It is. It is not. It both is and is not. It neither is nor is not. Indian debaters set out four answers where Aristotle allowed two, and the Buddha was once asked all four and rejected each. Whether this breaks the laws of logic, what Kant and a modern school of logicians would say, and how to keep a listener from concluding that Buddhism is against reason. 是。不是。亦是亦不是。非是非不是。亞里斯多德只容許兩個答案的地方，印度的論辯者擺出了四個；而佛陀有一次被問遍了這四個，每一個都拒絕了。這有沒有違反邏輯的定律？康德與一個現代的邏輯學派會怎麼說？又該怎麼讓聽眾不至於得出「佛教反對理性」的結論？
D9 Dharma and the West · 佛法與西方哲學Emptiness and Mind · 空與心Advanced · 高級about 30 min
四句
catukkoṭi Pāli catuṣkoṭi Sanskritthe four corners; the tetralemma
The verdict · 判定
Closest: Kant, who showed that a question can have two contradictory answers that are both false because the question assumes something untrue. That is how the Buddha explains his refusals, with the simile of the fire. The modern logicians who accept true contradictions offer a second reading, which fits some lines of Nāgārjuna. The likeness to Kant ends at the purpose. Kant marked a limit of knowledge. The Buddha set questions aside because holding to any answer keeps a person bound.
中文翻譯Every paragraph has a Chinese translation. Tap 中譯▾ under a paragraph to open that one, or use Show Chinese · 顯示中譯 at the top to open them all.每一段都有中譯：點段落下方的「中譯」只開那一段，或按上方的「顯示中譯」一次全部打開。
1 · What the Dharma says · 佛法怎麼說
Four answers, all declined 四個答案，全都謝絕
Indian philosophers before the Buddha had a standard way of setting out the possible answers to a question. A thing is so, or it is not so, or it is both, or it is neither. One teacher of the day, Sañjaya, was known for refusing all four. “I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.” The discourses call such teachers eel-wrigglers, and the Buddha did not admire them. His own use of the four alternatives is different, and one conversation shows how.
A wanderer named Vaccha asked where an awakened person is reborn after death. “‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.” Then are they not reborn? “‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply.” Both? Neither? Each time the answer was that it does not apply, and Vaccha said that he had lost what clarity he had. The Buddha then asked him a question. If a fire were burning in front of you, you would know it, and you would know that it burned in dependence on grass and logs. If it went out, you would know that too. But suppose someone asked: “This fire in front of you that is quenched: in what direction did it go—east, south, west, or north?” Vaccha said: “It doesn’t apply, worthy Gotama. The fire depended on grass and logs as fuel.” In the same way, the Buddha said, everything by which an awakened person might be described has been given up, and “none of these apply.”
The simile shows what kind of refusal this is. The question about the fire has four possible answers and all are wrong, because the question assumes that a fire is a thing that goes somewhere. The four questions about the awakened person assume a self that either continues or stops. Deny the assumption and none of the answers can be given. Nāgārjuna later used the four corners in both directions. Sometimes he denies all four, as in the first verse of his main work: things do not arise from themselves, from another, from both, or without a cause. Sometimes he lists all four as teachings: “Everything is real, and not real, both real and not real, neither real nor not real. This is the teaching of the Buddhas.” The commentators explain the second as a sequence suited to listeners at different stages. They do not take it as four truths asserted at once.
Aristotle called one principle “the most certain of all”: “the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect.” He added a second: “there cannot be an intermediate between contradictories, but of one subject we must either affirm or deny any one predicate.” The first rules out the third corner, both. The second rules out the fourth, neither. Anyone who denies the first principle, he said, cannot be argued with, since to say anything definite is already to rely on it, and a person who says nothing “is from the start no better than a vegetable.” Western logic was built on these two laws. Aristotle’s own wording leaves a door open, though. The attribute must belong and not belong “in the same respect.” The classical Indian reading of the third corner is that the thing is so in one respect and not so in another, which he would allow.
Kant examined four old questions of metaphysics, among them whether the world had a beginning in time and whether it is finite in space. For each he set out a proof that it is so and an equally good proof that it is not, and called the result an antinomy. Reason, working correctly, contradicts itself. His solution was that both sides share a false assumption, that the world as a whole is an object that can be given in experience, with a definite size and age. Drop the assumption, and thesis and antithesis are both false. As it happens, whether the world is eternal and whether it is infinite are among the questions the Buddha declined to answer. Kant’s diagnosis has the same form as the simile of the fire. A question can be rejected without ignorance and without evasion, when one can say what is wrong with it.
