UGCNET Questions

The catuṣkoṭi (“four corners”) lists affirmation, negation, both and neither for a single proposition. Madhyamaka philosophers like Nāgārjuna use this fourfold to show that clinging to any one alternative leads to difficulty, revealing the limitations of fixed conceptual views. Considering all four helps point toward a middle way beyond such extremes.

Option A:
Option A correctly gives the standard four alternatives: “it is,” “it is not,” “it both is and is not,” and “it neither is nor is not.”

Option B:
Option B uses epistemic attitudes like “uncertain” and “meaningless,” which do not capture the classical catuṣkoṭi structure.

Option C:
Option C restricts the fourfold to a special case about permanence and impermanence; catuṣkoṭi is more general.

Option D:
Option D recasts the alternatives in terms of scriptural versus rational authority, which is not the traditional formulation.

Catuṣkoṭi, or tetralemma, lays out four exhaustive possibilities regarding a statement: affirmation, denial, both and neither. Madhyamaka thinkers like Nāgārjuna use this structure to probe and deconstruct philosophical positions. By showing the difficulties that arise for each alternative, they reveal the emptiness of fixed views. The tetralemma thus functions as a powerful dialectical tool in Buddhist logic.

Option A:
Option A correctly lists the four logical options that define the catuṣkoṭi scheme.

Option B:
Option B reformulates the pattern in terms of scriptural and rational authority, which does not match the classical logical structure.

Option C:
Option C restricts the options to modes of cognition, whereas catuṣkoṭi is framed for general propositions.

Option D:
Option D uses permanence as a specific content area; catuṣkoṭi can be applied to such topics but is not defined by that single contrast.