Changes

As per the classification made by Maharshi Gautama in the Nyaya Sutra (1.2.2), while Vada is a ‘good’ or congenial debate (anuloma sambasha or Sandhya sambasha), Jalpa along with Vitanda is treated as ‘bad’ or hostile argument (Vigrahya sambasha).<ref name=":3" />

As per the classification made by Maharshi Gautama in the Nyaya Sutra (1.2.2), while Vada is a ‘good’ or congenial debate (anuloma sambasha or Sandhya sambasha), Jalpa along with Vitanda is treated as ‘bad’ or hostile argument (Vigrahya sambasha).<ref name=":3" />

Of the two types of hostile debates, Jalpa (disputation) is described (in Nyaya Sutra 1.2.2) as that which is endowed with the said characteristics (of Vada) and in which there is supporting and condemning by means of Chala (casuistry/quibbling), Jati (futile/irrelevant rejoinders provoking the opponent to lose focus) and Nigraha sthana (Clinchers).<ref name=":4" /><blockquote>यथोक्तोपपन्नः छलजातिनिग्रहस्थानसाधनोपालम्भः जल्पः | १.२.२ |<ref name=":6">Maharshi Gautama, Nyayasutras, Adhyaya 1, [https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%BF/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83_%E0%A5%A7/%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%83 Ahnika 2].</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''yathoktopapannaḥ chalajātinigrahasthānasādhanopālambhaḥ jalpaḥ | 1.2.2 |''</blockquote>It is a ’tricky’ debate between two rivals, where each is thoroughly convinced that he is absolutely right and the other (termed as the opponent – Prativadin) is hopelessly wrong. The first party to the debate is dogmatically committed to his own thesis, while the other party takes a rigid contrary position (Prati-paksha) on a given subject; and, sometimes at the cost of truth.<ref name=":3" />As each discussor comes to the table with a preconceived notion that he is right and the other is wrong, the purpose of the discussion is not to discover or establish the truth but is to establish one’s own position or thesis, and to prove the opponent wrong and convert the other to one's own camp. And, therefore, each tries to win the debate by fair or foul means. And each is prepared to employ various deceptive or sophistic devices, such as quibbling (Chala); unreasonable (Ahetu) responses; shifting the reason or the topics (Hetvantara or Arthantara); irrelevant rejoinders provoking the opponent to lose focus, to get perturbed and yet continue with the dispute (Jati) somehow; and such other devices to outwit the opponent. When one senses that one might be losing the argument (nigrahasthana), one will try to invent every sort of face-saving device or ruse to wriggle out of a bad situation that is quickly turning worse. Jalpa, predictably, could be noisy and unpleasant.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":3" />

Of the two types of hostile debates, Jalpa (disputation) is described (in Nyaya Sutra 1.2.2) as that which is endowed with the said characteristics (of Vada) and in which there is supporting and condemning by means of Chala (casuistry/quibbling), Jati (futile/irrelevant rejoinders provoking the opponent to lose focus) and Nigraha sthana (Clinchers).<ref name=":4" /><blockquote>यथोक्तोपपन्नः छलजातिनिग्रहस्थानसाधनोपालम्भः जल्पः | १.२.२ |<ref name=":6">Maharshi Gautama, Nyayasutras, Adhyaya 1, [https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%BF/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83_%E0%A5%A7/%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%83 Ahnika 2].</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''yathoktopapannaḥ chalajātinigrahasthānasādhanopālambhaḥ jalpaḥ | 1.2.2 |''</blockquote>It is a ’tricky’ debate between two rivals, where each is thoroughly convinced that he is absolutely right and the other (termed as the opponent – Prativadin) is hopelessly wrong. The first party to the debate is dogmatically committed to his own thesis, while the other party takes a rigid contrary position (Pratipaksha) on a given subject; and, sometimes at the cost of truth.<ref name=":3" />As each discussor comes to the table with a preconceived notion that he is right and the other is wrong, the purpose of the discussion is not to discover or establish the truth but is to establish one’s own position or thesis, and to prove the opponent wrong and convert the other to one's own camp. And, therefore, each tries to win the debate by fair or foul means. And each is prepared to employ various deceptive or sophistic devices, such as quibbling (Chala); unreasonable (Ahetu) responses; shifting the reason or the topics (Hetvantara or Arthantara); irrelevant rejoinders provoking the opponent to lose focus, to get perturbed and yet continue with the dispute (Jati) somehow; and such other devices to outwit the opponent. When one senses that one might be losing the argument (nigrahasthana), one will try to invent every sort of face-saving device or ruse to wriggle out of a bad situation that is quickly turning worse. Jalpa, predictably, could be noisy and unpleasant.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":3" />

