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).

A Problem of Deduction That Is Similar to the Problem of Generalization: Verification of Deduction

An Axiomatic Foundation for the Logic of Inductive Generalization

Problems of Inconsistency and Argumentation Logics

How Deduction Systems Can Help You To Verify Stability Properties

Deductive Software Verification: From Pen-and-Paper Proofs to Industrial Tools

The Revisability of Logic Revisited

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

Scientific-Theoretical Methodological Problems of the Application of the Deduction Method in the Calculus of Considerations

The Holmesian logician: Sherlock Holmes’ “Science of Deduction and Analysis” and the logic of discovery

A Joint Logic of Problems and Propositions

Deduction Theorem for Many-Valued Inference

General dynamic logic

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

Defense of Deductive Epistemology:a Critical Comment & Its Restructure

Reasoning Around Paradox with Grounded Deduction

A Doubting Logic System Containing Descartes Axiom

Natural Language Deduction with Incomplete Information

On the equivalence between deduction systems H and G in propositional calculus

A Puzzle in Traditional Logic

Deductive Verification of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Directional Deduction