Reinterpreting Catuṣkoṭi in Contemporary Philosophy: Tensions between Non-Classical Logic and East Asian Buddhist Soteriology
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the reinterpretation of the concept of catuṣkoṭi (tetralemma) in contemporary philosophy, particularly within the discourse of non-classical logic, and to compare it with traditional interpretations found in East Asian Buddhism. The research addresses the tension between modern logical approaches—such as those proposing the addition of a fifth truth value (ineffability)—and soteriological frameworks within traditions like Mādhyamaka, which emphasise the function of liberating individuals from conceptual entanglements. This study employs qualitative methods, incorporating hermeneutic and comparative approaches, along with close textual analysis of classical primary sources, including the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, and the works of East Asian Buddhist philosophers such as Jizang, Zhiyi, Kuiji, and Gomyō. In addition, the research engages with relevant contemporary philosophical texts by figures such as Graham Priest, Jay Garfield, and Adrian Kreutz. The main findings suggest that contemporary logical reconstructions of the catuṣkoṭi risk reducing its soteriological function to a merely paradoxical or conceptual exercise, thus detaching it from its original liberatory context. In contrast, East Asian Buddhist traditions tend to resist the insertion of new logical dimensions, instead preserving the spiritual integrity of the doctrine of śūnyatā (emptiness).
References
Bhattacharya, K. (2017). Fundamentals of qualitative research: A practical guide. London: Routledge.
Byrne, M. (2001). Hermeneutics as a methodology for textual analysis. AORN Journal, 73(5), 968.
Cotnoir, A. J. (2015). Nāgārjuna’s Logic. In The Moon Points Back (pp. 176–188). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190226862.003.0008
Deguchi, Y., Garfield, J. L., & Priest, G. (2013). How we think Mādhyamikas think: Reply to Tillemans. Philosophy East and West, 63(3), 427–436.
Green, R. S. (2020). The Fifth Corner of Four: An Essay on Buddhist Metaphysics and the Catuṣkoṭi. Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 27(6), 223–229.
Gunaratne, R. D. (1986). Understanding Nagarjuna’s Catuskoti. Philosophy East and West, 36(3), 213. https://doi.org/10.2307/1398772
Hu, C. (2024). Contradiction, Negation, and the Catuṣkoṭi: Just Several Passages from Dharmapāla’s Commentary on Āryadeva’s Catuḥśataka. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 52(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-023-09554-4
Humberstone, L. (2013). Logical Relations. Philosophical Perspectives, 27, 175–230.
Hung, J. (2020a). A Gricean Interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s Catuṣkoṭi and the No-Thesis View. History and Philosophy of Logic, 41(3), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/01445340.2020.1786266
Hung, J. (2020b). Is dharma-nature identical to ignorance? A study of ‘ ji 即’ in early Tiantai Buddhism. Asian Philosophy, 30(4), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/09552367.2020.1846873
Ilieva, A. (2023). Re-reading Nāgārjuna with Resources from Richard Rorty. University of Cambridge.
Jizang. (n.d.). Zhōngguān Lùn Shū 中觀論疏 (Commentary on the Treatise on the Middle View). Piyin: Taishō Tripiṭaka.
Jones, N. (2020). A Russellian Analysis of Buddhist Catuskoti. Comparative Philosophy: An International Journal of Constructive Engagement of Distinct Approaches toward World Philosophy, 11(2), 63–89. https://doi.org/10.31979/2151-6014(2020).110206
Kantor, H.-R. (2019). Referential Relation and Beyond: Signifying Functions in Chinese Madhyamaka. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 47(4), 851–915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-017-9319-1
Kantor, H. R. (2021). Doxographical Appropriation of Nāgārjuna’s Catuṣkoṭi in Chinese Sanlun and Tiantai Thought. Religions, 12(11), 912–929. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12110912
Keng, C. (2018). How Do We Understand the Meaning of a Sentence Under the Yogācāra Model of the Mind? On Disputes Among East Asian Yogācāra Thinkers of the Seventh Century. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 46(3), 475–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-017-9343-1
Kreutz, A. (2019). Recapture, Transparency, Negation and a Logic for the Catuṣkoṭi. Comparative Philosophy: An International Journal of Constructive Engagement of Distinct Approaches toward World Philosophy, 10(1), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.31979/2151-6014(2019).100108
Kuiji. (n.d.). Cheng Weishi Lun Shuji 成唯識論述記. Piyin: Taishō Tripiṭaka.
