Philosophy of Charaka-samhita

by Asokan. G | 2008 | 88,742 words

Ayurveda, represented by Charaka and Sushruta, stands first among the sciences of Indian intellectual tradition. The Charaka-samhita, ascribed to the great celebrity Charaka, has got three strata. (1) The first stratum is the original work composed by Agnivesha, the foremost of the six disciples of Punarvasu Atreya. He accomplished the work by coll...

Dialectical terms (6): Example: (dṛṣṭānta)

An example is the third statement setting forth an illustration. It is being defined as an explanation of a universal truth comprehensible by both the lay man and the learned. It demonstrates the thing under investigation.[1] This definition actually does not make apparent its function in syllogism, but only reveals the characteristics desired for an example.

In syllogism, an example has to serve the purpose of demonstrating the presence of invariable concomitance (vyāpti) of what is to be proved -the major term (sādhya) and what proves it—the middle term (hetu). Taking into account of this fact, a two fold definition is given in the Nyāya-sūtra. The first one, in coherence with Caraka, gives the general characteristics most wanted of an example to be cited as an illustration,[2] while the second one depicts its role as a member of syllogism. In a syllogism, an example serves the means of the demonstration of the attribute in question through the generic nature of the attribute as shown by the example, or through the dissimilarity to what is to be established.[3] Vātsyāyana further clarifies that an example illustrates the relation of invariable concomitance of the thing that is to be proved or the major term (sādhya) and the sign or the middle term (hetu).[4] To be precise, the basic difference between the Carakasaṃhitā and Nyāya-sūtra is that demonstration of invariable concomitance (vyāpti) is not clearly expressed in the syllogism of the former while it is performed by the example in the latter.[5]

Praśastapāda, who presupposes the ascertainment of the invariable concomitance of the major term (sādhya) and the middle term (sādhana) in the example, divides example into two: positive example (sādharmya nidarśana) and negative example (vaidharmya nidarśana) on the basis of the similarity and dissimilarity.[6] He also explains fake examples (nidarśanābhāsa), where the example adduced is inadequate to substantiate the concomitance of the minor term and the major term.[7]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

dṛṣṭānto nāma yatra mūrkhaviduṣāṃ buddhisāmyaṃ, yo varṇyaṃ varṇayati. CS, Vimāna - sthāna, VIII. 34.

[2]:

laukikaparīkṣakāṇāṃ yasminnarthe buddhisāmyaṃ sodāharaṇaṃ. Nyāyasūtra., 1. i. 25; See also Vātsyāyana on ibid., Nyāya-Bhāṣya of Vātsyāyana., p. 49.

[3]:

sādhyasādharmyāt tadharmabhavī dṛṣṭānta udāharaṇaṃ, Nyāyasūtra., I. i. 36; tadviparyayādvā viparītaṃ, Ibid., 37.

[4]:

udāhriyate'nena dharmayoḥ sādhyasādhnabhāva ityudāharaṇaṃ, Vatsyāyna on Nyāyasūtra., I. i. 36;Nyāya-Bhāṣya of Vātsyāyana., p.57.

[5]:

See IFD, p. 5.

[6]:

Praśastapādabhāṣya., p. 599.

[7]:

Praśastapādabhāṣya., pp.600-603.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: