[Buddha-l] Pali Canon: Tetralemma

[Gruenig, Hans Werner]

> Hans--what does tetralemma mean? I know tetra (three) but lemma?

Tetra is actually four.  As I understand it, tetralemma refers to four logical possibilities of a proposition (X):

1) X
2) Not X
3) Both (X and Not X)
4) Neither (X nor Not X) 

Denial of all four possibilities occurs in a number of conversations in the Pali Canon and, more famously, in Nagarjuna's work.  In the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta (in the Pali Canon), the following exchanges occur in which all four logical possibilities are denied:

Exchange A:  X = (roughly) "After death a Tathagata exists."

"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..."

Exchange B:  X = (roughly) "The monk whose mind is thus released reappears."

"But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?"
"'Reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."
"In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear."
"'Does not reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."
"...both does & does not reappear."
"...doesn't apply."
"...neither does nor does not reappear."
"...doesn't apply."
"How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if the monk reappears... does not reappear... both does & does not reappear... neither does nor does not reappear, he says, '...doesn't apply' in each case. At this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured."
"Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, 'This fire is burning in front of me'?"

Best wishes,
-Hans.