An Introduction to Buddhist Logic
An Introduction to Buddhist Logic with special emphasis on Dignaga’s Logic
चत्वारि वाक परिमिता पदानि तानि विदुर्ब्राह्मणा ये मनीषिणः |
गुहा तरीणि निहिता नेङगयन्ति तुरीयं वाचो मनुष्या वदन्ति ||
(R.V.1.164:45)
If all speech could be divided into four equal parts,
the wise will replace three parts with silence.
The above words instantly remind us of Gautam Buddha when He was asked any metaphysical question. He explained, with example, that if a person is wounded by an arrow, it is most important to first remove the arrow from the person’s body rather than getting embroiled in a meaningless debate about the origin of the arrow and the intention of the person shooting the arrow.As we know, Buddha was born a prince and was well versed in the science of the Vedas. Further, through penance and deep meditation He attained enlightenment. His pure intelligence and clarity of thought made many His followers.The knowledge gained through enlightenment was taught by Him by way of discourses and discussions. He encouraged His disciples to think as against blindly following the authority of any person or text. He advised His disciples to question everything including His own teachings and to think rationally for their own evolvement. Buddha gave importance to rationale thinking and right action. He practised and advocated right speech which should be measured, essential and useful. The central idea of His teachings was satya and ahimsa in thoughts, speech and action. These teachings of Buddha were imbibed in His followers and used by them in their philosophical reasoning. During Buddha’s lifetime, His teachings were not formally written down in a text. It was only after Buddhas mahaparinirvana in 5th Century B.C.that His teachings were systemized in the Tripitikas.
As per the records available, the Tripitikas do not contain Logic as a separate subject mainly because the ancient Buddhist aimed at Nirvana and the use of Logic was more in a spiritual sense of wise discretion rather than in the sense of debate. In the sense of debate, the Tripitikas do mention Takikas whom we may understand as sophists. Also, the Vinaya Pitika mentions various interesting concepts such as logical procedure for the judicial councils of monks, the complaint procedure, seven rules for the settlement of cases and the conduct of the judge. The proper subject of Buddhist Logic as such developed after the coming into existence of the four schools of Buddhism in the Mediaeval period. The conclusion derived from Buddhas teachings became the philosophy of each school. The Madhyamika School advocated the philosophy of the voidness of everything, the Yogacara School advocated the voidness of only external things, the Sautrantika School advocated the inferable existence of external things and the Vaibhashika School advocated the perceivable existence of external things. Thus, we see that Buddhas followers practised critical thinking even to interpret His teachings. On the basis of the philosophical school they belonged to, certain Buddhist scholars developed Logic to propagate their own dogmas and protect themselves from the opponent. It seems the love for one’s own faith and the fear of being converted into other religion in the case of defeat in a philosophical dispute compelled the scholars to improve their Logic and sharpen their skills.
The Ancient Period saw various scholars such as Nagarjuna, Arya Deva, Maitreya, Arya Asanga and Vasubandhu. Nagarjuna of 2nd BC is the earliest known scholar devoted to analytical reaoning. He was the founder of Buddhist Madhyamika School. The Madhyamika school believed in Sunyata . They believed in the essencelessness of things and used the Prasanga and Chatushkoti method for refuting all other philosophies. The Prasanga method used is of negation where the view of the opponent is assumed, and its absurdity is proved with the ancient indian tool of Chatushkoti negating the four possibilities of (1) Affirmation (2) Negation (3) Affirmation and Negation (4) Neither Affirmation nor Negation. Nagarjuna is famous for his dialectic method of turning every thesis of the opponent against itself. His philosophical analysis and criticisms can be found in his books MulMadhyamakarika and VigrahaVyavartini.
The Mediaeval Period saw scholars such as Dignana and Dharmakirti who are credited with the development of Logic as a separate subject. Dignaga also known as Dinnaga was a disciple of Vasubandu and had mastered the Tripitikas. He had a lot of conviction in his school of thought and was assertive in his debates. He was known as the bull in the fight. His objective and spiritual side can be seen by him going into deep meditation to invoke the Blessings of God Manjusri to aid him in clear thinking and compilations of debate material. It is believed that Dignaga was able to write his treatise on Logic only with the Blessings of God Manjushri Himself. God Manjushri blessed Dignaga that his treatise will be the best treatise on Logic. . He was meticulous and disciplined in his approach as can be seen in him writing down notes of his debates and later compiling them as Pramanasamuccaya. History regards him as the Father of Buddhist Logic. He is credited with invaluable works on Logic including the Pramana Samuccaya, Pramana Samuccaya Vriti, Nyaya Mukha, Nyaya Pravesha, and Hetuchakradamru.
