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?
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 »

Here is a sutta which talks about the undeclared issues....it describes the four issues related to the condition of the tathagata after death as being views....and it tells how uncertainty about these issues is dispelled through cessation of views:
AN 7.51 Avyakata Sutta: Undeclared
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... html#fnt-2
Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, what is the cause, what is the reason, why uncertainty doesn't arise in an instructed disciple of the noble ones over the undeclared issues?"

"Because of the cessation of views, monk, uncertainty doesn't arise in an instructed disciple of the noble ones over the undeclared issues. The view-standpoint, 'The Tathagata exists after death,' the view-standpoint, 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death,' the view-standpoint, 'The Tathagata both does and doesn't exist after death,' the view-standpoint, 'The Tathagata neither does nor doesn't exist after death': The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern view, doesn't discern the origination of view, doesn't discern the cessation of view, doesn't discern the path of practice leading to the cessation of view, and so for him that view grows. He is not freed from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. But the instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns view, discerns the origination of view, discerns the cessation of view, discerns the path of practice leading to the cessation of view, and so for him that view ceases. He is freed from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

"Thus knowing, thus seeing, the instructed disciple of the noble ones doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata exists after death,' doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death,' doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata both does and doesn't exist after death,' doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata neither does nor doesn't exist after death.' Thus knowing, thus seeing, he is thus of a nature not to declare the undeclared issues. Thus knowing, thus seeing, he isn't paralyzed, doesn't quake, doesn't shiver or shake over the undeclared issues.
It seems likely that the buddha's assertion that a fully released monk would not hold the four views associated with the tetralemma probably means that the monk has discerned (among other things connected with views) the cessation of views. This cessation of views would preclude the holding of a view or the taking of a postion with respect to the undeclared issues so clearly this is NO NEGATION of the four statements.
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 »

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:
[Upasiva:]
...........
...........
.............
.........
..........
[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
Thanks for that.
I'm wondering about your ideas about the connection between the deathless and the tathagata and what you think this says about any view concerning the death of the tathagata.
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 »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 4:18 pm 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:
You say that four fold negatoin is a familiar finding in suttas....I have not found anynegations in the suttas. All that I have been able to find is that the buddha and his trained disciples simply refuse to make a determination to affirm or negate them.....they remain non-commital about any position with regard to those statements....they are simply not declared. If you can find any negation of any of the four statements in the suttas I would be glad to see them.

Also, I noticed at wikipedia that catuskoti is a sanskrit word and there is no pali equivalent given there....usually the do show pali/sanskrit equivalents for terms so I'm thinking that there is not pali equivalent for catuskoti. I have never seen "tetralemma" appear anywhere in the suttas so I'm thinking that the concept of a tetralemma is not found in the suttas. Of course the four views of the tetralemma appear in many places but they are never given a name to contain them all (that I have ever seen) and many times the four statements appear in longer lists of views containing other issues....and I have seen occurances where each of the four statements are found by themselves without the other three and they are just called views. I wouldn't say that the tetralemma doesn't appear in the suttas but I would say that it is never acknowledged as being a tetralemma nor would I say that there is any reason or indication given for the four statements to always be considered collectively and it always seem that they are addressed as views and responded to individually as being individual views and no statement about them being intimately connected is given that I have ever seen.
chownah
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 »

chownah wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:06 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 4:18 pm 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:
You say that four fold negatoin is a familiar finding in suttas....I have not found anynegations in the suttas. ...
...
chownah


Just found this topic of 2017:
  • Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:48 pm What does the Fourfold Negation (sometimes called the tetralemma) apply to? What does the Fourfold Negation not apply to?

    The Fourfold Negation:
    1. X
    2. not-X
    3. X and not-X
    4. not-(X or not-X)

    Here are some instances of the Fourfold Negation from the Buddhavacana, which does not systematically appear fully fleshed out at all times, but appear contextually, much like the Twelve Nidānas are not exhaustively explored in every single instance of paṭiccasamuppāda-explanation:
    Then the naked ascetic Kassapa said to the Blessed One: “We do not wish to ask Master Gotama much.”

