Changes

{{ToBeEdited}}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. For example, [[Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्)|Brhadaranyaka Upanishad]], has references to Raja Janaka as not only organizing and patronizing debates between the sages and priests but also as participating in such debates. Even women used to participate in these debates. [[Gargi (गार्गी)|Gargi]] was a woman scholar who used to participate in the debates in Raja Janaka's court.<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>

{{ToBeEdited}}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. For example, [[Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्)|Brhadaranyaka Upanishad]], has references to Raja Janaka as not only organizing and patronizing debates between the sages and priests but also as participating in such debates. Women also participated in these debates. [[Gargi (गार्गी)|Gargi]] was a woman scholar who used to participate in the debates in Raja Janaka's court.<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>

== परिचयः ॥ Introduction ==

== परिचयः ॥ Introduction ==

According to the commentaries on the Nyaya Sutras, the debates and arguments are grouped under a broad head titled ‘Katha’. In Sanskrit, the term ‘Katha’, in general, translates as ‘to inform’, ‘to narrate’, ‘to address or to refer to somebody’. In the context of Nyaya Shatra, which provides the knowledge about the methods for presenting arguments (Vako-Vakya or Vada-vidya) as also the rules governing the debates, the term ‘Katha’ implies formal conversation (Sambhasha) as in a debate. The conversation here is not in the casual manner as in day-to-day life. But, it is articulate, precise and well thought out utterances. Katha is described as ‘polemical conversation’, meaning that it is passionate and strongly worded, but a well balanced argument against or in favor of somebody or something. That is why; the discussions (Vada) are never simple. A Katha, in essence, is a reasoned and a well-structured philosophical discussion.<ref name=":3" />

According to the commentaries on the Nyaya Sutras, the debates and arguments are grouped under a broad head titled ‘Katha’. In Sanskrit, the term ‘Katha’, in general, translates as ‘to inform’, ‘to narrate’, ‘to address or to refer to somebody’. In the context of Nyaya Shatra, which provides the knowledge about the methods for presenting arguments (Vako-Vakya or Vada-vidya) as also the rules governing the debates, the term ‘Katha’ implies formal conversation (Sambhasha) as in a debate. The conversation here is not in the casual manner as in day-to-day life. But, it is articulate, precise and well thought out utterances. Katha is described as ‘polemical conversation’, meaning that it is passionate and strongly worded, but a well balanced argument against or in favor of somebody or something. That is why; the discussions (Vada) are never simple. A Katha, in essence, is a reasoned and a well-structured philosophical discussion.<ref name=":3" />

Vatsayana at the beginning of his commentary on Nyaya Sutra (1.2.1) mentions that Katha is of three types:  

Vatsyayana at the beginning of his commentary on Nyaya Sutra (1.2.1) mentions that Katha is of three types:  

# Vada (Discussion)  

# Vada (Discussion)  

# Jalpa (Disputation)

# Jalpa (Disputation)

# Vitanda (Wrangling)<ref name=":4">Ganganatha Jha (1939), [https://ia802902.us.archive.org/23/items/GautamasNyayaSutrasWithVatsyayanaBhashyaGNJha/Gautama%27s%20Nyaya%20Sutras%20with%20Vatsyayana%20Bhashya%20-%20GN%20Jha.pdf Gautama's Nyayasutras with Vatsyayana Bhasya], Poona: Oriental Book Agency.</ref>

# Vitanda (Wrangling)<ref name=":4">Ganganatha Jha (1939), [https://ia802902.us.archive.org/23/items/GautamasNyayaSutrasWithVatsyayanaBhashyaGNJha/Gautama%27s%20Nyaya%20Sutras%20with%20Vatsyayana%20Bhashya%20-%20GN%20Jha.pdf Gautama's Nyayasutras with Vatsyayana Bhasya], Poona: Oriental Book Agency.</ref>

