Abstract:This paper is a preliminary inquiry into the main difference between Buddhist logic and Western logic.The scope of comparison is limited in the theory of inference by Dignaga and Dharmakirti on the Buddhist side,and in the classical syllogism on the Western side. As begun with an analysis of one typical fallacy in Buddhist logic,the prameyatva (being cognized) reason for the nitya(eternal) thesis as one of the non-conclusive reasons(anaik(?)ntikahetu),this paper points out that the inference as such is unsound merely because its major premise is false,when its form is exactly the same as Barbara in Western syllogism.Likewise,all the non-conclusive reasons and contradictory reasons (viruddhahetu) can be reduced only to the falseness of major premise,or in paraphrase, to the failure of establishing the invariable concomitance(avin(?)bh(?)va). In fact,the three conditions of a right reason(trair(?)pya) are formulated in order to promise the premises of a three-part inference(tray(?)vayava) to be true,while the Western rules for a right syllogism are aimed at promising its form to be valid.This difference seems to be essential in illuminating the intensionalism in Buddhist logic and the extensionalism of the Western syllogism.However,to what extent the truth of premises can be guaranteed differs in respect of the different trair(?)pya formulae as given by Dignaga and Dharmak(?)rti. According to Dignaga,the object in dispute(dharmin),i.e.the minor term,shall be ruled out from both the last two conditions of a right reason.As a result,these two conditions can only promise the major premise to be true in those cases other than the minor term,and the inference according to him is therefore non-deductive.As the restriction of excluding the object in dispute is given up by Dharmaklrti,the last two conditions of a right reason become capable of promising the major premise to be universally true, and the inference according to him thus becomes deductive. At last,the author indicates that the intensionalism in Buddhist logic plays a key role in the historical development of Buddhist logic(hetuvidy(?)) into Buddhist epistemology (pram(?)navada).

On a fallacy concerning I-am-unprovable sentences: what to take home from Goedel's introduction

Paradox regained: Life beyond Goedel's shadow

Two presumptions in Goedel's interpretation of his own, formal, reasoning that are classically objectionable

The Goedel's legacy: revisiting the Logic

Prawitz's Conjecture is False; So What?

A common Misconception about the Categorical Arithmetic

Yablo's Paradox And Arithmetical Incompleteness

Going Forth and Drawing Back: an Intensional Approach in Nonmonotonic Inference.

Generalized Tautologies Theory of the Basic Formal System of Universal Logic

Gödel's Program in Set Theory

On Godel's treatment of the undecidable in 1931

Avoiding Contradictions in the Paradoxes, the Halting Problem, and Diagonalization

An analysis of the constructive content of Henkin's proof of Gödel's completeness theorem

Some Infinitary Paradoxes and Undecidable Sentences in Peano Arithmetic

Logic of the Ontological Argument

The GHSZ argument: a gedankenexperiment requiring more denken

Concerning the Truth of Premises in Buddhist Three-part Inference(Tray(?)vayava)

A logic of judgmental existence and its relation to proof irrelevance

Frege on the reference of sentences

The Gradation Puzzle of Intellectual Assurance

Anselm'S Ontological Argument And Grades Of Being