I. What This Concept Is Saying
The literal meaning of "俱非" (jùfēi) is simple: of two opposing propositions, neither is affirmed. It does not originate as the invention of any particular school, but comes from a very ancient framework in Indian logic and Buddhist thought — the 四句分別 (catuṣkoṭi, the four-cornered logic; Pali: catuskoṭi).
For any proposition (or any category whatsoever), if you want to "say it exhaustively," there are logically only four possibilities:
1. It is (affirmation, A) 2. It is not (negation, not-A) 3. It both is and is not (both, both A and not-A) 4. It neither is nor is not (neither, neither A nor not-A)
「俱非」is the position of the fourth statement. Its relation to the first three is this: it suspends all three options at once, so that the listener discovers — these four propositions all remain within the net of verbal differentiation, and none of them cuts through to reality as it is.
Classical Sources
This four-cornered framework appears extremely frequently in Buddhist scriptures and treatises. Arranged by layer:
1. The "Four Questions, Four Answers" in Early Scriptures
In the *Saṃyuktāgama* (雜阿含) and *Madhyamāgama* (中阿含), there appear repeatedly such structures as: "Is the world eternal? Is it not eternal? Is it both eternal and not eternal? Is it neither eternal nor not eternal?" and "Does the Tathāgata exist after death? Does he not exist? Does he both exist and not exist? Does he neither exist nor not exist?" To most such metaphysical inquiries, the World-Honored One consistently replies "this is 無記 (avyākṛta, "undeclared")" — not as avoidance, but as pointing out that all four options remain within the scope of 戲論 (prapañca, conceptual proliferation). This is the earliest context for 俱非: from the very beginning it was a tool for making "speech" show its own boundaries.
**2. The Systematic Use of Nāgārjuna's *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā***
Nearly every chapter of the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* (中論, *Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way*) uses four-cornered examination to refute conceptual attachment to reality. The most classic passages:
- *Examination of Conditions* (觀因緣品): 「諸法不自生，亦不從他生，不共不無因，是故知無生。」*"Dharmas do not arise from themselves, nor from another, nor from both, nor without a cause; therefore know that there is no arising."* — Self-arising, other-arising, both-arising, and causeless-arising are all negated, and "no-arising" is precisely not a fifth answer, but rather the non-falling into the net of the concept "arising." - *Examination of the Tathāgata* (觀如來品): 「如來過諸相，非色非無色，非有非無相，」*"The Tathāgata transcends all marks: neither form nor formless, neither having marks nor lacking marks."* — Breaking the reification of the Buddha through the four-cornered negation. - 「不生亦不滅，不常亦不斷，不一亦不異，不來亦不出」*"Not arising, not ceasing; not permanent, not annihilated; not one, not different; not coming, not going"* — the eight negations (八不), structurally an expansion of the four-cornered framework.
3. Technical Refinement in Buddhist Logic
By the time of Dignāga (陳那) and Dharmakīrti (法稱) in the tradition of 因明 (hetuvidyā, Buddhist logic), the four-cornered analysis was developed into a formal tool for exhaustively classifying a thesis (宗, pratijñā): the four possible relations between the subject (有法, dharmin) and the predicate (法, dharma) are laid out, and one sees which can be supported by the "example" (喻, dṛṣṭānta, the reason or illustration). This is a technical 俱非, yet it retains the original intent of "exhausting all possibilities before making a judgment."
The Position and Character of 俱非
To understand 俱非 clearly, the key points are these:
First, 俱非 is not a third position that says "both are wrong." It does not invent a new answer between A and not-A. To assert "both are wrong" is itself already a new claim, which would be absorbed into the four-cornered logic at the next level. The sharpness of 俱非 lies in the fact that it does not rest on any claim whatsoever.
Second, 俱非 is not "I don't know" or "silence." The "this is undeclared" (此是無記) of the *avyākṛta* questions differs from the negation of all four statements — the former judges that the question lies outside the scope of speech, while the latter simultaneously empties out all four options.
Third, 俱非 is not compromise, fence-sitting, or ambiguity. Compromise takes a middle point between A and not-A; 俱非 suspends the very act of "taking" itself.
Fourth, 俱非 is not a third thing "above and beyond both." This is the most easily confused point — one thinks that "neither A nor not-A" implies a higher C that encompasses both. This reads negation back into affirmation, which is precisely what the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* calls the fault of "clinging to emptiness" (執空).
The True Function of 俱非
On the path of liberation, 俱非 is never the destination; it is the surgical knife for cutting attachment (破執). Its function is:
- To let the listener see: any conceptualized proposition (including a proposition like "no-self") that is grasped as a real object is still 戲論 (prapañca, conceptual proliferation). - To guide thought away from the net of dualistic opposition, into an openness in which "speech is extinguished and thought is cut off" (言亡慮絕) — but this "openness" cannot itself be made into an object. - To reveal the gap between speech and reality: all our judgments, positions, and definitions are meant to make reality graspable, yet reality is never a proposition.
