Talk:Buddhist logico-epistemology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Buddhist logico-epistemology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Japanese discourse

"A number of excellent Japanese scholars..."

Uh, what? (incomplete sentence) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.40.185.71 (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pamāna

In the section on pamāṇa poor use is made of the Kālāma Sutta. It is cited as a broad epistemological text and translated as such: "Do not accept anything by mere tradition". But this is not the intention of the Kālāma Sutta which is talking about *behaviour* at this point, not about *valid cognition*.

The fact is the Pāli sentences lack verbs allowing for this kind of misinterpretation. The structure of each prohibition is just like the first: mā anussavena. The prohibitive particle with a word in the singular instrumental, with the instrumental functioning as an indirect object; lacking a verb. The commentator supplies the verb gaṅhati 'to grasp' which works OK, but still doesn't make this an epistemological text. Pāli does allow sentences to have an implied verb 'to be' on a regular basis, but this is the only example I know of where the verb is missing and is regularly interpreted to be something other than 'to be'. Unfortunately some people insert totally inappropriate verbs - such as here with the use of 'accept'. Jayarava 08:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahaabaala (talk • contribs)

More reference to Western scholarship needed

The main point of the page, as it stands, seems to be that some results traditionally attributed to Dignāga are better attributed to Vasubandhu. This may be perfectly true, but seems a bizarre entry point into such a rich field of study as Buddhist logic. There is no reference to fundamental work making the material available for Western readers such as Ingalls or Staal. This is not to say that the material in this page is not valuable, but it's not well placed relative to a full intro to Buddhist logic. Perhaps a WP project is called for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnoTraveller (talk • contribs) 04:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be re-titled "The Scholars of Buddhist Logic". It has little explanation on what "Buddhist Logic" is.

I have learned nothing from this page about the logic used in Buddhist teachings. There is no proper introduction or explanation of what Buddhist Logic is, what it is used for nor how it helps one to advance on one's path to enlightenment. Whoever wrote this article was apparently only in displaying his or her knowledge of the scholars of Buddhist Logic. The page should retitled to "The Scholars of Buddhist Logic". It has little explanation on what "Buddhist Logic" is, what it is used for, and how it might be useful for Buddhist practitionersPfstevenson32 (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I couldn't agree with you more. Totally uninformative to anybody who doesn't already know what "Buddhist logic" is. --Droigheann (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article...

It appears to be a whole load of nothing. A mishmash of words spanning several unnecessary jargon in several languages delivering no real information. Please help.--86.30.160.32 (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist Logic Not Classical Logic?

So, I'm looking at the section titled "Qualifications of what is signified by the lexical signifier 'Logic' in the Dharmic context". Overall. That section is poorly written & has mistakes. It asserts that Buddhist Logic isn't Classical Logic,which is true. However, it also claims that ancient Greek logic (Aristolean Logic) is Classical logic (it isn't), & it claims on that basis that Greek logic was based on mathematics. That's false. Classical Logic is a modern creation based on mathematics, but Aristotle's logic was not, as it was a different system from what is used in modern times.

So yes, Buddhist Logic isn't Classical Logic, but so what? There are lots of different logical systems. The article seems to be trying to assert thay Buddhist (and Indian) Logic aren't actually logic, but it doesn't source that assumption at all. I think this should be removed. MindForgedManacle (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buddhist logic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a mess

This article was a mess, I practically had to rewrite about 90% of it. This is what I have come up so far, which I think is immensely better than what was here before. Ideally it would include some more technical explanations of the school of Dignaga and Dharmakirti, but the article is already getting a bit large. Also I am not exactly strong on the Tibetan developments (I believe they mainly don't advance much beyond the work of Dharmakirti and the Svantantrika Indian exponents like Santaraksita though). Javierfv1212 22:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

More postmodernist posturing