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
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2177
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: Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:29 pm The first verse is spoken by the interlocutor, the rest by Ven Nagarjuna. The twenty-second to twenty-third verses are hypothetical questions posed by Ven Nagarjuna in the voice of his interlocutor. He answers these rhetorical questions with the opening of verse 24, but then also introduces a typical Madhyamaka "twist ending:"

MMK XXV.24
諸法不可得
滅一切戲論
無人亦無處
佛亦無所說
All phenomena being inconceivable
is the cessation of all of the frivolous ponderings.
To no person and in no place
has the Buddha ever spoken.


戲論 = prapañca = "frivolous ponderings" in this Sinocentric translation.

Thanks. Some edits made to above post.

I think Streng's translation is difficult for me; I quoted it here because it is the only one bolded in Korin's notes.

The translation of verse 25.24 you mentioned is not found in korin's list.
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: 8151
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 had a post and accidentally deleted it without saving it.

Bocking reads the first two lines of MMK XXV.24 as two separate phrases. Because he reads the second phrase as distinct from the first, the 滅 that starts the second line must be imperative and needs to be verbalized, not nominal. I think that the first line is a nominal phrase that is existentially equated to the next nominal phrase, using 滅 as "cessation" because the commentary speaks of "the cessation of prapañca" here and not "ceasing prapañca." That being said, he is a good translator who is much more qualified than I. There are a few places where I think he makes mistakes. On page 160 of the Korin notes he relays Venerable Vimalaksa (whom he calls "Pingala") giving a parable of the "corn." There was no corn in Central Asia (or China) around 400 AD. He also translates a term that I think should be "independent" as "non-receptive." That being said, the difference in our qualification has to be weighed when considering any time that I object. Also, another reason why I think that the second line oughtn't be imperative is the Sanskrit, which does not appear to have an imperative. That being said, my Sanskrit is abysmal.
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: 2177
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: Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:24 pm I had a post and accidentally deleted it without saving it.

Bocking reads the first two lines of MMK XXV.24 as two separate phrases. Because he reads the second phrase as distinct from the first, the 滅 that starts the second line must be imperative and needs to be verbalized, not nominal. I think that the first line is a nominal phrase that is existentially equated to the next nominal phrase, using 滅 as "cessation" because the commentary speaks of "the cessation of prapañca" here and not "ceasing prapañca." That being said, he is a good translator who is much more qualified than I. There are a few places where I think he makes mistakes. On page 160 of the Korin notes he relays Venerable Vimalaksa (whom he calls "Pingala") giving a parable of the "corn." There was no corn in Central Asia (or China) around 400 AD. He also translates a term that I think should be "independent" as "non-receptive." That being said, the difference in our qualification has to be weighed when considering any time that I object. Also, another reason why I think that the second line oughtn't be imperative is the Sanskrit, which does not appear to have an imperative. That being said, my Sanskrit is abysmal.

Your explanations are too deep for me :cry: especially the grammar-ish terms. To make things slightly easy, which one/s of the followings is/are ok, in addition to the one already stated above? I hope you wouldn't choose Nishijima who is especially fond of the balanced autonomic nervous system :lol: (pls press the photo for higher resolution.)
Attachments
C4E863C7-745A-43B6-8C6B-EA532D2B4EE5.jpeg
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: 8151
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 can't gauge the accuracy of the translations from Sanskrit. That being said, Nishijima is clearly often in outer space. The Bocking is fine. The disagreement over the first two lines of XXV.24 and how to read them is minimal. Bocking is on good ground to treat the character as an imperative. From the reputation of the translations, the Inada and Jones and any like them should be fine enough as far as I know.
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 »

I'll return to continue my simple explanation of the tetralemma but for now I think I have a modern day example of a tetralemma where all the possible are negated:
The two statements are:
1. is a failed attempt red?
2. is a failed attempt blue?
Since it is inappropriate to discuss a color with respect to a failed attempt it then brings negations of all four of the possible positions.....just like since it is inappropriate to discuss existence or non-existence with respect to the tathagata the tetralemma brings negations of all four of the possible positions.....
chownah
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Tetralemma simplified

Post by chownah »

chownah wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:45 pm
chownah wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 6:13 am This is for those who have no training or understanding of formal logic, mathematics, etc.....so they find this discussion unhelpful:

The tetralemma comes from the very most basic part of what is known as a "truth table". A truth table (go look at wikipedia but it won't be a simple explanation!) starts with two statements or propositions or theorems or assertions (they are all the same for this discussion).....it takes two of them....they can be thought to each be true or false. They are usually labeld "p" and "q"....and so will I....

