Revisiting Tantraguna: Relevance of Classical Ayurvedic Writing Principles to the IMRAD Framework

Full text

Text extracted from the article PDF for reading and search. Tables, figures and equations are in the PDF, which remains the authoritative version.

Introduction

Scientific communication is foundational to the progress of knowledge. The transformation of research findings into structured manuscripts allows replication, validation, and dissemination within the scientific community.[1] Over the past three centuries, the scientific article has become the principal medium of scholarly exchange. Standardisation in format has enhanced clarity, reproducibility, and accessibility. The IMRAD structure, which is Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion, has emerged as the predominant organisational framework in biomedical journals.[2] It evolved from earlier narrative formats and promotes logical sequencing of research components. Despite its contemporary dominance, structured methodologies for composing scientific treatises existed in ancient civilisations. Classical Ayurvedic literature reveals a highly systematic approach to scholarly writing.[3] The Charaka Samhita, one of the foundational texts of Ayurveda, attributed to Acharya Charaka, outlines criteria for evaluating authoritative manuscripts. These criteria, termed Tantraguna, are described in the eighth chapter of Vimanasthana. Tantraguna defines the essential attributes of a well-composed scientific treatise.[4] Therefore, the present review aims to critically analyse Tantraguna as described in the Charaka Samhita and examine its conceptual parallels with the IMRAD framework used in modern biomedical research communication.

The Tantraguna described in the Charaka Samhita presents a remarkably advanced framework for scientific writing. Its principles, clarity, conciseness, structure, objectivity, authentication, and logical sequencing closely parallel modern IMRAD guidelines. Rather than viewing ancient and modern methodologies as distinct, a constructive synthesis may enrich scholarly communication [5,6].

Historical Evolution of Structured Scientific Writing

1. Development of the IMRAD Structure: The IMRAD

format gained prominence in the twentieth century as scientific disciplines expanded and journals required standardised reporting formats. It offers a clear delineation of research objectives, transparent methodological reporting, logical presentation of results and interpretive discussion grounded in evidence. The structure enhances literature retrieval and critical appraisal. However, critics argue that IMRAD may oversimplify the nonlinear nature of scientific reasoning and impose rigidity on narrative expression.[7]

2. Structured Writing in Ancient Ayurveda: Ancient

Ayurvedic scholars demonstrated remarkable uniformity in textual composition across Samhitas, compendia (Samgraha-granthas), and lexicons (Nighantus). Such consistency indicates adherence to well-defined compositional principles. In Vimanasthana of the Charaka Samhita, Acharya Charaka advises students to select authoritative treatises based on specific qualitative parameters i.e. Tantraguna. These parameters reflect epistemological, methodological, linguistic, and ethical standards.[8]

3. Tantraguna: According to Acharya Charaka, the

classical criteria of Scientific Writing are that the shrewd who wishes to be a physician, first of all, should analyse his own strength and weakness in the profession, the after-impacts of his profession, his inclination, habitat and favourable time (age of learning) and then, after wisely search for a medical treatise.

Different medical treatises (and traditions) are available in society, from which one might select that has following characters: which is comprehensive providing all information, successful, followed by prominent and wise men(successful practitioners),with detailed meanings, regarded by authorities, useful to all three types of learners (with good, moderate and poor intellect), free from the deformity of reiteration, descending from the sages (which is written by experienced, intuitive person), with well- formed presentation, discussion and conclusion, having informative title and firm base free from weak and difficult words, having comprehensive knowledge of subject, with proper sequencing of its contents, committed principally to arriving at the essence of thoughts, which reveals clear meanings and concrete conclusion, focused on the particular subject without wavering ideas and irrelevant content, quickly understandable with separated topics, effectively comprehensible, and having definitions showed with examples. Such a treatise, grounded in pure knowledge, is like the sun, which enlightens the whole subject while warding off darkness.[9] It comprises multiple characteristics that collectively define high-quality scholarly writing. Their relevance to modern research communication is discussed below.

