|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metalogic in East Asia: Discussion on the Antinomic Reason (*viruddhāvyabhicārin) in P’an piryang non |
|
|
|
| Author |
Moro, Shigeki (著)=師茂樹 (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture=국제불교문화사상사학회
|
|---|
| Volume | v.29 n.2 |
|---|
| Date | 2019.12 |
|---|
| Pages | 69 - 91 |
|---|
| Publisher | International Association for Buddhist Thought and Culture |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://iabtc.org/
|
|---|
| Location | Seoul, Korea [首爾, 韓國] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 英文=English |
|---|
| Note | MORO Shigeki is a professor at Hanazono University, Kyoto, Japan. |
|---|
| Keyword | Wŏnhyo; P’an piryang non; hetuvidyā; antinomic reason; viruddhāvyabhicārin |
|---|
| Abstract | Although the tradition of the East Asian Buddhist logic is a transmission of the system of Indian logic established by Dignāga (ca. 480–540), it developed in its own way in East Asia. East Asian Buddhist logic should be reconsidered in the context of the East Asian Buddhist tradition, instead of based on Western or Indian logic-centrism.
The twelfth section of P’an piryang non written by Wŏnhyo (617–686) metalogically discusses the logical problem of the antinomic reason (*viruddhāvyabhicārin), one of the fallacies of the reason of the three-part syllogism. Some textual problems remain in the section preserved in the manuscript of Otani University. Wŏnhyo seemed to have a keen interest in the antinomic reason. Although Dignāga categorizes the antinomic reason as one of the six fallacies of the inconclusive reasons, it has been questioned whether the categorization is valid by premodern Buddhist logicians and current scholars. Wŏnhyo tried to solve the problem through a kind of reductio ad absurdum method. Thus, he transformed the principle of the antinomic reason and showed the tautological redefinition, which probably is in conflict with the rule of the fallacy of both-agreement. According to these points, Wŏnhyo’s perspective of the antinomic reason seems to resemble the standpoint of Mun’gwe (fl. 7th century) more rather than that of Kuiji (632-682).
These points found in the short descriptions of P’an piryang non probably express the features of Wŏnhyo’s logic and not of his logical misinterpretation. We need an even more detailed examinations of P’an piryang non from the viewpoints of textual criticism and logic. |
|---|
| Table of contents | Abstract
Introduction 71
P’an piryang non and the Antinomic Reason 72
Textual Problem 75
Wŏnhyo’s Solution 77
Conclusion 81
References 86 |
|---|
| ISSN | 15987914 (P) |
|---|
| DOI | 10.16893/IJBTC.2019.06.29.2.69 |
|---|
| Hits | 401 |
|---|
| Created date | 2021.03.10 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2021.03.10 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