<blockquote>तिस्रः कथा भवन्ति वादो जल्पो वितण्डा चेति ।<ref name=":5">Gangadhara Sastri Tailanga (1896), [https://ia802908.us.archive.org/31/items/06nNyayaSutrasWithVatsyayanaBhashya/06nNyaya%20Sutras%20With%20Vatsyayana%20Bhashya.pdf The Nyayasutras with Vatsyayana's Bhashya], The Viziangram Sanskrit Series (Volume IX), Benaras: E.J.Lazarus & Co.</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''tisraḥ kathā bhavanti vādo jalpo vitaṇḍā ceti ।''</blockquote>Katha is classified into two kinds of debates (Dvi-vidha sambhasha): Vada (the good - Sandhya sambhasha) on one hand; and Jalpa and Vitanda (the bad - Vigrahya sambhasha) on the other. Uddyotakara in his - Nyaya Varttika further explains that this threefold classification is according to the nature of the debate and the status of the persons taking part in the debate. The first variety, Vada is an honest, peaceful and congenial (sandhaya) debate that takes place between two persons of equal merit or standing, trying to explore the various dimensions of a subject with a view to ascertain and establish ‘what is true’. The Vada, at its best, is a candid friendly discussion (anuloma sambhasha or sandhya sambhasha) or debate in the spirit of: ’let’s sit-down and talk’. The other two are hostile arguments (vigrhya sambhasha) between rivals who desperately want to win. Thus, by implication, while the goal of a Vada is establishment of truth or an accepted doctrine; and that of the other two hostile debates (Jalpa and Vitanda) is seeking victory on the opponent.<ref name=":3" />

<blockquote>तिस्रः कथा भवन्ति वादो जल्पो वितण्डा चेति ।<ref name=":5">Gangadhara Sastri Tailanga (1896), [https://ia802908.us.archive.org/31/items/06nNyayaSutrasWithVatsyayanaBhashya/06nNyaya%20Sutras%20With%20Vatsyayana%20Bhashya.pdf The Nyayasutras with Vatsyayana's Bhashya], The Viziangram Sanskrit Series (Volume IX), Benaras: E.J.Lazarus & Co.</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''tisraḥ kathā bhavanti vādo jalpo vitaṇḍā ceti ।''</blockquote>Katha is classified into two kinds of debates (Dvi-vidha sambhasha): Vada (the good - Sandhya sambhasha) on one hand; and Jalpa and Vitanda (the bad - Vigrhya sambhasha) on the other. Uddyotakara in his - Nyaya Varttika further explains that this threefold classification is according to the nature of the debate and the status of the persons taking part in the debate. The first variety, Vada is an honest, peaceful and congenial (sandhaya) debate that takes place between two persons of equal merit or standing, trying to explore the various dimensions of a subject with a view to ascertain and establish ‘what is true’. The Vada, at its best, is a candid friendly discussion (anuloma sambhasha or sandhya sambhasha) or debate in the spirit of: ’let’s sit-down and talk’. The other two are hostile arguments (vigrhya sambhasha) between rivals who desperately want to win. Thus, by implication, while the goal of a Vada is establishment of truth or an accepted doctrine; and that of the other two hostile debates (Jalpa and Vitanda) is seeking victory on the opponent.<ref name=":3" />

=== संवादः ॥ Samvada ===

=== संवादः ॥ Samvada ===

The commentary on the Nyaya sutras describe samvada as समाय वाद: । Meaning, discussion for the sake of coming to an agreement.<ref name=":4" />

The commentary on the Nyaya sutras describe samvada as समाय वाद: । ''samāya vāda: ।''

 

Meaning: Discussion for the sake of coming to an agreement.<ref name=":4" />

Of the four forms of discussions, Samvada is regarded the noblest type of dialogue that takes place. It is the discussion between an ardent seeker of truth and an enlightened teacher as in Sri Krishna-Arjuna samvada. The student here, does not question the teacher but questions his own understanding for clarification. This type of discussion can occur only when the student surrenders himself completely at the feet of the teacher. Most of the ancient Indian texts are in this format.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":1" />

