Kathālakṣaṇam - Definition of discourse (कथालक्षणम्)
कथालक्षणम्
Definition of discourse
नरसिंहमखिलाज्ञानतिमिराशिशिरद्युतिम् । सम्प्रणम्य प्रवक्ष्यामि कथालक्षणमञ्जसा ॥१॥
Having reverentially bowed to Narasiṃha, whose radiance is not cool toward the darkness of all ignorance, I shall clearly set forth the defining characteristics of philosophical discussion. (1)
वादो जल्पो वितण्डेति त्रिविधा विदुषां कथा । तत्त्वनिर्णयमुद्दिश्य केवलं गुरुशिष्ययोः ॥२॥
Discussion among learned persons is threefold: debate, wrangling, and destructive criticism. A discussion exclusively between teacher and pupil, aimed at ascertaining the truth… (2)
कथाऽन्येषामपि सतां वादो वा समितेः शुभा । ख्यात्याद्यर्थं स्पर्धया वा सतां जल्प इतीर्यते ॥३॥
A discussion among other learned persons too is vāda, or a wholesome discussion of an assembly. A discussion among learned persons for the sake of fame and the like, or from rivalry, is called jalpa. (3)
वितण्डा तु सतामन्यैस्तत्त्वमेषु निगूहितम् । स्वयं वा प्राश्निकैर्वादे चिन्तयेत् तत्त्वनिर्णयम् ॥४॥
Vitaṇḍā, however, is discussion of virtuous persons with others. The truth is concealed in these. In debate, one should deliberate upon the ascertainment of truth, either by oneself or with adjudicators. (4)
रागद्वेषविहीनास्तु सर्वविद्याविशारदाः । प्राश्निका इति सम्प्रोक्ता विषमा एक एव वा ॥५॥
But the arbiters are declared to be free from attachment and aversion and proficient in all branches of learning; they are odd in number, or there is only one. (5)
अशेषसंशयच्छेत्ता निःसंशय उदारधीः । एकश्चेत् प्राश्निको ज्ञेयः सर्वदोषविवर्जितः ॥६॥
If there is a single adjudicator, he is to be recognized as one who removes every doubt, is himself free from doubt, noble-minded, and devoid of every fault. (6)
एको वा बहवो वा स्युर्विष्णुभक्तिपरास्सदा । विष्णुभक्तिर्हि सर्वेषां सद्गुणानां स्वलक्षणम् ॥७॥
There may be either one questioner or many, always intent on devotion to Viṣṇu; for devotion to Viṣṇu is indeed the intrinsic defining characteristic of all good qualities. (7)
पृष्टेनागम एवादौ वक्तव्यः साध्यसिद्धये । नैषा तर्केणापनेया मतिरित्याह हि श्रुतिः । अन्यार्थ एवागमस्य वक्तव्यः प्रतिवादिना ॥८॥
At the outset, the person questioned must state the Āgama alone in order to establish the proposition to be proved. For Śruti says, “This understanding is not to be attained through reasoning.” The opponent must state only a different interpretation of the Āgama. (8)
ऋग्यजुःसामाथर्वाश्च भारतं पञ्चरात्रकम् । मूलरामायणं चैव सम्प्रोच्यन्ते सदागमाः ॥९॥
The Ṛg, Yajus, Sāman, and Atharvan Vedas, the Bhārata, the Pañcarātra, and also the original Rāmāyaṇa are declared to be authoritative scriptures. (9)
अनुकूला य एतेषां ते च प्रोक्तास्सदागमाः । अन्ये दुरागमा नाम तैर्न साध्यं हि साध्यते ॥१०॥
Those that accord with these are also declared to be valid scriptures. The others are called invalid scriptures, for what is to be established is not established by them. (10)
स्वपक्ष आगमश्चैव वक्तव्यः प्रतिवादिना । तस्याप्यन्यार्थता साध्या वादिना स्वार्थसिद्धये ॥११॥
The respondent must also state the authoritative text supporting his own position. The proponent must establish that it too has a different purport, in order to establish his own purport. (11)
अन्यार्थता निराकार्या स्वागमस्य विनिश्चयम् । उपपत्त्यवकाशोऽत्र ह्यागमार्थविनिर्णये ॥१२॥
The alternative interpretation of one’s own āgama must be decisively refuted. For here, in determining the meaning of the āgama, there is indeed scope for rational argument. (12)
वाद्यागमार्थे निर्णीत आगमार्थः परस्य तु । निर्णेयः सहितैः पश्चात्ततो निश्शेषनिर्णयः ॥१३॥
