[Buddha-l] Buddhist logic (?) [was: Prominent Neobuddhist proposes religion based blacklisting for government jobs]

[Alberto Todeschini]

Richard Hayes wrote:

>> I'm finishing a paper on what the
>> Ny?yas?tra says about this (i.e. the nigrahasth?nas) with a bit of  
>> help
>> from other Naiy?yikas and Dharmak?rti's V?dany?ya. I'm also  
>> borrowing
>> Grice's Cooperative Principle and conversational maxims, with a bit of
>> speech-act theory sprinkled in just to be on the safe side.
> 
> That sounds very interesting. I look froward to seeing it when it is  
> in public view.

You'll have a copy delivered to your inbox as soon as I feel that I can
circulate it without too much embarrassment (if anyone else is
interested, let me know off-list).

> When I first started studying Buddhist logic about thirty- 
> five years ago, I approached it through the only theoretical framework  
> I knew, which was formal mathematical logic and set theory. While that  
> framework can be a little helpful in some places, it also gave me a  
> number of expectations that were not fulfilled. I turned to ancient  
> and medieval logic, and again they were helpful in limited ways but  
> obstacles in others. A turning point for me was reading some of  
> Stephen Toulmin's work, especially his observation that a better  
> paradigm than mathematics for everyday logic is jurisprudence.

Yes! I understand completely. I have some notes on anumāna from a
Toulminian perspective but it's too early to say how I feel about it.

Another avenue that I'm exploring is that of Inference to the Best
Explanation. As you know, it's related to Peirce's abduction and in fact
many use the two expressions interchangeably. Anyway, IBE is one of the
most discussed topics in philosophy of science. It's attractive because
 of its relation to notions such as what counts as evidence, what as
explanation, how evidence works, etc.

By the way, have you read Klaus Glashoff on formalizations of Indian texts?

http://www.logic.glashoff.net/

>> And two chapters of my dissertation discuss the same topic, especially
>> the treatment in the Hetuvidy? section of the Yog?c?rabh?mi (the
>> subsection is called 'v?danigraha') and in Asa?ga's  
>> Abhidharmasamuccaya.
> 
> That sounds really interesting. It's another thing I look forward to  
> reading someday.

Thanks. I'll be on a pilgrimage to Lausanne and Vienna from next month
until Spring. I'll send you the dissertation within 9 months, I hope.

> It is probably worth remembering that the Buddha doubled the size of  
> the bhikkhu-sangha by winning a debate at a time when debaters staked  
> their disciples in wagers on who could beat whom in a logomachy.

I've found some very interesting early passages. I paste a random one
here from
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel292.html#bhadda
It's about Bhadda, who joins the Sangha after being defeated in debate:

"For fifty years she traveled through India and visited many spiritual
teachers, thereby obtaining an excellent knowledge of religious
scriptures and philosophies. She became one of the most famous debaters.
When she entered a town, she would make a sand-pile and stick a
rose-apple branch into it and would announce that whoever would engage
in discussion with her should trample upon the sand-pile.
One day she came to Savatthi and again erected her little monument. At
that time, Sariputta — the disciple of the Buddha with the greatest
power of analysis — was staying at the Jeta Grove. He heard of the
arrival of Bhadda and as a sign of his willingness for debate, he had
several children go and trample on the sand-pile. Thereupon Bhadda went
to the Jeta Grove, to Anathapindika's Monastery, accompanied by a large
number of people. She was certain of victory, since she had become used
to being the winner in all debates."

Best,

Alberto Todeschini