Abstrakt
In the article an example of logic and epistemology of the Buddhist philosopher Dignaga indicates some limitations of both standard logic languages and adequacy of basic epistemological concepts: meaning and truth. Contrary to the methodological lines suggested by Łukasiewicz and Schayer, the structure of inference schema anumāna is not determined by truth-functional operator between sentences. Semantic inference structure is determined by generic name, relation qualifications on the basis of distributive or collective class. The Buddhist inference can not be reflected by the relationship between a cause and an effect. The recognition of the thesis is the result of applying the operation to the exclusion (apoha) of other meanings for the hetu premise. At the level of syntax, the cognitive act of agreement with the thesis of inference (based on the exclusion of other meanings for the hetu) is expressed with the ablative case (separation) by the suffix “-at”.Bibliografia
Barlingay, S. 1962. The significance of Drishtanta in Indian logic. in: Essays in Philosophy, presented to Dr. T. M. P. Mahadevan, Ganesh, Madras.
Barlingay, S. S. 1965. A Modern Introduction to Indian Logic, National Publishing House, Delhi.
Bochenski, J.M. 1956. Formale Logik. Freiburg u. München.
Carroll, L. 1897. Symbolic Logic, Part 1: Elementary. Mac Millan and Co., Ltd., London, (Deutsche Ausgabe 1998).
Chatterji, D. 1933. Hetucakranirnaya. Indian Historical Quarterly IX. pp. 266-72.
Chi, R. S. Y. 1973. Buddhist Formal Logic. 2 ed., Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.
Chi, R.S.Y. 1986 Dinnaga and Post-Russell Logic. in: B. K. Matilal and R.D. Evans (eds.), Buddhist Logic and Epistomology, pp. 107-115, D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Corcoran, J. 1972. Completeness of an ancient logic. The journal of symbolic logic, 37. pp. 696 -702.
Corcoran, J. 2006. Schemata: The Concept of Schema in the History of logic. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 12. pp. 219-240.
Daye, D.D. 1975. Remarks on Early Buddhist Proto - Formalism (Logic) and Mr. Tachikawa's Translation of the Nyayapravesa. Journal of Indian Philosophy 3. pp. 383 - 398.
Daye, D. D. 1977. Metalogical incompatibilittes in the formal description of buddhist logic (nyaya). Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, Volume XVIII, Number 2.
Frauwallner, E. 1959. Dignaga, sein Werk und seine Entwicklung. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens 3. pp. 83 – 164.
Frege, F, G. 1977. Pisma semantyczne. PWN, Warszawa.
Ganeri, J. (ed), 2001. Indian logic: a reader, Richmond: Curzon.
Glashoff, K. 2004. On Stanislaw Schayer's Research on Nyaaya. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 32. pp.295-319.
Glashoff, K. Problems of transcribing avinabhava into predicate logic.
Glashoff, K. 1999. Das Rad der Gründe-Der Hetucakradamaru von Dignaga. Mitt. Math. Ges. Hamburg 18.pp. 1-30.
Hattori, M. 1968. Dignāga on Perception, being the Pratyakṣapariccheda of Dignāga’s Pramāṇasamuccaya from the Sanskrit fragments and the Tibetan versions. Translated and annotated by Masaaki Hattori, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Hattori, M. 1982. The Pramāṇasamuccayav
Hansen, Ch. 1983. Language and Logic in Ancient China. Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press.
Hayes, R. P. 1988. Dignāga on the Interpretation of Signs. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hayes, R. P. 1980. Dinnaga's View on Reasoning (Svarthanumana): Journal of Indian Philosophy 8. pp. 219 - 277.
Inference. In: B. K. Matilal and R. D. Evans (eds.), Buddhist Logic and Epistemology, D. Reidel Publishing Company. pp. 31 – 57. Ingalls, D. H. 1951. Materials for the Study o fNavya-NyÜya Logic, Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 40, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Nakamura, H. 1958. Buddhist logic expounded by means of symbolic logic, in Indogaku Bukkydgaku Kenkyu, vol. 7 (1958). pp. 375-395.
Kitagawa, H. 1960. A note on the methodology in the study of Indian logic. Indogaku Bukkydgaku Kenkyu. vol. 8. pp. 380-390.
