Han Chuan Yin Ming Debate Research

Hetuvidya began its development since it was introduced to Ancient China from India.Due to the influence in China,Hetuvidya spread to Japan and Korea.The investigated object in Chinese Hetuvidya deals with the Chinese characters as a carrier in China,Japan and Korea.There are many controversial issues in Chinese Hetuvidya,such as the definition of sapaksa(??)and vipaksa(??),the issue of the doctrine of "exclusion of Dharmin(??)",the issue about Trairupya(???),the logical kind of Hetuvidya,etc..On the basis of review on the relation between Chinese Hetu vidya and logical relations,the relation between Chinese Hetu vidya and formal logic,and on the basis of criticism on research and interpretation about Chinese Hetu vidya from viewpoints of formal logic,this paper comprehensively analyzed the different definitions of sapaksa and vipaksa.This dissertation introduces Pramanavada(Pramana sastra,theory of knowledge,??)into the research of Chinese Hetuvidya.It argues that the theory of svalaksana(??)and samanyalaksana(??)is the basis of sapaksa and vipaksa.The misunderstanding on the issues of svalaksana and samanyalaksana leads to the controversial issues in Chinese Hetuvidya.Domestic scholars separate Hetuvidya from the theory of knowledge,whether it is comprehensive "exclusion of Dharmin",or partial"exclusion of Dharmin",it did not seem to have attention to different levels with different concept.They just on one level discuss different concepts.The primary cause leading to the debate is that scholars confused the different references between svalaksana and samanyalaksana.Dharmin and Udaharana(the example,??)in Tri-avayava(????)belong to the reference of svalaksana.The references about linga(??),lingin(??,???),sapaksa and vipaksa in Navapadahetavah(the Nine Reasons,???)and in Trairupya belong to samanyalaksana.The doctrine of"exclusion of Dharmin" so-called just applies to the reference of svalaksana,but not applies to the reference of samanyalaksana.Therefore,it is incorrect to generalize the doctrine of "exclusion of Dharmin" in Hetuvidya.On the basis of the different references of sapaksa and vipaksa on the svalaksana and samanyalaksana,it is argued that drstanta(??)is a universal proposition but not"exceptive proposition".And it is advocated that is a common knowledge of the cognitive community who participate in the Hetuvidya argumentation.The public knowledge is not an inductive proposition from the given examples.The relation between dharmin and udaharana is analogical but not inductive relationship.Udaharana are analogical elements but not inductive elements.As a result that there are theoretical defect in regard to the explanation on the traditional views of the logical kind of Tri-avayava.From the perspective of formal logic,some scholars argue that tri-avayava have the nature of deductive-analogy.But it is not the case about the concrete nature of Hetuvidya.It is argued in this dissertation that informal logic conforms to the nature of Hetuvidya.From the viewpoint of Toulmin's Mode of Argument,it is favorable to explain the rule of Tri-avayava.Its reasonableness of Tri-avayava is supported by the way of Trairupya and analogical principle from the perspective of informal logic.Most of paksadosa(??),hetudosa(??)and drstantadosa(??)can be classified into appropriate types according to Toulmin's informal fallacies.But some paksadosa cannot find their corresponding types in Toulmin's research,i.e.,there are short of fallacious kinds of Claim.It is reasonable to set up this fallacious type in the research of Hetuvidya by the way of Toulmin's fallacies.