Chapter 1: Buddhapalita and Bhaviveka — Consequence or Independent Inference¶

[PLANNED] This chapter has not yet been written; what follows is a skeleton. Items may be added or removed, and the order may change.

The dispute made precise: can the one warrant (asserting not-π) be obtained only by reductio, or also by an independent syllogism?

• Buddhapalita's pure-consequence style; no thesis, no reason-and-example.
• Bhaviveka's reform: independent inference and the "ultimately" qualifier; his three objections read against the source (T1566).
• The formal restatement: rejection without the duty of assertion (Lemma 1's classical self-awareness) versus a positive proof of not-π.
• Both sides keep the theorem itself; the split is over the path of warrant.