Lange, M. (2012). Comparative-historical methods. Toronto: Sage Publications Ltd.
Li, J. (2023). Joy as Contextualized Feeling: Two Contrasting Pictures of Joy in East Asian Yogācāra. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 91(3), 698–713. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfae024
Mason, G. (2012). The Relation of Akasa to Pratityasamutpada in Nagarjuna’s Writings. University of South Africa.
Medhacitto, T. S., Mahatthanadull, S., & Busro, B. (2024). The Appamāda as a Foundation for Ethical and Spiritual Development in Modern Mindfulness Practices. Subhasita: Journal of Buddhist and Religious Studies, 2(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.53417/subhasita.125
Mohanta, D. (2023). Buddhist Logic and its Development: Some Remarks. Studia Humana, 12(12), 12–20.
Pagel, M. D. (1992). A method for the analysis of comparative data. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 156(4), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(05)80637-X
Priest, G. (2011). Four Corners—East and West. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18026-2_2
Priest, G. (2015). None of the Above: The Catuṣkoṭi in Indian Buddhist Logic. In New Directions in Paraconsistent Logic (pp. 517–527). New Delhi: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2719-9_24
Priest, G. (2018a). The fifth corner of four: An essay on Buddhist metaphysics and the catuṣkoṭi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Priest, G. (2018b). The Fifth Corner of Four. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198758716.001.0001
Priest, G. (2022). The Catuṣkoṭi, the Saptabhaṇgī, and “Non-Classical” Logic. In Handbook of Logical Thought in India (pp. 869–888). New Delhi: Springer India. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2577-5_50
Rahlwes, C. (2022). Nāgārjuna’s Negation. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 50(2), 307–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-022-09505-5
Ramsook, L. (2018). A methodological approach to hermeneutic phenomenology. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 10(1), 14–24.
Roy, S., & Posina, R. (2024). Category Theory and the Ontology of Śūnyata. In The Origin and Significance of Zero (pp. 450–478). BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004691568_026
Schang, F. (2013). A one-valued logic for non-one-sidedness. International Journal of Jaina Studies, 9(4), 1–25.
Siderits, M. (2019). Review of The Fifth Corner of Four: An Essay on Buddhist Metaphysics and the Catuṣkoṭi by Graham Priest. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 13(2), 120–135.
Tillemans, T. J. F. (2009). How Do Mādhyamikas Think?: Notes on Jay Garfield, Graham Priest, and Paraconsistency. In Pointing at the Moon (pp. 83–97). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195381559.003.0007
Tisdell, E. J., Merriam, S. B., & Stuckey-Peyrot, H. L. (2025). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Vose, K. (2021). Absence and Elimination: Madhyamaka Interpretation in the Formation of Scholastic Traditions in Tibet. Journal of South Asian Intellectual History, 3(2), 148–184.
Vy, H. T. H. (2015). Śūnyatā from Madhyamaka to Early Yogācāra Philosophy. International Buddhist College.
Wang, C., & Wen-fang, W. (2024). On Garfield and Priest’s interpretation of the use of the catuskoti in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Asian Philosophy, 34(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/09552367.2024.2309769
Westerhoff, J. (2017). Madhyamaka and modern western philosophy: a report. Buddhist Studies Review, 33(1), 281–302.
Westerhoff, Jan. (2009). Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka: A philosophical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Westerhoff, Jan. (2020). The Fifth Corner of Four: An Essay on Buddhist Metaphysics and the Catuṣkoṭi , by Graham Priest. Mind, 129(515), 965–974. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzz047
Copyright (c) 2025 Ronald S. Green
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