    “Then ask what you want, Kassapa.”

    “How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering created by oneself?”

    “Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.

    “Then, Master Gotama, is suffering created by another?”

    “Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.

    “How is it then, Master Gotama: is suffering created both by oneself and by another?”

    “Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.

    “Then, Master Gotama, has suffering arisen fortuitously, being created neither by oneself nor by another?”

    “Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.

    “How is it then, Master Gotama: is there no suffering?”

    “It is not that there is no suffering, Kassapa; there is suffering.”

    “Then is it that Master Gotama does not know and see suffering?”

    “It is not that I do not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know suffering, I see suffering.”

    “Whether you are asked: ‘How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering created by oneself?’ or ‘Is it created by another?’ or ‘Is it created by both?’ or ‘Is it created by neither?’ in each case you say: ‘Not so, Kassapa.’ When you are asked: ‘How is it then, Master Gotama: is there no suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that there is no suffering, Kassapa; there is suffering.’ When asked: ‘Then is it that Master Gotama does not know and see suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that I do not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know suffering, I see suffering.’ Venerable sir, let the Blessed One explain suffering to me. Let the Blessed One teach me about suffering.”

    “Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences the result,’ then one asserts with reference to one existing from the beginning: ‘Suffering is created by oneself.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to eternalism. But, Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another,’ then one asserts with reference to one stricken by feeling: ‘Suffering is created by another.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to annihilationism. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle:

    [here follows an explanation of Dependant Origination]
    (SN 12.17)

    This instance lacks the third negation (X and not-X), because it is collapsed into the first and second negations:
    “Thus this way of regarding things and the notion ‘I am’ have not vanished in him. As ‘I am’ has not vanished, there takes place a descent of the five faculties—of the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty. There is, bhikkhus, the mind, there are mental phenomena, there is the element of ignorance. When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, ‘I am’ occurs to him; ‘I am this’ occurs to him; ‘I will be’ and ‘I will not be,’ and ‘I will consist of form’ and ‘I will be formless,’ and ‘I will be percipient’ and ‘I will be nonpercipient’ and ‘I will be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’—these occur to him.

    “The five faculties remain right there, bhikkhus, but in regard to them the instructed noble disciple abandons ignorance and arouses true knowledge. With the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge, ‘I am’ does not occur to him; ‘I am this’ does not occur to him; ‘I will be’ and ‘I will not be,’ and ‘I will consist of form’ and ‘I will be formless,’ and ‘I will be percipient’ and ‘I will be nonpercipient’ and ‘I will be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’—these do not occur to him."
    (SN 22.47)

    There are, monks, some ascetics and Brahmins who are Finitists and Infinitists, and who proclaim the finitude and infinitude of the world on four grounds. What are they?

    Here a certain ascetic or Brahmin has by means of effort attained to such a state of concentration that he dwells perceiving the world as infinitude. He thinks: "This world is finite and bounded [...]."
    [...]
    And what is the second way? [...] He dwells perceiving the world as infinite. He thinks: "This world is infinite and unbounded [...]."
    [...]
    And what is the third way? [...] He dwells perceiving the world as finite up-and-down, and infinite across. He thinks: "This world is finite and infinite [...]."
    [...]
    And what is the fourth case? Here a certain ascetic or Brahmin is a logician, a reasoner. Hammering it out by reason, he argues: "This world is neither finite nor infinite [...]."
    (DN 1, 2.16-21, Brahmajālasutta, Wrong views 9-12

    Here we have an instance of the Fourfold Negation applied to the nature of the knowledge of the Tathāgata. He appears to draw a distinction between "knowing" and "directly knowing":
    The Blessed One said this:

    “Bhikkhus, in this world with its devas, Māra, and Brahmā, among this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans, whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I know.

    “Bhikkhus, in this world with its devas, Māra, and Brahmā, among this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans, whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I have directly known. It has been known by the Tathāgata, but in the Tathāgata it has not been established. (An alternate translation here reads: "but the Tathagata hasn't taken a stance on it")

    “Bhikkhus, if I were to say, ‘In this world with its devas … whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I do not know,’ that would be a falsehood on my part.

