriate to say that a mendicant freed by directly knowing this holds the view: ‘There is no such thing as knowing and seeing.’
Using the language from Ven Thanissaro, one can be born, age, die, pass away and re-arise, to the extent that there is

1) a pathway for designation, and 2) its objects
3) a pathway for expression, and 4) its objects
5) a pathway for description, and 6) its objects
7) a pathway for discernment, and 8) its objects
9) the revolution of the cycle

The monk who does not hold the position "The Tathagata exists after death," and three other related positions, has direct knowledge of these nine things.

How does direct knowledge of these nine things render it a mistake to attribute the thesis to the monk? Because the thesis is wrong. The Tathagata does not "exist." This clause, "It is to this extent, Ānanda, that one can be born, age, and die, pass away and re-arise," does not apply to the Tathagata. You cannot designate him, you cannot express him, you cannot describe him, you cannot discern him, because he is outside the revolutions of the cycle. Similarly, for the sake of thoroughness, he is not an object of designation, of expression, of description, of discernment, and does not revolve in the cycle. "Existing things" do that. The Tathagata, in truth, is not even a being, not even a concept, let alone a dhamma that is engaged in contact as an object.

You are quite free to disagree with any or all of this, by the way. The ending of this train of thought is going to be what was stated earlier, namely that the theses "start from the wrong premise" and that it is a mistake to apply them because they, the theses themselves, are wrong here. My understanding is that things which fall under the purview of the conventional, the relational, the changeable, and the provisional are directly known via nine aspects, the nine listed above. Ultimately, in the sense of the highest truth that is always correct, the "truest true," the nine do not apply to the Buddha. In a further Madhyamaka thesis, the nine do not apply to the world and also do not apply to Nibbana.
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: 22383
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 »

I’m not sure if this has come up already, but this seems relevant to the conversation:
[Upasiva:]
Alone, Sakyan, & with nothing to rely on,
I can't venture across
the great flood.
Tell me, All-around Eye,
the support to rely on
for crossing over this flood.

[The Buddha:]
Mindfully focused on nothingness, [1]
relying on 'There isn't,'
you should cross over the flood.
Abandoning sensual pleasures,
abstaining from conversations,
keep watch for the ending of
craving, night & day.

[Upasiva:]
One free from passion
for all sensual pleasures
relying on nothingness, letting go of all else,
released in the highest emancipation of perception:
Does he stay there unaffected?

[The Buddha:]
One free from passion
for all sensual pleasures
relying on nothingness, letting go of all else,
released in the highest emancipation of perception:
He stays there unaffected.

[Upasiva:]
If he stays there, O All-around Eye,
unaffected for many years,
right there
would he be cooled & released?
Would his consciousness be like that?

[The Buddha:]
As a flame overthrown by the force of the wind
goes to an end
that cannot be classified,[2]
so the sage free from naming activity
goes to an end
that cannot be classified.

[Upasiva:]
He who has reached the end:
Does he not exist,
or is he for eternity
free from disease?
Please, sage, declare this to me
as this phenomenon has been known by you.

[The Buddha:]
One who has reached the end
has no criterion [3]
by which anyone would say that —
for him it doesn't exist.
When all phenomena are done away with,[4]
all means of speaking
are done away with as well.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
“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.”
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 »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:37 pm So I take it that you think that there is no reason as to why a fully released monk would not hold that stance other than what you have listed. Does the reason listed demonstrate why the thesis is wrong or why the monk wouldn't hold it to you?

The stance itself could be correct, the Tathāgata could well exist after death, but for an unknown reason, a released monk doesn't hold it. This not holding it is irrespective of its correctness or wrongness. Do I have your position correct? If I don't, please correct me, but it seems that this is what you argue when you insist that the thesis itself is not mistaken and that it is merely wrongly attributed to a disciple of the Buddha. Can you come up with the reason, any reason, why a monk wouldn't hold that position or would you prefer to wait longer before exploring this?