Therefore, 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. Thus, the outcome of Jalpa may be a lot of noise.<ref name=":2" /> But those who are bystanders 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.<ref name=":1" />

Therefore, 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. Thus, the outcome of Jalpa may be a lot of noise.<ref name=":2" /> But those who are bystanders 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.<ref name=":1" />

Unlike Vada which is an honest debate aiming to ascertain ‘what is true’, Jalpa is an argument where each strives to impose his thesis on the other. The question of ascertaining the ‘truth’ does not arise here. Each party to the Jalpa is already convinced that his thesis is true and perfect; while that of the opponent is false and totally wrong. Each is not prepared to understand and appreciate the rival argument; but, is over anxious to ensure the opponent is ‘defeated’ and is made to accept his thesis. Even while it becomes apparent that one might be on the verge of defeat , he will not accept the position; instead , he will try to devise a strategy or will take a ‘break’ to gather some material or to concoct a fallacious argument to evade defeat and , if possible, to prove the other wrong.

Each party to the Jalpa is already convinced that his thesis is true and perfect; while that of the opponent is false and totally wrong. Each is not prepared to understand and appreciate the rival argument; but, is over anxious to ensure the opponent is ‘defeated’ and is made to accept his thesis. Even while it becomes apparent that one might be on the verge of defeat , he will not accept the position; instead , he will try to devise a strategy or will take a ‘break’ to gather some material or to concoct a fallacious argument to evade defeat and , if possible, to prove the other wrong.

Both the Vadin and the Prati-vadin work hard to establish their thesis through direct and indirect proofs. In Jalpa, the Pramana-s, the means of valid knowledge do not have much role to play. The arguments in Jalpa relay more on negation or negative tactics, such as: discrediting the rival argument, misleading the opponent or willfully misinterpreting rival’s explanations. The main thrust of the arguments in Jalpa is not so much as to establish the thesis directly, as to disprove or refute the rival’s thesis, through circumvention.

Both the Vadin and the Prati-vadin work hard to establish their thesis through direct and indirect proofs. In Jalpa, the Pramana-s, the means of valid knowledge do not have much role to play. The arguments in Jalpa relay more on negation or negative tactics, such as: discrediting the rival argument, misleading the opponent or willfully misinterpreting rival’s explanations. The main thrust of the arguments in Jalpa is not so much as to establish the thesis directly, as to disprove or refute the rival’s thesis, through circumvention.

‘ Uddyotakara, in the beginning of his commentary on chapter five of the Nyaya Sutra explains that it is always useful to learn about these bad tricks, for at least one should try to avoid them in one’s own debate and identify them in the opponent’s presentation in order to defeat him. Besides, when faced with sure defeat, one may use a trick, and if the opponent by chance is confused by the trick, the debater will at least have the satisfaction of creating a doubt instead of courting sure defeat.<ref name=":3" />

‘ Uddyotakara, in the beginning of his commentary on chapter five of the Nyaya Sutra explains that it is always useful to learn about these bad tricks, for at least one should try to avoid them in one’s own debate and identify them in the opponent’s presentation in order to defeat him. Besides, when faced with sure defeat, one may use a trick, and if the opponent by chance is confused by the trick, the debater will at least have the satisfaction of creating a doubt instead of courting sure defeat.<ref name=":3" />

=== Vitanda ===

=== Vitanda ===

Vatsayana’s observations and recommendations are sound and healthy. But, sadly, they were hardly acted upon.<ref name=":3" />

Vatsayana’s observations and recommendations are sound and healthy. But, sadly, they were hardly acted upon.<ref name=":3" />

== Differences between Vada and Samvada ==

== Difference between Vada and Jalpa ==

 

 

 

 

 

== Difference between Vada and Samvada ==

In the 3rd verse of the Upadesha Panchaka, Adi Shankaracharya says,  

In the 3rd verse of the Upadesha Panchaka, Adi Shankaracharya says,