A Comparison Between Tibetan Buddhist Debates and Aristotelian Logic
Research Article
Open Access
CC BY

A Comparison Between Tibetan Buddhist Debates and Aristotelian Logic

Yuhan Wang 1*
1 Beijing Normal University Affiliated Experimental High School International Division
*Corresponding author: wanghongchao@cet.sgcc.com.cn
Published on 23 October 2025
Journal Cover
CHR Vol.90
ISSN (Print): 2753-7072
ISSN (Online): 2753-7064
ISBN (Print): 978-1-80590-461-8
ISBN (Online): 978-1-80590-462-5
Download Cover

Abstract

Logical thinking is the fundamental form and tool of human rational activity, giving rise to representative logical systems in Eastern and Western philosophical histories. Aristotelian logic, which originated from ancient Greek rational reflection on nature and society, aimed to discover the truth. Tibetan Buddhist debate traditions, rooted in the Indian Nyāya tradition, are based on the Buddhist goal of “liberation through wisdom”. This paper examines the similarities and differences between the “pratītyasamutpāda” and the “syllogism”, arguing that although they shape rational paradigms of Eastern and Western traditions respectively, they complement each other significantly. The formal advantages of Aristotelian logic can facilitate the modern expression of debate, while the context sensitivity and dialectical principles of debate can compensate for formal logic’s neglect of the cognitive subject. In cross-cultural dialogue, these two systems respectively embody “scientific rationality” and “religious wisdom”. The paper suggests that research combining both frameworks has the potential to transcend single-cultural logical paradigms and provide significant insights for contemporary logic and philosophy. Future exploration can delve into integrating Buddhist debate with modern cognitive science, making cross-cultural and cross-traditional comparisons to construct a more inclusive and diverse global logical system.

Keywords:

Tibetan Buddhist debates, Aristotelian logic, Prāsaṅgika method, syllogism, cross-cultural logical dialogue

View PDF
Wang,Y. (2025). A Comparison Between Tibetan Buddhist Debates and Aristotelian Logic. Communications in Humanities Research,90,32-38.

References

[1]. Perdue, D. (2008). The Tibetan Buddhist Syllogistic Form. Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, 21, 193-211.

[2]. Dreyfus, G. B. (1997). Recognizing Reality: Dharmakīrti’s Philosophy and Its Tibetan Interpretations. State University of New York Press.

[3]. Hou, H. (2024). Contemporary Expressions of the Tibetan Buddhist Debate Tradition. National Taiwan University Journal of Buddhist Studies, 47, 117-167.

[4]. Barnes, J. (1993). Aristotle: Posterior Analytics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

[5]. Ebbesen, S. (2019) The Logic of the Schools in the Latin Middle Ages. In M. M. McCabe, R. W. Sharples, and A. Sheppard (eds.) A History of the Philosophy of Logic. Routledge, 277-305.

[6]. Smith, R. (2022). Aristotle’s Logic. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman  (eds.). Retrieved from https: //plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/aristotle-logic/

[7]. Xu, C. (2018) Formalization of Tibetan Debate Principles. World Religions and Cultures, 6, 114-120.

[8]. Liu, X. (2015) Tibetan Buddhist Debates: Tempering Wisdom. Chinese Religion, 5, 66-67.

[9]. Hao-Sheng, H. (2024) Modern Representation of Tibetan Buddhism Debate Tradition. Taiwan Journal of Buddhist Studies, 47, 117-167.

[10]. Aviv, E. (2015) A Well-Reasoned Dharma: Buddhist Logic in Republican China. Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies, 28, 189-234.

References

[1]. Perdue, D. (2008). The Tibetan Buddhist Syllogistic Form. Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, 21, 193-211.

[2]. Dreyfus, G. B. (1997). Recognizing Reality: Dharmakīrti’s Philosophy and Its Tibetan Interpretations. State University of New York Press.

[3]. Hou, H. (2024). Contemporary Expressions of the Tibetan Buddhist Debate Tradition. National Taiwan University Journal of Buddhist Studies, 47, 117-167.

[4]. Barnes, J. (1993). Aristotle: Posterior Analytics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

[5]. Ebbesen, S. (2019) The Logic of the Schools in the Latin Middle Ages. In M. M. McCabe, R. W. Sharples, and A. Sheppard (eds.) A History of the Philosophy of Logic. Routledge, 277-305.

[6]. Smith, R. (2022). Aristotle’s Logic. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman  (eds.). Retrieved from https: //plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/aristotle-logic/

[7]. Xu, C. (2018) Formalization of Tibetan Debate Principles. World Religions and Cultures, 6, 114-120.

[8]. Liu, X. (2015) Tibetan Buddhist Debates: Tempering Wisdom. Chinese Religion, 5, 66-67.

[9]. Hao-Sheng, H. (2024) Modern Representation of Tibetan Buddhism Debate Tradition. Taiwan Journal of Buddhist Studies, 47, 117-167.

[10]. Aviv, E. (2015) A Well-Reasoned Dharma: Buddhist Logic in Republican China. Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies, 28, 189-234.

Cite this article

Wang,Y. (2025). A Comparison Between Tibetan Buddhist Debates and Aristotelian Logic. Communications in Humanities Research,90,32-38.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.

About volume

Volume title: Proceedings of ICIHCS 2025 Symposium: Voices of Action: Narratives of Faith, Ethics, and Social Practice

ISBN: 978-1-80590-461-8(Print) / 978-1-80590-462-5(Online)
Editor: Enrique Mallen , Kurt Buhring
Conference website: https://2025.icihcs.org/
Conference date: 17 November 2025
Series: Communications in Humanities Research
Volume number: Vol.90
ISSN: 2753-7064(Print) / 2753-7072(Online)

© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who publish this series agree to the following terms:

1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this series.

2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this series.

3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See Open access policy for details).

For authors
For editors
For reviewers

Cookies are used by this site.
Copyright © 2024 EWA Publishing, its licensors, and contributors. All rights reserved, including text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.