Types of Discourse (सम्भाषाप्रकाराः)

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, 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 was a woman scholar who used to participate in the debates in Raja Janaka's court.

परिचयः ॥ Introduction

There was a long and a time-honored tradition in ancient India where philosophers and thinkers met to discuss metaphysical issues over which there were multiple views. There are detailed narrations of such discussions, debates and dialogues recorded in Chandogya Upanishad, Brhadaranyaka Upanishad and Prashna Upanishad. The other early texts such as Aitareya Brahmana, Kathopanishad and others use terms like : tarka (reasoning), Vada (debate), Yukti ( sustained arguments), Prameya (object of knowledge), Pramana ( proof), Nirnaya (ascertainment) etc. which later became the principal terminologies of the Nyaya School. It is also said that the idioms of inquiry (Anveshiki) dealing with the theory of reasons (Hetu-vidya or Hetu-shastra) were mentioned in Manu-samhita and Panini’s Ashtadhyayi.

As Bimal Krishna Matilal observes in The Character of Logic in India:

.. The intellectual climate in India was bristling with questions such as: “Is there a soul different from body?”; “Is the world (loka) eternal?”; ”What is the meaning, goal, or purpose of life?”; and, “Is renunciation preferable to enjoyment?” etc. which were of major concern. As teachers and thinkers argued about such matters, there arose a gradual awareness of the characteristics or patterns of correct, acceptable and sound reasoning. There were also concerns to evolve the norms to distinguish sound reasoning from pseudo-reasoning (hetvabhasa) which is unacceptable. Gradually, the notions of ‘good’ and acceptable debates took shape as distinct from wrong and ugly arguments. That gave rise to the development of a branch of study dealing with theories of reasoning and logic (Hetu-vidya or Hetu shastra). Subsequently, manuals came to be written for conduct of proper and successful debates (Tarka vidya or Vada vidya). These manuals included instructions and learning methods for the guidance of aspiring debaters. The earliest known text of that genre was Tantra-yukti (structured argument) compiled to systemize debates conducted in learned councils (Parishad).

Debates and arguments then came to be recognized both as art of logical reasoning (Tarka-vidya) and science of causes (Hetu-shastra) following the path of a well-disciplined method of inquiry (anvikshiki) testing scriptural knowledge by further scrutiny. Therefore, scholars belonging to various Schools of philosophy were imparted training in Tarka–vidya: the art and skill of conducting impressive successful debates and disputations (Sambhasha or Vada vidhi) in learned assemblies (parishad). Their training modules included,

1. Methods of presenting arguments as per a logically structured format
2. Ways to stoutly defend one's thesis by means of genuine criteria of knowledge (Pramana)
3. To attack the opponent’s thesis by means of indirect arguments (Tarka)
4. Estimating the strengths and weaknesses of arguments of either side
5. Establishing one’s own points while setting aside those of the opponent.

They were also trained for handling different types of challenges, such as:

1. How to vanquish a person of blazing fame
2. How to behave with a senior opponent
3. How to handle an aggressive and troublesome opponent
4. How to conduct oneself in prestigious Parishads, to influence the flow of debate and to impress the judges and the onlookers etc.

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-Sastra). 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 Sutras treats mainly five subjects:

1. Pramana (instruments or means of right knowledge)
2. Prameya (the object of right knowledge)
3. Vada (debate or discussion)
4. Avayava (the elements or steps of syllogism)
5. Anya-mata-pariksha (review or examination of the doctrines of other Schools)

Therefore, types of debates and arguments come under the purview of Nyaya Shastra.

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

• the four reliable means of obtaining valid knowledge (pramana) viz. Pratyaksha (perception), Anumana (inference), Upamana (comparison ) and Shabda (reliable testimony)
• the five-part syllogism (Nyaya)
• the structure (vada vidhi)
• 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 disciplined (anusasana) 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.

वादप्रकाराः ॥ Types of debates

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 (Sambasha) 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 (Vaada) are never simple. A Katha, in essence, is a reasoned and a well-structured philosophical discussion.

