[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-43303-en":3,"doc-seo-43303-105":30,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":91},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"doc_content":15,"file_id":16,"file_url":17,"file_type":18,"file_size":19,"view_count":20,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":21,"is_downloadable":21,"audit_status":21,"page_count":22,"language":23,"language_code":24,"site_id":25,"html_lang":24,"table_of_contents":26,"faqs":27,"seo_title":13,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":28,"read_time":29},43303,1099514067438,"River Wang","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/100002539ee87300030?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1780474512215547542",8,"Research & Report","The Logic of the Catuskoti","Early Buddhist logic assumes every state of affairs falls under four possibilities: it holds, it does not, both hold, or neither holds, forming the catuskoti (tetralemma). Classical logicians struggle to interpret this structure, while it fits naturally within the semantics of paraconsistent systems, including First Degree Entailment. Later thinkers like Nagarjuna complicate the picture by suggesting that none or more than one option may obtain. The paper analyzes the needed formal logical machinery.","Comparative Philosophy Volume 1, No. 2 (2010): 24-54 Open Access / ISSN 2151-6014 [www.comparativephilosophy.org](www.comparativephilosophy.org)  \nTHE LOGIC OF THE CATUSKOTI  \nGRAHAM PRIEST  \nABSTRACT: In early Buddhist logic, it was standard to assume that for any state of a􀀋airs there were four possibilities: that it held, that it did not, both, or neither. This is the catuskoti (or tetralemma) . Classical logicians have had a hard time making sense of this, but it makes perfectly good sense in the semantics of various paraconsistent logics, such as First Degree Entailment. Matters are more complicated for later Buddhist thinkers, such as Nagarjuna, who appear to suggest that none of these options, or more than one, may hold. The point of this paper is to examine the matter, including the formal logical machinery that may be appropriate.  \nKeywords: catuskoti, tetralemma, Buddhist logic, unanswerable questions, Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika, truth predicate, paraconsistency, First Degree Entailment, many-valued logic, relational semantics  \n1 INTRODUCTION: ENTER THE CATUSKOTI  \nThe catuskoti 1 is a venerable principle in Buddhist logic. How it was deployed seems to have varied somewhat over the thousand-plus years of Indian Buddhism. However, it was clearly a contentious principle in the context of Indian logic. It is equally contentious to modern commentators, though the contention here is largely in how to understand it2|including how to interpret it in terms of modern logic. As one modern commentator puts it (Tillemans 1999, 189):  \nWithin Buddhist thought, the structure of argumentation that seems most resistant to our attempts at a formalization is undoubtedly the catuskoti or tetralemma.  \nPRIEST, GRAHAM: Boyce Gibson Professor of Philosophy, University of Melbourne; Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Graduate Center, City University of New York; Arch Professorial Fellow, University of At. Andrews. Email: [g.priest@unimelb.edu.au](g.priest@unimelb.edu.au)  \n1 Actually, catusko ti, but I ignore the diacriticals in writing Sanskrit words, except in the: 􀀁  \nbibliography.  \n2 For a review, see Ruegg 1977, 39 􀀋.  \nComparative Philosophy 1.2 (2010) PRIEST  \n25  \nFor a start, the catuskoti, whatever it is, is something which sails very close to the wind of violating both the Principles of Excluded Middle and of NonContradiction. Commentators who know only so-called \\classical\" logic, in particular, are therefore thrown into a tizzy.  \nThe point of this article is to make sense of the catuskoti from the enlightened position of paraconsistent logic. I shall not attempt to discuss all the historical thinkers who appealed to the catuskoti. I shall be concerned mainly with how it functioned in the thought of Nagarjuna and his Madhyamaka successors. Here, its use is, perhaps, both the most sophisticated and the most puzzling.1  \n2 A FIRST APPROACH  \n2.1 BACK TO THE BEGINNING  \nBut let us start at the beginning. In the West, the catuskoti is often called by its Greek equivalent, the tetralemma, meaning `four-corners'. The four corners are four options that one might take on some question: given any question, there are four possibilities, yes, no, both, and neither.  \nWho 􀀌rst formulated this thought seems to be lost in the mists of time, but it seems to be fairly orthodox in the intellectual circles of Gotama, the historical Buddha (c. 6c BCE) . Thus, canonical Buddhist texts often set up issues in terms of these four possibilities. For example, in the Mijjhima-Nikaya, when the Buddha is asked about one of the profound metaphysical issues, the text reads as follows:2  \n`How is it, Gotama? Does Gotama believe that the saint exists after death, and that this view alone is true, and every other false?'  \n`Nay, Vacca. I do not hold that the saint exists after death, and that this view alone is true, and every other false. '  \n`How is it, Gotama? Does Gotama believe that the saint does not exist after death, and that this view alo","cbCairH761xuJmD8","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCairH761xuJmD8","pdf",320264,4,1,31,"English","en",105,"# Introduction: Enter the Catuskoti\n# A First Approach\n## Back to the Beginning","[{\"question\":\"What are the four possibilities in the catuskoti (tetralemma)?\",\"answer\":\"For any state of affairs, there are four options: it holds, it does not hold, both hold, or neither holds.\"},{\"question\":\"Why is the catuskoti difficult for classical logic?\",\"answer\":\"The structure closely violates the classical Principles of Excluded Middle and Non-Contradiction, which makes it hard to formalize in classical terms.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the paper relate the catuskoti to paraconsistent logic?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that the catuskoti makes good sense in paraconsistent semantics, especially in systems like First Degree Entailment, where inconsistent truth behavior can be modeled.\"}]",1783379865,78,{"code":4,"msg":31,"data":32},"ok",{"site_id":25,"language":24,"slug":33,"title":13,"keywords":34,"description":14,"schema_data":35,"social_meta":86,"head_meta":88,"extra_data":90,"updated_unix":28},"the-logic-of-the-catuskoti","",{"@graph":36,"@context":85},[37,53,68],{"@type":38,"itemListElement":39},"BreadcrumbList",[40,44,48,51],{"item":41,"name":42,"@type":43,"position":21},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":45,"name":46,"@type":43,"position":47},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":49,"name":12,"@type":43,"position":50},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":52,"name":13,"@type":43,"position":20},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-logic-of-the-catuskoti/43303/",{"url":52,"name":13,"@type":54,"author":55,"headline":13,"publisher":57,"fileFormat":60,"inLanguage":24,"description":14,"dateModified":61,"datePublished":62,"encodingFormat":60,"isAccessibleForFree":63,"interactionStatistic":64},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":56},"Person",{"url":41,"name":58,"@type":59},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-07-16","2026-07-06",true,{"@type":65,"interactionType":66,"userInteractionCount":20},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":67},"ViewAction",{"@type":69,"mainEntity":70},"FAQPage",[71,77,81],{"name":72,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":74},"What are the four possibilities in the catuskoti (tetralemma)?","Question",{"text":75,"@type":76},"For any state of affairs, there are four options: it holds, it does not hold, both hold, or neither holds.","Answer",{"name":78,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":79},"Why is the catuskoti difficult for classical logic?",{"text":80,"@type":76},"The structure closely violates the classical Principles of Excluded Middle and Non-Contradiction, which makes it hard to formalize in classical terms.",{"name":82,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":83},"How does the paper relate the catuskoti to paraconsistent logic?",{"text":84,"@type":76},"It argues that the catuskoti makes good sense in paraconsistent semantics, especially in systems like First Degree Entailment, where inconsistent truth behavior can be modeled.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":52,"og:type":87,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":58,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":89,"canonical":52},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":25},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":92},[93,97,101,105,110,115,120,123,128,131,135],{"id":21,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":94,"show_sort_weight":95,"slug":96},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":47,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":20,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":11,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":12,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},30,"research-report",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":126,"slug":127},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":126,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":126,"slug":130},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":132,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":133,"show_sort_weight":132,"slug":134},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":136,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":137,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":138},19,"General","general"]