Changes

{{ToBeEdited}}

{{ToBeEdited}}

Three methods to obtain knowledge are adhyayana (study), adhyapana (teaching) and Sambhasha (participating in debates), from which the last method 'Tadvidya Sambhasha' (debate between experts of same field) is discussed here.<ref name=":9" /> <blockquote>अध्ययनमध्यापनं तद्विद्यसम्भाषा चेत्युपायाः ॥४॥<ref>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/n399 Pg.no.326]</ref> ''adhyayanamadhyāpanaṁ tadvidyasambhāṣetyupāyāḥ ॥4॥''</blockquote>Meaning: To this end, we shall indicate the means viz. study, teaching and discussion with those versed in the same subject.<ref>Edited and Published by Ayurvedic Society (Jamnagar, 1949), Charaka Samhita (Volume 5), [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.326551/page/n375 Pg.no.324]</ref>

Three methods to obtain knowledge are adhyayana (study), adhyapana (teaching) and Sambhasha (participating in debates), from which the last method 'Tadvidya Sambhasha' (debate between experts of same field) is discussed here.<ref name=":9">Rajpreet Singh, Veenu Malhotra, Rimpaljeet Kaur and Shashikant Bharadwaj (2016) , [http://www.ijrap.net/admin/php/uploads/1534_pdf.pdf Comparative study of Sambhasha in Charaka Samhita with Sympoisums held in Modern Era], International Journal of Research in Ayurveda and Pharmacy. </ref> <blockquote>अध्ययनमध्यापनं तद्विद्यसम्भाषा चेत्युपायाः ॥४॥<ref>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/n399 Pg.no.326]</ref> ''adhyayanamadhyāpanaṁ tadvidyasambhāṣetyupāyāḥ ॥4॥''</blockquote>Meaning: To this end, we shall indicate the means viz. study, teaching and discussion with those versed in the same subject.<ref>Edited and Published by Ayurvedic Society (Jamnagar, 1949), Charaka Samhita (Volume 5), [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.326551/page/n375 Pg.no.324]</ref>

 

 

 

 

There was, for a considerable period of time, a very lively and extensively practiced tradition of formal debates in ancient India. These debates were conducted, sometimes with royal patronage, to examine various religious, philosophical, moral and doctrinal issues. For example, [[Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्)|Brhadaranyaka Upanishad]], has references to Raja Janaka as not only organizing and patronizing debates between the sages and priests but also as participating in such debates. Women also participated in these debates. [[Gargi (गार्गी)|Gargi]] was a woman scholar who used to participate in the debates in Raja Janaka's court.<ref name=":0">Bimal Krishna Matilal; Jonardon Ganeri; Heeraman Tiwari (1998). ''The Character of Logic in India''. SUNY Press. p. 31. <nowiki>ISBN 9780791437407</nowiki>.</ref>

== परिचयः ॥ Introduction ==

== परिचयः ॥ Introduction ==

There was a long and a time-honored tradition in ancient India where philosophers and thinkers met to discuss metaphysical issues over which there were multiple views. There are detailed narrations of such discussions, debates and dialogues recorded in Chandogya Upanishad, Brhadaranyaka Upanishad and Prashna Upanishad. The other early texts such as Aitareya Brahmana, Kathopanishad and others use terms like : tarka (reasoning), Vada (debate), Yukti (sustained arguments), Prameya (object of knowledge), Pramana (proof), Nirnaya (ascertainment) etc. which later became the principal terminologies of the Nyaya School. It is also said that the idioms of inquiry (Anveshiki) dealing with the theory of reasons (Hetu-vidya or Hetu-shastra) were mentioned in Manu-samhita and Panini’s Ashtadhyayi.<ref name=":3" />

There was a long and a time-honored tradition in ancient India where philosophers and thinkers met to discuss metaphysical issues over which there were multiple views. There are detailed narrations of such discussions, debates and dialogues recorded in Chandogya Upanishad, Brhadaranyaka Upanishad and Prashna Upanishad. The other early texts such as Aitareya Brahmana, Kathopanishad and others use terms like : tarka (reasoning), Vada (debate), Yukti (sustained arguments), Prameya (object of knowledge), Pramana (proof), Nirnaya (ascertainment) etc. which later became the principal terminologies of the Nyaya School. It is also said that the idioms of inquiry (Anveshiki) dealing with the theory of reasons (Hetu-vidya or Hetu-shastra) were mentioned in Manu-samhita and Panini’s Ashtadhyayi.<ref name=":3" />

As Bimal Krishna Matilal observes in The Character of Logic in India:<blockquote>''.. The intellectual climate in India was bristling with questions such as: “Is there an atma different from sharira ?”; “Is the world (loka) eternal?”; ”What is the meaning, goal, or purpose of life?”; and, “Is renunciation preferable to enjoyment?” etc. which were of major concern.'' </blockquote>As teachers and thinkers argued about such matters, there arose a gradual awareness of the characteristics or patterns of correct, acceptable and sound reasoning. There were also concerns to evolve the norms to distinguish sound reasoning from pseudo-reasoning (hetvabhasa) which is unacceptable.<ref name=":0" />  

