A Comparison Between Tibetan Buddhist Debates and Aristotelian Logic
Abstract
Logical thinking is the fundamental form and tool of human rational activity, giving rise to representative logical systems in Eastern and Western philosophical histories. Aristotelian logic, which originated from ancient Greek rational reflection on nature and society, aimed to discover the truth. Tibetan Buddhist debate traditions, rooted in the Indian Nyāya tradition, are based on the Buddhist goal of “liberation through wisdom”. This paper examines the similarities and differences between the “pratītyasamutpāda” and the “syllogism”, arguing that although they shape rational paradigms of Eastern and Western traditions respectively, they complement each other significantly. The formal advantages of Aristotelian logic can facilitate the modern expression of debate, while the context sensitivity and dialectical principles of debate can compensate for formal logic’s neglect of the cognitive subject. In cross-cultural dialogue, these two systems respectively embody “scientific rationality” and “religious wisdom”. The paper suggests that research combining both frameworks has the potential to transcend single-cultural logical paradigms and provide significant insights for contemporary logic and philosophy. Future exploration can delve into integrating Buddhist debate with modern cognitive science, making cross-cultural and cross-traditional comparisons to construct a more inclusive and diverse global logical system.
References
- Perdue, D. (2008). The Tibetan Buddhist Syllogistic Form. Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, 21, 193-211.
- Dreyfus, G. B. (1997). Recognizing Reality: Dharmakīrti’s Philosophy and Its Tibetan Interpretations. State University of New York Press.
- Hou, H. (2024). Contemporary Expressions of the Tibetan Buddhist Debate Tradition. National Taiwan University Journal of Buddhist Studies, 47, 117-167.
- Barnes, J. (1993). Aristotle: Posterior Analytics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Ebbesen, S. (2019) The Logic of the Schools in the Latin Middle Ages. In M. M. McCabe, R. W. Sharples, and A. Sheppard (eds.) A History of the Philosophy of Logic. Routledge, 277-305.
- Smith, R. (2022). Aristotle’s Logic. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.). Retrieved from https: //plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/aristotle-logic/
- Xu, C. (2018) Formalization of Tibetan Debate Principles. World Religions and Cultures, 6, 114-120.
- Liu, X. (2015) Tibetan Buddhist Debates: Tempering Wisdom. Chinese Religion, 5, 66-67.
- Hao-Sheng, H. (2024) Modern Representation of Tibetan Buddhism Debate Tradition. Taiwan Journal of Buddhist Studies, 47, 117-167.
- Aviv, E. (2015) A Well-Reasoned Dharma: Buddhist Logic in Republican China. Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies, 28, 189-234.