Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhist Tetralemma
What is the classical tetralemma? In reading Buddhist texts, we may encounter something like this: "It cannot be said to exist. It cannot be said not to exist. It cannot be said to both exist and not exist. It cannot be said to neither exist or not exist." (this line is applied to, for example, the Tathagata after death.) This can be very confusing! In our habitual way of thinking, we can usually only conceive of a dilemma, exists or not exists. The classical tetralemma admits of two additional possibilities which we may find difficult to understand, or find examples for.
1.Sat = exist. This is existence which is at once graspable, concrete, affirmative, but also always so. In other words basically synonymous with eternalism.
2.Asat = not exist. This is simple "never was, never will be" exemplified by the "horns of a hair." In other words a denial or nihilism.
3.Sat-Asat = both. This is the case of something that exists for a period of time, then ceases to exist. An annihilationism.
4.Anirvacaniya = neither. This is the case of illusory existence, the typical example being when one happens upon a rope and is startled perceiving it as a snake. The "snake" did not exist as a snake, but as a rope, it did exist. Hence the "snake" per se was neither existing nor not-existing.
1.Sat = exist. This is existence which is at once graspable, concrete, affirmative, but also always so. In other words basically synonymous with eternalism.
2.Asat = not exist. This is simple "never was, never will be" exemplified by the "horns of a hair." In other words a denial or nihilism.
3.Sat-Asat = both. This is the case of something that exists for a period of time, then ceases to exist. An annihilationism.
4.Anirvacaniya = neither. This is the case of illusory existence, the typical example being when one happens upon a rope and is startled perceiving it as a snake. The "snake" did not exist as a snake, but as a rope, it did exist. Hence the "snake" per se was neither existing nor not-existing.
0
Comments
If memory serves me right, the Venerable Thanissaro mentioned this once, and he basically said that the Buddha used this as a way of covering all conceivable possibilites when describing something that is beyond the realm of conceptual language and thought (i.e. the description of the Tathagata after death). In other words, nothing can be said about it whatsoever.
Jason
But the 'move' neither implied criticism or condemnation.
I hope it will not be taken as such......:)
V.
I've been doing this for a couple of years and have never heard of it before.
We have people still dealing with meditation, self, sutta, Eightfold, Noble truth issues that they are coming to terms with. This kind of seems like dropping Algebra on 1st graders - even though it is very interesting!
-bf
I am neither over-zealous or excessively severe in my 'Moderating' habits, so I cannot hopefully be too seriously accused of making a hasty or authoritative decision....
Perhaps the "boot should be on the other foot...."
It may be more constructive if you were perhaps to enquire where it is generally felt a topic should be posted......? Just a thought, friend....
As I previously stated, this decision was neither meant to be critical or judgemental. Hence the absence of my classic and well-known "Moderator Asterisks" - !
I apologize for any confusion resulting from my posting of this in the beginner's forum, but I honestly had no doubt in my mind that it would be useful to beginners (the way it appears in the discourses of the Buddha, it seems like a concept that was assumed common knowledge and therefore important foundational material for beginners). Seriously, federica, I'm not going to private message you every time I make a post to check your opinion on which forum it belongs in. Like other posters, I post in good faith that it was appropriate to the forum I consciously chose for it. That we have a difference of opinion on it and that I honestly don't understand your point of view on it is something I'm just going to have to accept, since you're the one with the moderator's wand.
in friendliness,
V.
I have just never heard of the term Tetralemma.
I also believe that discussing items like:
1.Sat = exist. This is existence which is at once graspable, concrete, affirmative, but also always so. In other words basically synonymous with eternalism.
2.Asat = not exist. This is simple "never was, never will be" exemplified by the "horns of a hair." In other words a denial or nihilism.
3.Sat-Asat = both. This is the case of something that exists for a period of time, then ceases to exist. An annihilationism.
4.Anirvacaniya = neither. This is the case of illusory existence, the typical example being when one happens upon a rope and is startled perceiving it as a snake. The "snake" did not exist as a snake, but as a rope, it did exist. Hence the "snake" per se was neither existing nor not-existing.
Is a little beyond the scope of Buddhism 101.