Vatsayana at the beginning of his commentary on Nyaya Sutra (1.2.1) mentions that Katha is classified into two kinds of debates (Dvi-vidha sambasha): Vaada (the good-Sandhya sambasha) on one hand; and Jalpa and Vitanda (the bad- Vigrahya sambasha) on the other. Uddyotakara in his - Nyāya Vārttika 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, Vaada 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 Vaada, at its best, is a candid friendly discussion (anuloma sambasha or sandhya sambasha) or debate in the spirit of: ’let’s sit-down and talk’.

The other two are hostile arguments (vigrhya sambasha) between rivals who desperately want to win. Thus, by implication,-while the goal of a Vaada is establishment of truth or an accepted doctrine; and that of the other two hostile debates (Jalpa and Vitanda) is seeking victory.

Of the two types of hostile debates, Jalpa is described (in Nyaya Sutra 1.2.2) as a disputation or wrangling or 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 (Prati-paksha) on a given subject; and, sometimes at the cost of truth. Each isprepared to employ various deceptive or sophistic devices, such as quibbling (Chala); unreasonable (A-hetu) 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.

Unlike in Vaada, the purpose of Jalpa is not so much as to ascertain the truth, as to establish one’s own position or thesis, and to prove the opponent wrong; and, make him accept defeat. What is at stake here is the ‘prestige and honor’ of one’s School (Matha). And, therefore, each will try to win the debate by fair or foul means. And, when one senses that he might be losing the argument (nigrahasthāna), he 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.

And, Vitanda is the worst type of argument or squabbling descending 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. 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. The aggressive Vaitandika goes on picking holes in the rival’s arguments and destabilises his position , without any attempt to offer an alternate thesis. Both the participants in a Vitanda are prepared to resort to mean tactics in order to mislead, browbeat the opponent by fallacies (hetv-abhasa); by attacking the opponents statement by wilful 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.

And, Vitanda is the worst type of argument or squabbling descending 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. 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. The aggressive Vaitandika goes on picking holes in the rival’s arguments and destabilises his position , without any attempt to offer an alternate thesis. Both the participants in a Vitanda are prepared to resort to mean tactics in order to mislead, browbeat the opponent by fallacies (hetv-abhasa); by attacking the opponents statement by wilful 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.

Although intellectual debates were quite common during the Upanishad-times, and even later, there was perhaps no well laid out theory or an approved structure for conduct of various types of debates. It is said; it was during the Sramana and the Buddhist period that debates became really very serious.

In the Indian traditions, four formats of discussions, debates and arguments are described. There are four types of discussions. Namely,

1. Samvada (संवादः)
2. Vada (वादः)
3. Jalpa (जल्पः)
4. Vitanda (वितण्डा)

The merit and esteem of each of these types of discussions is graded in terms of

1. the honesty of their purpose
2. the quality of debate
3. the decorum
4. the mutual regard of the participants.

While Samvada is a discourse or imparting of teaching, the other three – Vada, Jalpa and Vitanda- are clever and structured (Tantrayukti) debates and arguments between rivals.

The vada, is a candid friendly discussion (anuloma sambasha or sandhya sambasha) or debate in the spirit of: ’let’s sit-down and talk’. The other two are hostile arguments (vigrhya sambasha) between rivals who desperately want to win. Thus, 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.

Detailed Discussion

Samvada

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 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.

Samvada is a dialogue that takes between the teacher and the taught in all earnestness. The one who approaches the teacher could be a disciple; student; friend (as in Krishna-Arjuna or Krishna-Uddhava) ; son ( as in Shiva-Skanda or Uddalaka-Swetaketu); or spouse (as in Shiva-Prvathi or Yajnavalkya-Maitreyi); or anyone else seeking knowledge (as in Nachiketa -Yama or the six persons who approach Sage Pippalada in Prashna Upanishad). What characterizes the Samvada in such cases is the sincerity and eagerness of the learner; the humility in his/her approach; and the absolute trust in the teacher. The wise teacher , in turn , gracefully imparts instructions out of enormous love for the ardent seeker of truth.