Of the four forms of discussions, Samvada is regarded the noblest type of dialogue that takes place. It is the discussion between an ardent seeker of truth and an enlightened teacher as in Sri Krishna-Arjuna samvada. The student here, does not question the teacher but questions his own understanding for clarification. This type of discussion can occur only when the student surrenders himself completely at the feet of the teacher. Most of the ancient Indian texts are in this format.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":1" />

=== वादः ॥ Vada ===

=== वादः ॥ Vada ===

Vada is the discussion between two equals to establish the truth/to resolve the conflict.<ref name=":2">Dr T P Sasikumar, http://trueindia.blogspot.in/2005/03/samvaada-vaada-jalpa-vitanda.html</ref> The purpose of Vada is to settle what is the truth.<ref name=":1" /> Learning takes place at the end of vada since the truth is established to the satisfaction of both parties.<ref name=":2" />

Vada is a debate between two persons of equal standing to establish the truth/to resolve the conflict.<ref name=":2">Dr T P Sasikumar, http://trueindia.blogspot.in/2005/03/samvaada-vaada-jalpa-vitanda.html</ref><ref name=":1" /> The term Vada by itself means a theory, doctrine or thesis. In the debate, the proponent who puts forward arguments in support of his doctrine (Vada) is termed as Vadin. The opponent who refutes that theory through his counter-arguments is termed as Prati-vadin. Unlike in Samvada, there is no teacher-taught relationship here; nor is it a discourse. However, ideally, both the parties to the Vada should have mutual regard, respecting each other’s learning and status; and should participate with an open mind in order to explore various dimensions of the subject on hand; to examine it thoroughly by applying the accepted norms of logic and reasoning (Tarka), supported by passages from texts of undisputed authority (Shabda Pramana). The principal aim of a wholesome Vada is to resolve the conflict; and, to establish ‘what is true’. The proceedings of the Vada is characterized by politeness, courtesy and fair means of presenting the arguments. In other words, it is a healthy discussion.<ref name=":3" /> And learning takes place at the end of vada since the truth is established to the satisfaction of both parties.<ref name=":2" />

 

 

Vada is a debate between two persons of equal standing. The term Vada by itself means a theory, doctrine or thesis. In the debate, the proponent who puts forward arguments in support of his doctrine (Vada) is termed as Vadin. The opponent who refutes that theory through his counter-arguments is termed as Prati-vadin. Unlike in Samvada, there is no teacher-taught relationship here; nor is it a discourse.  

Ideally, both the parties to the Vada should have mutual regard, respecting each other’s learning and status; and should participate with an open mind in order to explore various dimensions of the subject on hand; to examine it thoroughly by applying the accepted norms of logic and reasoning (Tarka), supported by passages from texts of undisputed authority (Shabda Pramana). The principal aim of a wholesome Vada is to resolve the conflict; and, to establish ‘what is true’. The proceedings of the Vada is characterized by politeness, courtesy and fair means of presenting the arguments. In other words, it is a healthy discussion.  

Also, in Vada, both the sides come to the table for discussion with an open mind and the discussion is based on some accepted pramana of authority. For e.g. In Vedantic discussions, the Pramanas are specifically the Prasthana Trayi - The [[Upanishads (उपनिषदः)|Upanishads]], Brahma Sutras and [[Bhagavad Gita (भगवद्गीता)|Bhagavad Gita]]. There are judges to ensure the discussion proceeds along the accepted pramanas. The discussion proceeds until one accepts the others' arguments. Sometimes the discussions can take days as in the famous discussion between Adi Shankara and Mandana Mishra which lasted for 18 days till Mandana Mishra accepted defeat and became Shankara's disciple. Mandana Mishra's wife, Bharati, who was a scholar herself served as a judge for that vada.<ref name=":1">Kuntimaddi Sadananda (2002), [https://ramanuja.org/sri/BhaktiListArchives/Article?p=oct2002%2F0016.html Types of arguments], Bhakti List Archives.</ref>

Vatsayana in his commentary Nyaya Bhashya, says that congenial debate (Anuloma Sambhasha) takes place when the opponent is not wrathful or malicious; but is learned, wise, eloquent and patient; is well versed in the art of persuasion and is gifted with sweet speech. As regards the benefits (Sambhasha prashamsa or prayojana) of such peaceful and congenial debates: If a learned person debates with another scholar, both versed in the same subject, it would increase the depth of their knowledge, clear misapprehensions, if any, and lead them to find certain minor details which hitherto might have escaped their attention. Besides, it would heighten their zeal to study further; and bring happiness to both.

