Philosophy of Charaka-samhita
by Asokan. G | 2008 | 88,742 words
Ayurveda, represented by Charaka and Sushruta, stands first among the sciences of Indian intellectual tradition. The Charaka-samhita, ascribed to the great celebrity Charaka, has got three strata. (1) The first stratum is the original work composed by Agnivesha, the foremost of the six disciples of Punarvasu Atreya. He accomplished the work by coll...
Go directly to: Footnotes.
Dialectical terms (1): Debate (惫腻诲补)
A debate (惫腻诲补) is defined as an argumentative discussion with an opponent based on scriptures (艣腻蝉迟谤补蝉).[1] It presupposes two opposite sides called disputants and opponents.
Debate is of two types:
Wrangling is the advancement of arguments in support of establishing one's own views. For instance, if the disputant puts forth an argument in support of his proposition that there is rebirth (punarjanma), the opponent then advances argument in favour of his proposition that there is no rebirth, which is antagonistic to the first. The inner motive behind such counter argument is nothing but victory. A wrangler always aims at victory. A cavil is just the opposite of this. It is a destructive criticism. It is a perverse debate. The person engaged in a cavil is not bothered about his point of view. On the contrary, he confines himself to demurring against the opponent.[2]
础办峁辫腻诲补, in his 狈测腻测补-蝉奴迟谤补, does not consider wrangling and cavil as the two divisions of 惫腻诲补. On the other hand, he considers discussion (惫腻诲补), wrangle (jalpa), and a cavil (惫颈迟补峁囜笉补) as the three fold division of a debate. They are collectively known as katha.[3] 痴腻肠补蝉辫补迟颈尘颈艣谤补 defines katha as a chain of arguments and refutations by many disputants and opponents.[4] The 狈测腻测补-蝉奴迟谤补 defines discussion (惫腻诲补) as presenting of two opposing views, setting forth ones own view in five membered syllogism, providing it by appeal to instruments of knowledge and to hypothetical reasoning (tarka), when correct conclusions are not thereby contradicted.[5]
The main characteristic feature of discussion is that it maintains a friendly spirit on either side. The aim of discussion is neither victory nor fame. Its aims is to ascertain the truth; the real nature of objects.[6] It is through discussion that one clarifies his old convictions and arrives at new insights. A wrangle is also a kind of discussion. But the difference is that it employs quibbles (cchala), futile rejoinders (箩腻迟颈), and processes worthy of points of defeat (苍颈驳谤补丑补蝉迟丑腻苍补) which are not employed in discussion (惫腻诲补). They are employed because their main intention is victory.[7] Similarly, a cavil is a kind of wrangle in which an opponent attacks the disputant's thesis, but does not establish his tenet.[8] A caviller also makes use of quibbles, futile rejoinders, and points of defeat to refute the disputant. But he neither enunciates his thesis nor proves it by a reason. Even though wrangling and cavil are hostile in nature, they are justified on the ground that they may ward off attacks of skeptics, and protect the right doctrine like the thorny fence to guard the seed-beds.[9]
From the above details it can be conceded that the 惫腻诲补 described in the 狈测腻测补-蝉奴迟谤补 corresponds to the friendly discussion (蝉补苍诲丑腻测补 蝉补峁僢丑腻峁) of Caraka.[10] Similarly, jalpa and 惫颈迟补峁囜笉补 described in the 狈测腻测补-蝉奴迟谤补 are hostile in nature and hence they can be identified with the jalpa and 惫颈迟补峁囜笉补 of the 颁补谤补办补蝉补峁僪颈迟腻. But it should be noted that these two divisions subsumed under 惫腻诲补 are hostile discussions. So 惫腻诲补 and 蝉补峁僢丑腻峁 can be considered as alternative names used in the 颁补谤补办补蝉补峁僪颈迟腻. Thus, we can conclude that the ratiocinative procedure adopted in the 颁补谤补办补蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 and the 狈测腻测补-蝉奴迟谤补 are fundamentally the same.[11]
Concept of syllogistic reasoning:
颁补谤补办补蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 is the earliest book which gives a comprehensive knowledge of syllogistic reasoning with all five members systematically arranged. Syllogism consists of
- proposition (辫谤补迟颈箩帽腻),
- reason (hetu),
- example (诲峁涐梗峁乶迟补),
- application (upanaya),
- conclusion (nigamana).
The procedure of establishing a thesis in debate by the subsequent four members of the syllogism is called 蝉迟丑腻辫补苍补. Refutation and establishment of the antithesis by antagonistic members of syllogism is named 辫谤补迟颈峁ａ弓腻辫补苍补.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
tatra v膩do 苍腻尘补 sa yat pare峁嘺 saha 艣膩strap奴rvaka峁� vig峁沨ya kathayati. sa ca 诲惫颈惫颈诲丑补岣� 蝉峁単谤补丑别峁嘺鈥�箩补濒辫补岣� 惫颈迟补峁囜笉腻 ca. Ibid., 28.
[2]:
Ibid.
[3]:
[4]:
tath膩 ca n膩n膩pravakt峁沰a vic膩ravi峁yav膩kyasand峁沚dhi岣� katheti s膩m膩nyalalak峁峁嘺峁�., 狈测腻测补-V膩rttikat膩tparya峁玨膩 of V膩caspati Mi艣ra., p. 313.
[5]:
pram膩natarkas膩dhanop膩la峁僢ha岣� siddh膩nt膩viruddha岣� pa帽c膩vayavopapanna岣� pak峁pratipak峁prigraho 惫腻诲补岣�. 狈测腻测补蝉奴迟谤补., I. ii. 1.
[6]:
tattvanir峁噛abhala岣� 办补迟丑腻vi艣e峁 惫腻诲补岣�, Sarva-顿补谤艣补苍补-厂补峁僩谤补丑补 of 厂腻测补峁嘺-惭腻诲丑补惫补., p. 239.
[7]:
yathoktopapanna艣cchala箩腻迟颈苍颈驳谤补丑补蝉迟丑腻苍补s膩dhantop膩lambho 箩补濒辫补岣�. 狈测腻测补蝉奴迟谤补., I. ii. 2; ubhayas膩dhanavati vijig墨峁办补迟丑腻 箩补濒辫补岣�, Sarva-顿补谤艣补苍补-厂补峁僩谤补丑补 of 厂腻测补峁嘺-惭腻诲丑补惫补., p. 239.
[8]:
sa pratipak峁sth膩pan膩h墨no 惫颈迟补峁囜笉腻, 狈测腻测补蝉奴迟谤补., I. ii. 3; See also V膩tsy膩yana on ibid., 狈测腻测补-叠丑腻峁补 of V膩tsy膩yana., p. 72.
[9]:
tattvadhyavas膩y膩rtha峁� jalpavita峁嘾e b墨japraroha峁噑a峁價ak峁峁嚹乺tha峁� ka峁囜弓aka艣膩kh膩vara峁嘺vat. 狈测腻测补蝉奴迟谤补., IV. ii. 50.
[10]:
鈥淭he former (蝉补苍诲丑腻测补sa峁僢h膩峁Ｄ�) also called 补苍耻濒辞尘补蝉补峁僢丑腻峁Ｄ�, is known as 惫腻诲补办补迟丑腻鈥�. CHI, Vol. III. p. 563.
[11]:
Ibid.