The two statements can be of any kind....they can be related to each other or they can be completely unrelated. The key thing is that we must accept that each of these two statements can be considered to be true or false (depending on what people think for instnce). So p and q can both be either true or false.

So, if p is true then q can be either true or false....so when p is true there are two possibilities those two being that 1) p is true and q is true and 2) p is true and q is false.

So, if p is false then q can be either true or false....so when p is false there are two possibilities those two being that 1) p is false and q is true and 2) p is false and q is false.

Putting the previous two paragraphs together we see that there are exactly four possible combinations of truth/false values that can occur when considering both statements together.....there are no other possibilities....if you don't believe me then try to come up with a different one...

If you look at the four possibilities you will see that all four of the positions of the tetralemma are defined in the basic truth table....

p... q
t... t
t... f
f... t
f... f


Time to go plant some beans......
chownah
Beans are planted.
So....here is an example of a couple of unrelated statements so that people just learning about this stuff will see how common place and easy a BASIC truth table can be:
For p I will use the statement "the president of Harvard college has a white cat".....and for q I will use "I planted beans one week ago today".

With your limited knowledge you will probably not know for sure if these two statements are true or false but you can certainly see that they are unrelated. Since none of you know the truth/falsity of these statements you must guess and so some of you will guess true for p and q....some will guess false for p and q....some will guess true for p and false for q.....and some will guess false for p and true for q.>>>>that's all of the possibilities.....there is no other possible outcome except for these four just like I said above....if you don't believe it then try to find another possible outcome!!!!

So....I hope you can see that the BASIC truth table can be used to tabulate all of the possible outcomes from any two statements at all......EXCEPT there is one EXCEPTION in that a statement is not acceptable if assigning it to be true or false in the beginning changes its value in the end.....this exception is what keeps the "liar's paradox" which DNS brought above out of any truth table (sorry DNS but that is the rule!).....other than that I think any statement at all can be used......of course ridiculous statements like the one's I use don't really mean much and I am only showing this to show that for the BASIC truth table any kind of statements can be used.

It gets more interesting when more interesting statements are used.

chownah
It has been pointed out that what I have said so far does not address the concerns of the OP....this is because I am wanting to facilitate the understanding of the basic structure of a tetralemma so I have been just giving infomation of a general background logical structure called a truth table. For people who have not studied mathematics, probability, formal logic (etc.) a slow introduction with simple explanations is what I am offering.....when they get familiar with the structure which underpins the tetralemma they will be ready to consider the idea of a tetralemma itself but going to quickly to the tetralemma itself without a good understanding of the basis from which it springs is likely to bring on confusion.

So.....the truth table has the same structure as the tetralemma.....that structure being there are two statements given which can each be judged true or false. To help people just learning this stuff I am pointing out that there is a coin flipping scenario which also has the same basic structure as the truth table....it goes like this:

There are two coins (coin A and coin B).....you flip them both at the same time and right down what the results are together....if coin A is heads and coin B is heads you write "H/H"....if coin A is heads and coin B is tales then you write "H/T". So....how many different kinds of outcomes are possible for the toss of two coins at the same time?....the answer is 4 with those being H/H, H/T, T/H, T/T.....there is no other possible outcome....if you think there is then what is it?

Notice that this is different from the truth table in that a truth table requires two statements, assertions, theses, etc. (these are all different words for the same thing...from now on I'll just call it "statements") but the coin flip does not have a statement.....it just has two coins being flipped and has a list of the possible outcomes so instead of it having determinations of "true" and "false" it has the observation of which side of the coin appears written as "head" or "tail".

