A Wikipedia entry on Catuṣkoṭi (which is the method in question) in Buddhist philosophy is here.

I think the OP suffers from lack of context. The 'meta-question' to ask is, why did Nāgārjuna deploy this method? The answer to that question revolves around the cultural context of Nāgārjuna's writings. He came along about half a millenium after the Buddha, after there had been considerable codification of the Buddha's teachings through the scholastic form known as 'abhidharma'. There had also been long debates with the Brahmin opponents of the Buddha, Vedanta and Sankya among others.

The madyhamika emerged as a dialectic in the true philosophical sense - a debate concerning first principles between two apparently conflicting perspectives. The protagonists were on the Buddhist side the abhidharmikas and on the other side, the Vedic schools such as Vedanta and Sankya (a dualist school which is often compared to Cartesian dualism).

Another point about Nāgārjuna is that his writing is exceedingly terse. The articles in the famous Madhyamikakarika which carried this logical reasoning are often translated into single sentences or other gnomic remarks. This has given rise to a plethora of interpretations and not a little confusion over the centuries. The article contains some explanation of that.

So that's some of the background required to really make sense of Nāgārjuna's logic. Reduced to symbolic form, it may not be especially meaningful, especially considering that Nāgārjuna's aim was first and foremost soteriological (i.e. concerned with attaining Nirvana).

Fair enough.

I posted the thread in the logic category for a reason. My focus is on the logic of the tetralemma, to be precise how what I referred to as The Buddhist Denial (Nyet) is like and unlike the Logical Negation we're all familiar with.

When a Buddhist says "nyet" to a proposition p, s/he means not p, but then stops short of affirming ~p. This is a very subtle point, at least to me, and the OP was meant to highlight this unique feature of The Buddhist Denial (Nyet).

If I'm wrong, Buddhists would be, well, running around in circles with denial of one corner would result in taking you to the next corner (this is true for at least p and ~p within a logical negation framework) - it's kinda like a trap you see, for the mind. To escape, one must deny (Nyet) without affirming the negation of what one denies. For example, no (Nyet), god exists doesn't mean yea, god doesn't exist.

Something like that...

Still not as clear on the topic as I'd like to be.

Muchas gracias for providing some context for the OP.

When a Buddhist says "nyet" to a proposition p, s/he means not p, but then stops short of affirming ~p. — Agent Smith

The verse below is taken verbatim from one of the early Buddhist texts, and is often said to be the origin for Nāgārjuna's Madhyamika (MIddle-way) school. In it the Buddha declines to answer a direct question with either 'yes' or 'no'.

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" — Ananda Sutta

It should be noted, 'the wanderer Vachagotta' is the figure who often poses philosophical questions of which this is one instance. See also this index of questions which likewise are met with the customary 'noble silence'.

The Tetralemma with The Buddhist Denial (Nyet) = The Logical negation (No)

1. p No! Ergo ~p
2. ~p No! Ergo p

As you can see, with 1 and 2 we're running in circles between p and ~p.

3. p & ~p No! Ergo p v ~p
4. ~(p v ~p) No! Ergo p v ~p

Here the situation is different, both 3 and 4, negated, lead to p v ~p (the law of the excluded middle).

As is obvious, 1, 2 and 3, 4, together is basically the law of the excluded middle (LEM). What is the importance of LEM to Buddhism? Note here that Nagarjuna's tetralemma is being interpreted in terms of Western logic (especially the classical notion of logical negation).

---

The Tetralemma with The Buddhist Denial (Nyet) $\neq$ Logical Negation

1. p Nyet!
2. ~p Nyet!
3. p & ~p Nyet!
4 ~(p v ~p) Nyet!

The 4 corners above exhaust all possible states related to a proposition p. Nyet p doesn't mean yea ~p, nor does nyet ~p mean yea p; the tertralemma also denies contradictions (3), nor does it endorse anything other than p or ~p (4). It appears I was wrong, the tetralemma is not the escape route, it is the trap. Checkmate! The Mind can't make a/any move, all routes are blocked (re Zen Koans, Mushin no shin, Mu).

Danke! Much obliged.

Interesting stuff. Looking forward to seeing how this thread plays out. :smile:

Yeah, right?

The mind, it seems, has a death wish; it wants to play against itself and win & lose :chin: (re The Stone Paradox, Leibniz - minds are, get this, little gods). The mind wants to trap itself, but only so that it can transcend its own limitations or thereabouts. Feels a bit premature if you ask me - there are other more pressing issues according to many - but hey, why should we do things sequentially, in the proper order? We're not computers running algorithms, oui?

Questions regarding the now famous Noble Silence or the middle path.

1. The Buddha didn't know i.e. denying what are considered extremes is an admission of ignorance.

2. The Buddha knew i.e. the truth is actually somewhere in the middle, the madhyamaka is a statement of fact.

?

