Venerable Heng Le

2016029

2019 (BA Batch – Critical Thinking)

Compare and Contrast Buddhist logic;

The Inference and the Perception of the
Buddhist logic
First, it is necessary to identify the term Logic. This word derives from the Greek
word logos. It has many meanings such as sentence, discourse, reason, rule, and
ratio. Simply we can define the term logic as the study of the principles of correct
reasoning. Then how about Buddhist logic?

Buddha or Buddhist teachings were not created by a god. There is nothing new in
Buddhism, but the truth exists all the time. This truth is abandoned and forgotten
by the ordinary people and Buddhas appear time to time to reveal this truth and
teach the people in order to get rid of suffering. Buddhism is not based on faith or
beliefs, it is always based on cultivation of the human mind and it encourages
people to investigate, understand and check the validity of the truth. The truth is
Dhamma. Buddha advised people not to accept anything in a blind way, but to
check the validity and the soundness. (Ehi passiko) Come and see. However, Once
Buddha preached that we cannot get the truth by based only on logic. “Ma Takka
Hetu” in the Kalama Sutta. There are many other factors that we have to consider.

Now, take a look on the formal logic. How to explain formal logic and Buddhist
logic? Basically, An argument is a collection of two or more propositions of which
one is a conclusion deduced from other propositions, premises. Formal logic cares
about the form of this deduction and points out the rules to avoid fallacious
deductions. Form indeed is in primary concern and hence conclusion rightly
deduced from premises indicate the validity or invalidity of the argument. In case
deduction does not violate the form, it becomes valid argument and otherwise
invalid. Truth or falsehood of the argument comes accordingly; while argument is
valid it is impossible to deduce false conclusion from true premises. When valid
arguments becomes true, it becomes sound. In brief, this is the inference of formal
logic. Validity and soundness of the argument is considered separately in formal
logic and being a system of deduction it is nothing but inference.

The systematic study of anumana (often translated as inference) as developed by

Dignaga (480-540 c.e.) and Dharmakirti (600-660 c.e.). Buddhist logicians thinkof
inference as an instrument of knowledge (pramana) and, thus, logic is considered
to constitute part of epistemology in the Buddhist tradition. Epistemology in the
Buddhist philosophical tradition is generally concerned with instruments or sources
of knowledge. What we know is considered to depend on how we know. That is,
what we are warranted to be aware of depends on how we come to be aware of it.
So, in order to understand what we know, Buddhist philosophers investigate the
sources which give rise to warranted awareness (pramana). Buddhist logicians
identify two sources of knowledge: perception (pratyaksa) and inference
(anumana). Perception is an immediate contact with particulars without any
mediation of conception. As I can remember, when I was studying in the Oriental
studies College in Sri Lanka, Nyayabindu text was a major book for us to
memorize and examine the meanings. At that time I was not aware of logic, but we
used that book to get the Sanskrit meanings very carefully. Our teacher always
advised us to focus on the correct meaning. There is a standard example used to
illustrate inference. Our lecturer Dr.Tony see also taught us this example.

when we are aware that there is smoke on a mountain, we may infer that there is
fire on that mountain. When we become aware of the presence of fire on the
mountain in this way, that awareness is said to be warranted by inference and, thus,
it counts as knowledge.

If there is smoke then there is fire

There is smoke

Therefore there is fire

 P > q

∴q

Buddhist logic is an epistemological logic concerns both epistemology and formal

logic together. Logic is divided into two major branches as induction and
deduction. While formal logic stands for induction would mean scientific method
in experimentation. Epistemological aspect of Buddhist logic cannot be or can be
hardly categorised as a scientific method because it deals with perception and
epistemic facts in phenomenological point of view. And also, at the same time it
deals with the inductive aspect of the logic. Inference in Buddhist logic relates with
formal logic directly and relates indirectly with philosophy of language as well.
When it comes to the western philosophy, it accepts only perception and inference
as valid means of knowledge so does Buddhist logic. Difference is that, in terms of
formal logic, inference is not necessarily true but valid only, whereas in Buddhist
logic inference should be both valid in form and true indeed. Therefore inference
in Buddhism stands only for sound arguments of formal logic

Reference
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dharmakiirti/#GooReaTriCri

http://lirs.ru/lib/theodor/Buddhist_Logic_Vol_1,Stcherbatsky,1930,1994,600dpi.pdf

https://archive.org/details/NyayaBinduDharmaKirti/page/n11 (Nyayabindhu text)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ8xvgAo3T8 ( In Sinhalese Language by Dr Bertram G Liyanage)

https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/135897/7/07_chapter%20i.pdf

Kālāmasutta of Anguttara Nikāya

Nyāyabindu of Dharmakīrti