Changes

===== निग्रहस्थानम् ॥ Nigrahasthana =====

===== निग्रहस्थानम् ॥ Nigrahasthana =====

Nigrahasthana refers to Censures or the point at which the Jalpa could be force-closed. It could be enforced by pointing out that   

Nigrahasthana variegatedly referred to as Clinchers, Censures, the defeat situation, etc. is the point at which Jalpa could be force-closed. The Nyaya sutras enlist 22 such cases or situation-types where the debate will be concluded and one side will be declared as "defeated". Some cases  where Nigrahasthana could be enforced is by pointing out that   

* the opponent is arguing against his own thesis  

* the opponent is arguing against his own thesis.

* the opponent is willfully abstracting the debate

* the opponent is willfully abstracting the debate.

* the opponent is using inappropriate ways.

* the opponent is using inappropriate ways.

Thus, if the opponent is using any type of Nigrahasthana in his discussion and loses his proposition without explaining the relevant reasoning and evidence in its favour, he will be considered as defeated in debate.<ref name=":9" />

All these above mentioned situations will be considered cases of defeat. Thus, if the opponent is using any type of Nigrahasthana in his discussion and loses his proposition without explaining the relevant reasoning and evidence in its favour, he will be considered as defeated in debate.<ref name=":9" /><ref name=":0" />

==== जल्पसाधनप्रयोजनानि ॥ Need for means of disputation ====

==== जल्पसाधनप्रयोजनानि ॥ Need for means of disputation ====

Explaining the need for a debater to resort to tactics such as Chala and Jati, and the need to invest time and effort in learning these tactics, Bimal Krishna Matilal in his 'The Character of Logic in India' says,<blockquote>''"Udyotakara, in the beginning of his commentary on chapter five of the Nyaya Sutra explains that it is always useful to learn about these bad tricks, for at least one should try to avoid them in one’s own debate and identify them in the opponent’s presentation in order to defeat him. Besides, when faced with sure defeat, one may use a trick, and if the opponent by chance is confused by the trick, the debater will at least have the satisfaction of creating a doubt instead of courting sure defeat."''<ref name=":3" /></blockquote><blockquote>यदा वादी परस्य साधनं साध्विति मन्यते लाभपूजाख्यातिकामश्च भवति तदा जातिं प्रयुङ्क्ते कदाचिदयं जात्युत्तरेणाकुलीकृतो नोत्तरं प्रतिपद्यते उत्तराप्रतिपत्त्या च निगृह्यते । अनभिधाने च जातिरेकान्तजयः परस्येत्यैकान्तिकात्पराजयाद्वरमस्तु संदेह इति युक्तो जातेः प्रयोगः ॥ न्या.वा. ॥<ref name=":5" /></blockquote><blockquote>''yadā vādī parasya sādhanaṁ sādhviti manyate lābhapūjākhyātikāmaśca bhavati tadā jātiṁ prayuṅkte kadācidayaṁ jātyuttareṇākulīkr̥to nottaraṁ pratipadyate uttarāpratipattyā ca nigr̥hyate । anabhidhāne ca jātirekāntajayaḥ parasyetyaikāntikātparājayādvaramastu saṁdeha iti yukto jāteḥ prayogaḥ ॥ nyā.vā. ॥''</blockquote>There are also some statements that defend the Jalpa-way of arguments.

Explaining the need for a debater to resort to tactics such as Chala and Jati, and the need to invest time and effort in learning these tactics, Bimal Krishna Matilal in his 'The Character of Logic in India' says,<blockquote>''"Udyotakara, in the beginning of his commentary on chapter five of the Nyaya Sutra explains that it is always useful to learn about these bad tricks, for at least one should try to avoid them in one’s own debate and identify them in the opponent’s presentation in order to defeat him. Besides, when faced with sure defeat, one may use a trick, and if the opponent by chance is confused by the trick, the debater will at least have the satisfaction of creating a doubt instead of courting sure defeat."''<ref name=":3" /></blockquote><blockquote>यदा वादी परस्य साधनं साध्विति मन्यते लाभपूजाख्यातिकामश्च भवति तदा जातिं प्रयुङ्क्ते कदाचिदयं जात्युत्तरेणाकुलीकृतो नोत्तरं प्रतिपद्यते उत्तराप्रतिपत्त्या च निगृह्यते । अनभिधाने च जातिरेकान्तजयः परस्येत्यैकान्तिकात्पराजयाद्वरमस्तु संदेह इति युक्तो जातेः प्रयोगः ॥ न्या.वा. ॥<ref name=":5" /></blockquote><blockquote>''yadā vādī parasya sādhanaṁ sādhviti manyate lābhapūjākhyātikāmaśca bhavati tadā jātiṁ prayuṅkte kadācidayaṁ jātyuttareṇākulīkr̥to nottaraṁ pratipadyate uttarāpratipattyā ca nigr̥hyate । anabhidhāne ca jātirekāntajayaḥ parasyetyaikāntikātparājayādvaramastu saṁdeha iti yukto jāteḥ prayogaḥ ॥ nyā.vā. ॥''</blockquote>It is said that Jalpa way of arguments is at times, useful as a defensive measure to safeguard the real debate (Vada). Just as, the thorns and branches are used for the protection of the (tender) sprout of the seed. If 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 a 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. In this way, Jalpa tactics may come in handy to a novice or an inexperienced debater. However, this justification was not altogether acceptable.

It is said that Jalpa way of arguments is at times useful as a defensive measure to safeguard the real debate (Vada), ‘just as the thorns and branches are used for the protection of the (tender) sprout of the seed’.

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" />

Some other reasons that defend the Jalpa way of arguments are as follows:

 

* The flexibility of the Sanskrit language is considered one of the reasons for the diverse interpretation of the terms in the debate. For, in Sanskrit language,

** Varieties of contextual meanings can be read into, with change in structure of phrases, sentences and context of topics.  

* The Sutra format of the ancient texts that make them terse, rigid and ambiguous is another reason. For, they can not only be read and interpreted in any number of ways but each interpretation can also be supported by one or the other authoritative text. Therefore, there is plenty of scope for legitimate disputation.<ref name=":3" />  

Besides, these manuals identify several standard "false" rejoinders or jati (24 of them are listed in the Nyayasutra), as well as some underhand tricks (chala) like equivocation and confusion of a metaphor for the literal.<ref name=":0" />

Besides, these manuals identify several standard "false" rejoinders or jati (24 of them are listed in the Nyayasutra), as well as some underhand tricks (chala) like equivocation and confusion of a metaphor for the literal.<ref name=":0" />