    6“Bhikkhus, if I were to say, ‘In this world with its devas … whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I both know and do not know,’ that too would be just the same.

    7“Bhikkhus, if I were to say, ‘In this world with its devas … whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I neither know nor do not know,’ that would be a fault on my part.
    (AN 4.24)

    In this instance the Fourfold Negation is specified by the Buddha as used to dismiss flawed questions that are irrelevant to the Dhamma:
    “These speculative views have been left undeclared by the Blessed One, set aside and rejected by him, namely: ‘the world is eternal’ and ‘the world is not eternal’; ‘the world is finite’ and ‘the world is infinite’; ‘the soul is the same as the body’ and ‘the soul is one thing and the body another’; and ‘after death a Tathāgata exists’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata does not exist’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist.’ The Blessed One does not declare these to me, and I do not approve of and accept the fact that he does not declare these to me, so I shall go to the Blessed One and ask him the meaning of this. If he declares to me either ‘the world is eternal’ or ‘the world is not eternal’…or ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,’ then I will lead the holy life under him; if he does not declare these to me, then I will abandon the training and return to the low life.”
    [...]
    “Why have I left that undeclared? Because it is unbeneficial, it does not belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. That is why I have left it undeclared."
    (MN 63)

    This instance is interesting because it appears that the Buddha may actually be criticizing a) the Fourfold Negation itself, or b) the misapplication of the negations:
    'What is the fourth way? Here, an ascetic or Brahmin is dull and stupid. Because of his dullness and stupidity, when he is questioned he resorts to evasive statements and wriggles like an eel:

    "If you ask me whether there is another world. But I don't say so. And I don't say otherwise. And I don't say it is not, and I don't not say it is not."

    "Is there no other world?..."

    "Is there both another world and no other world?...

    "Is there neither another world nor no other world?..."

    "Are there spontaneously-born beings?..."

    "Are there not...?"

    "Both...?

    "Neither...?"

    "Does the Tathagata exist after death? Does he not exist after death? Does he both exist and not exist after death? Does he neither exist nor not exist after death?..."

    "If I thought so, I would say so...I don't say so...I don't say it is not."

    This is the fourth case.'
    (DN 1, 2.27, Brahmajālasutta, Wrong view 16, "Eel-wriggling")
: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
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 »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:01 pmJust found this topic of 2017:
  • Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:48 pm What does the Fourfold Negation (sometimes called the tetralemma) apply to? What does the Fourfold Negation not apply to?

    The Fourfold Negation:
    1. X
    2. not-X
    3. X and not-X
    4. not-(X or not-X)

    Here are some instances of the Fourfold Negation from the Buddhavacana, which does not systematically appear fully fleshed out at all times, but appear contextually, much like the Twelve Nidānas are not exhaustively explored in every single instance of paṭiccasamuppāda-explanation

    [...]
What a mistake. It was 2017. Fourfold "negation" would be

1. not X
2. not not X
3. not both x and not x
4. not neither x nor not x

"Four theses" are

1. X
2. not X
3. X and not X
4. neither X nor not X
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 Jul 19, 2021 7:08 pm ...


I didn't notice that, or more likely I might have read the sentence as, by'subconsciously' filling in: "essence of things to be negated". Many thanks for the handy sutta quotes which I hope will somewhat satisfy Chownah's question of:
  • chownah wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:06 pm
    Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 4:18 pm ...
    - (ABCD) = ( - - - - ) = four fold negation ( familiar findings in suttas, imo)
    ...
    You say that four fold negatoin is a familiar finding in suttas....I have not found anynegations in the suttas. All that I have been able to find is that the buddha and his trained disciples simply refuse to make a determination to affirm or negate them.....they remain non-commital about any position with regard to those statements....they are simply not declared. If you can find any negation of any of the four statements in the suttas I would be glad to see them.
    ...
    chownah
: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
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: Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:08 pm Fourfold "negation" would be