Samvada is thus a dialogue that teaches, imparts instructions or passes on knowledge.

The bulk of the Upanishad teachings have come down to us in the form of Samvada, which took place in varieties of contexts. Apart from intimate sessions where an illumined teacher imparts instructions to an aspirant , there are instances of varied kind, say, as when : a wife is curious to learn from her husband the secrets of immortality; a teenage boy approaches Death itself to learn the truth of life and death; a Raja seeks instruction from an recluse sage who speaks from his experience ; Brahmans advanced in age and wisdom sit at the feet of a Kshatriya prince seeking instructions as also inspiration ; and , when sometimes the sages are women who are approached by Rajas .There are other sorts of dialogues , say, when Jabala is taught by bulls and birds (Ch. Up 4.4-9) , Upakosala by the sacred fires (Ch. Up. 4.10-15), and Baka is by a dog (Ch. Up 1.12).

Nothing in the Upanishads is more vital than the relationship between a student and his guide. The teacher talks, out his experience, about his ideas of the nature of the world, of truth etc. or about particular array of phenomena visualized through mental images that stay etched in memory.

An Upanishad-teacher ignites in the heart of the boy a spark that sets ablaze his desire to learn and to know the central principles which make sense of the world we live in. The guide inflames the sense of challenge, the urge to reach beyond the boy’s grasp and to know the unknown.

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad calls upon :

‘You are what your deep, driving desire is; as your desire is, so is your will (sa yathā-kāmo bhavati tat-kratur-bhavati); as your will is, so is your deed (yat-kratur-bhavati tat-karma kurute) ; as your deed is, so is your destiny (yat-karma kurute tad-abhi-saṃpadyate”- (Brhu. Up. 4.4.5).

In the end, all achievement is fuelled by burning desire.

The Bhagavad-Gita suggests that an ardent seeker of truth should approach a learned teacher in humility and seek instructions from him; question him repeatedly:

Tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya I Upadeksyanti te jnanam jnaninas tattva-darsinah II (B G.; Ch.4; verse 34)

The student questions the teacher not because he doubts (samshaya) the wisdom or the understanding of the teacher; nor is he / she questioning the authenticity of the teaching. The questions are asked with open mind and guileless heart; and, are meant to clear doubts, and to gain a flawless understanding of the teaching.

The teacher is neither annoyed nor does he discourage the student from asking questions. On the other hand, he encourages the leaner to examine, enquire and test the teaching handed down to him. A true teacher, in a Samvada does not prescribe or proscribe. He lets the student the freedom to think, to ponder over and to find out for himself the answers to his questions. A student needs humility, persistence, and honesty of purpose to go further and to arrive at his own understanding.

Vada

Vada is the discussion between two equals to establish the truth / to resolve the conflict. The purpose of Vada is to settle what is the truth. Learning takes place at the end of vada since the truth is established to the satisfaction of both parties.

In Vada, both the sides come to the table for discussion with an open mind and the discussion is based on some accepted pramaana of the authority. For e.g. In Vedantic discussions, the Pramanas are specifically the Prasthana Trayi - The Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Bhagavad Gita. There are judges to insure 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 by herself served as a judge for that vada.

Vaada is a debate between two persons of equal standing. The term Vaada by itself means a theory, doctrine or thesis. In the debate, the proponent who puts forward arguments in support of his doctrine (Vaada) 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 Vaada 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 (Sabda Pramana). The principal aim of a wholesome Vaada is to resolve the conflict; and, to establish ‘what is true’. The proceedings of the Vaada should be characterized by politeness, courtesy and fair means of presenting the arguments. You might call it a healthy discussion.

Vatsayana in his commentary Nyāya Bhāṣya, says that congenial debate (Anuloma Sambasha) 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 ( Sambasha 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.