Just like I believe going into various interpretations of Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, Japanese nuances, thoughts, languages, colloquialisms and circumlocutions is a little bit beyond Buddhism 101.
Is this really such a big deal to move it to some place else and let everyone still enjoy what you have to offer? Your post wasn't deleted - it was just moved... Fede moves stuff all the time to areas she feels is appropriate.
It's not personal, my friend. Think of it as... ... ... impermanence
-bf
I included the sanskrit just for reference. The explanations are basic enough. If Federica approves, I can post a more simply expressed version, which includes definitions for terms like "tetralemma", and without any unexplained sanskrit or pali, version for the 101 forum. Basically I just don't think the post is serving its purpose here in 202 forum where everyone is already familiar enough with it.
in friendliness,
V
When setting up "Buddhism 202", as I understood it at the time, the intention was to provide space for the more 'advanced' aspects of the Dharma to be shared and opened. In so doing, it was certain that just this sort of discussion would take place.
I'm not sure what, exactly, is meant by '202'. '101' refers, I presume, to an 'introduction' to a subject (I recall having to endure "TA 101") which must be 'passed' before promotion to further, more 'advanced' work. I took it that there was a degree of irony in the use of terms from the Academy.
Until this discussion, I had not really looked at what we might be saying ("The meaning of a transaction is to be found in the way it is received.")
Today, I have and I am puzzled.
As I have said before, I spend part of my time as a 'spiritual sherpa'. This is a bit like a 'spiritual director' with the difference that I do not set the agenda. As a result, there are times when a fellow-pilgrim, early on in their journey, stumbles across some aspect that, in general, is only encountered later. Another result is that I have begun to understand that this 'journey work' is nothing like, for example, learning a language. There are, for sure, certain basics but even they can be reached in many different ways.
Mind you, I think that, when we move away from the experiential to the theoretical, we do need some sort of categorisation. And, here, although we share so much that is personal testimony, the format requires just the sort of differentiation that we now have. If there is a problem, it resides, as ever, at the margins. As these boards grow, we may, indeed, find the need for even more division but, as heretofore, it will come organically and when needed.
Is this really that big of a deal? Would all be right in the world if Fede moved this simple bit of text to another area?
I mean, if anyone is going to be losing sleep over this, I'm sure Fede will move it anywhere you want and not think about it again.
Just say the word - you want it moved - I'll get it moved for ya.
-bf
While this may be an important aspect of buddhist philosophy, it is generally not found too often in beginners literature. Also, as this is something that the likes of Nagarjuna has tackled (fourfold negation), I would suggest that to be a red flag as to a 202 topic. As this deals with philosophical proposition and deals with the finer philosophical matters of buddhism, I would think this is more appropriate here as this can get pretty complicated.
_/\_
metta
You are right, it is not a big deal. Since this is the 202 forum, we may as well make the best of it, if anyone is interested, and discuss the ramifications of the four alternative propositions.
in friendliness,
V.
I honestly don't think that Fede was doing it to upset anyone. Just her usual little house cleaning crap that she does. What is it called? Nesting?
I think Fede keeps picking on you cuz she thinks you got a cute butt.
What can one do?
-bf
P.S. I will discuss it with you a little tomorrow...cuz I don't know jack about a lot of Pali and such.
Not even venerable disciples of the Buddha were immune to adopting wrong views.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html
in friendliness,
V.
I said I would post something regarding this - so I went back and read the initial post.
I still don't know what to say. I grasp what is being said - but can't really think of anything to say!
-bf
http://www.thezensite.com/zen%20essays/zenteachingsofnagarjuna.pdf
_/\_
metta
It did an interesting job of descibing this whole process in greater detail - and after reading this, I would have to agree that most Buddhist novices don't come across theories like this in the very beginning.
I did like how it discussed Ultimate Reality and Conventional Reality.
-bf
I was initially struck by what seems to be a glaring error on the part of the author of that article. The author writes, emphasis mine: "Nagarjuna used negation not to prove another viewpoint or truth but to negate all viewpoints. He thereby destroyed all logical arguments about Ultimate reality, denying the inherent existence of any such 'reality.'
