The 2015 World Congress on Logic and Religion -- which mentions the Bilimoria paper -- also lists a talk "The Logical Nature of the Nalanda Tradition of Buddhism" by Razvan Diaconescu of Simion Stoilow Institute of Mathematics of the Romanian Academy (IMAR), Romania. Abstract:
In contemporary Tibetan Buddhism, which inherits the old Indian Buddhist tradition of Nalanda in a rather complete way, logic plays an active role at various levels.
The importance of logic in the process of spiritual development of Buddhist practitioners can be traced back to the central methodological principle formulated by Buddha Shakyamuni himself, that any truth can be accepted only upon an extensive and careful analysis performed on a personal basis. In this talk we will explore the role played by logic in the Mahayana Buddhist thinking, both from a historical and methodological perspective and will discuss possible captures of Buddhist logics as modern formal logical systems.
We will also briefly look at the relationship between logic and Buddhist thinking from the other side, namely some influence of the Buddhism perspective to modern logic, especially to the universal trend in logic.
Although I'm not sure if this was ever published.
edit:
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on paraconsistency says this:
[definition:] A logical consequence relation is explosive if according to it any arbitrary conclusion $B$ is entailed by any arbitrary contradiction $A$, $¬A$ (ex contradictione quodlibet (ECQ))
...
In the history of logic in Asia, there is a tendency (for example, in Jaina and Buddhist traditions) to consider the possibility of statements being both true and false. Moreover, the logics developed by the major Buddhist logicians, Dignāga (5th century) and Dharmakīrti (7th century) do not embrace ECQ. Their logical account is, in fact, based on the ‘pervasion’ (Skt: vyāpti, Tib: khyab pa) relation among the elements of an argument. Just like the containment account of Abelard, there must be a tighter connection between the premises and conclusion than the truth-preservation account allows. For the logic of Dharmakīrti and its subsequent development, see for example Dunne 2004 and Tillemans 1999.
With the SEP bibliography here for convenience:
Dunne, John D., 2004, Foundations of Dharmakīrti’s Philosophy, Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Tillemans, Tom J.F., 1999, Scripture, Logic, Language: Essays on Dharmakīrti and His Tibetan Successors, Boston: Wisdom Publications.
The Tillemans book is a collection of previously published essays. Of note is Chapter 6, which the book says
Chapter 6: originally published as "Formal and Semantic Aspects of Tibetan Buddhist Debate Logic." Journal of Indian Philosophy 17 (1989): 265-97. Some corrections have been made. The account of vyāpti has been taken up again and revised in the introduction to the present book.
It seems you can find the original paper online without too much hassle, and this paper in particular seems to be the kind of reference asked about.