1. not X
2. not not X
3. not both x and not x
4. not neither x nor not x

"Four theses" are

1. X
2. not X
3. X and not X
4. neither X nor not X
I think your formulation of the negation is confusing in that it uses double negatives. I think the idea is that each of the statements is either affirmed or negated......affirmation is the same as saying that a statement is true and negation is the same as saying that a statement is false. I suggest a more easily understood formulation of the fourfold negation is:
1. X is false
2. not X is false
3. the idea that "both X is true and not X is true" is a false idea
4. the idea that "neither is X true nor is not X true" is a false idea
I think it says the same thing but for me it is much clearer....those double negatives are a bit slippery....
chownah
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 »

chownah wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 5:46 am
Coëmgenu wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:08 pm Fourfold "negation" would be

1. not X
2. not not X
3. not both x and not x
4. not neither x nor not x

"Four theses" are

1. X
2. not X
3. X and not X
4. neither X nor not X
I think your formulation of the negation is confusing in that it uses double negatives.
Well, they were certainly slippery enough to confuse me in 2017.

As mentioned back near the beginning of the thread, Lemma 3 is contradicted by 1 & 2, especially when the entire collection is negated and/or "not declared." We hear "not X" and then "not not X" and then "not both X and not X." To use the "is false" wording you suggested, we learn that statement X is false, that its negation is false, and then that both the statement and the negation is false. It is technically redundant. What does the "new" false of Lemma 3 mean? Lemma 3 being "false" technically means that the falsity of Lemmata 1 & 2 themselves is actually false, which then makes them true... but that's not right because Lemmata 1 & 2 are falsified statements. To reformulate what you formulated above:

1. the idea that "X is true" is a false idea
2. the idea that "not X is true" is a false idea
3. the idea that "both X is true and not X is true" is a false idea
4. the idea that "neither is X true nor is not X true" is a false idea

So there's no way out of the tetralemma. It is redundant and repeating to stress this point IMO. The first two elements of the tetralemma, the dilemma as it were, are technically enough. As I see it, Lemmata 3 & 4 are essentially clarifications to the matter that are technically redundant, technically "slippery" to use your wording.

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

To illustrate how they are "technically redundant," we can note how the Buddha with Ven Kaccanagotta does not go into fourfold negation, merely twofold negation of "it all exists" and "it all doesn't exist."

I haven't yet had time to reply to the post with the "cessation of views" quote.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:13 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
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 »

[...] But the instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns view, discerns the origination of view, discerns the cessation of view, discerns the path of practice leading to the cessation of view, and so for him that view ceases. He is freed from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

"Thus knowing, thus seeing, the instructed disciple of the noble ones doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata exists after death,' doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death,' doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata both does and doesn't exist after death,' doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata neither does nor doesn't exist after death.' Thus knowing, thus seeing, he is thus of a nature not to declare the undeclared issues. Thus knowing, thus seeing, he isn't paralyzed, doesn't quake, doesn't shiver or shake over the undeclared issues.
(AN 7.51)

Do you think that "views" here refers to specifically the fourfold matrix of "all views concerning X," X being in this specific sutta "the existence of the Tathagata after death," that is represented by the tetralemma; or do you think it refers to "each and every possible view that anyone could possibly have regarding anything?" What I mean by "fourfold matrix of all views concerning X" is how the tetralemma exhausts all avenues of inquiry specifically with the "both" of Lemma 3 and the "neither" of Lemma 4. I am speaking quickly here for the sake of brevity and not having to copy-paste four statements a bunch of times, but if I'm not making sense I can expand it.
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 »

Thanks for bringing this post. I'll make some comments about the part I bring below and perhaps I'll make comments about other parts later.
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:01 pm
chownah wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:06 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 4:18 pm 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:
You say that four fold negatoin is a familiar finding in suttas....I have not found anynegations in the suttas. ...
...
chownah


Just found this topic of 2017:
  • Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:48 pm What does the Fourfold Negation (sometimes called the tetralemma) apply to? What does the Fourfold Negation not apply to?

