Changes

== सम्भाषाप्रकाराः ॥ Types of Sambhasha ==

== सम्भाषाप्रकाराः ॥ Types of Sambhasha ==

There are 2 types of Sambhasha mentioned in the Charaka Samhita - Sandhaya Sambhasha and Vigrhya Sambhasha<ref name=":9" /><blockquote>द्विविधा तु खलु तद्विद्यसंभाषा भवति सन्धायसंभाषा विगृह्यसंभाषा च ।<ref name=":11">Edited by Debendra Nath Sen and Upendra Nath Sen, Charaka Samhita, Vimana Sthana, Chapter 8, [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.322332/page/n403 Pg.no.329-30]</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''dvividhā tu khalu tadvidyasaṁbhāṣā bhavati sandhāyasaṁbhāṣā vigr̥hyasaṁbhāṣā ca ।''</blockquote>Meaning: Such discussion with the men of the same branch of science is of two kinds - friendly discussion and the discussion of challenge or hostile discussion.<ref name=":12">Edited and Published by Ayurvedic Society (Jamnagar, 1949), Charaka Samhita (Volume 5), [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.326551/page/n379 Pg.no.328]</ref>

There are 2 types of Sambhasha mentioned in the Charaka Samhita - Sandhaya Sambhasha and Vigrhya Sambhasha<ref name=":9" /><blockquote>द्विविधा तु खलु तद्विद्यसंभाषा भवति सन्धायसंभाषा विगृह्यसंभाषा च ।<ref name=":11">Edited by Debendra Nath Sen and Upendra Nath Sen, Charaka Samhita, Vimana Sthana, Chapter 8, [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.322332/page/n403 Pg.no.329-30]</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''dvividhā tu khalu tadvidyasaṁbhāṣā bhavati sandhāyasaṁbhāṣā vigr̥hyasaṁbhāṣā ca ।''</blockquote>Meaning: Such discussion with the men of the same branch of science is of two kinds - friendly discussion and the discussion of challenge or hostile discussion.<ref name=":12">Edited and Published by Ayurvedic Society (Jamnagar, 1949), Charaka Samhita (Volume 5), [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.326551/page/n379 Pg.no.328]</ref>

* Sandhaya Sambhasha (friendly discussion) is characterised by

* Sandhaya Sambhasha (friendly discussion) is characterised by

*Arthantra

*Arthantra

*Nigrahasthana|Colwidth=15em|Style=width: 600px;}}<blockquote>इमानि तु खलु पदानि भिषग्वादमार्गज्ञानार्थमधिगम्यानि भवन्ति; तद्यथा-वाद:, द्रव्यं, गुणाः, कर्म, सामान्यं, विशेषः, समवायः, प्रतिज्ञा, स्थापना, प्रतिष्ठापना, हेतुः, दृष्टान्तः, उपनयः, निगमनम्, उत्तरं, सिद्धान्तः, शब्दः, प्रत्यक्षम्, अनुमानम्, एतिह्यम्, औपम्यम्, संशयः, प्रयोजनं, सव्यभिचारं,  जिज्ञासा, व्यवसायः,अर्थप्राप्तिः,संभवः, अनुयोज्यम्, अनुयोगः, प्रत्यनुयोगः, वाक्यदोषः, वाक्यप्रशंसा, छलम्, अहेतुः, अतीतकालम्, उपालम्भः, परिहारः, प्रतिज्ञाहानिः, अभ्यनुज्ञा, हेत्वन्तरम्, अर्थान्तरं, निग्रहस्थानमिति ||27|| (Charaka Samhita, Vimana Sthana, Adhyaya 8)<ref name=":15" /></blockquote><blockquote>''imāni tu khalu padāni bhiṣagvādamārgajñānārthamadhigamyāni bhavanti; tadyathā-vāda:, dravyaṁ, guṇāḥ, karma, sāmānyaṁ, viśēṣaḥ, samavāyaḥ, pratijñā, sthāpanā, pratiṣṭhāpanā, hētuḥ, dr̥ṣṭāntaḥ, upanayaḥ, nigamanam, uttaraṁ, siddhāntaḥ, śabdaḥ, pratyakṣam, anumānam, ētihyam, aupamyam, saṁśayaḥ, prayōjanaṁ, savyabhicāraṁ, jijñāsā, vyavasāyaḥ,arthaprāptiḥ,saṁbhavaḥ, anuyōjyam, anuyōgaḥ, pratyanuyōgaḥ, vākyadōṣaḥ, vākyapraśaṁsā, chalam, ahētuḥ, atītakālam, upālambhaḥ, parihāraḥ, pratijñāhāniḥ, abhyanujñā, hētvantaram, arthāntaraṁ, nigrahasthānamiti ||27||''</blockquote>Debates, in Akshapada's view, can be of three types:  