As is obvious, 1, 2 and 3, 4, together is basically the law of the excluded middle (LEM). What is the importance of LEM to Buddhism? — Agent Smith

The Buddha’s knowledge surpasses logic. However, that doesn’t invalidate logic.

The Buddha’s knowledge surpasses logic. However, that doesn’t invalidate logic. — Wayfarer

:ok: I'll get back to you later.

The Buddha’s knowledge surpasses logic. — Wayfarer

God moves in a mysterious way. — William Cowper

The Buddha, the legend goes, is fully aware of the temporal triad (past, present, future); I guess this is the Buddhist version of omniscience. Normal folk have access to the past (memory) and present (direct experience) and think/reason/plan within these boundaries. The Buddha, on the other hand, is in a sense a seer and reasons/plans acts with the future (indefinite) in mind too. He would then appear to surpass logic for his actions would make no sense to us normal folk.

If you mean, you have no idea of what a Buddha really knows, then I would certainly agree. Which brings up the question, why raise an OP about this topic? As I have tried to explain previously, Nāgārjuna's philosophy is not simply a matter for syllogistic logic. His concern is soteriological. (Feel free to google that word.)

If you mean, you have no idea of what a Buddha knows, then I would certainly agree. Which brings up the question, why raise an OP about this topic? As I have tried to explain previously, Nāgārjuna's philosophy is not simply a matter for syllogistic logic. His concern is soteriological. (Feel free to google that word.) — Wayfarer

You're on target, as usual, but the logical features of the tetralemma may be the key to nirvana; as it is, it's the basis of the madhyamaka (the middle path).

There seems to be a link between Nagarjuna's tetralemma and Zen koans which appear to be (rather poor) attempts of Japanese monks, untrained in formal logic, at inventing paradoxes. Nevertheless, Zen koans, despite their dubious quality, do produce the intended effect - pressing the power button of our minds and shutting it down, causing a system crash, emptying the mind it's called I believe.

Imagine you're in a room and there are two people, x and y; you're conducting a murder investigation. You ask the witness, "did x do it?", she answers "no"; "did y do it then?", she replies "no". "Perhaps both did it then?" you query. She responds "no". "You mean neither of them did it?" you continue and she responds, again, with a "no". So, who is the murderer? All possibilities are exhausted, the mind has nothing to latch onto, its usual habit. Cessation of all thought! Analysis paralysis! You become a mind without a mind (mushin no shin); you're conscious but not really conscious (your thinking has come to a halt, but you're not dead). Your mind has simulated kicking the bucket (virtual death).

The 4 corners above exhaust all possible states related to a proposition p. — Agent Smith

It seems important to say:

Apart from a fifth state: silence. Silence of the mouth and of the mind. To "exhaust all possible states related to a proposition p" this fifth state must be included.* And should be included as a fifth state in relation to p.

This is where you contact the soteriological essence, to my view.

The four Nyets are pointing in this direction. As I understand it.

Cessation of all thought! Analysis paralysis! You become a mind without a mind (mushin no shin); you're conscious but not really conscious (your thinking has come to a halt, but you're not dead). Your mind has simulated kicking the bucket (virtual death). — Agent Smith

This, to my view, is an exaggeration - even a pitfall - of the "nirvanic" pursuit. After 20 years of obsessive to devout meditation, I don't put much stock in the Holy Grail of stillness.** The mind persists in its antics - but the mind's relation to itself shifts to reflect a (let's say) undertow of stillness.

Nigh impossible to set it out in - even poetic - language: in other words, secret and sacred. Demanding to be known, not rumored of.


*Mind-silence in relation to proposition p, but never a comprehensive mind-silence. That's a fairy tale, to my view. - Possibly the seclusion and detachment of the monasteries allow for it. That seems at least plausible.

** I toyed with a comprehensive mind-silence meditation for a couple of years. I noticed it gave me a headache. Mind-silence could be sustained for up to a minute. But the pain suggested this was not the right approach. Some kind of insalubrious suppression going on there.

Again, things may be different in the monastic milieu.

There's no right answer to the question "why meditate?" I suppose. Different strokes for different folks.

I merely presented an interpretation that makes the most sense to me. You should dig a little deeper into what you said, there's a lot to unearth there.

You should dig a little deeper into what you said, there's a lot to unearth there. — Agent Smith

Eternally diggingdiggingdigging! (And diggin' the digging! Sublime depths dark enough to panic the kraken!)

If you have a more fleshed-out insight into the excavation at hand, I'll take it to heart. I'll take guidance where it arises: from the worms, the skies, the shit and the flowers - and even from an unidentified thoughtsmith.

Eternally diggingdiggingdigging! (And diggin' the digging! Sublime depths dark enough to panic the kraken!)

If you have a more fleshed-out insight into the excavation at hand, I'll take it to heart. I'll take guidance where it arises: from the worms, the skies, the shit and the flowers - and even from an unidentified thoughtsmith. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Bon voyage!

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer either with Yes, or No!"