Vatsayana in his commentary Nyaya Bhashya, says that congenial debate (Anuloma Sambhasha) or Vada takes place when the opponent is not wrathful or malicious; but is learned, wise, eloquent and patient; is well versed in the art of persuasion and is gifted with sweet speech. As regards the benefits (Sambhasha prashamsa or prayojana) of such peaceful and congenial debates: If a learned person debates with another scholar, both versed in the same subject, it would increase the depth of their knowledge, clear misapprehensions, if any, and lead them to find certain minor details which hitherto might have escaped their attention. Besides, it would heighten their zeal to study further; and bring happiness to both.

But, in cases where two scholars hold contrary views, the Vadin and Prati-vadin will each try very hard to establish the doctrine which he believes is true; and to convince the other to accept its veracity through fair and effective presentation and arguments. At the same time, each is willing to understand and appreciate the arguments of the other; and accept any merit they might find in it. In case, one is in doubt or unable to respond satisfactorily, one can take a break to re-group his position or to re-examine the issue to see whether he can refute the opponent’s argument more effectively or put up a sounder defense. And, if one is convinced that the doctrine and the argument presented by the opponent is valid, he adopts it with grace. And, at the end, one of the two might be proven wrong; or both could be right. In any case, they accept the outcome of the debate, whatever be it; and, part their ways without rancor.<ref name=":3" />

But, in cases where two scholars hold contrary views, the Vadin and Prati-vadin will each try very hard to establish the doctrine which he believes is true; and to convince the other to accept its veracity through fair and effective presentation and arguments. At the same time, each is willing to understand and appreciate the arguments of the other; and accept any merit they might find in it. In case, one is in doubt or unable to respond satisfactorily, one can take a break to re-group his position or to re-examine the issue to see whether he can refute the opponent’s argument more effectively or put up a sounder defense. And, if one is convinced that the doctrine and the argument presented by the opponent is valid, he adopts it with grace. And, at the end, one of the two might be proven wrong; or both could be right. In any case, they accept the outcome of the debate, whatever be it; and, part their ways without rancor.<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" />

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.<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" />

==== जल्पसाधनानि ॥ Means of disputation ====

==== जल्पसाधनानि ॥ Means of disputation ====

* he is willfully abstracting the debate; or to his inappropriate ways.

* he is willfully abstracting the debate; or to his inappropriate ways.

There are also some statements that defend the Jalpa-way of arguments.

Explaining the need for a debater to resort to tactics such as Chala and Jati, and the need to invest time and effort in learning these tactics, Bimal Krishna Matilal in his 'The Character of Logic in India' says,<blockquote>''"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" /></blockquote><blockquote>यदा वादी परस्य साधनं साध्विति मन्यते लाभपूजाख्यातिकामश्च भवति तदा जातिं प्रयुङ्क्ते कदाचिदयं जात्युत्तरेणाकुलीकृतो नोत्तरं प्रतिपद्यते उत्तराप्रतिपत्त्या च निगृह्यते । अनभिधाने च जातिरेकान्तजयः परस्येत्यैकान्तिकात्पराजयाद्वरमस्तु संदेह इति युक्तो जातेः प्रयोगः ॥ न्या.वा. ॥<ref name=":5" /></blockquote><blockquote>''yadā vādī parasya sādhanaṁ sādhviti manyate lābhapūjākhyātikāmaśca bhavati tadā jātiṁ prayuṅkte kadācidayaṁ jātyuttareṇākulīkr̥to nottaraṁ pratipadyate uttarāpratipattyā ca nigr̥hyate । anabhidhāne ca jātirekāntajayaḥ parasyetyaikāntikātparājayādvaramastu saṁdeha iti yukto jāteḥ prayogaḥ ॥ nyā.vā. ॥''</blockquote>There are also some statements that defend the Jalpa-way of arguments.