Interestingly, inspired by the wise ancients including Buddha giving examples in discourses, Dignana realized the importance of reasoning with the help of examples and very meticulously revised, articulated and formalized the system of reasoning with examples. Dignana’s Logic specialised and blossomed around giving of examples to prove or disprove a point. The special feature of His Logic was the emphasis given to connecting the reason to positive and negative examples. Literally he was leading in arguments on the strength of examples. His Logic is explained in his treatise Pramana Samuccaya. The Pramana Samuccaya has six chapters explaining the concepts of Perception( Pratyaksha), Inference for self (Swaarthaanumana) Inference for others (Paraarthaanuman), Reason and Example(Hetu and Drshtanta), Negation of Likeness (Apoha), and Analogue (Jati).
As per Buddhism, Dignana accepted only two valid means of knowledge, being, Perception and Inference. Dignaga was an original thinker who did not go by the traditional definition of Pramana as merely the sense organs coming in contact with the object but described it as the act of cognition itself. In the example of the snake mistaken for rope, he states that the mistaken snake is the preconception and the Perception is the very act of seeing before the imagining starts. He did not give a formal definition of Perception, however, in Chapter 1 of Pramanasamuccaya he described it as that which is free from preconception, name and genus. According to him the act of Perception is without any name and is particular to the person perceiving it.Knowledge achieved through perception can never be properly communicated to others. As against this, according to him, Inference is general and has name and genus. According to Dignaga, when we recognize something as similar to something we are actually using Perception and not Upamana Further, Dignaga has a very interesting observation and interpretation about Valid Testimony. About Valid Testimony he states that if we are talking about the credibility of the person then it is a matter of Inference and if we are talking about the credibility of the fact then it is a matter of Perception.
Dignaga classified Inference into two types. Inference for self and Inference for others.
In Chapter 2 of Pramana Samuccaya, Inference for self is defined as the knowledge of a thing derived through the mark of three characters. The mark is also referred to as the Reason or Hetu or Middle term.The Reason should posses one of the three characters: that Reason should be the effect of the thing to be inferred (Predicate), or the Reason may be in essence identical with the thing to be inferred, or non-perception of the Reason may be due to non-existence of the thing to be inferred.
In Chapter 3 of Pramana Samuccaya, Inference for others is explained as demonstrating to others the conclusion drawn from the inference to the self. This is explained with the Trairupya Theory which states that the Inference for others should satisfy all the three conditions,. The first condition that the Reason should be present in the Subject. The second condition that the Reason should be present in the similar case of the Predicate. The third condition that the Reason should be absent in dissimilar case of the Predicate. The Trairupya Theory can be understood better with an examples as follows:
The house is on fire (paksha)
Because there is smoke (Reason)
Wherever there is fire there is smoke, like a kitchen (Sapaksha)
Where there is no fire there is no smoke, like a lake (Vipaksha)
The Reason may be wholly present, partly present or fully absent in the Sapaksha. The Reason may be wholly present, partly present or fully absent in the Vipaksha. The Reason present wholly or partly present in Sapaksha but wholly absent in Vipaksha are valid, the opposite are contradictory and the others are invalid. These combinations are explained by Dignaga in his Hetucharadamru in a matrix of nine fold possibilities of the Reason. In this matrix, only two Reasons are sound, two are contradictory and the other five are invalid.
In Chapter Four of Pramana Samuccaya Dignaga states that the relation between the Reason and the Major Term should be explained with two examples.
The first example should establish that whenever the Predicate is present the Reason will also be present. This is called Anvayi or Swadharmya example.
The second example should establish that whenever the Preficate is absent the Reason will also be absent. This is called Vyatireki or Vairdharmya example.
In this sense Reason can be said to be Affirmative when it is present and Negative when the Reason is absent.
Both the examples are required under the Trairupya Theory.
Chapter Five of Pramana Samuccaya deals with the concept of Apoha, meaning that an entity is defined by the negation of its opposite. Example, a cow is that which is not a not-cow. The emphasis is on the negation of the opposite.
Chapter Six of Pramana Samuccaya explains Analogues or Far Fetched Analogy also known as Jati in Sanskrit . Fourteen types of futilities of rejoinders are explained in this Chapter.
The other important work supposed assumed to be of Dignana is Nyaya Mukha and Nyaya Pravesha. He states that Demonstration and Refutation together with their fallacies are useful in arguing with others; and Perception and Inference together with their fallacies are useful for self-understanding. The entire Nyaya Pravesha is an exposition of the above mentioned concepts and their fallacies. The Nyaya Pravesh deals with nine types of Fallacies of Preficate (Paksha) and fourteen types of Fallacies of Reason and Preficate and Fallacies of Perception and Inference
The scholars on Logic after Dignaga were Parmartha, Sankara Swamin, Dharmaphala, Shilabhadra, Dharmakirti, Devendrabodhi, Sakyabodhi, Vinita Deva, Ravi Gupta, Jinendrabodhi, Santa Rakshita, Kamala Shila, Kalyana Rakshita, Dharmottaracharya, Mukta Kumbha, Archata, Ashoka, Chandra Gomin, Prajnakara Gupta, Jetari, Jina, Ratna Kirti, Ratna Vajra, and Jnanasri Mitra.
