संशयः — Reasons on Both Sides: Doubt as the Research Question

Saṃśaya, "doubt", is the tantrayukti by which a text sets a question before answering it. Kauṭilya defines it as "a matter with reasons on both sides", with a strategic dilemma: should the king march against an enemy whose subjects are impoverished and greedy, or one whose subjects have been wronged? Suśruta defines it as "seeing reasons on both sides", with a clinical puzzle: a blow to the vital point in the palm (talahṛdaya) kills, yet the cutting off of a whole hand or foot does not. Cakrapāṇi defines it as "knowledge of two undetermined alternatives, accompanied by the desire for a distinguishing feature", with Caraka's survey of conflicting opinions on the cause of birth. The three examples correspond to three sources of doubt that the Nyāyasūtra distinguishes — a choice between courses of action, conflicting evidence, and conflicting views — and each author resolves his doubt elsewhere in his work, Suśruta most strikingly by a physiological explanation in his chapter on vital points. This article argues that saṃśaya is the research question of a śāstra, examines three objections (that doubt is a defect in a teacher, that it is merely the absence of knowledge, and that every statement can be doubted), and concludes that the device lies in the formulation of a doubt with reasons on both sides and a stated criterion for deciding between them. Series: तन्त्रयुक्तिविमर्शः · Tantrayukti Studies, TY-2026/15. Loci: AŚ 15.1.32–33; Su. Utt. 65.32. Online version: https://sanskritmanthan.in/a/ty-15-samshaya