Thus 俱非 is not a logical game, but a crucial turning point in mental cultivation: when you discover that even "self-attachment" (我執) and "no-self" (無我) are still within the net of conceptual differentiation, only then can you truly let go of "attachment to dharmas" (法執).
II. A Walkthrough in Daily Life
Let us drag this concept back onto the contemporary table — not abstractly, but using real scenes you might have experienced this very week.
Scene One: "Do You Really Love Me or Not?" in an Intimate Relationship
A common argument. The one asking expects an answer: "love" or "don't love." But what the one being asked actually holds inside is:
- It is (A): there is love, but it can't be articulated. - It is not (not-A): there are moments of not-love, of weariness. - Both love and not-love (both A and not-A): this sounds closer to an answer. - Neither love nor not-love (俱非): …
Checked against the four-cornered framework:
- The vast majority will stop at the third statement, "both love and not-love," treating it as the "mature answer." - The real 俱非 is: let go of even "both love and not-love." The essence of love is not a proposition at a given moment, but a process. Cutting it into the two halves of "love" and "not-love" is already doing something wrong — love as a proposition was, from the start, a slice, not the original thing.
Walking through this passage is not about making you "non-committal," but about making you see: when a living relationship is compressed into a binary judgment, you are already committing a kind of violence that treats the living as a specimen. 俱非 reminds you to step back: don't ask whether it "is" or "isn't" — ask what condition it is in right now.
Scene Two: "Which Side Are You On?" Online
You read a news item and scroll to the comments: "for" or "against." Everyone seems to be picking a side. Occasionally someone writes, "it's not that simple" or "both sides have problems" — this is the third statement (compromise), not 俱非, because "both sides have problems" is still a definite position.
Where does the position of 俱非 lie?
- See that "for" is a conceptual construct (you have assigned a score to the object). - See that "against" is likewise a conceptual construct. - See that "both sides have problems" is still a conceptual construct. - Step back: do not land on any proposition; first see clearly where this "for/against" framework itself came from — which interests, emotions, and propaganda machines set up this either/or.
This is the actual operation of 俱非 in daily life: it does not find a balance point between the two poles, but interrogates the structure of the two poles themselves.
Scene Three: Self-Evaluation — "Am I Good or Bad?"
The most common binary sentence-form in psychological counseling, arguments with family and friends, and late-night self-reflection:
- I am good (A) - I am bad (not-A) - I am both good and bad (both A and not-A) - I am neither good nor bad (俱非)
The first three all measure oneself with a fixed ruler: good and bad come from some set of standards (grades, appearance, income, others' evaluations). What 俱非 does is not to find "self" another evaluation, but to first see clearly "the self as an object to be evaluated" itself — who made this ruler? Does it even apply? Why measure at all?
This is not nihilism, but a lucid release: you are still here, but no longer continuously crushed by a ruler that was never yours.
Scene Four: Scrolling Your Phone — "Should I Focus or Relax?"
An extremely common small binary of the contemporary age. Focus, relax, stress, rest — you slice the day into "should" and "should not," then chase alternately after the two.
The position of 俱非 is: see that the two propositions "I should focus" and "I should relax" are both constructed by a certain ideology of efficiency. When you discover that even "rest is for working better" is already an extension of that narrative, only then do you gain real room to not follow either column.
The Most Common Mistakes in This Walkthrough
| Common Mistake | What It Looks Like When Wrong | What It Actually Looks Like | |---|---|---| | Taking 俱非 as compromise | "Both sides have some merit" | 俱非 does not seek balance between two poles; it questions the very origin of the poles | | Taking 俱非 as avoidance | "I won't answer" | 俱非 is a suspension after passing through all four options, not a dodging of the question | | Taking 俱非 as a "transcendent C" | "Neither A nor not-A, so it must be C" | This turns negation back into affirmation, falling into clinging to emptiness | | Taking 俱非 as indifference | "I don't care either way" | 俱非 can still be deeply concerned; it just is no longer bound by propositions | | Taking 俱非 as the destination | Finding a stance of "not establishing words" | The true 俱非 must itself be overturned by the four-cornered analysis once more — even "I am transcendent right now" must still be released |
III. Why Contemporary People Need It
1. This Age Is the Age of "Either/Or"
Media, algorithms, interpersonal relations, the workplace — nearly every system compresses reality into binaries. The algorithm gives you content as: you click "like" or "dislike," and it does not offer you a "pause and ask" button. Political commentary gives you the options "for" or "against," and does not offer "look at the framework first before speaking."
In such an environment, 俱非 becomes a kind of deep breath for thinking — it lets flattened judgments expand again. This is not saying "both sides are right" or "both sides are wrong," but saying: the very structure of "two sides" may not apply here.
2. It Is a Tool for Relieving Judgment Fatigue
A common spiritual exhaustion of the contemporary age comes from "having to take a stand" — you must take a stand in your social feed, in group chats, on public issues, even on what to eat and what movie to watch. The essence of judgment fatigue is: you are asked to make your move before you have seen clearly.
