4-fold negation in the suttas

[Rick O'Shez]

For example:

SN 44.11: Sabhiya Sutta wrote:"Now, Master Kaccana, when asked if the Tathagata exists after death, you say, 'That has not been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata exists after death."' When asked if the Tathagata does not exist after death, you say, 'That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata does not exist after death."' When asked if the Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death, you say, 'That has not been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death."' When asked if the Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death, you say, 'That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death."' Now, what is the cause, what is the reason, why that has not been declared by Gotama the contemplative?"

This logical device seems to have been popular in early Indian thought, but can anyone explain what this kind of 4-fold negation actually means? Why is it used? Is it saying that the question cannot be answered in a conceptual way, or that the question is invalid, or what exactly?

Catuṣkoṭi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Windwalker]

This logical device seems to have been popular in early Indian thought, but can anyone explain what this kind of 4-fold negation actually means? Why is it used? Is it saying that the question cannot be answered in a conceptual way, or that the question is invalid, or what exactly?

Negation is to try to get us to move beyond our ideas about the Absolute and see what simply is. When we try to define it as this or that, we make it an object outside ourselves, and that excludes us. When we make it nothing other than us, we define it as us and make it not us. In other words negation moves us beyond dualism. Any sort of discussion or words approaching the Infinite breaks down into paradox. By settling the mind into that paradox, by dropping categories and definitions, the entire perceptual framework of our realities is overcome. We then see the relative and the absolute as "not one, not two", or "both one, and two".

 

[DreadFish]

Like Windwalker said, it is to move beyond conceptuality. Conceptuality is imagination.

 

[Vishvavajra]

The way a question is posed carries certain presuppositions, which are often hidden. Answering the question one way or another would be misleading, since the real problem is that the terms of the question itself do not conform to reality. The Fourfold Negation runs through every conceivable answer that might fit within the terms laid out by the question, and by denying each of them, it effectively denies the terms of the question. The only option then is to open your mind to other possibilities, breaking free of habitual formulations.

This method goes all the way back to the very beginning of the Buddhist tradition. It's found frequently in the Pali Nikayas, as you know, as well as in their Mahayana equivalents, and the Mahayana philosopher Nagarjuna makes ample use of it in his work. Our Chan teacher is fond of posing questions of this sort, to show how a simple yes/no answer will not do, nor is it possible to have it both ways (since that still entails accepting the basic assumptions behind the question).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Since the Sutras seem to follow this 4 fold negation pattern, how do you find the meaning behind what is taught? I mean, a lot of Sutras I've read and Mahayana as well have this pattern...and I know there is a reason the Buddha wrote what He did... since He is telling us to look away from the writings; how are the writings, in themselves helpful? Are they empty? (can't think of another word)

 

[Vishvavajra]

Since the Sutras seem to follow this 4 fold negation pattern, how do you find the meaning behind what is taught? I mean, a lot of Sutras I've read and Mahayana as well have this pattern...and I know there is a reason the Buddha wrote what He did... since He is telling us to look away from the writings; how are the writings, in themselves helpful? Are they empty? (can't think of another word)

Well, he didn't write anything. These were oral teachings for a very long time before they got written down. And like all teachings, they exist to point the way to liberation. Sometimes just knowing that our habitual ways of conceptualizing things in the world are flawed and lead us to misunderstand the nature of our experience.

In the end it seems that attachment to language and concepts will inevitably lead one astray. The Buddha uses words to teach, but only provisionally. If we cling to the implied assumptions inherent in language and discursive thought, our thinking becomes rigid and we forget that we are naturally free. Nagarjuna runs through a series of negations of this kind, deconstructing everything from time, motion, etc., all the way to and including Nirvana and emptiness itself. It is a bold and profound work, but in the end it's nothing more than an extension of the very same thing the Buddha is often doing in the early scriptures, just taken to its logical conclusion.

So yes, in the end the teachings themselves are empty, in the sense that one must not cling to them. Use them insofar as they are useful, but always keep in mind that language is an imperfect and often misleading representation of reality, and that the language of the sutras is always trying to point to something beyond itself, which may not be something that language is designed to express.