Changes

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>

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 ==

== वादजल्पयोः भेदः ॥ Difference between Vada and Jalpa ==

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. It is said; Vada and Jalpa are contrasting counterparts. In Vada, the thesis is established by Pramana-s; and the anti-thesis is disproved by Tarka or different set of Pramana-s. Whereas in Jalpa, the main function is negation; the Pramana-s do not have much use here. Jalpa tries to win the argument by resorting to quibbling, such as Chala, Jati and Nigrahasthana. None of these can establish the thesis directly, because their function is negation. But, indirectly , they help to disprove anti-thesis. Thus, Jalpa in general is the dialectical aid for Vada (Nyaya Sutra: 4.2.50-51

|1. Vada is an honest debate aiming to ascertain ‘what is true’

|1. Jalpa is an argument where each strives to impose his thesis on the other. The question of ascertaining the ‘truth’ does not arise here.

|2. In Vada, the thesis is established by Pramana-s; and the anti-thesis is disproved by Tarka or different set of Pramana-s.  

|2. In Jalpa, the main function is negation; the Pramana-s do not have much use here.

|3. Jalpa tries to win the argument by resorting to quibbling, such as Chala, Jati and Nigrahasthana. None of these can establish the thesis directly, because their function is negation. But, indirectly , they help to disprove anti-thesis.  

|4. In the case of Vada, the ‘truth’ is established by positive evidence; and, the invalid knowledge (A-pramana) masquerading as a good reason (that is, a hetvabhasa) is detected and eliminated. No one is really defeated and the truth is established.

|4. In the case of Jalpa, it mainly depends on negation (which is non-committal) and on effective refutation of the proponent’s argument. There is no earnest effort to build positive irrefutable proof. And, the fear of defeat overhangs the whole proceedings.

[It is said; at times, the Madhyastha might allow or overlook ‘Jalpa-like’ tactics ‘for safeguarding the interests of truth, ‘just as a fence of thorny hedges is used to protect the farms’.]<ref name=":3" />

Samvada is generally understood as a dialogue between those like the teacher and the taught. Whereas, Vada refers to systematic establishment of a theory through logical reasoning in a cordial manner. While, the use of negation techniques as in Jalpa and Vitanda, transform a discourse into Vivada.    In the 3rd verse of the Upadesha Panchaka, Adi Shankaracharya says, <blockquote>बुधजनैर्वादः परित्यज्यताम् ॥ ३ ॥ ''budhajanairvādaḥ parityajyatām ॥ 3 ॥''</blockquote>Meaning: May you never argue with wise people.

In this context, Shri.Yegnasubramanian explains subtle distinctions between Vada and Samvada which may be extended to Vivada as well. He says,

 

# In Vada and Vivada, one looks upon the opponent as equal or inferior respectively, where as, in samvada, one looks upon the other person as equal or superior (as in case of a teacher). Thus, there is a basic difference in the attitude itself which reflects in one’s addressing the other, the language, tone etc.

# When one enters into Vada or Vivada, one has often made one’s conclusion on a topic, and through the debate, one tries to establish one’s conclusion or refute the other. Whereas in Samvada, one has his/her conviction, but does not force it upon another as his/her conclusion. Like a student’s approach, where the student may have some opinions, or notions, but doesn't make a conclusion nor wants to refute the teacher’s conclusion or teaching. The person is open-minded, and willing to refine or improve his/her understanding.

 

# In the course of debates, one tries to talk more and focuses on restricting the other person from talking. The inclination to listen is lacking and one always interferes before the other has concluded. Whereas in Samvada, the propensity to talk is balanced with the propensity to hear/listen. In Samvada, one talks only as much as is required to present his/her idea  briefly and, allows the other person also to talk and listens with 200% attention without interference. Just like a student who waits to see whether the teacher has anything more to say even after the teacher has stopped.  

# In the course of debates, especially in Vivada, there is less scope to reflect upon later since one does not listen to the other. Whereas, in a samvada, one is constantly reflecting upon what he/she is speaking as well as reflecting upon what the other is speaking. This is another aspect of giving respect. Just as with the teacher, not only does one listen, but also reflects upon the thought giving maximum respect to the teacher.

 

# An aspect of Samvada is that a person inquires when any point spoken by the other person is unclear. Even after elaborate answering, if one is not convinced; there is scope to ask again. Just like Arjuna inquired from Krishna when he was unclear about anything Krishna spoke. However, in Vivada, there is almost no room for this.

# A Samvada or Vada never leaves disturbance or bitterness in the mind. But in Vivada, there is always disturbance or bitterness in the mind.  

Thus, there is lot of difference between Samvada, Vada and Vivada. Just as a student asking a question to the teacher is welcome and is a part of learning. While, one trying to argue with a mahatma is not. Therefore, Vivada is positively condemned and asking questions for clarification is encouraged.<ref>S.Yegnasubramanian (2012), [http://svbf.org/newsletters/year-2012/upadesa-pancakam-part-ii/ Upadesa Pancakam of Adi Sankaracarya - Part II], Paramartha Tattvam.</ref>

 

 

 

In this context, Shri.Yegnasubramanian explains subtle distinctions between Vada and Samvada. He says,

 

Generally there are several ways of distinguishing between vada and samvada. For example,

# In an argument, one looks upon that person as equal or inferior, where as, in samvAda, one looks upon the teachers as superior. Thus there is a basic diff in the attitude itself which reflects in one’s addressing the other, the language, tone etc.

# Often when one enters into an argument, one has made one’s conclusion on a topic, and through argument, one tries to establish one’s conclusion or refute the other. Whereas in a student’s approach, the student may have some opinions, or notions, but he never made a conclusion or wants to refute the teacher’s conclusion or teaching, He is open-minded, and willing to accept his wrong understanding.

# In arguments, one tries to talk more and almost, doesn’t allow the other to talk at all. And if the other person talks, one doesn’t listen properly, and one always interferes before the other has concluded. Whereas a student talks the minimum, just enough to put his/her idea briefly and, allows the teacher to talk more and listens with 200% attention without interference. And even after the teacher has stopped, the student waits to see whether the teacher has anything more to say.

# In addition, in arguments, since one does not listen to the other, one has nothing to reflect upon later. Whereas, in a samvAda with the teacher – not only one listens, one also reflects upon the thought giving maximum respect to the teacher.

# Even after elaborate answering, one may not be convinced; politely, one will ask again and again, if needed, and might want to think about it more and ask again. Whereas, in an argument, there will be no room for this almost.

# After samvAda, there is no disturbance or bitterness in the mind , but in argument, there is always disturbance or bitterness in the mind.  

Thus there is lot of difference between a student asking a question to the teacher, which is welcome and is part of learning, trying to argue with a mahatma. Argument is positively condemned and asking questions for clarification is encouraged. And therefore samvAdah kriyatAm; vAdah prityajyatAm.<ref>S.Yegnasubramanian (2012), [http://svbf.org/newsletters/year-2012/upadesa-pancakam-part-ii/ Upadesa Pancakam of Adi Sankaracarya - Part II], Paramartha Tattvam.</ref>

 

== References ==

== References ==

<references />

<references />

[[Category:Shastras]]

[[Category:Shastras]]