Graham Priest and four-valued logic 葛拉漢・普里斯特與四值邏輯1977, 2003
In the twentieth century logicians built consistent formal systems in which a statement may be true, false, both, or neither. One of them was devised in 1977 for computers that receive conflicting information from different sources and must go on reasoning without concluding everything. Its four values are the four corners. The philosopher Graham Priest argues further that some contradictions are true, the liar sentence “this sentence is false” being the standard case, and with Jay Garfield he has read Nāgārjuna as holding that statements about the ultimate nature of things are of this kind. To say that things have no ultimate nature is to state their ultimate nature. This reading shows that the four corners are not illogical, since they have a rigorous logic of their own. Whether it is what Nāgārjuna meant is disputed. Many scholars hold that he denies all four corners precisely to avoid contradiction, and that his own statements are conventional truths.
Who is closest, and where the likeness ends 誰最接近，相似到哪裡為止
For the Buddha’s own use of the four corners the closest Western parallel is Kant. Both face questions that seem to demand one of a fixed set of answers, both decline every answer, and both justify the refusal by exposing an assumption inside the question. The fire that went nowhere and the world that is neither finite nor infinite are solved in the same way. The Pyrrhonist skeptics of the last lesson also rejected four alternatives, and an ancient report gives Pyrrho’s formula as: no more is than is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not. They resemble Sañjaya more than the Buddha, since they give no account of why the answers fail.
The likeness to Kant ends at what the refusal is for. Kant wanted to fix the boundary of what human beings can know, so that science could proceed securely inside it and faith have room outside. The Buddha gave another reason, and gave it to Vaccha in the same conversation. Each of the positions, he said, is “the thicket of views, the desert of views, the twist of views,” and they “don’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment.” To adopt any of the four is to take up a position about a self, and the taking up is the trouble. Kant leaves his reader with a limit. The Buddha leaves Vaccha with something to do, and the discourse ends with Vaccha saying that the teaching is like a great tree from which the bark and branches have fallen away, leaving only the heartwood.
Four values: true, false, both, neither四個值：真、假、既真又假、非真非假
Four, all refused四個；全都拒絕
Can “both” ever hold?「兩者皆是」有可能成立嗎？
In different respects, yes在不同的方面，可以
Never in the same respect在同一方面，絕不
No不
Yes. Some contradictions are true可以。有些矛盾是真的
No view is given沒有給出看法
Why reject all four?為什麼四個全都拒絕？
The question assumes a self or an own-nature問題預設了一個我，或者一個自性
One would not不會這樣做
The question assumes the world is an object of experience問題預設了世界是經驗的對象
At the limit of thought, all four may fail在思想的界限上，四個可能都不成立
To avoid being wrong為了避免說錯
Is anything affirmed?有肯定任何東西嗎？
Yes: dependent origination and the path有：緣起與道
Yes: the laws of thought有：思想的定律
Yes: the limits of reason有：理性的界限
Yes: a logic of contradiction有：一套關於矛盾的邏輯
No沒有
What is the refusal for?這個拒絕是為了什麼？
Release from views that bind從綁人的見解裡解脫
Not applicable不適用
Securing science, leaving room for faith穩固科學；為信仰留餘地
Getting the logic right把邏輯弄對
Peace of mind, or safety心的平靜；或者安全
5 · The step the Dharma takes further · 佛法多走的一步
Positions as places to stand 把立場當作站的地方
The Sanskrit word for a corner, koṭi, means an extreme or an end point. The four corners are the four places where a thinker can come to rest on a question, and the Buddhist use of them treats positions as things people occupy and defend, as well as things that are true or false. When Vaccha asked whether the Buddha held any conviction at all, the answer was that he had done away with convictions, because he had seen how form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness arise and pass away. Seeing has taken the place of holding a view. This is the step with no close Western parallel. Kant, Aristotle, and Priest all ask which statements are true. The Buddha asks that too, and then asks what the mind is doing when it grips one of them.
Nāgārjuna drew the philosophical consequence. In the chapter on the Buddha he says that emptiness should not be asserted, nor non-emptiness, nor both, nor neither, and that these are spoken of only as designations. The commentary adds that the terms are used to counter their opposites. A statement in his hands is a tool against a particular error and is to be put down when the error is gone. That includes the statement that all things are empty, as the last lesson showed. Chan Buddhism made a training method of this. A teacher’s question to a student is often built so that every answer the student can think of is wrong, and the purpose is that the student stop looking for a place to stand. The method can be abused, and it has produced a good deal of nonsense. Its origin is the conversation with Vaccha, in which every answer was declined and a reason was given.
