Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Lewis Wrote: The analogy was: Hammer = tool (drive nail into wood) Religion, philosophy, science = tool (realization, union, nonduality; understanding; technology) The tetralemma is used for understanding concepts and concept formation. As a tool, it can be used to reveal the dependent nature of thought and concept formations of any type. In Buddhism, it is a tool used to overcome attachment to viewpoints or ontological commitments of any sort that are conceived to be a source of " suffering. " In the latter sense, Michael, it works this way: 1. Assertion (something is): The affirmation of existence of anything using language is conventional. Such affirmations lead to obvious attachments with the inclusion and exclusion of other concepts. appied to the ultimate degree to remove contradictions it leads to affirming that all is one thing (monisms). Illusion and delusion results. Liberation of illusion and delusion is seen as coming from denying the existence of something. And a position of denying the existence of something is undertaken. 2. Denial (something is not): Once taking this conventional position of denial it is clear that it is no different than assertion in that it includes and excludes and allows attachments. Applied to the ultimate degree, it leads to all is nothing, nothingness (nothingisms, nihilisms). Illusion and delusion results. Liberation of illusion and delusion is seen as coming from rejecting the denial of the existence of something as well as denying the affirmation of existence. 3. Synthesis (something is and is not): To resolve contradictions created by affirmations and denials of existence and to find something midway, a solution is sought through the use artificial syntheses (non-monisms and non-nihilisms). Dualities and nondualities are manipulated and merged to achieve resolution. But this too fails. Illusion and delusion results. Liberation of illusion and delusion is seen as coming from rejecting syntheses, denials and affirmations. 4. [Positive] Skepticism (neither something is nor is not): Here all viewpoints and ontological commitments are discarded since no point of view or ontology, no matter how effective or useful it may be as it is employed, can be said to be true in an ultimate sense, that is, to represent the " mystery " or the experience or non-experience of the " mystery " in conceptual language. Skepticism is rejected for it is also a viewpoint and ontological commitment, an " ism, " as well. Buddhism is discarded. The tetralemma ends here And it is here, where practitioners of bhakti, self-inquiry (neti, neti) meditation, mindfulness, infused contemplation, and similar practices, found in many different religions and philosophies, can [or not] find themselves, aware or unaware or both or neither, at the " brink of an abyss, " where there is only direct experience without " isms, " books, guides, maps, help, all alone. And then, somehow, there is a falling up or down or both or neither and then life as it is..... Also, the tetralemma also can be used by dogmatists to protect their dogma by using it as a filter to screen out all competing notions and to attack and destroy the dogma and notions of others. This is common. How it is used depends on skill and purpose. Lewis %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Hi Lewis, Tetralemma, 4 horns = 2 bulls. Just straight off it seems to me as useful in argument as the inflatable dart board and the waterproof towel, in their domains. Fundamental to logic is the law of non- contradiction : " that contrdictories cannot be true together and cannot be false together. In modern logic, the principle that no statement of the form (p and not-p) can be true. " The law of excluded middle relates to this also: " this is the principle that for any proposition p, either p or not-p; i.e. that there is nothing intermediate, or 'middle', between something's being so and its not being so " (from Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy) The previous law it will be noted is a togetherness law (P.N.C.) whereas the L.E.M. is about a single proposition. To your two bulls I counter one bull (Irish): The tetralemma is only a verbal device, it's not worth the paper it's written on. Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 --- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: > > Lewis Wrote: > The analogy was: > > Hammer = tool (drive nail into wood) > > Religion, philosophy, science = tool (realization, > union, nonduality; understanding; technology) > > The tetralemma is used for understanding concepts > and > concept formation. As a tool, it can be used to > reveal > the dependent nature of thought and concept > formations > of any type. In Buddhism, it is a tool used to > overcome attachment to viewpoints or ontological > commitments of any sort that are conceived to be a > source of " suffering. " > > In the latter sense, Michael, it works this way: > > 1. Assertion (something is): The affirmation of > existence of anything using language is > conventional. > Such affirmations lead to obvious attachments with > the > inclusion and exclusion of other concepts. appied to > the ultimate degree to remove contradictions it > leads > to affirming that all is one thing (monisms). > Illusion > and delusion results. Liberation of illusion and > delusion is seen as coming from denying the > existence > of something. And a position of denying the > existence > of something is undertaken. > > 2. Denial (something is not): Once taking this > conventional position of denial it is clear that it > is > no different than assertion in that it includes and > excludes and allows attachments. Applied to the > ultimate degree, it leads to all is nothing, > nothingness (nothingisms, nihilisms). Illusion and > delusion results. Liberation of illusion and > delusion > is seen as coming from rejecting the denial of the > existence of something as well as denying the > affirmation of existence. > > 3. Synthesis (something is and is not): To resolve > contradictions created by affirmations and