Another great scholar of the Buddhist tradition is Dharmakirti who was a disciple of Dharmaphala. Dharmakirti had mastered Dignaga’s Pramana Samuccaya and inspired composed his own works including Pramana Vartika Karika, Pramana Karika Vritti, Pramana Vinishchaya and Nyaya Bindu. He defended the logic of Dignaga and also had the view that some of Dignagas’s concepts need to be consolidated. As against Dignaga’s three step Logic he stated that only two steps are sufficient. He stated that we may state only Paksha Dharma and Vyapti. For example,
Wherever there is smoke there is fire (Vyapti)
The hill has smoke (Paksha Dharmata)
The above may be stated either in Anvayi or in Vyatireki way.Dharmakirti did not find it important to give two examples as advocated by Dignaga because the universal concomitane between the Reason and Predicate was sufficient according to him.
From 300 AD to 1100 AD, for nearly 800 years there was a tussle between the Brahmanic Logic and the Buddhist Logic. Both the Hindu scholars and the Buddhist scholars were backed by the patronage of the royal rulers. However, 1200 AD saw the resurrection of Brahmanism and the decline of Buddhism in North India. In South India, Buddhism had started declining in 700 AD. The royal rulers who were earlier followers of Buddhism followed the Brahmanic thought. Because Buddhism lost patronage it was difficult for Buddhist Logic to prosper.With the invasion of Islam, some Buddhists were forcibly converted to Islam while some fled to other countries. The Mohameians burnt down the Nalanda University and many rich texts were lost. 1300 AD onwards there were no records of Buddhist logicians.Over the years most original sanskrit texts of Buddhist Logic were lost and knowledge in them could be traced through Tibetian, Chinese or Japanese translations.
The Modern period saw the influence of Buddhist Logic in Hindu Logic. The Hindu logicians compiled Prakaranas or Manuals on Logic. These Manuals were heavily inspired by the way Pramanas and syllogims were dealt with in the Buddhist Logic. As against the importance given to all the sixteen categories and especially to Chala, Jati and Nigrahasthana in ancient Hindu texts, the Modern logicians gave importance to Pramana and syllogisms just as the Buddhist Logicians did. In fact, the other categories were made into subcategories of Pramana.The traditional Hindu schools of learning deemed it necessary that Nyaya should be studied for proper understanding all the darshanas and Buddhist Logic definitely enriched the Nyaya system.
The Buddhist Logic is continued to be protected by the Tibetans right from the 7th Century AD. Rulers in Tibet invited scholars from India to teach Buddhist Logic to the Tibetians. Also, many Tibetian scholars travelled to India to learn Buddhist Logic. Over the centuries many original sanskrit texts were translted into Tibetian language. The Tibetians have been such patrons and ardent followers of Buddhism that some of the Buddhist Logic texts are available only in Tibetian language and unfortunately there is no trace of original sanskrit texts in India. The Tibetians are to be admired and commended for the continued preservation and practise of Buddhist Logic. The various Tibetian monasteries have currently made Buddhist Logic more interesting by holding various open debates to attain more clarity on philosophical concepts.The Tibetians have developed a system of disputation using physical gestures while arguing. This method of bodily movements helps not only for wide communicability for the audience watching the disputation but also to check the concentration and composure of the proponent and the opponent. The said method of physical gestures during dialectic debate uses the physical, emotional, spiritual and intellectual level of human expression and is considered the best way of expression. The Buddhist Logic and the abovementioned system of dialectic debate is taught in all the monasteries across Tibet and even the examinations are conducted in this fashion. Taking inspiration from the Tibetians it will be interesting to study various subjects using Buddhist Logic.
In regard to the use of Logic in a spiritual science as Buddhism, some have criticized the use of Logic as it interferes in the system of Meditation by creating too many thoughts whereas Meditation is supposed to be a thoughtless state. However, the Buddhist school of Meditation have stressed upon the removal of defilements in thoughts and cultivation of compassion. Thus, through analysis, unnecessary thoughts can be removed and the mind can be engaged in good thoughts which is ideal for concentration leading to meditation and absorption or Nirvana. Thus, Logic forms a preparatory tool for Meditation.
Let us conclude with the richness of Logic in Buddhist philosophy with a short parable. Two men were arguing about a flag flapping in the wind. One of them said that it is the wing which is really moving. The other man said that it is the flag which is really moving. A Buddhist Master who was passing by concluded that it was neither the wind which is moving nor the flag which is moving but the Mind which is moving.
References:
- History of Indian Logic by Mahamahopadhyaya Satish Chandra Vidyabhushan
2.http://samdhongrinpoche.com/en/tibetan-debate-a-dialectic-process-of-disputation-and-its-tradition/
- Epgpathshala
- Kulaguru, Srimatham
- https://theunboundedspirit.com/10-short-zen-stories/