As Bimal Krishna Matilal observes in The Character of Logic in India:<blockquote>''.. The intellectual climate in India was bristling with questions such as: “Is there an atma different from sharira ?”; “Is the world (loka) eternal?”; ”What is the meaning, goal, or purpose of life?”; and, “Is renunciation preferable to enjoyment?” etc. which were of major concern.'' </blockquote>As teachers and thinkers argued about such matters, there arose a gradual awareness of the characteristics or patterns of correct, acceptable and sound reasoning. There were also concerns to evolve the norms to distinguish sound reasoning from pseudo-reasoning (hetvabhasa) which is unacceptable.<ref name=":0">Bimal Krishna Matilal; Jonardon Ganeri; Heeraman Tiwari (1998). ''The Character of Logic in India''. SUNY Press. p. 31. <nowiki>ISBN 9780791437407</nowiki>.</ref>  

Gradually, the notions of ‘good’ and acceptable debates took shape as distinct from wrong and ugly arguments. That gave rise to the development of a branch of study dealing with theories of reasoning and logic (Hetu-vidya or Hetu shastra). Subsequently, manuals came to be written for conduct of proper and successful debates (Tarka vidya or Vada vidya). These manuals included instructions and learning methods for the guidance of aspiring debaters. The earliest known text of that genre was Tantra-yukti (structured argument) compiled to systemize debates conducted in learned councils (Parishad).

Gradually, the notions of ‘good’ and acceptable debates took shape as distinct from wrong and ugly arguments. That gave rise to the development of a branch of study dealing with theories of reasoning and logic (Hetu-vidya or Hetu shastra). Subsequently, manuals came to be written for conduct of proper and successful debates (Tarka vidya or Vada vidya). These manuals included instructions and learning methods for the guidance of aspiring debaters. The earliest known text of that genre was Tantra-yukti (structured argument) compiled to systemize debates conducted in learned councils (Parishad).

Logic as the study of the form of correct arguments and inference patterns, developed in India from the methodology of philosophical debate. It developed in ancient India from the tradition of vadavidya, a discipline dealing with the categories of debate over various religious, philosophical, moral and doctrinal issues.<ref name=":0" />

Logic as the study of the form of correct arguments and inference patterns, developed in India from the methodology of philosophical debate. It developed in ancient India from the tradition of vadavidya, a discipline dealing with the categories of debate over various religious, philosophical, moral and doctrinal issues.<ref name=":0" />

== संभाषाप्रकाराः ॥ Types of Sambhasha ==

== संभाषाप्रकाराः ॥ Types of Sambhasha ==

There are 2 types of Sambhasha mentioned in the Charaka Samhita - Sandhaaya Sambhasha and Vigrhya Sambhasha<ref name=":9" /><blockquote>द्विविधा तु खलु तद्विद्यसंभाषा भवति सन्धायसंभाषा विगृह्यसंभाषा च ।<ref name=":11" /></blockquote>''dvividhā tu khalu tadvidyasaṁbhāṣā bhavati sandhāyasaṁbhāṣā vigr̥hyasaṁbhāṣā ca ।''

There are 2 types of Sambhasha mentioned in the Charaka Samhita - Sandhaaya 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>''dvividhā tu khalu tadvidyasaṁbhāṣā bhavati sandhāyasaṁbhāṣā vigr̥hyasaṁbhāṣā ca ।''

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" />

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>

Sandhaaya Sambhasha (friendly discussion) is characterised by

Sandhaaya Sambhasha (friendly discussion) is characterised by

In a Vitanda, where both the parties employ similar tactics, the debate would invariably get noisy and ugly. The Madhyastha or the Judge plays a crucial role in regulating a Vitanda. He has the hard and unenviable task of not merely controlling the two warring debaters and their noisy supporters, but also to rule on what is ‘Sadhu’ (permissible) or ‘A-sadhu’ (not permissible) and what is true (Sat) what is just a bluff (A-sat). And, when one debater repeatedly oversteps and breaches the accepted code of conduct, the Madhyastha might have to disqualify him and award the debate to the other; or, he may even disqualify both the parties and scrap the event declaring it null and void.<ref name=":3" />

In a Vitanda, where both the parties employ similar tactics, the debate would invariably get noisy and ugly. The Madhyastha or the Judge plays a crucial role in regulating a Vitanda. He has the hard and unenviable task of not merely controlling the two warring debaters and their noisy supporters, but also to rule on what is ‘Sadhu’ (permissible) or ‘A-sadhu’ (not permissible) and what is true (Sat) what is just a bluff (A-sat). And, when one debater repeatedly oversteps and breaches the accepted code of conduct, the Madhyastha might have to disqualify him and award the debate to the other; or, he may even disqualify both the parties and scrap the event declaring it null and void.<ref name=":3" />

== जल्पवितण्डयोः प्रयोजनम् अधिकारी च ॥ Prayojana and Adhikari of Jalpa and Vitanda ==

== जल्पवितण्डयोः प्रयोजनम् अधिकारी च ॥ Prayojana and Adhikari of Jalpa and Vitanda ==