4,480
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 131:
Line 131: − + + + + + + + Line 152:
Line 158: + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 276:
Line 295: + +
Types of Discourse (सम्भाषाप्रकाराः) (view source)
Revision as of 18:09, 21 June 2019
, 18:09, 21 June 2019Adding content with reference
There are 7 Sambhashas in Charaka Samhita.<ref name=":9" />
There are 7 Sambhashas in Charaka Samhita.<ref name=":9" />
Debates, in Akşapāda's view, can be of three types: (i) an honest debate (called ''vāda'') where both sides, proponent and opponent, are seeking the truth, that is, wanting to establish the right view; (ii) a tricky-debate (called ''jalpa)'' where the goal is to win by fair means or foul; and (iii) a destructive debate (called v''itandā'') where the goal is to defeat or demolish the opponent, no matter how.<ref name=":0" />
Debates, in Akşapāda's view, can be of three types: (i) an honest debate (called ''vāda'') where both sides, proponent and opponent, are seeking the truth, that is, wanting to establish the right view; (ii) a tricky-debate (called ''jalpa)'' where the goal is to win by fair means or foul; and (iii) a destructive debate (called v''itandā'') 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 second was, in fact, a winner-takes-all situation. The name of the game was wit or intelligence. Tricks, false moves, and unfair means were allowed according to the rules of the game. But if both the debaters were equally clever and competent, this could be kept within the bounds of logic and reasoning. Usually two teachers of different schools would be participants. This used to take place before a board or jury called the ''madhyastha'' (the mediators or adjudicators) and a chairman, usually a king or a man with power and money who would organize the debate. The winner would be declared at the end by the consensus of the adjudicators.
The notoriety of the third type was universal, although some philoso phers (for example, Nāgārjuna, Sriharsa) 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 Sānātani (quoted by Udayana; see Matilal, 1986: 87) divided the debates into four types: (i) the honest type ''(vāda),'' (ii) the tricky type ''(jalpa)'', (111) the type modeled after the tricky type but for which only refutation is needed, and (iv) the type modeled after the honest one 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" />
== वादविद्या ॥ Vada Vidya ==
== वादविद्या ॥ Vada Vidya ==
* the disciplined (anusasana) mode of presentation (vadopaya) and the exceptions (prthaka-prasthana)
* the disciplined (anusasana) mode of presentation (vadopaya) and the exceptions (prthaka-prasthana)
* the limits or the ‘dos and don’ts’ (vada-maryada) of three formats of such debates.<ref name=":3" />
* the limits or the ‘dos and don’ts’ (vada-maryada) of three formats of such debates.<ref name=":3" />
''The'' Nyāya ''Model'' Akşapāda defined a method of philosophical argumentation, called the ''nyāya'' method or the ''nyā''ya model. This was the standard for an ideally organized philosophical disputation. Seven categories are identified as constituting the "prior" stage of a ''nyāya.'' A ''nyā''ya starts with an initial doubt, as to whether ''p'' or not-''p'' is the case, and ends with a decision, that ''p'' (or not-''p,'' as the case may be). The seven categories, including Doubt, are: Purpose, Example, Basic Tenets, the "limbs" of the formulated reasoning, Supportive Argument ''(tarka''), and Decision. Purpose is self-explanatory. The example is needed to ensure that the arguments would not be just empty talk. Some of the basic tenets supply the ground rules for the argumentation.
