Sources of Buddhist Logic
Summary
The text discusses the historical and philosophical context of Buddhist logic (Pramāṇa) as presented in Kamalaśīla's *Tattvasaṃgraha* (TS) and its commentary. It highlights attempts to link Buddhist tenets to Buddha's teachings, despite scholarly skepticism about the historical accuracy of such attributions. Key points include the distinction between *nirvikalpa* (non-conceptual) and *savikalpa* (conceptual) perception in Buddhist epistemology, contrasting with Brahmanical systems. The text cites a Buddhist *Agama* (scripture) asserting that visual cognition (*cādyur vijñāni*) recognizes an object's unique character (*nirvikalpa*) but not its common attributes (*savikalpa*). The discussion extends to inference (*anumāna*), with examples of *svabhāva-hetu* (inherent cause), *kārya-hetu* (causal efficacy), and *anupalabdhi-hetu* (non-perception). A statement attributed to Buddha critiques negation as a valid means of knowledge, arguing that non-perception of an entity (e.g., *pudgala* or soul) cannot conclusively prove its absence. The text critiques Prof. Poussin's textual emendations, defending the original readings supported by Tibetan translations. It also references Dharmakīrti's views on syllogistic reasoning and the *Nīyāyabindu*. Overall, the analysis underscores the philosophical sophistication of Buddhist logicians in addressing epistemological and metaphysical questions, while questioning the historical validity of attributing certain doctrines directly to Buddha.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
This analysis of Buddhist logic's sources reveals its distinct epistemological framework, emphasizing empirical observation and rational inquiry over Brahmanical textual authority. The Buddhist emphasis on *nirvikalpa* (direct perception of unique qualities) and *savikalpa* (conceptual understanding of universal characteristics) demonstrates a sophisticated approach to cognition that diverges from contemporary systems. The attribution of logical principles to Buddha, while historically contentious, underscores the tradition's effort to establish autonomy and coherence within its philosophical structure. Kamalashriya's commentary and Candrakirti's interpretations further highlight the interplay between perception, inference, and the theory of causation, reinforcing the Buddhist commitment to a logically rigorous and empirically grounded understanding of reality. These findings position Buddhist logic as a deliberate departure from Brahmanical dogma, prioritizing analytical methods and experiential verification.