Except i'm not quite sure where to begin...even in a comparative sense.
Formal logic systems were never really that popular in my own culture. The historian of science, Joseph Needham, once said that
The Chinese were always more interested in the truth on which assumptions were based than on the verbal machinery for developing those assumptions. Explicit logic did not therefore have that continuously sustained interest which it received in the West.
That was from his work "Science and Civilization in China," volume VII; 1: xviii for those who are looking for sources.
He's a little inaccurate in the statement he makes, the Mohist schools of thought as well as the school of Names and some parts of Zhuangzi's work deal with linguistics and logic. But it was never really a sustained discipline.
You can see that trend in the manner in which a lot of texts were written. Arguments were often made by means of analogy.
So while i have i guess, a "second-hand" knowledge of Aristotlean logic - its not a subject matter that has come rather easy to me.
Any suggestions as to where to start would be most appreciated.
And for the Ponderous Academic portion for the thread; Is there much of a difference between Indian and Aristotlean logic? Any arguments/objections considered valid in one system but not the other? Any paradoxes ignored?