Talk:Buddhist logico-epistemology

More postmodernist posturing
Just one example, this section heading "Qualifications of what is signified by the lexical signifier 'Logic' in the Dharmic context" is a little over the top (To put it quite mildly). Can we please strive for simpler, clearer language? I'm not saying that this isn't a complex topic, but what is to be gained by entombing the reader under a wall of words? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.46.253.42 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Zero Sharp, I presume *ugh*: split infinitives! - [*comment by new user* Do we really need to worry about made-up grammatical issues when the article itself is a mess lacking any clear information? It seems like the only thing getting done is providing the sanskrit words for the most common words in Western logic, is this really all "Buddhist Logic" is? ]
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 03:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).
 * 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)

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)

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)

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041127175124/http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html to http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041127175124/http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html to http://www.orientalia.org/printout470.html

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

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

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)