Changes

=== वितण्डा ॥ Vitanda ===

=== वितण्डा ॥ Vitanda ===

Vitanda is some what peculier.<ref name=":1" />

Vitanda is generally described as a destructive type of argument or squabbling that descends to the level of quarrel and trickery. Here, the sole aim of each participant is not only to inflict defeat on the opponent but also to demolish and humiliate him. Therefore, the debater who employs Vitanda, known as a Vaitandika, is basically a refuter.

 

* He relentlessly goes on refuting whatever the proponent says.  

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.  

* 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.  

* He is aggressive and 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.

* He may 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.  

* He 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. 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.  

* 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.  

* He might sometimes, pick up a thesis just for argument’s sake, even though he may have no faith in the truth of his own argument.

* 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.  

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, 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. Thus, there is no place for either ‘valid knowledge’ or ‘truth’ in such type of debate.<ref name=":3" /> In that sense, Vitanda is some what peculier.<ref name=":1" /> The Nyaya-Sutra describes Vitanda as,<blockquote>सः प्रतिपक्षस्थापनाहीनः वितण्डा ।।१.२.३।।<ref name=":6" /> ''saḥ pratipakṣasthāpanāhīnaḥ vitaṇḍā ।।1.2.3।।''</blockquote>This definition of Vitanda becomes clearer as the difference between Jalpa and Vitanda are enumerated.

* 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" />

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.<ref name=":3" />  

 

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>In order to understand this definition, it is imperative to understand the difference between Jalpa and Vitanda.

==== जल्पवितण्डयोः भेदः || Difference between Jalpa and Vitanda ====

==== जल्पवितण्डयोः भेदः || Difference between Jalpa and Vitanda ====

{| class="wikitable"

{| class="wikitable"

!<nowiki>जल्पः || Jalpa</nowiki>

!<nowiki>जल्पः || Jalpa</nowiki><ref name=":3" />

!<nowiki>वितण्डा || Vitanda</nowiki>

!<nowiki>वितण्डा || Vitanda</nowiki>

|-

|-

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

|1. The contending parties in a Jalpa have a position of their own that they fight hard to defend.

|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 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" />

|-

|-

|2. In Jalpa, the aim of the contenders is to make the rival accept their thesis, by whatever means.<ref name=":3" />

|2. In Jalpa, the aim of the contenders is to make the rival accept their thesis, by whatever means.

|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" />

|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.  

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" />

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" />

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. Thus, ethereal values such as truth, honesty, mutual respect and such others are conspicuously absent here. Therefore, in terms of merit, Vitanda is rated inferior to Jalpa.<ref name=":3" />

* he may even disqualify both the parties and scrap the event declaring it null and void.<ref name=":3" />

== चरकसंहितायां सम्भाषाविधिः ॥ Sambhasha in Charaka Samhita ==

== चरकसंहितायां सम्भाषाविधिः ॥ Sambhasha in Charaka Samhita ==

It is said that,  <blockquote>भिषक् भिषजा सह संभाषेत ।<ref name=":11" /> ''bhiṣak bhiṣajā saha saṁbhāṣeta ।''</blockquote>Meaning: A physician should discuss (a problem) with another physician<ref name=":12" /> to solve the problem and clear the doubt is a 'Tadvidya Sambhasha'.  

It is said that,  <blockquote>भिषक् भिषजा सह संभाषेत ।<ref name=":11" /> ''bhiṣak bhiṣajā saha saṁbhāṣeta ।''</blockquote>Meaning: A physician should discuss (a problem) with another physician<ref name=":12" /> to solve the problem and clear the doubt is a 'Tadvidya Sambhasha'.