* One reason adduced for allowing in the debate the diverse interpretations of the terms is said to be the flexibility that the Sanskrit language has, where compound words can be split in ways to suit one’s argument; where words carry multiple meanings; and where varieties of contextual meanings can be read into with change in structure of phrases, sentences and context of topics.  

* One reason adduced for allowing in the debate the diverse interpretations of the terms is said to be the flexibility that the Sanskrit language has, where compound words can be split in ways to suit one’s argument; where words carry multiple meanings; and where varieties of contextual meanings can be read into with change in structure of phrases, sentences and context of topics.  

* The other is that the ancient texts in Sutra format – terse, rigid and ambiguous – can be read and interpreted in any number of ways. Each interpretation can be supported by one or the other authoritative text. There is therefore, plenty of scope for legitimate disputation.  

* The other is that the ancient texts in Sutra format – terse, rigid and ambiguous – can be read and interpreted in any number of ways. Each interpretation can be supported by one or the other authoritative text. There is therefore, plenty of scope for legitimate disputation.  

It is also said that Jalpa-tactics might come in handy to a novice or an inexperienced debater. If such a person, without adequate skills, enters into a debate, he might not be able to come up with proper rejoinder at the right time to safeguard his thesis. In such a crisis, he may get away with such tricky debate. In any case, if the opponent is not quick witted, the (novice) debater may gain some time to think of the proper reason. Thus, he may even win the debate and the sprout of his knowledge would be protected. However, this justification was not altogether acceptable.<ref name=":3" />

It is also said that Jalpa-tactics might come in handy to a novice or an inexperienced debater. If such a person, without adequate skills, enters into a debate, he might not be able to come up with proper rejoinder at the right time to safeguard his thesis. In such a crisis, he may get away with such tricky debate. In any case, if the opponent is not quick witted, the (novice) debater may gain some time to think of the proper reason. Thus, he may even win the debate and the sprout of his knowledge would be protected. However, this justification was not altogether acceptable.<ref name=":3" />

=== वितण्डा ॥ Vitanda ===

=== वितण्डा ॥ Vitanda ===

Vitanda is some what peculier.<ref name=":1" /> In the case of Jalpa the contending parties have a position of their own, fight hard to defend it, and aim to make the rival accept it, by whatever means. However, in the Vitanda, the disputant has neither a position of his own nor is he trying to defend any specific thesis. He is merely trying to derange and humiliate the other party to the debate.<ref name=":3" />The focus is to prove that the opponent is not qualified to discuss and that there is no credibility for the opponent.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />  

Vitanda is some what peculier.<ref name=":1" /> In the case of Jalpa the contending parties have a position of their own, fight hard to defend it, and aim to make the rival accept it, by whatever means. However, in the Vitanda, the disputant has neither a position of his own nor is he trying to defend any specific thesis. He is merely trying to derange and humiliate the other party to the debate.<ref name=":3" />The focus is to prove that the opponent is not qualified to discuss and that there is no credibility for the opponent.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />  