1. Sumahat (Well Comprehensive): सुमिद्यशद्धि च

धीरपुरुषासेववतं च; वकं वा सुमिद्यशद्धिधीरपुरुषैरासेववतवमवत ववरि:| A scientific work should comprehensively address the subject without unnecessary verbosity. This aligns with modern expectations of adequate literature review and complete methodological reporting.[10]

2. Yashasvi-Dheera-Purusha-Sevita&Apta-Pujita

(Accepted by scientific fraternity): आप्तजनपूवजतवमवतबहुववधैराप्तैर्यर्ाियमनुमतम्। Authenticity is strengthened when a text is respected and used by experts. In modern terms, this corresponds to peer review, citation metrics, and scholarly validation.[11]

3. Arthabahulam (Concise and Meaningful & Well

interpreted): Scientific language must be economical yet information-dense. This parallels modern recommendations for precision and avoidance of redundancy. The meaning underlying the text is to be interpreted with due regard to the principles of elaboration & reduction.[12]

4. TrividhaShishyaBuddhihitam (Universal

Comprehensibility/ Clearly expressed): उत्कृ ष्टमध्याल्पबुद्ध्यद्धस्त्रववधा: वशष्या:। It indicates that a scientific apper should be clearly expressed, easily understood, and appealing to all types of people in a particular field.[13]

5. ApagataPunarukta Dosha (No Repetition of Content

or without Plagiarism): अपगतपुनरुिवमवत कतयव्ये र्द्दोषपाठं करोवत, तेनावधकरिवशप्राप्तं र्त᳭ करोवत तत᳭ पुनरुिमदोषं भववत। This principle discourages unnecessary repetition and anticipates modern concerns regarding plagiarism and redundant publication.[14]

6. Aarsham (Impartiality/Unbiased): Study should be

conducted & reviewed by an unbiased, genuine and scientific person. Bias, whether methodological, interpretative, or financial, compromises validity. This anticipates modern concerns regarding conflicts of interest and research integrity.[15]

7. SupranitaSootra-Bhashya-Samgraha Krama

(Systematic Structure& in good format): It describes the well-knit format of the writing. This tripartite framework mirrors modern article structure:[16,17] Ancient Component Meaning Modern Equivalent Sootra Concise principle Declarative title/Thesis Bhashya Detailed explanation Introduction-Methods-Results-Discussion Samgraha Summary Conclusion

8. Swadharam (Evidence-Based Authentication)

िाधारवमवत शोभनावभधेर्म᳭ । Statements and Ideas are supported by appropriate evidence that demonstrates how conclusions have been drawn, as well as acknowledging the work of others. This principle aligns with modern referencing systems such as the Vancouver and Harvard styles and with the emphasis on reproducible methodology.[18]

9. Anavapatita Shabda&Akashta Shabda (Without

Vague & Clarity of Language): अनवपवततवमवत अराम्यशब्दम᳭ ।अकष्टशब्दवमवत अकृ �ो�ार्यशब्दं, वकं वा प्रवसिावभधेर्शब्दम᳭ । Avoiding vague, ambiguous, or overly ornate language aligns with contemporary technical scientific writing guidelines [19].

10. Pushkalaabhidhaanam (having abundant

expression): पुष्कलावभधानवमवत सम्यगर्यसमपयकवाक्यम᳭ । The script should be rich in synonyms with broader applicability. [20]

11. Kramagataartham (Sequence)

क्रमागतार्यवमवतपररपाट्यागतार्यम᳭ । According to the topic, the order in which the subject has been described is the proper way. [21,22]

12. Arthatatvavinishchayapradhanam (Objective-

Oriented Focus): A scientific paper should emphasise the determination of the central idea of the matter. This parallels a hypothesis-driven research design.[23]

13. Sangartham (Well Organized)

संगतार्यवमवतप्रवतपावदतार्यम᳭ । There should be no conflict in the sentences of Purva (before) & Pashchata (after). The subject should be according to the scripture chapters.[24]

14. Asankulaprakaranam (Logical Organization/without

complexity/amalgamation of subject): असंकु लप्रकरिवमवत अवमश्रीभूतप्रकरिम᳭ । Sections of scientific work should not be intermingled. Modern manuscripts similarly require distinct sectioning for clarity. [25]

15. Ashuprabodhakam (Transparent/ Crystal Clear)

Writing should be uncomplicated, quick and easy to convey. [26]

16. Lakshanavat & Udaharanavat (Definitions & Illustrations/Examples): लक्षिववदवत आर्ुवेदप्रधानार्यिेतुवलङ्गौषधाख्यासाधारिधमयकर्नवत; वकं वा प्रशस्तशास्त्रलक्षिवत᳭ । उदािरिववदवत दृष्टािवत᳭ । The work should provide Operational definitions, figures, and examples to improve interpretability consistent with present-day reporting standards. [27]

Acharya Charaka also talk about the Vakya Prashansa (Syntactical Excellence), which is attained when the statement is free from syntactical deficiency, superfluity, incongruity, contradiction and breach of tradition. That is to say, where there is no room for further enquiry, the statement is considered to be of excellent type.[28]

अर्वाक्यप्रशंसा- वाक्यप्रशंसानामर्र्ाखल्वद्धिन्नर्े त्व�ूनम, अनवधकम, अर्यवत, अनपार्यकम, अववरुिम, अवधगतपदार्य चेवत र्त्तद्वाक्यमननुर्ोज्यवमवत प्रशस्यते। 1. .Anyunam (Not less than/deficiency) - No essential word should be less than.

