Charaka-Samhita — trans. Kaviraj Avinash Chandra Kaviratna

The person examining the superiority or inferiority (of his opponent), should regard the following qualities, displayed in controversy as indicative of merit and the following as indicative of demerit.

They are as follow : —

Knowledge acquired by listening (to preceptors), wisdom acquired by study, retention (in the memory) of what has been acquired (by diverse means), readiness in bringing out the stores conserved in memory, power of speech (or eloquence) — these qualities are regarded good.

The following are qualities that are regarded bad : —

Wrathfulness (or irritability), want of mastery over the subject, shyness, and heedlessness.

One should weigh these respective sets of qualities for ascer- ' taining their predominance or otherwise in one’s own self and one’s opponent in disputation.16

In this connection it may be said that disputants may be of three kinds : i. Superior, 2. inferior, and 3. equal, as regards the result of a weighing of the qualities indicated. This {viz., superiority, inferiority, and equality) is not concerned with the other qualities.*17

Without doubt, the assembly (before which the disputation is to take place) may be of two kinds : 1. An assembly of men endued with knowledge and wisdom, and 2. an assembly of men that are ignorant.

charaka-samihtA.

* What is said in the last sentence is this : the superiority, inferiority, and equality spoken of here, are concerned with only those qualities that are men¬ tioned in connection with disputation or controversy. They do not have reference to the other qualities which the disputants may possess. For example, one of the disputants may be superior to the other in birth, in personal beauty, in wealth, in respectability of dress, and a hundred other particulars. Yet such superiority would be of no avail in the controversy, and is not at all referred to by the Rishi in this aphorism. — T

56'

Though (principally) of two kinds, it may be of three kinds, according to difference of causes noted below : 1. an assembly that is friendly, 2. an assembly that is indifferent, and 3. an assembly that is already committed to one side.*15

Amongst these, disputation should never be entered into (with an opponent) in an assembly that is committed to one side, whether the assembly consists of members possessed of knowledge and wisdom and eloquence as regards statements and reply, or of members that are ignorant.

In an assembly of the ignorant, if the members happen to be friends or if they are indifferent, one may, even if not possessed of knowledge and wisdom and eloquence, enter into a disputation with a person who is of blazing fame but who happens to be an object of aversion with all respectable men.

While arguing with such a person, one may flourish wordy bolts consisting of crooked and long aphorisms.

Frequently indulging in ridicule, assuming the while great satisfaction of countenance, and turning towards the auditory and expressing the while by signs that it is the highest court of appeal, one should not give one’s opponent an opportunity of speaking even when the latter is very much desirous of speech.

If the opponent utters any word that is obsolete, he should be immediately told that such a word is never used (by the wisest

Or, one may tell one’s opponent that his proposition has not been at all established.

If the opponent summons one again, one should tell him, — Go, and study for a full year, sitting at the feet of your preceptor (and then come for disputing)!—

* In other words, friendly, impartial, and hostile. — T. t ‘ Kashta-gavdam,’ as explained by Chakrapani, means 'aprasiddhartha.' viz., a word whose meaning is not well-known, or whose sense has been forgotten. . Of course, words that have become obsolete come under ‘ kashtaSnvda.’ — T.

p. 562

CHAR A KA-SAMHITA.

Or, he may be thns addressed, — This much (that thou hast done today) is enough ! —

If a disputant be once defeated, and has been shouted at as ‘‘Vanquished, vanquished,” one should not again engage in a disputation with him.

Some say that while engaged in a hostile disputation with even a superior person, one may indulge in such language and manner.

They, however, that are possessed of wisdom, do not applaud hostile disputation with one that is superior.19

If the assembly be friendly, one may engage in hostile disputa¬ tions with an opponent that is inferior or that is regarded as equal.