    The Fourfold Negation:
    1. X
    2. not-X
    3. X and not-X
    4. not-(X or not-X)

    Here are some instances of the Fourfold Negation from the Buddhavacana, which does not systematically appear fully fleshed out at all times, but appear contextually, much like the Twelve Nidānas are not exhaustively explored in every single instance of paṭiccasamuppāda-explanation:
    Then the naked ascetic Kassapa said to the Blessed One: “We do not wish to ask Master Gotama much.”

    “Then ask what you want, Kassapa.”

    “How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering created by oneself?”

    “Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.

    “Then, Master Gotama, is suffering created by another?”

    “Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.

    “How is it then, Master Gotama: is suffering created both by oneself and by another?”

    “Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.

    “Then, Master Gotama, has suffering arisen fortuitously, being created neither by oneself nor by another?”

    “Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.

    “How is it then, Master Gotama: is there no suffering?”

    “It is not that there is no suffering, Kassapa; there is suffering.”

    “Then is it that Master Gotama does not know and see suffering?”

    “It is not that I do not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know suffering, I see suffering.”

    “Whether you are asked: ‘How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering created by oneself?’ or ‘Is it created by another?’ or ‘Is it created by both?’ or ‘Is it created by neither?’ in each case you say: ‘Not so, Kassapa.’ When you are asked: ‘How is it then, Master Gotama: is there no suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that there is no suffering, Kassapa; there is suffering.’ When asked: ‘Then is it that Master Gotama does not know and see suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that I do not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know suffering, I see suffering.’ Venerable sir, let the Blessed One explain suffering to me. Let the Blessed One teach me about suffering.”

    “Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences the result,’ then one asserts with reference to one existing from the beginning: ‘Suffering is created by oneself.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to eternalism. But, Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another,’ then one asserts with reference to one stricken by feeling: ‘Suffering is created by another.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to annihilationism. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle:

    [here follows an explanation of Dependant Origination]
    (SN 12.17)
    Based on the definitions for tetralemma and catuskoti found at wikipedia the sutta excerpt above does not qualify as being either of them. Here are the links to those definitions:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catu%E1%B9%A3ko%E1%B9%ADi
    In both of these definitions it says that the second statement must be a negation of the first statement. So for example if the first statement is "person A made it" then the second statement must be "person A did not make it". If you made a second statement of "person B made it" then you would not be in keeping with the definition of a tetralemma or catuskoti since the second statement is not a negation of the first statement.

    In the excerpt above the first statement is "is suffering created by oneself" so based on the definitions of tetralemma and catuskoti the second statement must be "is suffering not created by oneself". Some people may see that "is suffering created by oneself" is not a statement at all but we need not let that bother us because we could just as well change the question into a statement that statement being "suffering is created by oneself" and then the second statement would be"suffering is not created by oneself".

    In the excerpt above the first statement is "is suffering created by oneself" and the second statement is "is suffering created by another".....and while these two statements are similar the second is not a negation of the first but rather it just suggests an alternative creator.....the second statement could just as well offer other possible creators such as "is suffering created by fate" or "is suffering caused by obesity"....etc.....

    Note that all four of the statements in the excerpt deal with either the self or another......I think the assumption is that the interogator is asking about the self or another self......thus all of the statements are problematic with respect to theravada doctrine by relying on the concept of self.

    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: Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:10 pm
[...] But the instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns view, discerns the origination of view, discerns the cessation of view, discerns the path of practice leading to the cessation of view, and so for him that view ceases. He is freed from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

"Thus knowing, thus seeing, the instructed disciple of the noble ones doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata exists after death,' doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death,' doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata both does and doesn't exist after death,' doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata neither does nor doesn't exist after death.' Thus knowing, thus seeing, he is thus of a nature not to declare the undeclared issues. Thus knowing, thus seeing, he isn't paralyzed, doesn't quake, doesn't shiver or shake over the undeclared issues.
(AN 7.51)

Do you think that "views" here refers to specifically the fourfold matrix of "all views concerning X," X being in this specific sutta "the existence of the Tathagata after death," that is represented by the tetralemma; or do you think it refers to "each and every possible view that anyone could possibly have regarding anything?" What I mean by "fourfold matrix of all views concerning X" is how the tetralemma exhausts all avenues of inquiry specifically with the "both" of Lemma 3 and the "neither" of Lemma 4. I am speaking quickly here for the sake of brevity and not having to copy-paste four statements a bunch of times, but if I'm not making sense I can expand it.
I think that your ideas in this post and your previous post about how the various lemmas relate to each other are something I think I understand but the implications of what you say are pretty far reaching and perhaps I will explain this later.