*Nigrahasthana|Colwidth=15em|Style=width: 600px;}}<blockquote>इमानि तु खलु पदानि भिषग्वादमार्गज्ञानार्थमधिगम्यानि भवन्ति; तद्यथा-वाद:, द्रव्यं, गुणाः, कर्म, सामान्यं, विशेषः, समवायः, प्रतिज्ञा, स्थापना, प्रतिष्ठापना, हेतुः, दृष्टान्तः, उपनयः, निगमनम्, उत्तरं, सिद्धान्तः, शब्दः, प्रत्यक्षम्, अनुमानम्, एतिह्यम्, औपम्यम्, संशयः, प्रयोजनं, सव्यभिचारं,  जिज्ञासा, व्यवसायः,अर्थप्राप्तिः,संभवः, अनुयोज्यम्, अनुयोगः, प्रत्यनुयोगः, वाक्यदोषः, वाक्यप्रशंसा, छलम्, अहेतुः, अतीतकालम्, उपालम्भः, परिहारः, प्रतिज्ञाहानिः, अभ्यनुज्ञा, हेत्वन्तरम्, अर्थान्तरं, निग्रहस्थानमिति ||27|| (Charaka Samhita, Vimana Sthana, Adhyaya 8)<ref name=":15" /></blockquote><blockquote>''imāni tu khalu padāni bhiṣagvādamārgajñānārthamadhigamyāni bhavanti; tadyathā-vāda:, dravyaṁ, guṇāḥ, karma, sāmānyaṁ, viśēṣaḥ, samavāyaḥ, pratijñā, sthāpanā, pratiṣṭhāpanā, hētuḥ, dr̥ṣṭāntaḥ, upanayaḥ, nigamanam, uttaraṁ, siddhāntaḥ, śabdaḥ, pratyakṣam, anumānam, ētihyam, aupamyam, saṁśayaḥ, prayōjanaṁ, savyabhicāraṁ, jijñāsā, vyavasāyaḥ,arthaprāptiḥ,saṁbhavaḥ, anuyōjyam, anuyōgaḥ, pratyanuyōgaḥ, vākyadōṣaḥ, vākyapraśaṁsā, chalam, ahētuḥ, atītakālam, upālambhaḥ, parihāraḥ, pratijñāhāniḥ, abhyanujñā, hētvantaram, arthāntaraṁ, nigrahasthānamiti ||27||''</blockquote>

# an honest debate (called Vada) where both sides, proponent and opponent, are seeking the truth, that is, wanting to establish the right view.

 

# a tricky-debate (called Jalpa) where the goal is to win by fair means or foul

# a destructive debate (called Vitanda) where the goal is to defeat or demolish the opponent, no matter how.

Debates, according to Akshapada's Nyayasutras, can be of three types:  

# An honest debate (called Vada) where both sides, proponent and opponent, are seeking the truth, that is, wanting to establish the right view.

# A tricky-debate (called Jalpa) where the goal is to win by fair means or foul.

# A destructive debate (called Vitanda) where the goal is to defeat or demolish the opponent, no matter how.

The first kind signals the employment of logical arguments, and use of rational means and proper evidence to establish a thesis. It is said that the participants in this kind of debate were the teacher and the student, or the students themselves, belonging to the same school.

The first kind signals the employment of logical arguments, and use of rational means and proper evidence to establish a thesis. It is said that the participants in this kind of debate were the teacher and the student, or the students themselves, belonging to the same school.

The notoriety of the third type was universal, although some philosophers (for example, Nagarjuna, Sri Harsha) maintained that if the refutations of the opponent were done on the basis of good reason and evidence (in other words, if it followed the model of the first type, rather than the second type) then lack of a counter-thesis, or non-establishment of a counter-thesis, would not be a great drawback. In fact, it could be made acceptable and even philosophically respectable. That is why Gauda Sanatani divided the debates into four types:  

The notoriety of the third type was universal, although some philosophers (for example, Nagarjuna, Sri Harsha) maintained that if the refutations of the opponent were done on the basis of good reason and evidence (in other words, if it followed the model of the first type, rather than the second type) then lack of a counter-thesis, or non-establishment of a counter-thesis, would not be a great drawback. In fact, it could be made acceptable and even philosophically respectable. That is why Gauda Sanatani divided the debates into four types:  

# the honest type ''(vāda),''  

# the honest type (Vada)'',''  

# the tricky type ''(jalpa)'',  

# the tricky type (Jalpa),  

# the type modeled after the tricky type but for which only refutation is needed, and

# the type modeled after the tricky type (Jalpa) but for which only refutation is needed  

# the type modeled after the honest one where only the refutation of a thesis is needed.

# the type modeled after the honest one (Vada) where only the refutation of a thesis is needed  

Even the mystics would prefer this last kind, which would end with a negative result.<ref name=":0" />

Even the mystics would prefer this last kind, which would end with a negative result.<ref name=":0" />