Note that the coin flip could be changed slightly by adding two statements like "Is coin A showing heads" and Is coin B showing heads.....by making this change we have created a truth table with the possible outcomes being t/t, t/f, f/t, f/f......just like other truth tables. The point in bringing up this coin flip exercise is first to show that the structure of a truth table appears in other places (note that the truth table structure appears all over the place in the wiring of computer in what are called "logic circuits"....and other places as well)....and secondly I'm bringing this discussion to emphasize how important the two statements are...if you replace the statements with observations you have something with the same structure but a slighly different meaning.....the point is that the structures are the same.....
It's late....more later.....
chownah
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

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

Post by Bundokji »

Would not DO be the fifth?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
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 »

Bundokji wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:18 pmWould not DO be the fifth?
That's a fine proposal, but how would it be the fifth?
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.
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

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

Post by Bundokji »

Coëmgenu wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:26 pm
Bundokji wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:18 pmWould not DO be the fifth?
That's a fine proposal, but how would it be the fifth?
It somehow avoids "only this is true, everything else is worthless"
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Tetralemma simplified part 2

Post by chownah »

With my previous post as background and explanation of the structure of a truth table and my claim that the tetralemma has the same structure as the truth table.....with that I'll move to the tetralemma itself.

There is more than one occurance of the tetralemma in the suttas and I will use the one from DN15 (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html):
"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; that 'The Tathagata does not exist after death'... that 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death'... that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' is his view, that would be mistaken. 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. [To say that,] 'The monk released, having directly known that, does not see, does not know is his opinion,' that would be mistaken.
The two statements (as required by a truth tabe) are "The Tathagata exists after death," and "The Tathagata does not exist after death".

The four possible outcomes (T/F, F/T, T/T, F/F) are "The Tathagata exists after death", "The Tathagata does not exist after death", "The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death",and "The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death".

The four possible outcomes I have shown are called "four corners" in the original post. I have not seen anything which indicates that the outcomes have any quality connected with the idea of "corners" and I consider calling them this is just a literary conventional use of analogy and not indicating that there really is some kind of corner involved. Likewise the idea that there is a "fifth corner" is in my view just a literary extention of the "four corners" analogy.

For those without formal training in math, logic, etc. I suggest that thinking of corners will not yield any truths and also looking for number five is just a distraction in that there is no fifth possible outcome to be found in the structure of the truth table (and by extention to be found in the structure of the tetralemma) and whatever this hypothetical "fifth corner" might be it must be found outside of the structure of the tetralemma.

Busy day....more later....
chownah
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4530
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

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

Post by Dan74 »

chownah, while I find your explanations of logic very clear, I think your earlier point was more relevant. An assertion that none of the possible combination of truth values are correct (i.e. the tetralemma) implies that the propositions are semantically meaningless, i.e. have no truth value. Like for instance the predicate "exists after death" does not apply (i.e. either semantically meaningless, its truth value cannot be determined or self-contradictory) to the subject "arahat".

So any time the predicate does not apply to the subject, the tetralemma will hold.
_/|\_
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Tetralemma simplified part 2

Post by chownah »

chownah wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 5:38 am With my previous post as background and explanation of the structure of a truth table and my claim that the tetralemma has the same structure as the truth table.....with that I'll move to the tetralemma itself.

There is more than one occurance of the tetralemma in the suttas and I will use the one from DN15 (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html):
"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; that 'The Tathagata does not exist after death'... that 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death'... that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' is his view, that would be mistaken. 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. [To say that,] 'The monk released, having directly known that, does not see, does not know is his opinion,' that would be mistaken.

The two statements (as required by a truth table) are "The Tathagata exists after death," and "The Tathagata does not exist after death".

The four possible outcomes (T/F, F/T, T/T, F/F) are "The Tathagata exists after death", "The Tathagata does not exist after death", "The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death",and "The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death".

The four possible outcomes I have shown are called "four corners" in the original post. I have not seen anything which indicates that the outcomes have any quality connected with the idea of "corners" and I consider calling them this is just a literary conventional use of analogy and not indicating that there really is some kind of corner involved. Likewise the idea that there is a "fifth corner" is in my view just a literary extention of the "four corners" analogy.

