This reality is exemplified when one considers how the tetralemma is twisted in Buddhist philosophy. There are three fundamental laws of thought, which makes rational thought and meaningful communication possible. They are:

1. The law of identity (A is A)
2. The law of non-contradiction (nothing is both A and non-A in the same time and same sense)
3. The law of excluded middle (either A or non-A)

The tetralemma is a derivative of the laws of thought, which states that for any given proposition X, there are four possibilities.

Affirmation (X)

Negation (not-X)

Both (X and not-X)

Neither (X nor not-X)

Applying this in Buddhist thought, one would have something like this:

Everything is real and not real.

Both real and not real.

Neither real nor not real.

That is Lord Buddha’s teaching.

—Mūla-madhyamaka-kārikā 18:8,

In Buddhist thought, the tetralemma was called the Catuskoti, which was popularized by Nagarjuna. In this case, either of the first two propositions can be affirmed, but not both. Nagarjuna, given his particular mental tendencies, wanted to affirm and deny both of the possibilities. The result was skepticism and to cloak the irrationality, his defenders had to say things like “we have reached the limits of thought,” “it is beyond ordinary logic,” and so on.

Avi Sion, in his aptly titled book, Buddhist Illogic, says this about Nagarjuna:

He does not succeed in this quest. For his critique depends on a misrepresentation of logical science. He claims to show that logic is confused and self-contradictory, but in truth what he presents as the thesis of logical science is not what it claims for itself but precisely what it explicitly forbids. If logic were false, contradictions would be acceptable. Thus, funnily enough, Nagarjuna appeals to our logical habit in his very recommendation to us to ignore logic. In sum, though he gives the illusion that it is reasonable to abandon reason, it is easy to see that his conclusion is foregone and his means are faulty.^[1]

Nagarjuna recognized the nature of a contradiction. In spite of this recognition, his intellectual posture was to affirm both sides of it, due to his peculiar mental inclination. Richard Robinson remarks:

What Nagarjuna wishes to prove is the irrationality of Existence, or the falsehood of reasoning which is built upon the logical principle that A equals A…. Because two answers, assertion and denial, are always possible to a given question, his arguments contain two refutations, one denying the presence, one the absence of the probandum. This double refutation is called the Middle Path. (Emphasis is his.)

Nagarjuna’s knowledge of logic is about on the same level as Plato’s. It is pre-formal, and consists of a number of axioms and rules of inference which he manipulates intuitively, with great dexterity but also with occasional error.

The principle of contradiction is invoked constantly throughout the Karikas. It is stated in general form in two places:

1. “For entity and negation of entity do not occur within a unity.” (7.30)(10)
2. “For real and non-real, being mutually contradictory, do not occur in the same locus.” (8.7) Applications of the rule with narrower values for the terms are common:
3. “For birth and death do not occur at the same time.” (21.3)
4. “Nirvana cannot be both entity and non-entity, (since) nirvana is unconditioned, and entity and non-entity are conditioned.” (25.13)
5. “For the two do not occur within one place, just as light and darkness do not.” (25.14)(11)
6. “He would be non-eternal and eternal, and that is not admissible.” (27.17) The law of the excluded middle is twice invoked explicitly:
7. “Other than goer and non-goer, there is no third one that goes.” (2.8)(12)
8. “Other than goer and non-goer, there is no third one that stays.” (2.15)
   In other examples, “tertium non datur” is tacitly assumed.
9. “He who posits an entity becomes entangled in eternalism and annihilism, since that entity has to be either permanent or impermanent.” (21.14)

Since Nagarjuna’s argumentation relies on numerous dichotomies, the principle of contradiction is necessary to most of his inferences.^[2]

As we can see in these above propositions, the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle are explicitly applied. So, is Eastern logic really different from Western logic?  The answer seems obvious.

Avicenna, the celebrated Arabian philosopher, who improvised on Aristotle, stated the following for those who deny the nature of contradictions:

As for the obstinate, he must be plunged into fire, since fire and non-fire are identical. Let him be beaten, since suffering and not suffering are the same. Let him be deprived of food and drink, since eating and drinking are identical to abstaining. (Metaphysics I.8, 53.13–15).^[3]

One might fear being an Indian philosopher in Avicenna’s land! The one’s love for affirming both sides of the contradiction might be the death knell of not just his mental capacity, but his very life itself.

The Chinese developed the yin-yang theory, which loosely translated means opposites are interconnected. Again, the Chinese did recognize that opposites did exist. They could identify a contradiction. But due to their particular intellectual attitude, they wanted to establish a connection between them. Xinyan Jiang in his article, The Law of Non-Contradiction and Chinese Philosophy,^[4] argues that once the “Chinese concept” of contradictories is understood, the inconsistency between Chinese paradoxes and the Aristotelian view of contradiction will disappear. I reply saying that the difference will “disappear” only when ‘contradiction’ means the same thing to both the Chinese and Aristotle. If the Chinese “concept” of contradiction varies greatly from Aristotle, then they are dealing with a totally different concept altogether.

All this serves to prove that the law of non-contradiction is universal, and that it cannot be avoided for any meaningful conversation. Logic is the same in the East as it is in the West. Both of them recognized a contradiction for what it is. But due to their intellectual tendencies and commitments, those in the East attempted to swallow a contradiction, while the West did not. This difference resulted in different philosophies, not different systems of logic.

Conclusion:

 The East is different from West because of their relative tolerance for contradictions, and not because they could not recognize a contradiction. Logic was the same in the East and the West, but due to idiosyncratic intellectual inclinations and differing first principles and premises, each culture developed philosophies of its own. The Bible states that God made man in the image of God, and from one man made the nations. The universality and permanence of logic can be accounted for only on this basis. Jesus Christ is the supreme rational being and creator in the universe who holds all things together. The laws of logic are not arbitrary cultural conventions, but they reflect the eternal principle of thought in the mind of God. Logic is the way God thinks. Because God is immutable, the laws of logic do not vary from East to West!