Atii`sa's   classification   is  revealing   of  the
　　   meditative   use   put   to  the   denial   of  four
　　   alternatives   when  applied  to  causation   or  to
　　   existence. The fact, then, that his listing does not
　　   allude  to  the  disjunctive   system  of  the  four
　　   alternatives  that I discuss  in section  II, may be
　　   simply because this system was not put to meditative
　　   use.

　　　　  The two topics of causation and existence relate
　　   to Buddhist teachings that are essentially distinct.
　　   Thus, in Buddhism the problem of how a Tathaagata or
　　   Buddha arises by reason of merit and knowledge, that
　　   is, the  problem  of  cause, is  distinct  from  the
　　   problem  of  the  existence,  for  example,  of  the
　　   Tathaagata after death.  Naturally, the causal topic
　　   is  first, since  a Tathaagata  has  to have  arisen
　　   before  there  is a point  to inquiring  whether  he
　　   exists  after  death.  Historically, the first topic
　　   represents  what the Buddha preferred to talk about,
　　   and

　　　　　　　　　　　　  P.4

　　   the second topic includes  matters  which the Buddha
　　   sometimes refused to talk about.

　　　　  As suggested  earlier, my main sources  are from
　　   Asian  languages.  I am  also  indebted  to  certain
　　   Western   writers,  namely,  Hermann  Weyl  for  the
　　   limitations  of symbolic  systems, Bernard Bosanquet
　　   for treatment of disjunctive statements, and Willard
　　   Van Orman  Quine  for his use  of the  word  "logic"
　　   (bibliography herein).

　　   I. THE FOUR ALTERNATIVES AND LOGIC

　　　　  Jayatilleke says, "there is little evidence that
　　   Naagaarjuna   understood   the  logic  of  the  four
　　   alternatives  as formulated  and  utilized  in early
　　   Buddhism."(3) This  scholar  was  not  content  with
　　   putting down Naagaarjuna, founder of the Maadhyamika
　　   school, for he concludes  that scarcely  any Western
　　   scholars,  classical   Indian  scholars,  or  modern
　　   Indian and Japanese writers have comprehended  this
　　   logic  either.  Richard  H.  Robinson,  one  of  the
　　   Western scholars  whose theories  on the matter were
　　   rejected   for   the  most   part   by  Jayatilleke,
　　   subsequently  replied  to him,(4) among other things
　　   questioning  the use of the word "logic" to refer to
　　   the  four  alternatives,  although   himself  having