Talk:Catuṣkoṭi

Dedication

 * "Emptiness was declared by the
 * Victors as the expeller of all theories;
 * they declared that those for whom
 * emptiness is a theory (drsti) are incurable." (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, 13.8)

Untitled
This is one of the worst-written, most unnecessarily overly-complicated articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.186.179 (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Holy JARGON, Batman - this article is a *mess* and would be worse than useless to anyone not already marinating in the field of Buddhist philosophy. Zero sharp (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * could you at least put a simple, succinct definition of what the catuskoti actually IS at the top of the article? Then you can go on to do. . .well, whatever it is you intend to do in this article. I (nor anyone else who reads it) has/will have the first clue. But since you seem absolutely adamant to use Wikipedia as a platform for your own incoherent ramblings, maybe you could at least throw the rest of us a bone? Thanks ever so much. Zero sharp (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * *heheheheeh* sure, u may have my leg-bone for Chöd when I'm finished with it... when I make sense of the scholarly ramblings, a summation will be evident, as will a summary at point of entry...patience, patience: mind training. BTW, Vasubandhu was a rambler...
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 03:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger: Catuskoti into Tetralemma
Proposition: Whatever can be salvaged from 'Catuskoti' should be merged into the Tetralemma article; noting the use/meaning of the term in the Buddhist and Indian logical context.


 * I disagree to a merger of Catuskoti and Tetralemma articles at present. A bridging article of comparative investigation and analysis would be valuable in the future, but unsound until the Greek tradition of Tetralemma is actualized and clearly represented in its own Wikipedia article. Until the Tetralemma Wikipedia article is developed from within the Greek tradition, merging the Catuskoti and Tetralemma articles is demonstrably: acculturation, misattribution and conflation of distinct traditions. These three charges may be tallied against much Western scholarship of the fourfold pure negation that has not clearly differentiated between the two. Hence, the profound, protracted confusion that is clearly evident upon investigation. Wayman (1977) proffers that the Catuskoti may be employed in different ways and often these are not clearly stated in discussion nor the tradition. This may or may not hold for the Tetralemma. Wayman (1977) holds that the fourfold negation of the catuskoti may be applied in suite, that is all lineal negation are applicable to a given topic forming a paradoxical matrix; or they may be applied like trains running on tracks, where individual lineal arguments are applicable to given situations and contexts. This may or may not be evident and true for the Tetralemma. These differences in particular establish contrast, texture and distinction with the Greek tradition and Dharmic Tradition of the Tetralemma and Catuskoti, respectively. Also, predicate logic has been applied to the Dharmic Tradition of Catuskoti, or stated differently, the Catuskoti has been viewed through the Greek tradition of Tetralemma, rather than as a distinct tradition in its own right. Though this acculturation and comparative analysis in some quarters has established interesting correlates and extension of the logico-mathematical traditions of the Greeks, it has also obscured the logico-grammatical traditions of the Dharmic Traditions of Catuskoti within modern English discourse.
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 02:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Untitled
Eventually the question of existence figures into "the ten avyākatāni or so-called indeterminates (better: 'undeclared points') or questions which the Buddha refused to answer" (Maurice Walshe, The Long Discourses of the Buddha, p. 554, ftnt. 219): it becomes meaningless to speak of things as existing or not-existing or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.36.89 (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong understanding of De Morgan's Laws
The following statement in the article is deleted :

It is interesting to note that under propositional logic, De Morgan's laws imply that the fourth case (neither P nor not P) is equivalent to the third case (P and not P), and is therefore superfluous.

The four alternatives are P, not P, both P and not P, neither P nor P. The first represents the protagonist, the next antagonist, the third both protagonist and antagonist (total universe) and last, neither he nor his adversary (null)

So, the deleted statement is wrong in saying the last alternative is superfluous, whereas the last alternative is in fact the exact negation of the third alternative.

Catuṣkoṭi and Ontological assertion.
Negation and Non-existence are not the same thing. Neither is Assertion and existence.

It's like saying 0 = non-existence, whereas it only represents absence. Otherwise 2 apples - 2 apples = the non-existence of apples, rather than the absence of apples!

Likewise, False = a truth-value of false, and does not represent non-existence either.

There are some terrible misunderstandings of this issue - but those misunderstandings are not found in Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Candrakirti, Buddhapalita. Please be fully aware that the limit of Catuṣkoṭi is to do with 'rational analysis'. When the Catuskoti are used by the Madhyamaka to evaluate essential existence, the Catuṣkoṭi are used as a mechanism of evaluating where essences may be found, but they do not describe essence.

(20040302 (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Catuṣkoṭi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041127175124/http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html to http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041127175124/http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html to http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041127175124/http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html to http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041127175124/http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html to http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041127175124/http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html to http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041127175124/http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html to http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041127175124/http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html to http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Holy crap!
Although Jayatilleke's "Logic of four alternatives" is given as a reference, nothing from this ground breaking study has been included in the article. Instead, much of the article focuses on the older 1957 Robinson's article, which has been criticised for gross errors in understanding the underlying logic by later day scholars. As far as I can opine, this article needs a complete make over. Manoguru (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Evidence please. I do see repeated contradictory claims in Jayatilleke's paper at  http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew27056.htm ; What I don't see elsewhere is support that those claims are "groundbreaking". Indeed his Wikipedia page makes no such claims for his papers. What is evident from that page: he was a buddhist partisan.    Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 22:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)