俱非 is not "don't take any stand at all," but gives you the legitimacy of refusing to move hastily. It lets you discover: to wait, to ask, to look — these are themselves valuable responses. This is not evasion, but a kind of epistemological honesty.
3. It Addresses a Particular Kind of "Attachment to Dharmas" — Attachment to "No-Self" Itself
In contemporary spiritual circles there is a common fault: treating "letting go," "emptiness," and "no-self" as new, superior positions. One thinks that simply saying "all is empty" makes one a level above others. This turns "emptiness" into an A, and produces a new attachment.
Here 俱非 is especially important: it can break the attachment of "I am already non-attached." It lets you discover that even the proposition "I am transcendent right now" is still 戲論 (prapañca, conceptual proliferation). For anyone who has come within one step of "enlightenment discourse," this is a necessary surgery.
4. It Is Not the Cultural "Doctrine of the Mean"
Be careful not to confuse 俱非 with the Confucian "中庸" (zhōngyōng, the Middle Way). The Middle Way still seeks a middle path between two poles, an appropriate degree; 俱非 first holds down the very structure of "two poles."
The two appear similar on the surface, but are fundamentally very different. The Middle Way assumes that the two poles are real and can be harmonized; 俱非 often asks: perhaps these two poles were wrongly cut in the first place.
IV. Common Misreadings and Clarifications
Misreading One: 俱非 Means "Negating Both," a Third Position
This is the most common error. On the surface, "neither A nor not-A" sounds like the assertion of some new claim. But any new claim is still a proposition, and can be overturned by a new four-cornered analysis. The essence of 俱非 is not a new position, but suspending the very act of "taking a position."
Misreading Two: 俱非 Is "I Can't Say Clearly" — a Form of Humility
Treating 俱非 as "this matter is too complex for me to articulate" is a gentle error. "I can't say clearly" is still a statement about "me" and "this matter." 俱非 is more thorough than this — what it asks is: was "this matter" ever, as a cut-out object, appropriate in the first place?
Misreading Three: 俱非 Is "Silence Is Power"
Treating "no comment" as 俱非. Silence can be a strategy, an attitude, an *avyākṛta* (undeclared) response — but it is not necessarily the 俱非 that comes after the four statements. True 俱非 occurs after you have seen all four options, seen through all four options, and seen through "seeing through" itself — it is not sealing one's lips, but the root of speech loosening.
Misreading Four: 俱非 Is "Sophisticated Relativism"
"Don't make any judgments about anything" sounds like relativism. But relativism itself is a position ("nothing is certain"), and it remains a proposition that can be examined by the four-cornered framework. 俱非 is neither absolutism nor relativism — it simply makes the position of "ism" itself no longer natural.
Misreading Five: 俱非 Is a "Higher Dimension Beyond Dualistic Opposition"
This is the typical reification of "transcendence" — thinking that 俱非 means standing on some C above A and not-A. This is precisely the fault of "clinging to emptiness" (執空) against which the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* repeatedly warns. Once you grasp at a feeling of "I have already transcended," you have returned to a new binary: "me, who has transcended" and "them, who have not."
Misreading Six: 俱非 Matters Only Philosophically, Unrelated to Life
This is the most regrettable narrowing. The application of 俱非 actually runs through daily life — every time you refuse a false either/or and ask "why are there only these two options," you are exercising the spirit of 俱非. It is not an academic exercise, but a training in not letting thought be trapped by language.
Misreading Seven: 俱非 Is the "Emptiness" of the *Heart Sūtra*
Be careful with this simplification. The *Heart Sūtra* (心經) says 「照見五蘊皆空，度一切苦厄」*"Seeing that the five aggregates are all empty, one crosses beyond all suffering and distress."* "Emptiness" (空) is the true reality of all dharmas, the correct vision that is free from both extremes (including the extreme of "emptiness" itself). "Emptiness" is the result, what is realized, what is without attainment; "俱非" is the tool, the path, the way of overturning concepts. One is the goal, the other the surgical knife. Confusing the two allows "emptiness" to become an object that can be grasped.
Summary
俱非 is the final statement in the four-cornered analysis (四句分別, catuṣkoṭi) — the operation of suspending two opposing propositions together with their "both" (雙亦). It is not compromise, not avoidance, not indifference, not relativism, not some higher-dimensional "transcendence" — it is the surgical knife that lets every proposition reveal its own boundary, the eight negations (八不) of the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*, the "all four statements negated" of the World-Honored One's *avyākṛta* (undeclared) answers, and the position in the exhaustive classification of Buddhist logic that refuses to land.
In the contemporary age, its value lies not in metaphysical subtlety but in a very concrete freedom — the freedom not to be hastily positioned by any either/or. When algorithms, interpersonal relations, and self-evaluation all press you into the square of A versus not-A, 俱非 offers a gap: don't make your move yet; first look at who drew this chessboard.
And that "don't make your move yet" itself — in the true spirit of the Middle Way (中觀, Madhyamaka) — must also be released once more by itself. This is the place where the tool of 俱非 must itself be overturned by the four-cornered analysis once again.