Publications-Periodical Articles
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 Contradiction, Negation, and the Catuṣkoṭi: Just Several Passages from Dharmapāla's Commentary on Āryadeva's Catuḥśataka 作者 胡志強
Hu, Chih-chiang貢獻者 哲學系 關鍵詞 Catuṣkoṭi; Contradiction; Negation; Dharmapāla; Buddhist logic 日期 2024-03 上傳時間 29-Apr-2024 13:19:09 (UTC+8) 摘要 Using logic-laden terms to translate and interpret what the ancient Indian Buddhist thinkers said when we are not sure what they spoke about when they spoke about ‘contradictions’, etc. in natural languages can sometimes make things frustrating. Keeping in mind Wittgenstein’s exhortation, “don’t think, but look!”, I approach the issues of contradiction, negation, and the catuṣkoṭi via case-by-case study on several pertinent passages in Dharmapāla’s Dasheng Guangbailun Shilun. The following are some interrelated observations which should not be overgeneralized, especially considering the limited scope of this study and its methodological considerations. First, there is an implicit rule of non-opposition and there could be no real oppositions for apparent oppositions because of implicit qualifications. Moreover, these are not new since or after Dignāga. Second, Dharmapāla and his contemporaries are familiar with the two negative usages, and prasajya-pratiṣedha is used for negating the opponents’ theses and is related to the no-thesis view. It’s not a good idea to assign truth values to sentences using prasajya-pratiṣedha or to a thesis in which the terms have no real objects. And Dharmapāla’s theses are just therapeutic tools. Third, in Dharmapāla’s discussion of the negative catuṣkoṭi, one can see the rule of non-opposition, the strategy of qualifications, and the two negative usages. Although the four positions in the catuṣkoṭi are regarded as mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, they are jointly exhaustive in pragmatic context, and are mutually exclusive under some interpretations, but not all. My tentative suggestion is that the catuṣkoṭi is a loosely term-based way of categorization. Last but not least, in the text discussed, I do not see Buddhist thinkers endorsing any contradictions. 關聯 Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol.52, pp.1-20 資料類型 article DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-023-09554-4 dc.contributor 哲學系 - dc.creator (作者) 胡志強 - dc.creator (作者) Hu, Chih-chiang - dc.date (日期) 2024-03 - dc.date.accessioned 29-Apr-2024 13:19:09 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 29-Apr-2024 13:19:09 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 29-Apr-2024 13:19:09 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/150947 - dc.description.abstract (摘要) Using logic-laden terms to translate and interpret what the ancient Indian Buddhist thinkers said when we are not sure what they spoke about when they spoke about ‘contradictions’, etc. in natural languages can sometimes make things frustrating. Keeping in mind Wittgenstein’s exhortation, “don’t think, but look!”, I approach the issues of contradiction, negation, and the catuṣkoṭi via case-by-case study on several pertinent passages in Dharmapāla’s Dasheng Guangbailun Shilun. The following are some interrelated observations which should not be overgeneralized, especially considering the limited scope of this study and its methodological considerations. First, there is an implicit rule of non-opposition and there could be no real oppositions for apparent oppositions because of implicit qualifications. Moreover, these are not new since or after Dignāga. Second, Dharmapāla and his contemporaries are familiar with the two negative usages, and prasajya-pratiṣedha is used for negating the opponents’ theses and is related to the no-thesis view. It’s not a good idea to assign truth values to sentences using prasajya-pratiṣedha or to a thesis in which the terms have no real objects. And Dharmapāla’s theses are just therapeutic tools. Third, in Dharmapāla’s discussion of the negative catuṣkoṭi, one can see the rule of non-opposition, the strategy of qualifications, and the two negative usages. Although the four positions in the catuṣkoṭi are regarded as mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, they are jointly exhaustive in pragmatic context, and are mutually exclusive under some interpretations, but not all. My tentative suggestion is that the catuṣkoṭi is a loosely term-based way of categorization. Last but not least, in the text discussed, I do not see Buddhist thinkers endorsing any contradictions. - dc.format.extent 106 bytes - dc.format.mimetype text/html - dc.relation (關聯) Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol.52, pp.1-20 - dc.subject (關鍵詞) Catuṣkoṭi; Contradiction; Negation; Dharmapāla; Buddhist logic - dc.title (題名) Contradiction, Negation, and the Catuṣkoṭi: Just Several Passages from Dharmapāla's Commentary on Āryadeva's Catuḥśataka - dc.type (資料類型) article - dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.1007/s10781-023-09554-4 - dc.doi.uri (DOI) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-023-09554-4 -