For those without formal training in math, logic, etc. I suggest that thinking of corners will not yield any truths and also looking for number five is just a distraction in that there is no fifth possible outcome to be found in the structure of the truth table (and by extention to be found in the structure of the tetralemma) and whatever this hypothetical "fifth corner" might be it must be found outside of the structure of the tetralemma.

Busy day....more later....
chownah
It seems that people consider the definition of "tetralemma" to include a fourfold negation......in the wikipedia article for "tetralemma" it says:
Definition
It states that with reference to any a logical proposition X, there are four possibilities:
[edit: next it shows the four possibilities written using logic symbols....I can not get these symbols to copy/paste and besides since my posting is to explain to those not knowledgeable with formal logic or its symbols it would not be a benefit to figure out how to display them here....you can go look for yourself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma)
The thing to note here is that the wikipedia definition says that a tetralemma is "any a logical proposition X". I'm pretty sure that this is an error and it should say either "any logical proposition" or "a logical proposition".....in either case it refers to ONE logical proposition while I have indicated that there are TWO statement in the tetralemma just like in a truth table. The explanation is that a logical proposition always has its opposite as a proposition....so for any logical proposition called "A" there is another logical proposition called "Not A" (this is always true for logical propositions in the usual forms of logic). In wikipedia's definition (in the symbolic part which I couldn't copy and paste) the first two logical propositions are called "X" and "Not X".....for the example of the tetralemma which I brought from DN15 the two statements as I defined them are "The Tathagata exists after death," and "The Tathagata does not exist after death"....notice that the second statement is just the same thing as "not" the first statement......thus the two statements which I defined with respect to the tetralemma as shown in DN15 are just the same first two possibilities presented in the wikipedia definition for tetralemma....so it seems that the "one logical proposition" as defined in wikipedia I use as the first statement and the one logical opposite which we can call the "not one logical proposition" I use for the second statement....in doing this the structure of the tetralemma becomes identical to the structure of a truth table.

So.....after going through these gymnastics it can be seen that the tetralemma as defined at wikipedia when described differently turns out to be structurally the same as the truth table......but the important thing here is the definition at wikipedia says that there are four possibilites.....it does not say that they must all be declared false.

The wikipedia article goes on to say that the Catuskoti is a four fold negation.....BUT.....at the wikipedia article for Catuskoti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catu%E1%B9%A3ko%E1%B9%ADi) it does not include the requirement for fourfold negation.

Bottom line: from wikipedia it seems that the term "tetralemma" does not require fourfold negation and the term "catuskoti" as defined in the tetralemma article requires the fourfold negation while in the catuskoti article it does not require the fourfold negation.

So....here I presented some details about the meaning of tetralemma and catuskoti....for some people these details don't have much meaning but I think it is important for beginners to apply extra effort to understand all of the details in that if the details are not understood then it indicates that there is some aspect of the subject not understood and the aspect pointed to might be of greater importance so best to deal with it if some minor detail is not understood.

It is late....busy week....more later....
chownah
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Tetralemma simplified part 3

Post by chownah »

For those people who have not had any training in logic etc. I hope that now you have a better grasp of the strucuture of the tetralemma especially as it can be seen to be an example of a truth table. There is a requirement that a tetralemma must satisfy which is not strictly required of truth tables....the wikipedia article on "tetralemma" indicates that the two statements (as used in truth tabes) are required to be of the form that the two statements are related specifically so that the second statement is the negation or opposite of the first statement. For instance if the first statement is "chocolate tastes good" then the second statement must negate that so it must be "chocolate does not taste good". More specifically for the usual tetralemma presented in the suttas the first statement would be something like "the tathagatha exists after death" which then requires the second statement to be "the tathagatha does not exist after death". Of course this is no surprise.....I'm just presenting this to round out our understanding of the structure of a tetralemma so that we now see that a tetralemma has the structure of a truth table whose two statements are related in that the second statement is the opposite of the first statement.

