[Buddha-l] Non-arising

[David Andrews]

Hello Dan,

I don't know much about Indian logic. So I may be asking for something 
that is common knowledge.

Could you please provide an example of an Indian syllogism that is not 
amenable to western logical analysis?

Also your parenthetical remark below would seem to imply the 
possibility Dharmakirti represents a transition point after which 
Indian logic becomes formalizable. Could you speak more to this point?

Thanks,

David.


On 26/02/2010 5:52 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote:
> This also helps illustrate what I consider an important difference between
> Indian "logic" (up to Dharmakirti) and modern western formal logics. The
> latter insist on contentless structure -- converting statements into
> mathematical formulas is not only possible but encouraged. Indian logics do
> not divorce from content (hence the importance of the darstantika --
> inclusive and exclusionary examples). What determines the validity of an
> Indian syllogism is not mere formal structure, but distribution of content
> across the statements, whether the paksadharma is or isn't included in the
> hetu and sapaksa or vipaksa. That cannot be decided formally, but according
> to the content of each statement. 99% of the secondary literature on Indian
> logic fails to recognize that very basic point.
>
> Those that do are hesitant to call what the Indians did "logic."
>
> Dan