denials > of > existence and to find something midway, a solution > is > sought through the use artificial syntheses > (non-monisms and non-nihilisms). Dualities and > nondualities are manipulated and merged to achieve > resolution. But this too fails. Illusion and > delusion > results. Liberation of illusion and delusion is seen > as coming from rejecting syntheses, denials and > affirmations. > > 4. [Positive] Skepticism (neither something is nor > is > not): Here all viewpoints and ontological > commitments > are discarded since no point of view or ontology, no > matter how effective or useful it may be as it is > employed, can be said to be true in an ultimate > sense, > that is, to represent the " mystery " or the > experience > or non-experience of the " mystery " in conceptual > language. Skepticism is rejected for it is also a > viewpoint and ontological commitment, an " ism, " as > well. Buddhism is discarded. > > The tetralemma ends here > > And it is here, where practitioners of bhakti, > self-inquiry (neti, neti) meditation, mindfulness, > infused contemplation, and similar practices, found > in > many different religions and philosophies, can [or > not] find themselves, aware or unaware or both or > neither, at the " brink of an abyss, " where there is > only direct experience without " isms, " books, guides, > maps, help, all alone. And then, somehow, there is a > falling up or down or both or neither and then life > as > it is..... > > Also, the tetralemma also can be used by dogmatists > to > protect their dogma by using it as a filter to > screen > out all competing notions and to attack and destroy > the dogma and notions of others. This is common. > > How it is used depends on skill and purpose. > > Lewis > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > Hi Lewis, > Tetralemma, 4 horns = 2 bulls. Just > straight off > it seems to me as > useful in argument as the inflatable dart board and > the > waterproof towel, in > their domains. Fundamental to logic is the law of > non- > contradiction : " that > contrdictories cannot be true together and cannot be > false > together. In > modern logic, the principle that no statement of the > form > (p and not-p) can > be true. " > > The law of excluded middle relates to this > also: " this is > the principle that > for any proposition p, either p or not-p; i.e. that > there > is nothing > intermediate, or 'middle', between something's being > so > and its not being > so " (from Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy) > > The previous law it will be noted is a togetherness > law > (P.N.C.) whereas the > L.E.M. is about a single proposition. > > To your two bulls I counter one bull (Irish): The > tetralemma is only a verbal > device, it's not worth the paper it's written on. > > Michael. Dear Michael, The tetralemma is not a logical device and is, generally, not used as such. Your critique in this sense is misplaced. The tetralemma is soteriological device. This was clearly stated above. " The tetralemma is used for understanding concepts and concept formation. As a tool, it can be used to reveal the dependent nature of thought and concept formations of any type. In Buddhism, it is a tool used to overcome attachment to viewpoints or ontological commitments of any sort that are conceived to be a source of " suffering. " There have been analyses and critiques of the tetralemma as a logical device; some narrowly focused on it as a logical device and others recognized it for what it is. One can take it as one chooses as the first two below do. See this article for for Nagarjuna and the tetralemma from a sympathetic Zen perspective. http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:VEk7UJBw-iMJ:www.thezensite.com/zen%2520ess\ ays/zenteachingsofnagarjuna.pdf+tetralemma & hl=en & start=28 See this short and very critical article of the tetralemma from a Western perspective. It is very similar to the critique outlined above. The analysis and critique is sound from an ethnocentric Western perspective and standards. The author fails to see the soteriological imperative, the intention of its creator, which, I suppose, is not his business and does not account for the difference between ontology and argumentation in the East and West. http://www.thelogician.net/3b_buddhist_illogic/3b_chapter_01.htm Try this more balanced Western critique if you want to exercise some neurons. http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew27056.htm There are others. The use of logic and logical devices of any sort are inapplicable for things beyond the domain of reason and intellection. And when the tetralemma is used by Buddhists, the goal is not to find truth or falsity as it is in Aristolean logic but to end specualtion on what cannot possibly known through word and concept. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > --- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > > > > > Lewis Wrote: > > The analogy was: > > > > Hammer = tool (drive nail into wood) > > > > Religion, philosophy, science = tool (realization, > > union, nonduality; understanding; technology) > > > > The tetralemma is used for understanding concepts > > and > > concept formation. As a tool, it can be used to > > reveal > > the dependent nature of thought and concept > > formations > > of any type. In Buddhism, it is a tool used to > > overcome attachment to viewpoints or ontological > > commitments of any sort that are conceived to be a > > source of " suffering. " > > > > In the latter sense, Michael, it works this way: > > > > 1. Assertion (something is): The affirmation of > > existence of anything using language is > > conventional. > > Such affirmations lead to obvious attachments with > > the > > inclusion and exclusion of other concepts. appied to > > the ultimate degree to remove contradictions it > > leads > > to affirming that all is one thing (monisms). > > Illusion > > and delusion results. Liberation of illusion and > > delusion is seen as coming from denying the > > existence > > of something. And a position of denying the > > existence > > of something is