The "limbs” were the most important formulation of the structure of a logical reasoning; these are a landmark in the history of Indian logic. According to the Ny''āyasūtras,'' there are five "limbs" or "steps" in a structured reasoning. They should all be articulated linguistically. The first step is the statement of the thesis, the second the statement of reason or evidence, the third citation of an example (a particular case, well-recognized and acceptable to both sides) that illustrates the underlying (general) principle and thereby supports the reason or evidence. The fourth is the showing of the present thesis as a case that belongs to the general case, for reason or evidence is essentially similar to the example cited. The fifth is the assertion of the thesis again as proven or established. Here is the time-honored illustration:
Step 1. There is fire on the hill. Step 2. For there is smoke. Step 3. (Wherever there is smoke, there is fire), as in the kitchen. Step 4. This is such a case (smoke on the hill). Step 5. Therefore it is so, i.e., there is fire on the hill.
the Nyāya school asserted all along that this nyāya method is used by the arguer to convince others, and to satisfy completely the expectation" (ākāmksa) of another, you need all the five "limbs" or steps. This is in fact a full-fledged articulation of an inference schema.
Returning to the nyāya method itself, the supportive argument (tarka) is needed when doubts are raised about the implication of the middle part of the above inference schema. Is the example right? Does it support the evi dence? Is the general principle right? Is it adequate? The "supportive argu ments” would examine the alternative possibilities, and try to resolve all these questions. After the supportive argument comes the decision, one way or another.
Another seven categories were identified as constituting the posterior stage" of the nyāya method. They consist of three types of debate (already mentioned), the group of tricks, false rejoinders, and clinchers or defeat situ ations, and another important logical category, that of pseudo-reason or pseudo evidence.
Since there can be fire without smoke (as in a red-hot iron ring), if somebody wants to infer presence of smoke in the kitchen on the basis of the presence of fire there, his evidence would be pseudo-evidence called the "deviating." Where the evidence (say a pool of water) is usually the sign for the absence of fire, rather than its presence, it is called the contradictory. An evidence-reason must itself be established or proven to exist, if it has to establish something else. Hence, an "unestablished" evidence-reason is a pseudo-evidence or a pseudo-sign. A purported evidence-reason may be coun tered by a purported counter-evidence showing the opposite possibility. This will be a case of the "counter-balanced." An "untimely" is one where the thesis itself precludes the possibility of adducing some sign as being the evidence-reason by virtue of its incompatibility with the thesis in question. The "untimely" is so-called because as soon as the thesis is stated, the evi dence will no longer be an evidence.<ref name=":0" />
== वादप्रकाराः ॥ Types of debates ==
== वादप्रकाराः ॥ Types of debates ==
It is also said that Jalpa-tactics might come in handy to a novice or an inexperienced debater. If such a person, without adequate skills, enters into a debate, he might not be able to come up with proper rejoinder at the right time to safeguard his thesis. In such a crisis, he may get away with such tricky debate. In any case, if the opponent is not quick witted, the (novice) debater may gain some time to think of the proper reason. Thus, he may even win the debate and the sprout of his knowledge would be protected. However, this justification was not altogether acceptable.<ref name=":3" />
It is also said that Jalpa-tactics might come in handy to a novice or an inexperienced debater. If such a person, without adequate skills, enters into a debate, he might not be able to come up with proper rejoinder at the right time to safeguard his thesis. In such a crisis, he may get away with such tricky debate. In any case, if the opponent is not quick witted, the (novice) debater may gain some time to think of the proper reason. Thus, he may even win the debate and the sprout of his knowledge would be protected. However, this justification was not altogether acceptable.<ref name=":3" />
Apart from developing a theory of evidence ''(pramāna)'' and argument ''(tarka'') needed for the first type of debate, the manuals go on to list a number of cases, or situation-types, where the debate will be concluded and one side will be declared as "defeated" (o''r nigraha-sthāna,'' the defeat situation or the clinchers). The ''Nyāyasūtra'' lists 22 of them. For example, (a) if the opponent cannot understand the proponent's argument, or (b) if he is confused, or (c) if he cannot reply within a reasonable time limit-all these will be cases of defeat. Besides, these manuals identify several standard "false" rejoinders or ''jāti (''24 of them are listed in the N''yāyasūtra),'' as well as some underhand tricks ''(chala)'' like equivocation and confusion of a metaphor for the literal.<ref name=":0" />
=== वितण्डा ॥ Vitanda ===
=== वितण्डा ॥ Vitanda ===