Changes

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 his work '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>  

As Bimal Krishna Matilal observes in his work '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. </ref>  

Gradually, the notions of ‘good’ and acceptable debate 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 Tantrayukti (structured argument) compiled to systemize debates conducted in learned councils (Parishad).

Gradually, the notions of ‘good’ and acceptable debate 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 Tantrayukti (structured argument) compiled to systemize debates conducted in learned councils (Parishad).

# परस्परकथने च (''parasparakathane'' | conversing with each other)<ref>[https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D/%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF Vachaspatya]</ref>

# परस्परकथने च (''parasparakathane'' | conversing with each other)<ref>[https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D/%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF Vachaspatya]</ref>

== संभाषायाः इतिहासः ॥ History of Sambhasha ==

== सम्भाषायाः इतिहासः ॥ History of Sambhasha ==

Sambhasha is also called as Vada (discussion) in many texts. The concept of Vada is derived from the Nyaya darshana. It is said that,<blockquote>प्रमाणतर्कसाधनोपालम्भः सिद्धान्ताविरुद्धः पञ्चावयवोपपन्नः पक्षप्रतिपक्षपरिग्रहः वादः ।।१।।<ref>Nyaya Sutras, Adhyaya 1, [https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%BF/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83_%E0%A5%A7/%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%83 Part 2].</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''pramāṇatarkasādhanōpālambhaḥ siddhāntāviruddhaḥ pañcāvayavōpapannaḥ pakṣapratipakṣaparigrahaḥ vādaḥ ।।1।।''</blockquote>Amongst the 44 Vada marga padas (logical terms used in debate), the first one is Vada. It refers to a debate following the laws of shastra (text) ie. it should have 5 avayavas, paksha (in favour) and Pratipaksha (in opposing side) both laid down on the basis of Pramana (parametres of evidence) and tarka (logical reasoning).<ref name=":9" />

Sambhasha is also called as Vada (discussion) in many texts. The concept of Vada is derived from the Nyaya darshana. It is said that,<blockquote>प्रमाणतर्कसाधनोपालम्भः सिद्धान्ताविरुद्धः पञ्चावयवोपपन्नः पक्षप्रतिपक्षपरिग्रहः वादः ।।१।।<ref>Nyaya Sutras, Adhyaya 1, [https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%BF/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83_%E0%A5%A7/%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%83 Part 2].</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''pramāṇatarkasādhanōpālambhaḥ siddhāntāviruddhaḥ pañcāvayavōpapannaḥ pakṣapratipakṣaparigrahaḥ vādaḥ ।।1।।''</blockquote>Amongst the 44 Vada marga padas (logical terms used in debate), the first one is Vada. It refers to a debate following the laws of shastra (text) ie. it should have 5 avayavas, paksha (in favour) and Pratipaksha (in opposing side) both laid down on the basis of Pramana (parametres of evidence) and tarka (logical reasoning).<ref name=":9" />

The science of inquiry, Atmavidya, was at a later stage called Anvikshiki. However, while comprising the entire function of Atmavidya, Anvikshiki, was in fact different from it. Kautilya recognized Anvikshiki as a distinct branch of study over and above the three, viz, Trayi (the Vedas), Vartta (Commerce) and Dandaniti (Polity).<ref name=":13">Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana (1921), [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.489008/page/n1 A History of Indian Logic], Calcutta University.</ref><blockquote>आन्वीक्षिकी त्रयी वार्त्ता दण्ड-नीतिश्चैति विद्याः ।। ०१.२.०१ ।।<ref>Kautilya, Arthashastra, Adhikarana 1, [https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D_%E0%A5%A7/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83_%E0%A5%A8 Adhyaya 2].</ref> ''ānvīkṣikī trayī vārttā daṇḍa-nītiścaiti vidyāḥ ।। 01.2.01 ।।''</blockquote>The distinction between Atmavidya and Anvikshiki lay in this, that while the former embodied assertions about the nature of atman, the latter contained reasons supporting those assertions. Therefore, Anvikshiki dealt in fact with two subjects, viz. atman and hetu (theory of reasons). Later on, Anvikshiki was recognized as a distinct branch of learning that bifurcated into two branches - philosophy and logic.<ref name=":13" />

The science of inquiry, Atmavidya, was at a later stage called Anvikshiki. However, while comprising the entire function of Atmavidya, Anvikshiki, was in fact different from it. Kautilya recognized Anvikshiki as a distinct branch of study over and above the three, viz, Trayi (the Vedas), Vartta (Commerce) and Dandaniti (Polity).<ref name=":13">Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana (1921), [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.489008/page/n1 A History of Indian Logic], Calcutta University.</ref><blockquote>आन्वीक्षिकी त्रयी वार्त्ता दण्ड-नीतिश्चैति विद्याः ।। ०१.२.०१ ।।<ref>Kautilya, Arthashastra, Adhikarana 1, [https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D_%E0%A5%A7/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83_%E0%A5%A8 Adhyaya 2].</ref> ''ānvīkṣikī trayī vārttā daṇḍa-nītiścaiti vidyāḥ ।। 01.2.01 ।।''</blockquote>The distinction between Atmavidya and Anvikshiki lay in this, that while the former embodied assertions about the nature of atman, the latter contained reasons supporting those assertions. Therefore, Anvikshiki dealt in fact with two subjects, viz. atman and hetu (theory of reasons). Later on, Anvikshiki was recognized as a distinct branch of learning that bifurcated into two branches - philosophy and logic.<ref name=":13" />

== संभाषाप्रकाराः ॥ 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>If the opponent is using the 12 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.

*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:  

 

# 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, 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 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 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 Raja 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" />

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 tricky type ''(jalpa)'',  

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

# 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 ==

* by pointing out that the opponent is arguing against his own thesis

* by pointing out that the opponent is arguing against his own thesis

* he is willfully abstracting the debate; or to his inappropriate ways.

* he is willfully abstracting the debate; or to his inappropriate ways.

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

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