Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Caoimhghín »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:08 amYou are missing the point.
I disagree. I never mentioned the "point" of the tetralemma, merely that it uses a two-valued logic.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Malcolm
Posts: 37084
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Malcolm »

Caoimhghín wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:36 am
Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:08 amYou are missing the point.
I disagree. I never mentioned the "point" of the tetralemma, merely that it uses a two-valued logic.
My point, which everyone seems to either ignore or miss, is that these negations referred to real positions people held. That's all. Therefore, discussing them as if they are any more than simple negations is mistaken.

Other than the dispute between Sakya and Geluk over whether two or four negations are appropriate with respect to ascertaining the ultimate, you will not find, in Indian Buddhist texts, a treatment of the so-called tetralemma as a logical device on its own, unlike say syllogisms, and so on.
"Death stands before all who are born."
— Ācārya Aśvaghoṣa
Post Reply

Return to “Academic Discussion”