________________
Review
Tarka, Jati, Nigrahasthāna and even Šāstrārtha. Besides presenting the relevance of these concepts in their proper perspectives and milieu, she also successfully explores the most difficult field of chronological development of main schools of Indian philosophy.
Generally it is believed that the early Yāgñika-Mimāmsakas were th: original pioneers in the field of logic and dialectics. Dr. Solomon however refers to the view of Dr. S.N. Dasgupta that logic and dialectics emerged from the discussions of Ayurveda-physicians. Though in the beginning she quotes this view with some reservation (p. 12), she seems to justify it at the end of this book (p. 878-879). She writes-“This development of the logic and the dialectic of diagnosis presupposes a coming together of physicians. This might be occassionally at the sick bed of a rich patient but more probably in frequent conferences or assemblies of physicians. The fact that physicians in counsel earnestly disucssed together in order to arrive at conclusions regarding the theoretical causes of diseases, their cures and their actual discernment in individual cases is quite clear, as said above, from even a superficial study of the Caraka--Samhitā." But in chapter II she says that the list of thirtysix tantra yuktis in the dialectical section of Caraka--Samhita is the same as given in Kautilya's Arthaśāstra that deals with thirty two yuktis. Suśruta-Samhitā also repeats the same list. She here states that this section was a later addition to the original works, by Dradhabala (9th cen. A.D.) and Nāgārjuna (4th & 5th cent. A.D.) respectively, and it can quite reasonably be said that the list was not prepared either by the authors of the two works on Medicine, but by a person or persons who wanted to lay down the methods of treatment and even discourse on a scientific basis, and to apply them in the fields of economics, politics and human ailment." (p. 71) This shows that the art of debate was prevalent even before Caraka, and therefore the science of medicine cannot be recogniged as the originator of dialectical movement. Moreover, Dr., Solomon herself raises the question at the end of the second chapter “Here an interesting question arises as to how far this detailed description of the various aspects and devices of debate and discussion is necessary for a proper diagnosis of a disease ?” and answers "In an indirect way of course, but in practice many of these details would not be used,..... rather it seems odd that the diagnosis of a disease should be in a public assembly” (p. 87). After reading this, doesn't it seem curious when she concludes in the end that the vital need of physical well being "might have led to the growth of dialectics" (p.878). We can, however subscribe wholeheartedly to her view that the growth of dialectics has its roots in the meeting of various assemblies on different subjects (p. 87).
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