As to:
"Do you think that "views" here refers to specifically the fourfold matrix of "all views concerning X," X being in this specific sutta "the existence of the Tathagata after death," that is represented by the tetralemma; or do you think it refers to "each and every possible view that anyone could possibly have regarding anything?" "
The sutta (Avyakata Sutta) opens with this:
Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, what is the cause, what is the reason, why uncertainty doesn't arise in an instructed disciple of the noble ones over the undeclared issues?"
.......[and} Because of the cessation of views, monk, uncertainty doesn't arise in an instructed disciple of the noble ones over the undeclared issues.

The wording does not restrict this instruction to just some of the undeclared issues so likely it is applicable to all undeclared issues.
The sutta also says:
The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern view, doesn't discern the origination of view, doesn't discern the cessation of view, doesn't discern the path of practice leading to the cessation of view, and so for him that view grows. He is not freed from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. But the instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns view, discerns the origination of view, discerns the cessation of view, discerns the path of practice leading to the cessation of view, and so for him that view ceases. He is freed from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
What I find notable in this is that "view" seems to be pointing not to "a view" but rather to "view" in terms of the processes which sort of describe the life cycle of "a view" those processes being origination, cessation, path leading to cessation, and the growing or ceasing of "a view". Could this apply to all views?...I think maybe....

I think it is good to consider how the buddha seems to many times talk about "direct knowledge" being sort of like a better alternative to constructing views.....it seems to me that the buddha relies on direct knowledge and doesn't need nor indulge in view making but I wouldn't declare that to be the case.....if you are wondering about this I suggest reading some suttas and see what you make of what they say.....
chownah
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 »

chownah wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:11 pmThe wording does not restrict this instruction to just some of the undeclared issues so likely it is applicable to all undeclared issues.
Before we continue, do we have a shared agreement that this restriction of matters to "the undeclareds" is correctly described as a "restriction of the purview" of the Buddha's statements in the sutta? I'm just wondering if we agree that the purview is necessarily restricted at all. If the purview is not restricted, views like "right views" also come under it.
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: 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 »

chownah wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:22 pm Thanks for bringing this post. I'll make some comments about the part I bring below and perhaps I'll make comments about other parts later.
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:01 pm
chownah wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:06 pm
You say that four fold negatoin is a familiar finding in suttas....I have not found anynegations in the suttas. ...
...
chownah


Just found this topic of 2017:
  • Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:48 pm What does the Fourfold Negation (sometimes called the tetralemma) apply to? What does the Fourfold Negation not apply to?

    The Fourfold Negation:
    1. X
    2. not-X
    3. X and not-X
    4. not-(X or not-X)

    Here are some instances of the Fourfold Negation from the Buddhavacana, which does not systematically appear fully fleshed out at all times, but appear contextually, much like the Twelve Nidānas are not exhaustively explored in every single instance of paṭiccasamuppāda-explanation:(SN 12.17)
Based on the definitions for tetralemma and catuskoti found at wikipedia the sutta excerpt above does not qualify as being either of them. Here are the links to those definitions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catu%E1%B9%A3ko%E1%B9%ADi
In both of these definitions it says that the second statement must be a negation of the first statement. So for example if the first statement is "person A made it" then the second statement must be "person A did not make it". If you made a second statement of "person B made it" then you would not be in keeping with the definition of a tetralemma or catuskoti since the second statement is not a negation of the first statement.

