Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/150947
|
| Title: | Contradiction, Negation, and the Catuṣkoṭi: Just Several Passages from Dharmapāla's Commentary on Āryadeva's Catuḥśataka |
| Authors: | 胡志強
Hu, Chih-chiang |
| Contributors: | 哲學系 |
| Keywords: | Catuṣkoṭi;Contradiction;Negation;Dharmapāla;Buddhist logic |
| Date: | 2024-03 |
| Issue Date: | 2024-04-29 13:19:09 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 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. |
| Relation: | Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol.52, pp.1-20 |
| Data Type: | article |
| DOI 連結: | https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-023-09554-4 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10781-023-09554-4 |
| Appears in Collections: | [哲學系] 期刊論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | | 0Kb | HTML | 114 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