This topic (and many many many other places) refer to the "exists after death"/"does not exist after death" tetralemma which appears in many places in the suttas as being a "fourfold negation". Note that the definition of a tetralemma (as found at wikipedia) does not require a fourfold negation but it does allow it and the "exists or not" tetralemma of the suttas is usually called a fourfold negation. So....I went looking for that negation.

I have only looked at a very few sutta presentations of this tetralemma and have not found what I would classify as a directly stated fourfold negation. Let's look at the presentation given in DN15:
"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; that 'The Tathagata does not exist after death'... that 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death'... that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' is his view, that would be mistaken. 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. [To say that,] 'The monk released, having directly known that, does not see, does not know is his opinion,' that would be mistaken.
In this sutta the buddha does not comment on the truth or falsity of the four "exists/not exists" propositions. What the buddha does do is state that to attribute any of the views given in the four propositions as being held by a monk whose mind has been released in a certain way (this "certain way" is described in DN15 just before the excerpt I brought) that this would be a mistake. It seems that if this pronouncement of "a mistake" is to be taken as a negation it seems that it is a negation four statements about a monk and not about the four propositions directly. Note that this is not about the monk....it is about a hypothetical someone who would make any statement that such a monk would hold any of those views. So....it seems that if this is taken as a negation then it is a negation of hypothetical statements made by a hypothetical person talking about the views held by a certain type of monk. There is no statement at all about the truth or falsity of the propositions....the buddha seems to be saying that the kind of monk he refers to would not have those views.

Not having a view is not a rejection of that view. For example: one will usually not hold a view if one is not knowledgeable about the view......do you hold the view that my cat is black?......you probaby don't hold that view but in not holding that view you do not negate any assertion that my cat is black.....because you simply do not know. PLEASE NOTE that I am only giving an example of how not holding a view is not negating it....I am NOT saying that the monk in the sutta does not hold a view because of not knowing but rather only that the monk's not having a view does not necessarily constitute a falsification or negation of that view.

I'll keep looking for a sutta where there is a clear negation of the four exist/not exist propositions. If anyone else can find one I would appreciate seeing it here.
.....more later.....
chownah
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Tetralemma simplified part 3

Post by chownah »

chownah wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 3:03 pm For those people who have not had any training in logic etc. I hope that now you have a better grasp of the strucuture of the tetralemma especially as it can be seen to be an example of a truth table. There is a requirement that a tetralemma must satisfy which is not strictly required of truth tables....the wikipedia article on "tetralemma" indicates that the two statements (as used in truth tabes) are required to be of the form that the two statements are related specifically so that the second statement is the negation or opposite of the first statement. For instance if the first statement is "chocolate tastes good" then the second statement must negate that so it must be "chocolate does not taste good". More specifically for the usual tetralemma presented in the suttas the first statement would be something like "the tathagatha exists after death" which then requires the second statement to be "the tathagatha does not exist after death". Of course this is no surprise.....I'm just presenting this to round out our understanding of the structure of a tetralemma so that we now see that a tetralemma has the structure of a truth table whose two statements are related in that the second statement is the opposite of the first statement.

This topic (and many many many other places) refer to the "exists after death"/"does not exist after death" tetralemma which appears in many places in the suttas as being a "fourfold negation". Note that the definition of a tetralemma (as found at wikipedia) does not require a fourfold negation but it does allow it and the "exists or not" tetralemma of the suttas is usually called a fourfold negation. So....I went looking for that negation.

I have only looked at a very few sutta presentations of this tetralemma and have not found what I would classify as a directly stated fourfold negation. Let's look at the presentation given in DN15:
"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; that 'The Tathagata does not exist after death'... that 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death'... that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' is his view, that would be mistaken. 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. [To say that,] 'The monk released, having directly known that, does not see, does not know is his opinion,' that would be mistaken.
In this sutta the buddha does not comment on the truth or falsity of the four "exists/not exists" propositions. What the buddha does do is state that to attribute any of the views given in the four propositions as being held by a monk whose mind has been released in a certain way (this "certain way" is described in DN15 just before the excerpt I brought) that this would be a mistake. It seems that if this pronouncement of "a mistake" is to be taken as a negation it seems that it is a negation four statements about a monk and not about the four propositions directly. Note that this is not about the monk....it is about a hypothetical someone who would make any statement that such a monk would hold any of those views. So....it seems that if this is taken as a negation then it is a negation of hypothetical statements made by a hypothetical person talking about the views held by a certain type of monk. There is no statement at all about the truth or falsity of the propositions....the buddha seems to be saying that the kind of monk he refers to would not have those views.

