Changes

== वादविद्या ॥ Vada Vidya ==

== वादविद्या ॥ Vada Vidya ==

Nyaya, one among the 6 darshanas deals with well-organized logical ways of ascertaining the true nature of the objects and subjects of human knowledge (Pramana Shastra). It is also called Tarka vidya (logic) and Vada vidya or Vadartha (reasoned argument); and is included among the fourteen principal branches of learning.

Nyaya, one among the Shad Darshanas, deals with well-organized logical ways of ascertaining the true nature of the objects and subjects of human knowledge (Pramana Shastra). It is also called Tarka vidya (logic) and Vada vidya or Vadartha (reasoned argument); and is included among the Chaturdasha Vidyasthanani (fourteen principal branches of learning).

Nyaya Sutras treat mainly five subjects:  

The Nyaya Sutras mainly treat five subjects:  

# Pramana (instruments or means of right knowledge)  

# Pramana (instruments or means of right knowledge)  

# Prameya (the object of right knowledge)

# Prameya (the object of right knowledge)

While discussing Vada, Nyaya Sutra talks about sixteen padarthas (topics or categories) involved in the development of the debate (Vada marga). They are  

While discussing Vada, Nyaya Sutra talks about sixteen padarthas (topics or categories) involved in the development of the debate (Vada marga). They are  

* the four reliable means of obtaining valid knowledge (pramana) viz. Pratyaksha (perception), Anumana (inference), Upamana (comparison ) and Shabda (reliable testimony)  

* The four reliable means of obtaining valid knowledge (pramana). Namely, Pratyaksha (perception), Anumana (inference), Upamana (comparison) and Shabda (reliable testimony)  

* the five-part syllogism (Nyaya)  

* The five-part syllogism (Nyaya)  

* the structure (vada vidhi)  

* The structure (Vada vidhi)  

* the ways of developing sound evidence (pramana)  

* The ways of developing sound evidence (Pramana)  

* the logical reasoning (tarka) to support ones thesis which needs to be proved (Pratijna) and its object (nirnaya)  

* The logical reasoning (tarka) to support one's thesis which needs to be proved (Pratijna) and its object (Nirnaya)  

* the disciplined (anusasana) mode of presentation (vadopaya) and the exceptions (prthaka-prasthana)  

* The disciplined (Anushasana) mode of presentation (Vadopaya) and the exceptions (Prthaka-prasthana)  

* the limits or the ‘dos and don’ts’ (vada-maryada) of three formats of such debates.<ref name=":3" />

* The limits or the ‘dos and don’ts’ (Vada maryada) of three formats of such debates.<ref name=":3" />

The "limbs” were the most important formulation of the structure of a logical reasoning; these are a landmark in the history of Indian logic. According to the Ny''āyasūtras,'' there are five "limbs" or "steps" in a structured reasoning. They should all be articulated linguistically. The first step is the statement of the thesis, the second the statement of reason or evidence, the third citation of an example (a particular case, well-recognized and acceptable to both sides) that illustrates the underlying (general) principle and thereby supports the reason or evidence. The fourth is the showing of the present thesis as a case that belongs to the general case, for reason or evidence is essentially similar to the example cited. The fifth is the assertion of the thesis again as proven or established. Here is the time-honored illustration:

=== The Nyaya Model ===

Akshapada defined a method of philosophical argumentation, called the Nyaya method or the Nyaya model. This was the standard for an ideally organized philosophical disputation. Seven categories are identified as constituting the "prior" stage of a Nyaya''.'' A Nyaya starts with an initial doubt, as to whether ''p'' or not-''p'' is the case, and ends with a decision, that ''p'' (or not-''p,'' as the case may be). The seven categories include,

# The "limbs" (Avayavas) of the formulated reasoning

# Supportive Argument (Tarka)

# Decision.  

Out of these 7 categories, the need for 'Purpose' is self-explanatory, the 'example' is needed to ensure that the arguments would not be just empty talk, while the 'basic tenets' supply the ground rules for the argumentation.

Step 1. There is fire on the hill. Step 2. For there is smoke. Step 3. (Wherever there is smoke, there is fire), as in the kitchen. Step 4. This is such a case (smoke on the hill). Step 5. Therefore it is so, i.e., there is fire on the hill.  

The "limbs” (Avayavas) were the most important formulation of the structure of a logical reasoning; these are a landmark in the history of Indian logic. According to the Nyayasutras'','' there are five "limbs" or "steps" (Pancha Avayavas) in a structured reasoning. And they should all be articulated linguistically. Each of these 5 steps are explained with an example in the following table.

the Nyāya school asserted all along that this nyāya method is used by the arguer to convince others, and to satisfy completely the expectation" (ākāmksa) of another, you need all the five "limbs" or steps. This is in fact a full-fledged articulation of an inference schema.  

|The showing of the present thesis as a case that belongs to the general case. For reason or evidence is essentially similar to the example cited.

The Nyaya school asserted all along that this nyaya method is used by the arguer to convince others. And that, to satisfy completely the expectation (akanksha) of another, you need all the five "limbs" or steps. This is in fact a full-fledged articulation of an inference schema.

Returning to the nyāya method itself, the supportive argument (tarka) is needed when doubts are raised about the implication of the middle part of the above inference schema. Is the example right? Does it support the evi dence? Is the general principle right? Is it adequate? The "supportive argu ments” would examine the alternative possibilities, and try to resolve all these questions. After the supportive argument comes the decision, one way or another.  

Returning to the nyaya method itself, the supportive argument (tarka) is needed when doubts are raised about the implication of the middle part of the above inference schema. Like, Is the example right? Does it support the evidence? Is the general principle right? Is it adequate? The "supportive arguments” would examine the alternative possibilities, and try to resolve all these questions. And thus, after the supportive argument, comes the decision, one way or another.  

Another seven categories were identified as constituting the posterior stage" of the nyāya method. They consist of three types of debate (already mentioned), the group of tricks, false rejoinders, and clinchers or defeat situ ations, and another important logical category, that of pseudo-reason or pseudo evidence.

Another seven categories were identified as constituting the "posterior" stage of the Nyaya method. They consist of,

 

* The three types of debate (Vada, Jalpa and Vitanda)  

Since there can be fire without smoke (as in a red-hot iron ring), if somebody wants to infer presence of smoke in the kitchen on the basis of the presence of fire there, his evidence would be pseudo-evidence called the "deviating." Where the evidence (say a pool of water) is usually the sign for the absence of fire, rather than its presence, it is called the contradictory. An evidence-reason must itself be established or proven to exist, if it has to establish something else. Hence, an "unestablished" evidence-reason is a pseudo-evidence or a pseudo-sign. A purported evidence-reason may be coun tered by a purported counter-evidence showing the opposite possibility. This will be a case of the "counter-balanced." An "untimely" is one where the thesis itself precludes the possibility of adducing some sign as being the evidence-reason by virtue of its incompatibility with the thesis in question. The "untimely" is so-called because as soon as the thesis is stated, the evi dence will no longer be an evidence.<ref name=":0" />

* The group of tricks  

* False rejoinders  

* Clinchers or defeat situations

* Pseudo-reason or Pseudo evidence.<ref name=":0" />

== वादप्रकाराः ॥ Types of debates ==

== वादप्रकाराः ॥ Types of debates ==

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

# 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>

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>

== References ==

== References ==

<references />

<references />

[[Category:Shastras]]

[[Category:Shastras]]