A Note on the Methodology in the Study of Indian Logic

Abstract

Indian logic has been studied by many scholars and by now we are in possession of a fairly large amount of knowledge 'concerning this subject; however, it has been customary among scholars to interpret Indian logic using the terminology of Aristotelean logic and here lies a problem. If we want to learn something really new from a foreign system of thought, we must first try to understand it as it is. To interpret Indian logic using the terminology of Aristotelean logic, according to my opinion, is not to represent Indian logic as it is, but merely to review Aristotelean logic as applied to Indian logic. (1) Since I am engaged in the study of Dignaga, let me explain my point with material from his works. One of his most favorite examples of valid sylogism is: (paksa) Sound is non-eternal. (hetu) Because of (its] nature of being a product. (drstanta) a) Whatever is a is non-eternal, like a pot. b) Whatever is eternal is not a product, like the ether. Now, according to the customary interpretation paksa is the equivalent of the conclusion of the Aristotelean syllogism, hetu the equivalent of the minor premiss and drstanta the equivalent of the major premiss; and so far there is no serious misinterpretation. But the customary interpretation thatsound,nature of being a product andnon-eternal of the above example correspond to the Aristotelean minor term, middle term and major term respectively is by no means a scientific interpretation. For, if there