
The logic of Buddhist philosophy (2014) - tomaskazemekas
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/logic-of-buddhist-philosophy/
======
xlm1717
Seems to me that the catuskoti was already a concept in western philosophy,
only we didn't give the group a name because we prioritised true and false
above the other two possibilities: contradiction and indeterminacy.

Also seems to me that ineffability falls under indeterminacy. The author seems
to try to distinguish between the two by saying there are things we might be
able to know, and things we will never be able to know. Being a layman and not
studied in philosophy and logic, it seems to me that indeterminacy is enough
to encapsulate ineffability. This is illustrated by the numerous examples the
author gives on attempts to explain the ineffable: this immediately makes it
indeterminate, going by the author's use of logic. The author then goes on to
talk about ordinal numbers, and presents what is purported to be an ineffable
phrase:

the least ordinal that cannot be referred to

There are more ordinals than ordinary language can refer to, and one of these
must be the least. But, by using that phrase we are referring to it. This is
an obvious contradiction, but we know there must be one such ordinal. The
author uses this to say that since we cannot talk about it, but it exists, it
is ineffable. I say that this is unnecessary, it is enough to say the ordinal
is indeterminate precisely because we cannot refer to it (determine it).

That it took us until the 20th century to imagine these ideas in mathematics
and logic doesn't speak to any shortcomings of western logic with regards to
contradiction and indeterminacy, in my opinion. It merely reflects the
priorities of eastern and western thought. This is illustrated by the efforts
of Bertrand Russell with his Principia. Through the centuries, western
thinkers had made advances by considering what is true and what is false, and
taking contradictions as dead ends that do not produce interesting areas of
study. Russell tried to take this as far as he could with Principia, and in
doing so inadvertently revealed the limitations of how far we can advance,
limitations that were detailed by Kurt Godel and his incompleteness theorems.
I say that, since we have advanced so far as to know the limits, now we are
having more to say about contradiction and indeterminacy, and we are now
saying it in a more precise way than Buddhist philosophers imagined in their
day.

------
nabla9
Explanation from Henk Barendregt (logician and Vipassana teacher)
[http://www.cs.ru.nl/~henk/BP/bp1.html](http://www.cs.ru.nl/~henk/BP/bp1.html)

\---

1.7 Explaining apparent contradictions

Now we will explain how contradictions, which happen to occur in some buddhist
texts, are possible. Suppose some part of reality U is described using some
language L. Some of the regularities observed in L are in fact physical laws,
but may be confused with logical laws. If we extend the reality U to U+, but
keep as the describing language L, then statements may result that contradict
statements made about U. Although the contradictions are only apparent,
because the statements are about different `worlds', it may seem that logical
laws are violated.

An example will be helpful. Consider a tribe living on an isolated island.
Vision of the tribesman is such that they can only see the colors black and
white. In their description of the world they say: ``Something is either black
or white." Although we know that this is for them in fact an empirical law,
the people of the island are tempted to consider this as a logical law.
Sometimes they use the words `white' and `non-black' interchangeably. On some
day someone has a mystical experience. In our language we can say that that
person has seen the color green. In the language of the tribe she says: ``I
have seen something very impressive. It was neither black nor white." For most
of the people of her tribe she was saying: ``It was neither black, nor non-
black." Therefore on the island one may think she is speaking nonsense.
However, we know that she is not.

There are, however, stronger contradictions. In his book Exploring Mysticism
already mentioned, F. Staal discusses the following so called `tetra lemma'
occurring in buddhist texts.

    
    
      	It is not A;
      	it is not non-A;
      	it is both A and non-A;
      	and it is neither A nor non-A.
    

Even this contradiction may be explained. Simply consider again the tribe
seeing only black and white. But now our mystic sees the color gray. Indeed
gray is not white, not black. And it can be said that gray is both white and
black. But also that it is neither white nor black.

I hope that the examples show that contradictions occurring in texts of
mystics are not a sign that something essential is wrong. Nevertheless it is
preferable that descriptions of altered states of consciousness are free from
contradictions in the sense of logic. I will try to fulfill this requirement
in sections 2 and 3.

\---

Personal note: this "Buddhist logic" is useful in the context of phenomenology
and how to communicate certain fundamental changes in viewpoint that come from
meditation. It's not new better way to think.

