[Buddha-l] Pali Canon: Tetralemma

[David Andrews]

Hello Joanna,

I assume you mean the conventional and absolute truths of Madyamika. I would be interested to hear how you apply them to the standard instances of the form:

    X does not apply
    (not X) does not apply
    (X and not X) does not apply
    (Neither X nor not X) does not apply

Another approach would be that a statement X is said to apply only to the extent that it his helpful in lessening suffering. If X is speculative (either in the sense that it's truth or falsity cannot be known or are not currently known), then X does not apply because it distracts us from the practice rather than furthering it. But if X is speculative in this sense, then so is not X. On the other hand a contradictory statement never applies (except in the sense that it furthers a chain of logical reasoning).

Now (X and not X) is a contradiction in both classical and intuitionistic logic for any statement X. I am not suggesting that these are the only possible logics, by the way. In both of these logics, (Neither P nor not Q) is simply an abbreviation for (Not P and not Q). Hence Neither X nor not X has the form Y and not Y, where Y is not X and is, therefore, a contradiction. So, unlike Hans, I would not call the last two items "logical possibilities".

Perhaps a more consistent logic for the Buddha's notion of the applicability of X is a ternary one. See, for example, the Wikipedia article and substitute Not Applicable for Unknown.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_logic

Now there is, perhaps, a hint in the MN 72 fragment from Hans that the Buddha is saying that Not X holds in the conventional sense but that there is a deeper sense, known to the Buddha, that X holds. But these two senses (conventional and absolute, if you will) really belong to different domains of discourse and don't validate the formulas X and not X and neither X nor not X even as possibilities.

This leads me to the question that I would like to ask our scholars. There are claims by the Buddha to psychic powers enabling him to know what cannot otherwise be known. Are such claims original or have they later additions?

David.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jkirk" <jkirk at spro.net>
To: "'Buddhist discussion forum'" <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
Sent: February 9, 2008 2:07 PM
Subject: RE: [Buddha-l] Pali Canon: Tetralemma


Ahy yes--duh--I have come across this before but not recently........ 
Issue solved by the two truth view. For me anyway.
Joanna

===================

> 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."


"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.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.0/1268 - Release Date: 2/9/2008
11:54 AM