2. .Anadhikam (Not exceeding/superfluity) - There should not be too many unnecessary words.

3. .Arthvat (Meaningful/Significant) - The sentence should have a clear meaning.

4. .Anaparthakam (Devoid of deprivation of meaning) -It should not be meaningless or useless.

5. .Avirudham (Incongruity) - There should be no conflict with each other.

6. Adhigatapadartham(Comprehensible) - The meaning of

whose words can be understood.

Such a sentence is considered inapplicable (in which no fault can be found) and is called a praiseworthy sentence. These principles resemble contemporary recommendations for grammatical precision, semantic clarity, and logical coherence in scientific writing [29].

Acharya Sushruta describes the qualities of Shastra Lakshana (characteristics of a scientific writing) in the Sutrasthana.[30] According to Acharya, a scientific work should be well-explained, easily understood, free from obstacles or contradictions, and well-organised. Such a divine treatise enhances intelligence, is beneficial, and remains uncorrupted/consistent over time.[31] Natya Shastra, Bharata Muni identifies ten specific Gunas: Shlesha (cohesion), Prasada (clarity), Samata (evenness), Samadhi (concentration), Madhurya (sweetness), Ojah (vigour), Padasaukumarya (delicacy of phrasing), Arthavyakti (perspicuity of meaning), Udarata (magnanimity), and Kanti (radiance) [32,33,34]. Acharya Vamana, in his treatise Kavyalankarasutravritti, posits that there are 20 poetic qualities (Kāvya-guṇas), which are divided into 10 Śabda-guṇas (qualities of sound/diction) and 10 Artha-guṇas (qualities of meaning). These qualities are considered essential elements falling under the category of Riti (the soul of poetry) for enhancing poetic beauty and aesthetic appeal as mentioned below. [35,36,37]

Table 1: Shabda Gunas & Artha Gunas S. No. Shabda-Gunas (Word-based Qualities) Artha-Gunas (Meaning-based Qualities) 1 Shlesha (Coalescence/Synthesis): Harmonious fusion of words Shlesha (Subtle connection of meanings). 2 Prasada (Clarity): Use of easily understandable words. Prasada (Clarity of meaning).

3 Samata (Smoothness): Evenness in rhythm or style Samata (Uniformity in meaning). 4 Samadhi (Concentration): Concentration or a special sense found by a genius. Samadhi (Metaphorical or deep meaning). 5 Madhurya (Sweetness): Delightful sound that pleases the ear. Madhurya (Sweetness of sense) 6 Ojas (Grandeur/Strength): Use of compound words/grandeur. Ojas (Semantic strength/Grandeur of meaning).

7 Saukumarya (Agreeableness): Gentle, easy, and pleasant sound. Saukumarya (Delicacy of ideas).

8 Udarata (Exaltedness/Generosity): Elevated or non-vulgar language. Udarata (Exalted idea). 9 Arthavyakti (Directness): Clear expression where meaning is immediately understood.

Arthavyakti (Clarity of the conceptual image).

10 Kanti (Loveliness/Brightness): Resplendence that pleases the mind Kanti (Brightness/Charm of the theme). According to Vishwanath [38,39], the author of the Sahityadarpan, has presented a detailed exposition of Guna (literary qualities) in the eighth chapter of his treatise on poetics, the Sahityadarpan. Vishwanath regards these qualities as Upakarak (aids or auxiliaries) to Rasa (aesthetic sentiment) and has established them as the inherent attributes or Rasadharma. Adhering to the tradition established by Mammata, Vishwanath primarily identifies three distinct Gunas: a. Madhurya: The quality that melts or softens the mind. b. Ojah: The quality that generates a sense of expansion or radiance within the mind. c. Prasada: The quality that pervades the mind and is immediately intelligible.

The classification of these Gunas is based upon the three distinct states of the Chitta.

Discussion

Tantraguna and IMRAD Comparative Analysis, exhibited in Table 2, should be discussed in the following points.[40]

1. Structural Convergence: Both systems emphasise

sequential organisation, central thesis articulation, evidence-based reasoning, and conclusive summarisation. While IMRAD provides procedural segmentation, Tantraguna adds qualitative dimensions such as ethical neutrality and linguistic refinement.

