IndexIntroductionBuddhist logicComparison between Buddhist logic and Aristotelian logicConclusionIntroductionThe epicenter of the study's discussion is the comparison between Indian Buddhist logic, initiated by the founder of Buddhism - Gautama Buddha and then taken deeper and deeper into the intricate and finer details by the various scholars of the Buddhist school of thought, with one of the first Western philosophical systems and a set of logics devised exclusively by Aristotle, recognized as the father of logic for his undertaking. The study first introduces both logical systems and then draws a comparison between the two, finally concluding with the authors' reflections in the conclusions section. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Buddhist Logic The history of Indian logic is usually divided into three periods, the Old Nyaya (about 250 BC), Buddhist logic (6th century AD), and New Nyaya. The Buddhist logical text, Nyayaprave`sa (Introduction to Logical Methods), had a great influence on Indian and Chinese Buddhism and among Jains. Being a pioneering work, the Nyaayaprave`sa has received critical attention from historians of religion, philosophers, philologists and logicians. As with all advances in scholarship, there is controversy over interpretation and Buddhist logic is no exception but just a little more criticized. , the controversy gets to the heart of the question of whether Buddhist logic is in any recognizable contemporary sense a “logic.” The prevailing view holds that Buddhist logic is very similar to syllogistic forms and can be represented and analyzed using standard deductive techniques. Ancient Buddhist texts reflect that the Buddha used to employ certain rules of reasoning in debates against his opponents. The rules of debate and trials can be seen in the first text: Kathāvatthu. A mature system of Buddhist epistemology and logic was established by the Buddhist scholar Dignaga (c. 480–540 CE) in his magnum work, the Pramāṇa-samuccaya. Dharmakirti, another and considered the last significant scholar, wrote Pramanavavarttika ("Commentary on Valid Cognition") which became the major source of epistemology and reasoning in Buddhism. The established procedure (patipada) for the above-mentioned debates had to be respected by all and if they did not do so, they were not fit to be discussed. It also appears that there was at least a basic conception of valid and invalid reasoning, including fallacies (hetvabhasah) such as petitio Principii. Various errors were further covered by what were called nigrahasthana or "censorship grounds" by which the debate could be lost. Other nigrahasthana included arthantaram or "moving the topic" and not giving a coherent answer. The Buddha described himself as an advocate of "analysis" or "vibhajjavada". He argued that, after adequate rational analysis, statements could be classified as follows: Those that can be categorically affirmed or denied (ekamsika) Those that cannot be categorically affirmed or denied (anekamsika), which the Buddha further divided into: Those that at the analytical level (vibhajja-) could be determined as true or false. Those like the avyakata theses, which could not be determined in this way. The early texts also mention that the Buddha believed that there were "four kinds of explanations of questions" as follows: a question that should be explained categorically a question that should be answered with a counter question a question that should be set aside • a question that should be explained analytically. The Buddha also divided the statements (bhasitam) intotwo types regarding their meaning: those that were intelligible, meaningful (sappatihirakatam) and those meaningless or incomprehensible (appatihirakatam). In the Nikaya it is considered meaningless to make a statement without the speakercould attach verifiable content to each of its terms. Therefore, the Buddha believed that claims about the existence of a self or soul (atman) were ultimately meaningless because they could not be verified. The Buddha used the logical structure of the "four corners" (catuṣkoṭi) as a tool for argumentation. These "four forms of predication" can be rendered thus:S is P, (there is a God).S is not P, for example (there is no God).S is and is not P, for example (c 'is and is not God).S is neither nor is not P, (there is nor is not God). The Buddha in the Nikaya regarded these as 'the four possible positions' or logical constructions that a proposition can take. Buddhists in the Nikayas use this logical structure to determine the truth of statements and classify them. When all four were denied about a statement or question, it was declared meaningless and then set aside or rejected. Comparison between Buddhist logic and Aristotelian logic The Buddha's vision of truth was also based on the altruistic concern to end suffering. In the “Address to Prince Abhaya” (MN.I.392–4) the Buddha states that a belief should be accepted only if it leads to wholesome consequences. Aristotle's logic did not emerge because of his quest to solve people's miseries but rather as his quest to understand life and its nuances. Buddhists believe in the cycle of birth and rebirth and argue that the ultimate purpose of logic whether to come out of that worldly cycle and attain Moksha or salvation. Aristotle believes in the singularity of one's life and argues that there is no previous life and that we all have only one life to live. Buddha was labeled the first and foremost empiricist because of his teaching that knowledge required verification through the six senses of the human body (ayatana). The Kalama sutta (the Buddha's discourse contained in the Aṅguttara Nikaya of the Tipiṭaka) states that verification through one's personal experience (and the experiences of the wise) is an important means of knowledge. Aristotle himself was a proponent of the absence of any innate idea supported by his own notion of a unique life and the absence of any previous life. He also believes in gaining knowledge through experience. Buddhists say that human action has a purpose. The objective of the goal was called an object and was classified as objects to avoid and objects to achieve. An avoidance object is an object that we wish to avoid. A reach object is an object we wish to reach. There is no other class of objects other than these two. Aristotle defined human life as a life of purpose and endorsed it as a good life. He says that a life with set goals is the supreme life that all human beings should pursue. Buddhist inductive inferences derive from the theory of causality. Inferences seem to revolve around perception. What is considered to constitute knowledge are direct inferences based on such perceptions. The Buddha's statements in the Nikaya imply devotion to some form of correspondence theory, this is most explicit in the Apannaka Sutta. We also note that the Buddha seems to have argued that usefulness and truth go hand in hand, and therefore something that is true is also useful (and conversely, something false is not useful in ending suffering). Aristotle gave his causal theory and acclaimed that there is a cause behind every action. He classified them into Material Causes,.