Changes

=== 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" />  

In the Nyaya-Sutra, Vitanda is described as<blockquote>सः प्रतिपक्षस्थापनाहीनः वितण्डा ।।१.२.३।।<ref name=":6" /> ''saḥ pratipakṣasthāpanāhīnaḥ vitaṇḍā ।।1.2.3।।''</blockquote>

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.  

 

!<nowiki>जल्पः || Jalpa</nowiki>

|1. The contending parties in a Jalpa have a position of their own that they fight hard to defend.<ref name=":3" />

|In Vitanda, the disputant has neither a position of his own nor is he trying to defend any specific thesis. He merely tries to derange and humiliate the other party to the debate.<ref name=":3" />

|In Vitanda, 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, 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" />

Sometimes he might pick up a thesis just for argument’s sake, even though he may have no faith in the truth of his own argument. Also, both the participants in a Vitanda are prepared to resort to mean tactics in order to mislead, browbeat the opponent by fallacies (hetvabhasa); by attacking the opponents statement by willful misrepresentation (Chala); ill-timed rejoinders (Atita-kala) and, make the opponent ‘bite the dust’. It is virtually akin to a ‘no-holds-barred’ sort of street fight. The ethereal values such as: truth, honesty, mutual respect and such others are conspicuously absent here.<ref name=":3" />

Sometimes he might pick up a thesis just for argument’s sake, even though he may have no faith in the truth of his own argument. Also, both the participants in a Vitanda are prepared to resort to mean tactics in order to mislead, browbeat the opponent by fallacies (hetvabhasa); by attacking the opponents statement by willful misrepresentation (Chala); ill-timed rejoinders (Atita-kala) and, make the opponent ‘bite the dust’. It is virtually akin to a ‘no-holds-barred’ sort of street fight. The ethereal values such as: truth, honesty, mutual respect and such others are conspicuously absent here.<ref name=":3" />

In the Nyaya-Sutra, Vitanda is described as  <blockquote>सः प्रतिपक्षस्थापनाहीनः वितण्डा ।।१.२.३।।<ref name=":6" /></blockquote><blockquote>''saḥ pratipakṣasthāpanāhīnaḥ vitaṇḍā ।।1.2.3।।''</blockquote>Therefore, in terms of merit, it is rated inferior to Jalpa, which also employs such trickery as quibbling and illegitimate rejoinder. While Jalpa tries to argue for the success of its thesis by whatever means, Vitanda does not seriously attempt to put up any counter-thesis. However, though what the Vaitandika says might be irrational or illogical; he tries to effectively silence the opponent.  

Therefore, in terms of merit, it is rated inferior to Jalpa, which also employs such trickery as quibbling and illegitimate rejoinder. While Jalpa tries to argue for the success of its thesis by whatever means, Vitanda does not seriously attempt to put up any counter-thesis. However, though what the Vaitandika says might be irrational or illogical; he tries to effectively silence the opponent.

In a Vitanda, where both the parties employ similar tactics, the debate would invariably get noisy and ugly. The Madhyastha or the Judge plays a crucial role in regulating a Vitanda. He has the hard and unenviable task of not merely controlling the two warring debaters and their noisy supporters, but also to rule on what is ‘Sadhu’ (permissible) or ‘A-sadhu’ (not permissible) and what is true (Sat) what is just a bluff (A-sat). And, when one debater repeatedly oversteps and breaches the accepted code of conduct, the Madhyastha might have to disqualify him and award the debate to the other; or, he may even disqualify both the parties and scrap the event declaring it null and void.<ref name=":3" />

In a Vitanda, where both the parties employ similar tactics, the debate would invariably get noisy and ugly. The Madhyastha or the Judge plays a crucial role in regulating a Vitanda. He has the hard and unenviable task of not merely controlling the two warring debaters and their noisy supporters, but also to rule on what is ‘Sadhu’ (permissible) or ‘A-sadhu’ (not permissible) and what is true (Sat) what is just a bluff (A-sat). And, when one debater repeatedly oversteps and breaches the accepted code of conduct, the Madhyastha might have to disqualify him and award the debate to the other; or, he may even disqualify both the parties and scrap the event declaring it null and void.<ref name=":3" />