Western listeners meet the four corners in two unhelpful forms. Some have been told that Eastern thought goes beyond logic, and they are ready to admire a contradiction. Others have had some training in logic and conclude that Buddhists cannot think straight. Both can be answered with an example from ordinary life. Ask whether the number seven is green. It is not green, and it is not some other color. It is not both, and “neither green nor not green” sounds wrong too. No one concludes that logic has failed. The question was badly formed, since numbers are not the kind of thing that has a color. Then tell the story of the fire. The Buddha’s refusals come with a reason, and the reason is one a logician accepts.
The Buddha was asked four versions of one question and said of each, “It doesn’t apply.” Then he explained why.
有人拿同一個問題的四個版本問佛陀；對每一個，他都說「不適用」。然後他解釋了為什麼。
If a fire goes out, which direction did it go? The question has no right answer because fires do not go anywhere.
一團火滅了，它往哪個方向去了？這個問題沒有正確的答案；因為火並不「去」任何地方。
Some questions carry a mistake inside them. Answering yes or no accepts the mistake.
有些問題，裡面帶著一個錯誤。回答「是」或「不是」，就是接受了那個錯誤。
Kant found the same thing: asked whether the world is finite or infinite, he said both answers are false.
康德發現了同樣的事：有人問世界是有限的還是無限的；他說，兩個答案都是假的。
This is careful reasoning. It is the opposite of saying that anything goes.
這是仔細的推理。它與「怎麼說都行」正好相反。
The Buddha’s concern was practical. Holding tightly to any of the four answers keeps a person arguing and does not free anyone.
佛陀關心的是實際的事。緊抓著四個答案當中的任何一個，都使人繼續爭論；並不使任何人得到解脫。
Phrases to avoid 要避開的說法
“Buddhism goes beyond logic.” 「佛教超越了邏輯。」
Invites nonsense and loses the careful listener. Say that it rejects badly formed questions, with reasons.
這是在招來胡說，並且失去那位認真的聽眾。要說：它拒絕問得不對的問題；而且給出理由。
“In the East, things can be both true and false.” 「在東方，事情可以既真又假。」
There is no single Eastern logic, and Indian logicians defended non-contradiction. Describe the particular argument.
並沒有單一的「東方邏輯」；而印度的邏輯學家也捍衛不矛盾律。要描述那個特定的論證。
“The Buddha refused to answer metaphysical questions.” 「佛陀拒絕回答形上學的問題。」
Half true, and it sounds like dodging. He said why: the questions assume a self, and the answers do not lead to release.
只對了一半；而且聽起來像在迴避。他說了為什麼：這些問題預設了一個我；而那些答案並不導向解脫。
“It’s a paradox. Just sit with it.” 「這是個弔詭。就跟它一起坐著吧。」
Sometimes apt in a meditation hall. As an explanation it explains nothing. Give the fire first.
在禪堂裡有時候合適。當作解釋，它什麼也沒解釋。先講那團火。
Three languages · 三語對照
The vocabulary, in Chinese, Pāli, Sanskrit, and English 術語：中文、巴利文、梵文、英文
中文
Pāli
Sanskrit
English
四句
catukkoṭi
catuṣkoṭi
the four corners; the tetralemma
邊（句）
koṭi
koṭi
an extreme, an end point, a corner
無記
avyākata
avyākṛta
undeclared; the questions set aside
見
diṭṭhi
dṛṣṭi
a view; a position held
見稠林
diṭṭhi-gahana
dṛṣṭi-gahana
the thicket of views
戲論
papañca
prapañca
conceptual proliferation
不死矯亂論
amarāvikkhepa
amarāvikṣepa
eel-wriggling; endless equivocation
假名
paññatti
prajñapti
designation
如來
tathāgata
tathāgata
a realized one; the Buddha’s word for himself
不矛盾律
—
—
the law of non-contradiction
排中律
—
—
the law of excluded middle
二律背反
—
—
antinomy: two proofs of contradictory conclusions
Reading check · 理解測驗
Did it land? 讀懂了嗎
1. What are the four corners?
2. What did the Buddha say to each of Vaccha’s four questions about an awakened person after death?
3. What does the simile of the quenched fire show?
4. How did Kant resolve his antinomies?
5. Why, according to the Buddha, did he avoid all the positions?
Write · 你怎麼講？
Write three questions from ordinary life that have “something wrong inside them,” like “Have you stopped wasting your time?” For each, say what it assumes.