This is an interesting statement:
My view is that a fully released monk would not be mistaken in holding views
But we aren't having a discussion about whether or not a fully released monk would be mistaken in holding any view. As I understand it, we're having a conversation about a fully released monk holding the position that the Tathagata exists after death, as well as about three other theses. Also, you seem to think that this is a clear statement and not a mysterious statement:
Why? Having directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment, the extent to which the cycle revolves: Having directly known that, the monk is released.
Care to elaborate what you think is clear here? I also think it is clear, but I think that it supports my side of the disagreement, so I'll be interested in seeing how you interpret this as supporting your perspective.
You ask "Do I have your position correct?" My answer is "no, you do not have my position correct." Just one example (there are more than one): the things you call the four positions are in fact as written into DN15 described as "views". Here is a direct quote:
If anyone were to say with regard to a monk whose mind is thus released that 'The Tathagata exists after death,' is his view, that would be mistaken
I said:
My view is that a fully released monk would not be mistaken in holding views
I hold by that statement....it seems clear from DN15 that "The Tathagata exists after death" is a view. If you want more sutta references which support the four positions concerning the condition of the tathagata after death are views I can bring many.
Please tell me what is your "side of the disagreement"......and what you see as my "perspective".
chownah
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: Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:16 pm I’m not sure if this has come up already, but this seems relevant to the conversation:
[...]
so the sage free from naming activity
goes to an end
that cannot be classified.
This reminds me of the sentence that ends with "that is, when there is mentality-materiality together with consciousness" quoted above.
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
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 »

chownah wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pmJust one example (there are more than one): the things you call the four positions are in fact as written into DN15 described as "views". Here is a direct quote:
If anyone were to say with regard to a monk whose mind is thus released that 'The Tathagata exists after death,' is his view, that would be mistaken
I said:
My view is that a fully released monk would not be mistaken in holding views
We'll get into meatier discussion in a moment, but the difference of "views" and "positions" depends on the translator. Earlier, we quoted something to the effect of "A position is something that the Buddha has done away with." "A position" there can be read as a synonym of "a view." More to come, just give me a moment if you can. I've also been calling them "theses." "Thesis" in this usage is meant to be identical to "view."
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:56 pm, edited 1 time 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 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:19 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:03 am
My understanding is that they start from the wrong premise, namely that of a self.

:goodpost:
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 »

Re-posting (adapted) what I posted previously...
  • 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:

    ABCD
    A = True
    B = False
    C = Both True & False
    D = Neither True nor False

    (ABCD) = ( + + + + ) = four fold affirmation (as Coëmgenu explained here)
    - (ABCD) = ( - - - - ) = four fold negation ( familiar findings in suttas, imo)
    And, every combination in between:


    - - - -
    + - - - // - + - - // - - + - // - - - +
    + + - - // + - + - // + - - + // - + + - // - + - + // - - + +
    + + + - // + + - + // + - + + // - + + +
    + + + +


    ... if such combos ever exist.
I think there already are posted a few real-life answers around common scenarios : eg. examples with colors etc. viewtopic.php?p=628662#p628662)
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 »

chownah wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pmPlease tell me what is your "side of the disagreement"......and what you see as my "perspective".
This is tricky, because I've already done that above. I also made a separate post to outline my own thinking. Seeing your subsequent post, I think your stance is "Released mendicants don't have views. Tathagatas don't have views," which is more sensible than "He doesn't declare the view, but it could be right (or wrong)."

Your stance that a fully-released monk would necessary have no views is complicated by the fact that, although the Tathagata does specify that he has done away with views/positions/theses, he outlines something called "sammādiṭṭhi" which is distinct from micchādiṭṭhi. So it actually follows that there are "wrong views" and "right views." A "right view" might be, for instance, that the saṅkhāras are conditioned by ignorance. A more overtly-stated right view is that there are "fruits, and results of good and bad actions." Another application of right view is the application of "the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, [and] the awakening factor of investigation of principles" (MN 117). MN 117 also sets out several "wrong" views/positions/theses. MN 117 does not include "the Tathagata exists after death" as one of these wrong views, which is a point against my interpretation of the thesis being "wrong." So I want to point out that I am not setting myself as the arbiter of objective truth here, but merely that I am arguing for an interpretation.