Once the meaning of the disputant’s authoritative text has been ascertained, however, the meaning of the other party’s authoritative text is afterward to be ascertained by the parties jointly; from that comes complete determination. (13)
प्रत्यक्षसिद्धेष्वर्थेषु प्रश्ने मानमक्षजं वदेत्। ज्ञानं वा ज्ञानसिद्धेषु नानुमां प्रथमं वदेत् ॥१४॥
When questioned about objects established by perception, one should state the sense-born means of valid knowledge, or cognition in matters established by cognition; one should not state inference first. (14)
परतुष्टिकरं वाक्यं वदेतां यदि वादिनौ। स एवात्रागमो ज्ञेयः परतुष्टिर्हि तत्फलम् ॥१५॥
If the two disputants state a proposition that produces satisfaction in the opponent, that alone is to be understood here as authoritative verbal testimony, for the opponent’s satisfaction is its result. (15)
एवं निर्णयपर्यन्तं वादे सुबहवोऽपि हि । घटेयुश्चिरकालं च जल्पे यावत्परो जितः ॥१६॥
In this way, even very many may indeed engage in debate until a determination is reached; and also for a long time in wrangling, until the opponent is defeated. (16)
तत्त्वनिर्णयवैलोम्यं वादे साक्षात्पराजयः । संवादे श्लाघ्यतैव स्याद् गुरुत्वमितरस्य च ॥१७॥
In debate, reversal of the determination of truth is outright defeat; in dialogue, it would indeed be praiseworthy, and the other party would have the status of teacher. (17)
तत्त्वनिर्णयवैलोम्ये निन्द्यो दण्ड्योऽथवा भवेत् । विरोधासङ्गतिन्यूनतूष्णीम्भावादिकैर्जितः ॥१८॥
When there is opposition to the ascertainment of truth, one who has been defeated through contradiction, lack of coherence, incompleteness, silence, and the like may become censurable or punishable. (18)
भवेज्जल्पे वितण्डायां न्यायो जल्पवदीरितः । संवादे दण्ड्यतां न स्याद् वितण्डाजल्पयोरपि ॥१९॥
This would apply in jalpa; for vitaṇḍā, the rule is stated to be as in jalpa. In dialogue, there should be no liability to punishment; in vitaṇḍā and jalpa also… (19)
पराजितत्वमात्रं स्यान्निन्द्यो दण्ड्योऽपि वाऽन्यथा । अनुवादादिराहित्यं नैव जल्पेऽपि दूषणम् ॥२०॥
There should be merely the status of having been defeated; otherwise, one is censurable or even punishable. Even in disputation, the absence of restatement and the like is certainly not a fault. (20)
विद्याहीनत्वलिङ्गेऽपि वादिनोः स्यात् पराजयः । तदभावान्नैव षट्कादन्यो निग्रह इष्यते ॥२१॥
Even upon an indication of lack of learning, one of the two disputants would be defeated. Since no such indication is present, no ground of defeat other than the set of six is accepted. (21)
अन्तर्भावादिहान्येषां निग्रहाणामिति स्म ह । विद्यापरीक्षापूर्वैव वृत्तिर्जल्पवितण्डयोः ॥२२॥
Because the other grounds of defeat are included here—so indeed it is traditionally stated. The practice of jalpa and vitaṇḍā is necessarily preceded by an examination of learning. (22)
स्खलितत्वादिमात्रेण न तत्रापि पराजयः । वादजल्पवितण्डानामिति शुद्धं स्वलक्षणम् ॥२३॥
Even there, there is no defeat merely on account of a lapse and the like. Thus is the precise intrinsic definition of vāda, jalpa, and vitaṇḍā. (23)
आनन्दतीर्थमुनिना ब्रह्मतर्कानुसारतः । कथालक्षणमित्युक्तं प्रीत्यर्थं शार्ङ्गधन्वनः ॥२४॥
The definition of disputation was thus stated by the sage Ānandatīrtha, in accordance with the Brahmatarka, for the pleasure of the wielder of Śārṅga. (24)
सदोदितामितज्ञानपूरवारितहृत्तमाः । नरसिंहः प्रियतमः प्रीयतां पुरुषोत्तमः ॥२५॥
May Narasimha, the most beloved Supreme Person, whose ever-manifest, limitless flood of knowledge dispels the darkness of the heart, be pleased. (25)
इति श्रीमदानन्दतीर्थभगवत्पादाचार्यविरचितं कथालक्षणम् ॥
Thus ends Kathālakṣaṇa, composed by the illustrious Ānandatīrtha Bhagavatpādācārya.