Therefore, Vitanda is a type of argument or squabbling that descends to the level of quarrel and trickery. It is described as a destructive type of argument; the sole aim of each party being not only to inflict defeat on the opponent but also to demolish and humiliate him. The Vaitandika, the debater who employs Vitanda, is basically a refuter; he relentlessly goes on refuting whatever the proponent says. He has no thesis of his own – either to put forward or to defend. The aggressive Vaitandika goes on picking holes in the rival’s arguments and destabilizes his position, without any attempt to offer an alternate thesis. In other words, the debater here tries to ensure his victory simply by refuting or demolishing the thesis put forward by the other side, by browbeating or misleading or ridiculing the opponent. The whole purpose its exercise seems to be to prove the opponent wrong and incompetent; and to humiliate him. Vitanda is therefore termed as a destructive debate, the major part of which is spent in denying the opponent’s views, in discrediting him or in quarreling. The Vaitandika might at times pick up the opponent’s thesis (though he himself might not believe in it) and argue in its favor just to demonstrate that the opponent is not doing a ‘good job’; and rebuke him saying that his thesis might not be after all so bad, but he made it look worse by making a terrible mess of it. Vaitandika makes it a point to disagree with the other, no matter what the other says. It is a way of saying: you are wrong, not because your statement by itself is wrong; but, it is wrong because you said it. He tries to effectively undermine the credibility of the opponent; and demonstrate to him that he is neither competent nor qualified to discuss the subtleties of the logic. In such type of debates either ‘valid knowledge’ or ‘truth’ has no place.<ref name=":3" /> It is said that,<blockquote>स जल्पो वितण्डा भवति किं विशेषणः प्रतिपक्षस्थापनया हीनः ।<ref name=":5" /></blockquote><blockquote>''a jalpo vitaṇḍā bhavati kiṁ viśeṣaṇaḥ pratipakṣasthāpanayā hīnaḥ ।''</blockquote>Meaning: That Jalpa (disputation) becomes Vitanda (wrangling) which is devoid of counter conception.  

Therefore, Vitanda is a type of argument or squabbling that descends to the level of quarrel and trickery. It is described as a destructive type of argument; the sole aim of each party being not only to inflict defeat on the opponent but also to demolish and humiliate him. The Vaitandika, the debater who employs Vitanda, is basically a refuter; he relentlessly goes on refuting whatever the proponent says. He has no thesis of his own – either to put forward or to defend. The aggressive Vaitandika goes on picking holes in the rival’s arguments and destabilizes his position, without any attempt to offer an alternate thesis. In other words, the debater here tries to ensure his victory simply by refuting or demolishing the thesis put forward by the other side, by browbeating or misleading or ridiculing the opponent. The whole purpose of the exercise seems to be to prove the opponent wrong and incompetent; and to humiliate him. Therefore, the major part of Vitanda is spent in denying the opponent’s views, in discrediting him or in quarreling. The Vaitandika might at times pick up the opponent’s thesis (though he himself might not believe in it) and argue in its favor just to demonstrate that the opponent is not doing a ‘good job’; and rebuke him saying that his thesis might not be after all so bad, but he made it look worse by making a terrible mess of it. Vaitandika makes it a point to disagree with the other, no matter what the other says. It is a way of saying: you are wrong, not because your statement by itself is wrong; but, it is wrong because you said it. He tries to effectively undermine the credibility of the opponent; and demonstrate to him that he is neither competent nor qualified to discuss the subtleties of the logic. In such type of debates either ‘valid knowledge’ or ‘truth’ has no place.<ref name=":3" /> It is said that,<blockquote>स जल्पो वितण्डा भवति किं विशेषणः प्रतिपक्षस्थापनया हीनः ।<ref name=":5" /></blockquote><blockquote>''a jalpo vitaṇḍā bhavati kiṁ viśeṣaṇaḥ pratipakṣasthāpanayā hīnaḥ ।''</blockquote>Meaning: That Jalpa (disputation) becomes Vitanda (wrangling) which is devoid of counter conception.  

It is mentioned here that the Wrangler does not establish the view (that which he himself holds), but only goes on to criticize the other person. Hence, it seems as though a disputation without a counter conception is Vitanda. However, according to Tatparya Tika, when the wrangler confines himself to merely criticizing the opponent's view, he does so with the idea that when the opponent's view has been rejected as wrong, it would follow as a necessary consequence that his own view is right, so he does have a view of this own; but it is stated in wrangling, only in the form of the attack on the other view, this criticism, being figuratively spoken of as his 'view'. So, the meaning is that though the wrangler has a view of his own, yet he does not make any attempt at establishing it, apart from the attack that he directs against the other view. Hence, it is only right to speak of there being no establishing of his own view but it would be wrong to say that there is no other view.<ref name=":4" />

