Buddhist Logic Part 2

F. Th Stcherbatsky

Language: English

Pages: 472

ISBN: 0766176851

Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub

This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the original. Due to its age, it may contain imperfections such as marks, notations, marginalia and flawed pages. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions that are true to the original work.

Buddhism, Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, Volume 2

The Zen of Steve Jobs

The Lamp That Enlightens Narrow Minds: The Life and Times of a Realized Tibetan Master, Khyentse Chokyi Wangchug

Engaging Buddhism: Why It Matters to Philosophy

Engaging Buddhism: Why It Matters to Philosophy














order to clear away the theory (that illusion may lea(l to success).3 (7.12). However, the characteristic of «non-illusion» might also be taken as suggesting a difference between (direct cognition and) inference.4 In that case the characteristic of « neither construction I) would be directed against those contrary theories (which include some synthetic activity of the intellect into direct perception).5 For, indeed, inference, (as indirect knowledge, is to a certain extent) an illusion. The

therefore, the above mentioned three relations alone can prove something, and there are no other relations which would allow to deduce (one fact from another). 2 (25.11). Now, why is it, that we can deduce one fact from another, only if there is existential dependence? 21. Because a fact which is not so dependent upon another one, cannot be invariably and nee e s s a r il y con com ita n t wit 11 th e 1a t t e r. (25.14). (e80 dependent» means existentially dependent. A fact whose existence is

also no ASokas. (:39. G). The knowledge ofthe absence of something is always produced only by the repudiation of an imagined presence. (39. 7). Therefore, if we remember (some cases) of Contradiction, of Causality or of different extension, we needs must have in our memory some negative experience. (Negation is) the foundntion of our concept of non-existence which iR underlying I) our knowledge of (the la.ws) of Contradiction, of 1 Lit., p. 38.21. « Alld absellce of the cont(tined (the term of

hem e tho d 0 fAg r e e men t, i tis Ii k ewise (superfluous to mention the conclusion separately). When it is stated that (M a j 0 r pre m i s e ). W hat s 0 eve r i s not p e rc e i v e d, a 1 tho ugh b e i n gin con d i t ion s 0 f p e rc e p t i b il i t y, is p rae tic a 11 y non - e xis ten t. suffices it to state the major and minor premises, the conclusion or thesis being then implicitly contained in the minor premise. Mall a viidi, f. 87, introduces this section with the words, atha

Therefore it is not taken here. Moreover, just as the one who does not admit inference does not understand the non-discrepancy (avyabhiciirit~,a) of smoke with tire, just so will he not understand the nOll-discrepancy of the word with intention. And the word is used for communication of external reality. Therefore the use of words is not preceded by admitting an invariable connection between words and intention. And again, words are pronounced not in order to make known an intention, but to

Download sample