Kitagawa, H. 1965. A study of a shortphilosohical treatise ascribed to Dignāga,” in H. Kitagawa, Dignāga no Taikei Kyoto. pp. 430-439.
McDermott, Ch. 1970. An Eleventh-Century Buddhist Logic of "Exists". Foundations of Language, Supplementary Series, Vol. 11, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.
Łukasiewicz, J. 1957. Aristotle's Syllogistic. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2. edition.
Matilal, B. 1985. Logic, Language and Reality. Motilal Banarsidass, Dehli.
Matilal, B. K. 1968. The Navya-Nyaya Doctrine of Negation. Harvard Oriental Series, Vol. 46, Harvard University Press, Cambridge and particularly.
Matilal, B.K. 1971. Epistemology, Logic and Grammar in Indian Philosophical Analysis. Mouton, the Hage.Paris.
Mookerjee, S. 1997. The Buddhist Philosophy of Universal Flux. Motilal Banarsidass, Dheli.
Oetke, C.1994. Studies on the doctrine of trairuupya. Volume 33 of Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde. Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Wien.
Pind, O. H. 2009. Dignāga’s Philosophy of Language Dissertationsgebiet lt. Studienblatt: Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde Betreuer: emer. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ernst Steinkellner, Viena.
Randle, H. N. 1926. Fragments from Dinnāga, The Royal Asiatic Society, London. Rangaswamy Iyengar H. R. 1930. Pramana samuccaya. Edited and restored into Sanskrit (from the Tibetan translation) with vr̥ittitīka and notes. The Goyt, Branch Press in Mysore.
Randle, H, N. 1930. Indian logic in the early schools. A study of the Nyāyadarśana in its relation to the early logic of other schools, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ryle G. 1963. “If, So” and "Because" in Philosophical Analysis, A Collection of Essays, edited by Max Black, Prentice-Hall
Siderits, M. Dignāga on anyāpoha Pramāṇasamuccaya V. Texts, Translation, and Annotation.
Tillemans, M., Chakrabarti, A., 1993. Apoha: Buddhist Nominalism and Human Cognition. Columbia University Press.
Schayer, S. 1932. Studien zur indischen Logik. I. Der indische und der aristotelische Syllogismus. Bulletin International de l'Academie Polonaise des
Sciences et de Lettres, Classe de Philologie, Krakow, (4-6):98-102, 1932. Transl. into English in Ganeri (2001).pp 93-101.
Staal, J. F. 1958. Means of formalization of Indian and Western thought. in: Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Proceedings of the XĐth International Congress of Philosophy, Venice.
Staal, J. F. Contraposition in Indian logic. in: Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress, edited by E. Nagel, Stanford University Press, Stanford, Cal.
Stasiak, S. 1929. Fallacies and their Classiffcation according to the Early Hindu Logicians. Rocznik Orientalistyczny VI. pp. 191 – 198. Potter, K. H. 1963. Presuppositions of India’s Philosophies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice Hall.
Potter, K. H. 2003. Buddhist Philosophy from 350 to 600 A.D. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Matilal Banarsidass Volume IX: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Stcherbatsky, Th. I. 1930. Buddhist Logic I, II. Reprinted, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1994. First published 1930/32.
Tachikawa, M. 1971. A Sixth - Century Manual of Indian Logic (A Translation of the Nyayapravesa). Journal of Indian Philosophy 1. pp. 11 1 - 145.
Tola, F. Dragonetti, C. 1982. Ālambanaparīkṣa. Journal of Indian Philosophy 10. pp 105-129.
Tola, Dragonetti, 1980. Hastavālanāmaprakaraṇavṛtti. Journal of Religious Studies (Patiala) 8.1.
Tillemans, T. J. F. 1990. On Sapaksa. Journal of Indian Philosophy 18. pp. 53 - 79.
Toulmin, S. 2003. The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tucci, G. 1930. Materialen zur Kunde des Buddhismus. 15 Heidelberg.
Tucci, G. 1947. Minor Sanskrit Texts on the Prajñā-pāmitāI The Prajñāpāramitā-piṇḍārtha of Diṅāga, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. pp. 53-75.
Vidyabhushna, S. Ch. 2005. A History of Indian Logic. SHIV Books International, New Dehli 2.