undertaken. > > > > 2. Denial (something is not): Once taking this > > conventional position of denial it is clear that it > > is > > no different than assertion in that it includes and > > excludes and allows attachments. Applied to the > > ultimate degree, it leads to all is nothing, > > nothingness (nothingisms, nihilisms). Illusion and > > delusion results. Liberation of illusion and > > delusion > > is seen as coming from rejecting the denial of the > > existence of something as well as denying the > > affirmation of existence. > > > > 3. Synthesis (something is and is not): To resolve > > contradictions created by affirmations and denials > > of > > existence and to find something midway, a solution > > is > > sought through the use artificial syntheses > > (non-monisms and non-nihilisms). Dualities and > > nondualities are manipulated and merged to achieve > > resolution. But this too fails. Illusion and > > delusion > > results. Liberation of illusion and delusion is seen > > as coming from rejecting syntheses, denials and > > affirmations. > > > > 4. [Positive] Skepticism (neither something is nor > > is > > not): Here all viewpoints and ontological > > commitments > > are discarded since no point of view or ontology, no > > matter how effective or useful it may be as it is > > employed, can be said to be true in an ultimate > > sense, > > that is, to represent the " mystery " or the > > experience > > or non-experience of the " mystery " in conceptual > > language. Skepticism is rejected for it is also a > > viewpoint and ontological commitment, an " ism, " as > > well. Buddhism is discarded. > > > > The tetralemma ends here > > > > And it is here, where practitioners of bhakti, > > self-inquiry (neti, neti) meditation, mindfulness, > > infused contemplation, and similar practices, found > > in > > many different religions and philosophies, can [or > > not] find themselves, aware or unaware or both or > > neither, at the " brink of an abyss, " where there is > > only direct experience without " isms, " books, guides, > > maps, help, all alone. And then, somehow, there is a > > falling up or down or both or neither and then life > > as > > it is..... > > > > Also, the tetralemma also can be used by dogmatists > > to > > protect their dogma by using it as a filter to > > screen > > out all competing notions and to attack and destroy > > the dogma and notions of others. This is common. > > > > How it is used depends on skill and purpose. > > > > Lewis > > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > > > Hi Lewis, > > Tetralemma, 4 horns = 2 bulls. Just > > straight off > > it seems to me as > > useful in argument as the inflatable dart board and > > the > > waterproof towel, in > > their domains. Fundamental to logic is the law of > > non- > > contradiction : " that > > contrdictories cannot be true together and cannot be > > false > > together. In > > modern logic, the principle that no statement of the > > form > > (p and not-p) can > > be true. " > > > > The law of excluded middle relates to this > > also: " this is > > the principle that > > for any proposition p, either p or not-p; i.e. that > > there > > is nothing > > intermediate, or 'middle', between something's being > > so > > and its not being > > so " (from Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy) > > > > The previous law it will be noted is a togetherness > > law > > (P.N.C.) whereas the > > L.E.M. is about a single proposition. > > > > To your two bulls I counter one bull (Irish): The > > tetralemma is only a verbal > > device, it's not worth the paper it's written on. > > > > Michael. > > > Dear Michael, > > The tetralemma is not a logical device and is, > generally, not used as such. Your critique in this > sense is misplaced. > > The tetralemma is soteriological device. This was > clearly stated above. > > " The tetralemma is used for understanding concepts > and concept formation. As a tool, it can be used to > reveal the dependent nature of thought and concept > formations of any type. In Buddhism, it is a tool used > to overcome attachment to viewpoints or ontological > commitments of any sort that are conceived to be a > source of " suffering. " > > There have been analyses and critiques of the > tetralemma as a logical device; some narrowly focused > on it as a logical device and others recognized it for > what it is. One can take it as one chooses as the > first two below do. > > See this article for for Nagarjuna and the tetralemma > from a sympathetic Zen perspective. > > http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:VEk7UJBw-iMJ:www.thezensite.com/zen%2520ess\ ays/zenteachingsofnagarjuna.pdf+tetralemma & hl=en & start=28 > Interesting kind of logic this tetralemma, a sort of quad logic instead of the usual binary logic. Even fuzzy logic, dealing with degrees of truth, is based on binary logic. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/fuzzy-logic/part1/ I wonder if one could create a combination: fuzzy tetralemma. :-) /AL > See this short and very critical article of the > tetralemma from a Western perspective. It is very > similar to the critique outlined above. The analysis > and critique is sound from an ethnocentric Western > perspective and standards. The author fails to see the > soteriological imperative, the intention of its > creator, which, I suppose, is not his business and > does not account for the difference between ontology > and argumentation in the East and West. > > http://www.thelogician.net/3b_buddhist_illogic/3b_chapter_01.htm > > Try this more balanced Western critique if you want to > exercise some neurons. > > http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew27056.htm > > There are others. > > The use of logic and logical devices of any sort are > inapplicable for things beyond the domain of reason > and intellection. And when the tetralemma is used by > Buddhists, the goal is not to find truth or falsity as > it is in Aristolean logic but to end specualtion on > what cannot possibly known through word and concept. > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.