On the Origin of Indian Logic from the Viewpoint of the P\u0101li Canon

Andrew Schumann

doi:10.1007/s11787-019-00225-1

Andrew Schumann

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-019-00225-1

Copy DOI

Abstract

In this paper, I show that in the Pāli Canon there was a tradition of Buddhist logic, but this tradition was weak, and the proto-logic we can reconstruct on the basis of the early Pāli texts can be evaluated as a predecessor of the Hindu logic. According to the textual analysis of the Pāli texts, we can claim that at the time of the closing of the Pāli Canon (excluding the later addition of the Milindapañha into it by the Burmese tradition) there did not exist the Nyāya philosophy known by the Nyāya Sūtra. Meanwhile, we can assume that the Milindapañha, the best logical source of early Pāli literature, was written under influences of the Gandhāran Buddhists and this text preceded the Nyāya philosophy.

Highlights

This paper provides an argument supporting the claim that the authors of the philosophy including several arts: diplomacy and statecraft (Pali) Canon and Milindapanha did not know about the Nyaya school of logic and knew nothing about syllogisms defined in the Nyaya Sutra (Sect. 2)
In order to infer this statement, the Mill’s joint method of agreement and difference is applied1: On the one hand, the Milindapanha is the only early Pali source in which we deal with a proto-Nyaya logic—it is a main feature of this text to be logical among all other canonical texts, and, on the other hand, the Milindapanha was written in Gandhara, the region where the Greek language was official for 300– 400 years at least and the Hellenistic influences on social life here were evident
I have performed an experiment as a logician to check the logical culture of ways of using syllogisms in the Pali Canon and, as a consequence of my experiment, I am probabilistically concluding that the authors of the early Pali texts did not know the Nyaya Sutra

Summary

Introduction

This paper provides an argument supporting the claim that the authors of the Pali Canon and Milindapanha did not know about the Nyaya school of logic and knew nothing about syllogisms defined in the Nyaya Sutra (Sect. 2). 3. The argument is focused on the following claims: (i) the terms denoting logic (such as nyaya) and occurring in the Pali Canon were not used, in accordance with their contextual meanings, to denote the school of logic or the Nyaya Sutra The argument is focused on the following claims: (i) the terms denoting logic (such as nyaya) and occurring in the Pali Canon were not used, in accordance with their contextual meanings, to denote the school of logic or the Nyaya Sutra (Sect. 4); (ii) in some early Pali suttas some terms denoting logical reasoning have sometimes negative connotations (Sect. 4), in the Theravada tradition there are many explanations why we need logic still; (iii) in the Pali Canon, the terms like nyaya have the meaning of the method of Buddhists distinguishing them from non-Buddhists (Sect. 4); (iv) it seems that in the Pali texts there are a few logical syllogisms used for the

Schumann

Problem Setting

Discussion on Methodology

Logical Reconstructions of Some Conclusions in the Kathavatthu

Historical Context of Milindapanha

Conclusions