When the Buddha says that he has done away with positions, I read it so:
"A 'position [regarding this subject],' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you have invited me to tell you what I see of your "perspective," which I take to mean "explain to me how you understand my words." I think that you interpret the passage thus:
"A 'position[, any position at all,]' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.
This has precedence and isn't a wrong way to read it. I think that the Buddha is specifically commenting on the previous conversation, but I think that you think that the Buddha is revealing a universal truth, that he never has positions regarding anything.
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.
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 »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:37 pm

This is an interesting statement:
My view is that a fully released monk would not be mistaken in holding views
But we aren't having a discussion about whether or not a fully released monk would be mistaken in holding any view. As I understand it, we're having a conversation about a fully released monk holding the position that the Tathagata exists after death, as well as about three other theses.
The suttas always speak of the four positions you reference as being views....and in act they are views. You may call them something else but with respect to the suttas they are views. I am pointing out that from what it says in the suttas what we are talking about is whether a fully released monk would hold those views....the buddha's statements in DN15 are directly saying that a fullyi realeased monk would not hold those views. The substance of what the buddha says has nothing to do with the affirming or negating the four views....the substance is that the fully released monk would not hold any of those views. The buddha even says why the monk would not hold those views and in that explanation there is nothing about affirming or negating any of them. The sutta definitely is talking about a view that a fully released monk would not hold....the buddha says that it is mistaken to claim that a fully realized monk would hold any of those views...the buddha does not say that the monk is mistaken with respect to those views...My view is that a fully released monk would not be mistaken in holding views. Do you dispute any of this?
Coëmgenu wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:37 pm Also, you seem to think that this is a clear statement and not a mysterious statement:
Why? Having directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment, the extent to which the cycle revolves: Having directly known that, the monk is released.
Care to elaborate what you think is clear here? I also think it is clear, but I think that it supports my side of the disagreement, so I'll be interested in seeing how you interpret this as supporting your perspective.
I have not made any indication as to the clarity or lack of clarity with respect to the reason the buddha gave for it being mistaken to say that a fully realized monk would hold any of those views. I do think that the buddha makes it clear that it is not a mistake for the monk to not hold any of those views....

THe bottom line for me is that the buddha is not disparaging the monk for not hold any of those views....the buddha is not saying that the monk is mistaken for not holding any of those views...the buddha is saying that if anyone claims that such a monk would hold any of those views is mistaken....and the buddha is saying that there are good reasons why such a monk would never hold any of those views.

Do you dispute anything in the paragraph above? You keep jumping around and changing the topic you want to discuss and too often misconstruing what I have said....I think you are jumping around to avoid confroning my main idea which is that there seems to be no negation of any of the ideas presented in the exist/not exist tetralemma to be found any where in the suttas....I think you are being evasive to avoid dealing with this issue because the sutta references I have brought so far do not contain negations of the four statements and I can assure you I have plenty more sutta references which show this. Let's come to some understanding about one thing before diving into something else.....find a negation of the four and bring it or admit that there is no negation.....
chownah
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 »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 4:20 pm When the Buddha says that he has done away with positions, I read it so:
"A 'position [regarding this subject],' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you have invited me to tell you what I see of your "perspective," which I take to mean "explain to me how you understand my words." I think that you interpret the passage thus:
"A 'position[, any position at all,]' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.
This has precedence and isn't a wrong way to read it. I think that the Buddha is specifically commenting on the previous conversation, but I think that you think that the Buddha is revealing a universal truth, that he never has positions regarding anything.
If we take your views:
"A 'position [regarding this subject],' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.
and
I think that the Buddha is specifically commenting on the previous conversation

This means that the buddha does not take a position with respect to the four statements of the condition of the tathagata after death because that is the subject of the previous conversation in that sutta.......if we adopt your meaning then there is no negation of the four statements because the buddha says he has no position with respect to them.

Once again, there is no negation of the four statements.....once again my main point of discussion (there is no negation of the four statements to be found in the suttas) has been supported........
chownah
Post Reply