In the excerpt above the first statement is "is suffering created by oneself" so based on the definitions of tetralemma and catuskoti the second statement must be "is suffering not created by oneself".
What you are touching on here is what I spoke about when I was talking about Gautama Buddha's tetralemma, his four-pointed logic, as less "systematic" than the presentation we see in later Madhyamaka. The four points presented in SN 12.17 actually are "a tetralemma," but you are correct to point out that they are not "the tetralemma" in the sense that they are not the "systematic" Wikipedia tetralemma. A tetralemma is merely "four outcomes," just as a dilemma is "two (or more) outcomes." In the "Wikipedia tetralemma," these four outcomes start with 1) a proposition, and 2) the negation of that same proposition. The tetralemma in SN 12.17 starts with 1) a proposition asserted, and 2) an "opposite" proposition asserted. The proposition of Lemma 2 in SN 12.17 is "opposite" Lemma 1 instead of negating it more directly. It follows that, sometimes, instead of featuring a negation of Lemma 1, Lemma 2 can feature an assertion of the opposite (implying a negation of Lemma 1), which is actually very close to how you presented the matter in your "truth table" much earlier in the thread.
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: Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:30 pm
chownah wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:11 pmThe wording does not restrict this instruction to just some of the undeclared issues so likely it is applicable to all undeclared issues.
Before we continue, do we have a shared agreement that this restriction of matters to "the undeclareds" is correctly described as a "restriction of the purview" of the Buddha's statements in the sutta? I'm just wondering if we agree that the purview is necessarily restricted at all. If the purview is not restricted, views like "right views" also come under it.
I have not restricted the matters to the undeclareds. I have not restricted it in any way. What I have said is that it seems from the wording of this sutta that it likely includes all of the undeclared issues...as evidence just read the excerpt I brought above.....

If you want to talk about right view then go ahead.
1. cessation of views should be used for right view
2. cessation of views should not be used for right vieiw
3. cessation of views should both be used for right view and not be used for right view
4. cessation of views should neither be used for right view nor should it not be used for right view

I do not declare any of these....notice that also I have not negated any of these....
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: Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:04 pm
chownah wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:22 pm Thanks for bringing this post. I'll make some comments about the part I bring below and perhaps I'll make comments about other parts later.
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:01 pm



Just found this topic of 2017:
    Based on the definitions for tetralemma and catuskoti found at wikipedia the sutta excerpt above does not qualify as being either of them. Here are the links to those definitions:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catu%E1%B9%A3ko%E1%B9%ADi
    In both of these definitions it says that the second statement must be a negation of the first statement. So for example if the first statement is "person A made it" then the second statement must be "person A did not make it". If you made a second statement of "person B made it" then you would not be in keeping with the definition of a tetralemma or catuskoti since the second statement is not a negation of the first statement.

    In the excerpt above the first statement is "is suffering created by oneself" so based on the definitions of tetralemma and catuskoti the second statement must be "is suffering not created by oneself".
    What you are touching on here is what I spoke about when I was talking about Gautama Buddha's tetralemma, his four-pointed logic, as less "systematic" than the presentation we see in later Madhyamaka. The four points presented in SN 12.17 actually are "a tetralemma," but you are correct to point out that they are not "the tetralemma" in the sense that they are not the "systematic" Wikipedia tetralemma. A tetralemma is merely "four outcomes," just as a dilemma is "two (or more) outcomes." In the "Wikipedia tetralemma," these four outcomes start with 1) a proposition, and 2) the negation of that same proposition. The tetralemma in SN 12.17 starts with 1) a proposition asserted, and 2) an "opposite" proposition asserted. The proposition of Lemma 2 in SN 12.17 is "opposite" Lemma 1 instead of negating it more directly. It follows that, sometimes, instead of featuring a negation of Lemma 1, Lemma 2 can feature an assertion of the opposite (implying a negation of Lemma 1), which is actually very close to how you presented the matter in your "truth table" much earlier in the thread.
    You have made a lot of assertions here starting with a rejection of the wikipedia definition of tetralemma. You provide another definition which seems somewhat contrived to me but maybe I am wrong. If you have some evidence (links please) to support what you say please bring it. If you have none I will continue to believe that this is just your own definition brought to help support your arguements.
    Sorry, but I am just honestly telling you how it seems to me and I will be glad to be shown to be wrong.
    chownah
    Post Reply