Not having a view is not a rejection of that view. For example: one will usually not hold a view if one is not knowledgeable about the view......do you hold the view that my cat is black?......you probaby don't hold that view but in not holding that view you do not negate any assertion that my cat is black.....because you simply do not know. PLEASE NOTE that I am only giving an example of how not holding a view is not negating it....I am NOT saying that the monk in the sutta does not hold a view because of not knowing but rather only that the monk's not having a view does not necessarily constitute a falsification or negation of that view.

I'll keep looking for a sutta where there is a clear negation of the four exist/not exist propositions. If anyone else can find one I would appreciate seeing it here.
.....more later.....
chownah
I found MN72 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html which contains:
"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata exists: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if he holds the view 'the cosmos is eternal...'... 'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless,' he says '...no...' in each case. Seeing what drawback, then, is Master Gotama thus entirely dissociated from each of these ten positions?"

"Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' 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.

"The position that 'the cosmos is not eternal'...

"...'the cosmos is finite'...

"...'the cosmos is infinite'...

"...'the soul & the body are the same'...

"...'the soul is one thing and the body another'...

"...'after death a Tathagata exists'...

"...'after death a Tathagata does not exist'...

"...'after death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'...

"...'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'... does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding."

"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."
At first I thought that in saying "no" the buddha was negating the four propositions of the exist/not exist tetralemma but with careful reading it became clear that the buddha was not negating them....he simply had no position on them as evidenced by the buddha's statement "A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with."

AGAIN, there is no negation of the four propositions of the exist/not exist tetralemma. Can anyone find an instance where ANYONE negates the exist/not exist tetralemma in the suttas?.....I'm becoming more convinced that there is none but will keep looking. It would be nice if some else started looking but I don't expect there will be any help with this......and I'm fine with just continuing on my own.
DN15:no negation
MN72:no negation

More later,
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 »

To continue on after my last post....here is an excerpt from another sutta presentation of the exist/no-exist tetralemma:
SN44.11 ()
"Now then, Master Kaccana, does the Tathagata exist after death?"

"Vaccha, that has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata exists after death.'"

"Well then, Master Kaccana, does the Tathagata not exist after death?"

"Vaccha, that too has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata does not exist after death.'"

"Then does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death?"

"That has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.'"

"Well then, does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after death?"

"That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.'"
I think that it is clear that kaccana is of the view that the buddha has made no declaration concerning any of the four propositions of the tetralemma......certainly this does not indicate a fourfold negation.

Again, not fourfold negation.....not even a onefold negation!!!!

DN15:no negation
MN72:no negation
SN44.11:no negation

It is beginning to look like there actually is no fourfold negation of the subject tetralemma to be found in the suttas.....I'm sort of surprised to find this because when I was just reading the thread before I started researching in the suttas I assumed that in fact there was a fourfold negation to be found in the suttas. It was only because I decided to present a simplified explanation of tetralemma that I eventually decided to bring an example of a fourfold negation from the suttas to present for discussion....and I was (and still am) very surprised to be unable to find one. For me this is a serious state of affairs in that at first I was convinced that the buddha had given a negation of all four of the propositions by just assuming that since this is a theravada forum and I was reading in the connections to other paths section that the existence of a connection meant that fourfold negation was what the suttas presented with respect to the subject tetralemma. If I fell into that trap I think it is likely that others have fallen into that trap as well....am I the only one who just assumed that there was a fourfold negation to be found in the suttas or did any of you (whoever is reading this) make the same mistake as well?

Does anyone know of any fourfold negation of the subject tetralemma to be found in the suttas? I'd be very very glad to see one. Is anyone besides me surprised that there seems to be none?

I'll look around to see if there is one I have missed......
....more later....
chownah
Post Reply