It is mentioned here that the Wrangler does not establish the view (that which he himself holds), but only goes on to criticize the other person. Hence, it seems as though a disputation without a counter conception is Vitanda. However, according to Tatparya Tika, when the wrangler confines himself to merely criticizing the opponent's view, he does so with the idea that when the opponent's view has been rejected as wrong, it would follow as a necessary consequence that his own view is right, so he does have a view of this own; but it is stated in wrangling, only in the form of the attack on the other view, this criticism, being figuratively spoken of as his 'view'. So, the meaning is that though the wrangler has a view of his own, yet he does not make any attempt at establishing it, apart from the attack that he directs against the other view. Hence, it is only right to speak of there being no establishing of his own view but it would be wrong to say that there is no other view.<ref name=":4" />

When one has been rudely addressed by an opponent; either through arrogance (of superior knowledge), or through sheer prejudice (against truth), or through some other similar reasons (i.e.desire for wealth, fame, etc.) then one (failing to perceive the right answer to the ill-mannered allegations of the opponent) should pick up a quarrel with him and proceed to deal with him by Jalpa (disputation) and by Vitanda (wrangling). This quarrel is with a view to defeating the opponent and not with a view to getting at the truth. But this should be done only for the purpose of defending true Science, and not for the purpose of obtaining wealth, honopur or fame.

When one has been rudely addressed by an opponent; either through arrogance (of superior knowledge), or through sheer prejudice (against truth), or through some other similar reasons (i.e.desire for wealth, fame, etc.) then one (failing to perceive the right answer to the ill-mannered allegations of the opponent) should pick up a quarrel with him and proceed to deal with him by Jalpa (disputation) and by Vitanda (wrangling). This quarrel is with a view to defeating the opponent and not with a view to getting at the truth. But this should be done only for the purpose of defending true Science, and not for the purpose of obtaining wealth, honopur or fame.

According to the Tatparya Tika, the motive prompting the man should be - if this ill mannered person is allowed to go undefeated, then ordinary men will accept his conclusions as the right ones, and this would bring about a total confusion relating to dharma and true philosophy.<ref name=":4" /><blockquote>विद्यानिर्वेदादिभिश्च परेणावज्ञायमानस्य ।<ref name=":5" /> ताभ्यां विगृह्य कथनम् ॥ ४.२.५० ॥<ref name=":8" /> विगृह्येति विजिगीषया न तत्त्वबुभुत्सयेति । तदेतद्विद्यापालनार्थं न लाभपूजाख्यात्यर्थमिति । </blockquote><blockquote>''vidyānirvedādibhiśca pareṇāvajñāyamānasya । tābhyāṁ vigr̥hya kathanam ॥ 4.2.50 ॥ vigr̥hyeti vijigīṣayā na tattvabubhutsayeti । tadetadvidyāpālanārthaṁ na'' </blockquote>

According to the Tatparya Tika, the motive prompting the man should be - if this ill mannered person is allowed to go undefeated, then ordinary men will accept his conclusions as the right ones, and this would bring about a total confusion relating to dharma and true philosophy.<ref name=":4" /><blockquote>विद्यानिर्वेदादिभिश्च परेणावज्ञायमानस्य ।<ref name=":5" /> ताभ्यां विगृह्य कथनम् ॥ ४.२.५० ॥<ref name=":8" /> विगृह्येति विजिगीषया न तत्त्वबुभुत्सयेति । तदेतद्विद्यापालनार्थं न लाभपूजाख्यात्यर्थमिति ।<ref name=":5" /> </blockquote><blockquote>''vidyānirvedādibhiśca pareṇāvajñāyamānasya । tābhyāṁ vigr̥hya kathanam ॥ 4.2.50 ॥ vigr̥hyeti vijigīṣayā na tattvabubhutsayeti । tadetadvidyāpālanārthaṁ na'' </blockquote>

== Difference between Vada and Jalpa ==

== Difference between Vada and Jalpa ==