I say this is a seeming glaring error because it noticeably misses the detour signs of the tetralemma. That is to say he is asserting, by saying Nagarjuna denies the existence of any such reality that Nagarjuna is essentially taking up (2) Does Not Exist. Further qualifications of this assertion may reveal the notion in the author that Nagarjuna is taking up (3) both or (4) neither. If Nagarjuna is effective, he certainly could not be characterized as denying existence through application of the tetralemma.
It is of interest that it is said Nagarjuna is taking up the tetralemma with regard to the existence of "all dharmas," which, if my understanding is correct, is a question the Buddha never actually addressed in the suttas. Dhammas, for the Buddha, were given. It was not the status of their existence which was of concern, but our orientation to them in the holy life, and the role of that orientation in suffering or the end of suffering as it may be.
I also wonder how functional the notion of the "two truths" (conventional and ultimate) really is when applied to the teachings of the Buddha, since in the Nikayas no definitive teaching on such a concept is given, nor any reference to the terms, but only a couple of passages which are boldly interpreted to be supportive of the idea. It seems to me, and I realize this is controversial, that the two truths concept was invented (not by the Buddha) to account for contradictions between early (Nikayan) and late (Abhidhammic) sources for the Buddha's teachings. But that is getting off-topic for sure!
in friendliness,
V.
The two (or, with Nagarjuna's input, three) additional logical positions, are so useful. They protect us from the specious logic of politicians and of many fundamentalists.
I'm sure it is a glaring error, in the sense you have taken it. However, I personally took it as meaning that pretty much any viewpoint is not 'it.' A viewpoint is a viewpoint, a mental formation, which is devoid of self-nature/inherent existence and is a conditioned dhamma. And I think saying that he destroyed all 'logical arguments' about Ultimate reality is correct. Ultimate reality, so to speak, needs no logical arguments, and the very nature of 'logical arguments' is unreliable/misleading. Now, saying he denied any such 'reality', may be something of an over-statement, but the quotation marks around the word 'reality' suggest that he denied such a thing on the basis that the word/concept of 'reality' (ultimate or otherwise) is yet another mental construction.
Now, this does not negate all the teachings, but it does show the limitations of any convention. This is arguably the point of Nagarjuna's four-fold negation, and it meshes with the buddha's own statement that 'I discern the highest conception of emancipation as a golden brocade in a dream.'
Anyway, this is my understanding of the matter.
_/\_
metta
http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/firstep-2/sspredication.htm
One will note also the prepositive syad (in some sense, somehow) which makes the whole "septalemma" kind of laying the foundations of a quodammodo logic.
More about Buddhist logic and Indian logic at http://nyaya.darsana.org
This is the positive paradigm of an all-inclusive logic of argumentation corresponding to a full set of ontological and epistemological options.
Now, if we turn to the Theravada definition of catuskoti, we shall see, first, that it is all negative, second, that it is simultaneous (which follows from the vyatireka type of argumentation), and third, that the anirvacaniya option is excluded from the list (BUT is implied as an answer by Buddha when metaphysical questions are being asked). What we have actually is this
1. Not A
2. Not non-A
3. Not A and non-A
4. Not non-(A and non-A)
Please, refer to Kotthita Sutta for the explanations of the Ven. Sariputta.
The source for my puzzlement was understanding the last two propositions as paraconsistent. This wouldn't have happened if I had not read about paraconsistent logic previously, alas it seems clear to me that proposition no. three violates the law of the excluded middle and proposition no. four violates the law of bivalence. So I assumed it to be paraconsistent from the outset, however, the first poster back in 2006 already made the point clear in the first posting: there is a hidden modality in the last two propositions implying temporal or spatial modality, or the notion of potentiality, a notion which appears in Western logic only with formal modal logic in the 20th century.
Unfortunately, the Wikipedia entry on tetralemma fails to point out this important aspect of the Indian form of the tetralemma. The Wikipedia article also mentions that the tetralemma features prominently in ancient Greek logic. Umm, I am not so sure about this. Where exactly does it feature prominently? Can't think of anything... It seems more like Aristotelian logic is the exact opposite since it lays out the foundation of classical bivalent logic.
Cheers, Thomas