If someone said that to you, how would you reply (presuming that you're not married and never were)?

N/A or Mu.

Complex questions are a different kettle of fish. They can't be answered without admitting/denying something along with admitting/denying something else. It does produce the same effect - thought block - but only to novices and those ignorant of this fallacy.

Danke for your input!

My point is that the questions asked about the nature of the Tatagatha (whether after death he exists or not etc.) on which the tetralemma in the OP is based are just this kind of complex questions demading simple answers. Someone who would understand the nature of the Tatagatha would not ask such questions to begin with.

The whole tetralemma is set up by ignorance and insisting in the tetralemma just perpetuates the ignorance. There is no mysticism to it, and no middle way, it's just ignorance.

"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four?
There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that].
There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms].
There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question.
There are questions that should be put aside.
These are the four ways of answering questions."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.042.than.html

Part of the practice is understanding which question should be answered in which way, and why thusly.

ignorance — baker

Given that, for various good reasons, all knowledge is suspect, tackling ignorance in an appropriate way (systematic, rational, etc.) is our only option. Wouldn't you agree? Remember we're talking about people who didn't know even the science 5 year olds these days are familiar with. It's an amazing insight and Nagarjuana and Gautama deserve credit for their ingenuity if for nothing else. If you were to somehow transport these individuals to the present, I'm sure their IQs would make many of us look like drooling idiots.

In the Buddhist context, ignorance refers specifically to the ignorance of the Four Noble Truths.

In the Buddhist context, ignorance refers specifically to the ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. — baker

I would beg to differ; why would you think the Buddha or his disciples after him were/are so narrow minded!

In the Buddhist context, ignorance refers specifically to the ignorance of the Four Noble Truths.
— baker

I would beg to differ; why would you think the Buddha or his disciples after him were/are so narrow minded! — Agent Smith

It has nothing to do with "narrow-mindedness", but with focus.


“Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.”
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_86.html

In the Buddhist context, ignorance refers specifically to the ignorance of the Four Noble Truths.
— baker

I would beg to differ; why would you think the Buddha or his disciples after him were/are so narrow minded!
— Agent Smith

It has nothing to do with "narrow-mindedness", but with focus.


“Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.”
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_86.html — baker

Well, you would (hyper)focus if you were narrow-minded (missing the forest for the trees).

Anyway, I believe Nagarjuna's tetralemma is tailored towards dealing specifically with ignorance - especially since the unknown triggers our imagination which if not restrained can cause havoc and compound the confusion.

"Why not let's stop these people from fantasizing like no one's business!" thought the Buddha. The underlying premise appears to be ignorance is better than false knowledge.

You seem to think that the Buddha and his followers are or should be Renaissance men (and that their outlook is or should be scientific materialism).

Smith You seem to think that the Buddha and his followers are or should be Renaissance men (and that their outlook is or should be scientific materialism). — baker

I was told the middle path doesn't take sides. A cornerstone idea of Buddhism is that all propsitions are undecidable and hence epoché (suspension of judgment); there are some wrinkles that need our attention but that's a topic for another discussion.

There's a parallel between ignorance, avidya, in the Buddhist and generally Indic sense, and the 'original sin' of Christianity. Now, I know that is going to be unpopular, as one of the dogmas of Westernised, middle-class Buddhism is that 'there's no sin in Buddhism'. And it is true that avidya is more a matter of a deficiency of cognition than of a corruption of the will, as sin is in Christianity. Nevertheless, they're both descriptions of the human condition. In the Christian worldview, we're corrupted by the hereditary 'sin of Adam'. In the Buddhist worldview, we're subject to 'beginningless ignorance', as there is no discernable beginning to the ignorance in which all beings (puttajana, 'uneducated worldlings') have been ensnared for 'aeons of kalpas'. There's a saying from Buddhism that I read on a Buddhist forum, 'Avidya has no beginning, but it has an end. Nirvāṇa has a beginning, but it has no end.'

This ethical or moral dimension to Buddhism is something which always seems to elude your attempts to reduce Nāgārjuna's writings to textbook logic. So, again, the reason that the Buddha declared certain questions 'undecideable' or 'out of bounds', is because they're essentially meaningless (something which frequently nags me about much of the activity on this forum.) That is why he compared speculation about them to trying to work out the nature of the poison on a poison arrow that is embedded in your flesh, rather than acting speedily to remove the arrow and treat the poison.

Very interesting points you raise here Wayfarer.

What does Nagarjuna's tetralemma have to do with ethics? Buddhist ethics, as far as I know, is a blend of Kantian (deontological) & Benthamian (utilitarian) ethics (a white lie is ok but it still is a lie).

Ignorance, in my humble opinion, plays a big role in Buddhism - according to some sources Pyrrrho the skeptic basically copy-pasted Nagarjuna's tetralemma onto skepticism.

Very interesting points you raise here — Agent Smith

Which you nevertheless manage not to see, somehow.

//sorry, might have been a bit harsh. But really.....//