Koji Tanaka: What is Buddhist Logic?

[@twnfaem]

Excellent lecture. Thanks for this. Currently studying the Buddhist tenet systems (Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Cittamatra and the two Madhyamikas) - very helpful

[@नाटोकेपितापुतिन]

🧐👏👏 समझाने का तरीका अच्छा लगा ।

[@fernandocue3797]

So, Dr. Tanaka is Schrodinger's cat. And Dr. Tanaka is me, all at the same time, in multiple dimensions, only on Fridays, because on Saturdays i play D&D. = )

[@italogiardina8183]

The notion of recognize as a reasoner implies there were two forms of reasons, each of which do not agree with the sense of being a reasoner. This seems to suggest the implicit notion that subjectivity is dependent on some form of scaffold, as in the need to be behind a desk and supported by a referent in the form of points on a white board. A Buddhist logic points to the that which is mostly ephemeral, be that the one who does the inference, which entails that that person is not the inference, but the referent of the institutional gaze.

[@sohamsss100]

THANK YOU

[@wrongnotes8385]

With all the respect to Koji, I think there is better explanation by (Vidya-Mitra) take on Dinnaga and Dharmakriti on the the theory of perception debating with Naiyanikas.

[@jamestunglut1997]

What an odd character! 😆

[@kms5750]

you can read Kalam sutta Buddha say never belive anything without prove Cintificlly logiclly we buddhist can.t belive anything unlogic uncintific this is mein point of buddhism

[@andystitt3887]

Does buddist philosophy recognize any fallaiies?

[@arvinpillai681]

Yes

[@shadowwhisperer9687]

Check out catuskoṭi or tetralemma..in early buddhism its usually taken as a fallacy bt later it is used to imply nothingness.

[@नाटोकेपितापुतिन]

सेकेंड एग्जांपल समझ नहीं आया। 🧐

[@ahmedmahmud4238]

15 minutes in and he continues to just babble 😂