2. Epistemological Depth: Tantraguna integrates logic

(Tarka), strategy (Yukti), and illustrative reasoning (Udaharana). These elements underscore a holistic epistemology, extending beyond mechanical formatting. 3. Ethical Dimensions: Modern guidelines, such as those from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), stress transparency, authorship responsibility, and conflict-of-interest disclosure. Tantraguna’s emphasis on Aarsha (unbiased scholarship) parallels these concerns. [41,42]

4. Implications for Contemporary Scientific Writing

Integrating Tantraguna into modern frameworks may offer several benefits: Strengthened ethical awareness, enhanced clarity and conciseness, emphasis on intellectual coherence, balanced integration of structure and philosophical depth, and improved pedagogical approaches in research methodology training [43].

For Ayurveda and other traditional sciences, Tantraguna may serve as an evaluative tool to assess textual quality and methodological rigour. While conceptual parallels are evident, it was originally intended for evaluating classical treatises rather than empirical research reports. Therefore, direct equivalence with IMRAD should be interpreted cautiously [44].

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Tantraguna and IMRAD Structure in Scientific Writing S. No. Tantraguna Principle Literal Meaning Functional Interpretation in Classical Context Parallel in IMRAD / Modern Scientific Writing Scholarly Significance 1. Sumahat Comprehensive Covers all essential aspects of the subject proportionately Complete coverage of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion Ensures completeness without excessive verbosity 2. Yashasvi-Dheera-Purusha-Sevita & Apta-Pujita Accepted by learned scholars Recognised and utilised by experts in the field Peer review, citation acceptance, scholarly validation Establishes credibility and scientific authority 3. Arthabahulam Meaning-rich brevity Profound meaning expressed concisely Concise abstracts and focused reporting Promotes precision and density of information 4. Trividha Shishya Buddhihitam Suitable for three levels of intellect Understandable to advanced, moderate, and novice learners Structured abstract, clarity of language, readability standards Enhances accessibility and pedagogical value 5. ApagataPunarukta Dosha Free from repetition Avoids redundancy and intellectual duplication Anti-plagiarism norms, avoidance of redundant publication Preserves originality and ethical integrity 6. Aarsha Unbiased, authentic Composed by impartial and knowledgeable scholar Conflict-of-interest disclosure, ethical research conduct Safeguards objectivity and research validity 7. SupranitaSootra Well-composed aphorism Concise statement of core principle Declarative or descriptive title Communicates central thesis clearly 8. Bhashya Detailed exposition Elaboration of theory with reasoning and evidence Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion Enables comprehensive explanation and analysis 9. Samgraha Summary Compilation of essential points Conclusion / Summary section Reinforces key findings and implications 10. Swadharam Properly supported Arguments backed by authentic references Referencing systems (Vancouver/Harvard), citation standards Ensures evidentiary support and transparency 11. Anavapatita Shabda / Akashta Shabda Free from vague or harsh words Clear, unambiguous terminology Technical clarity, standardized nomenclature Minimises ambiguity and improves comprehension 12. Pushkalabhidhanam Abundant expression Use of meaningful synonyms and terminology Terminological precision and keyword optimization Enhances semantic richness and indexing 13. Arthatatvavinishchayapradhanam Focused on objective determination Central theme without irrelevant digressions Hypothesis-driven research, objective alignment Maintains thematic coherence 14. Asankulaprakaranam Non-intermingled topics Logical organisation of chapters Section-wise structuring in IMRAD Facilitates readability and logical flow 15. Aashuprabodhakam Quickly understandable Transparent and easily graspable content Reader-friendly structure and clarity Improves knowledge transfer efficiency 16. Lakshanavat&Udaharanavat With definitions and examples Scientific definitions supported by illustrations Operational definitions, tables, figures, case examples Strengthens conceptual clarity and applicability

Conclusion

Tantraguna offers not merely a formatting guide but an integrated philosophy of scientific discourse. Its revival and reinterpretation could meaningfully improve academic writing standards in contemporary research. It should carefully choose a reliable, well-structured, authoritative text, respected by scholars and clearly written. Such a text removes ignorance and brings true knowledge, just like the sun removes darkness.

Limitation This review is conceptual and interpretative in nature. Historical reconstruction of ancient methodology involves translation-based inference. Further interdisciplinary studies involving Sanskrit scholarship, history of science and research methodology may deepen understanding.

Author contributions SM and SSW conceptualised the study, and both authors approved the final version. SM drafted the first version of the manuscript with relevant suggestions and critical analysis from SSW. Both authors approved the version submitted for publication.

Data Availability Statement As this is a narrative review, all data relevant to the study are included in the article.

Declaration of Use of AI The authors used generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the manuscript writing process to improve the grammar and language of the work.

Financial Support and Sponsorship: Nil. Conflicts of Interest: There are no conflicts of interest.