Changes

There was, for a considerable period of time, a very lively and extensively practiced tradition of formal debates in ancient India. These debates were conducted, sometimes with royal patronage, to examine various religious, philosophical, moral and doctrinal issues.<ref>Bimal Krishna Matilal; Jonardon Ganeri; Heeraman Tiwari (1998). ''The Character of Logic in India''. SUNY Press. p. 31. <nowiki>ISBN 9780791437407</nowiki>.</ref> The corpus of knowledge on conducting a successful debate was referred to as vādavidyā and several manuals dealing with this discipline had been produced. It was from these debates that the Indian tradition of logic and allied investigations were evolved and developed. The antiquity of this tradition can be traced even to pre-Buddhist period. For example, Brhadaranyaka Upsanisad, a pre-Buddhist text, has references to King Janaka as not only organizing and patronizing debates between the sages and priests but also as participating in such debates.[2] Even women used to participate in these debates. Gargi was a woman scholar who used to participate in the debates in King Janaka's court.

There was, for a considerable period of time, a very lively and extensively practiced tradition of formal debates in ancient India. These debates were conducted, sometimes with royal patronage, to examine various religious, philosophical, moral and doctrinal issues.<ref name=":0">Bimal Krishna Matilal; Jonardon Ganeri; Heeraman Tiwari (1998). ''The Character of Logic in India''. SUNY Press. p. 31. <nowiki>ISBN 9780791437407</nowiki>.</ref> For example, Brhadaranyaka Upsanisad, a pre-Buddhist text, has references to King Janaka as not only organizing and patronizing debates between the sages and priests but also as participating in such debates.<ref name=":0" /> Even women used to participate in these debates. Gargi was a woman scholar who used to participate in the debates in King Janaka's court.<ref name=":0" />

Though debate was popular at the time of the Upanisads, there was no theory of debates during that period. Such a theory evolved along with the spread of the teachings of Buddha, Mahavira, and other ascetics or religious reformers. By the third and second century BCE, monks and priests were required to have a training in the art of conducting a successful debate. Several debate manuals were written in different sectarian schools. But these early manuals written in Sanskrit have all been lost. However, the nature of these manuals could be glimpsed from Buddhist Chinese sources as well as from Pali sources like the Kathavatthu.[3]

There are four types of discussions - Samvaada (संवाद), Vaada (वाद) , Jalpa (जल्प) and Vitanda (वितंड). Samvaada is the discussion between the teacher and the taught as in Shree Krishna-Arjuna samvaada.  The student does not question the teacher but seeks clarifications. Vaada is the discussion between two equals. Here the purpose is to settle what is the truth. Both come to the table for discussion with an open mind and the discussion is based on some accepted pramaana of the authority. For e.g. for Vedantic discussions the Pramaanas are specifically the Prasthaan Tritya  - The Upanishads, Bhagavad Geeta and Brahmasutra. There are judges to insure the discussion proceeds along the accepted pramaanas. The discussion proceeds until one accepts the other arguments. Some time the discussions can take days  as in the famous discussion between Adi Sankara and Mandana Misra which lasted for 18 days till Mandana Misra accepted defeat and became Shankara's disciple.  Mandana Misra's wife, Bharati, who was a scholar by herself served as a judge for that vaada.

 

Jalpa is where each debator comes to the table with preconceived notion that he is right and the other fellow is wrong.  The purpose of the discussion is only to convert the other fellow to his camp. There is no knowledge that takes place in these discussions. Even if one is losing his arguments, he only goes and comes back with more ammunition to defend himself.  Only lot of noise.  But those who are bystander can learn the defect in each of their arguments and they can learn out of these discussions if they do not have any preconceived notions.  

 

Vitanda is when one argues against the other fellow just to prove that the other one is wrong.  This is also accepted arguments and is used very effectively to prove there is no credibility for the opponent. You  are wrong, not because the statement by itself is wrong but it is wrong because you made that statement.