Nyaya Sutra in its First Book enumerates the steps or the categories (padartha) of the methods (Vadopaya) for structuring the argument and for presentation of the subject under debate, while the rest of the four Books expand on these steps. The Vada-marga (the stages in the course of a debate) is classified under sixteen steps:

1) Pramana (the means of knowledge); 2) Prameya (the object of right knowledge); 3) Samsaya (creating doubt or misjudgment ); 4) Prayojana (purpose); 5) Drshtanta ( familiar example); 6) Sidhanta ( established tenet or principle); 7) Avayava ( an element of syllogism); 8) Tarka ( reasoned argument); 9) Niranaya (deduction or determination of the question); 10) Vada (discussion to defend or to arrive at the truth); 11) Jalpa (wrangling or dispute to secure a win ); 12) Vitanda (quibble or mere attack); 13) Hetvabhasa (fallacy, erratic contrary , ill-timed challenges); 14) Chala (misleading or willfully misinterpreting the words); 15) Jati (futile objections founded on similarities or otherwise) and 16) Nigrahaslhana ( disagreement in principle or no purpose in arguing further or the point nearing defeat).

These sixteen steps are meant to ascertain and establish ‘what is true’ (yathartha).The first four steps deal, mainly, with logic; while the latter seven perform the function of preventing and eliminating the errors. Among the first fou; Pramana with its four reliable means of obtaining knowledge is of cardinal importance [ Pratyaksha (perception), Anumana (inference), Upamana (comparison) and Sabda (reliable verbal testimony)].

As said earlier, these sixteen categories are discussed in detail in four sections of the Nyaya Sutra. The Nyāya Sūtra (verse 1.1.2) declares that its goal is to study and describe the attainment of liberation from wrong knowledge, faults and sorrow, through the application of above sixteen categories of perfecting knowledge.

Nyaya Sutra (1.2.1) states that Vaada, the good or honest debate, is constituted by the following characteristics:

1. Establishment of the thesis and refutation of the counter thesis should be based upon adequate evidence or means of knowledge (pramana) as well as upon proper reasoning (tarka). Pramana, the valid knowledge, is defined as the cognition of the objects as they actually are, free from misapprehension (tatha bhuta rtha jnanam hi pramanam uchyate); and, anything other than that is invalid A-pramana or Bhrama – the cognition of objects as they are not (atha bhuta rtha jnanam hi apramanam). Pramana stands both for the valid -knowledge, and for the instrument or the means by which such valid knowledge is obtained.

2. The conclusion should not entail contradiction with analytical or ‘accepted doctrine’;

3. Each side should use the well-known five steps (syllogism) of the demonstration (Sthapana) explicitly.

4. They should clearly recognize a thesis to be defended and a counter thesis to be refuted.

Nyaya Sutra (1.2.1) states that Vaada, the good or honest debate, is constituted by the following characteristics:

1. Establishment of the thesis and refutation of the counter thesis should be based upon adequate evidence or means of knowledge (pramana) as well as upon proper reasoning (tarka). Pramana, the valid knowledge, is defined as the cognition of the objects as they actually are, free from misapprehension (tatha bhuta rtha jnanam hi pramanam uchyate); and, anything other than that is invalid A-pramana or Bhrama – the cognition of objects as they are not (atha bhuta rtha jnanam hi apramanam). Pramana stands both for the valid -knowledge, and for the instrument or the means by which such valid knowledge is obtained.

2. The conclusion should not entail contradiction with analytical or ‘accepted doctrine’;

3. Each side should use the well-known five steps (syllogism) of the demonstration (Sthapana) explicitly.

4. They should clearly recognize a thesis to be defended and a counter thesis to be refuted.

At the commencement of the Vaada, the Judge or the arbiter (Madhyastha) lays down rules of the Vaada. The disputants are required to honor those norms and regulations. They are also required to adhere to permissible devices; and not to breach certain agreed limits (Vada maryada). For instance; in the case of debates where the Vadin and Prati-vadin both belong to Vedic tradition it was not permissible to question the validity of the Vedas or the existence of God and the Soul. And, any position taken during the course of Vaada should not contradict the Vedic injunctions.

In the case of the Vada where one belongs to Vedic tradition and the other to Non-Vedic traditions (say, Jaina or Bauddha) they had to abide by the rules and discipline specifically laid down by the Madyastha.

As mentioned earlier, according to Nyaya Sutra (1.2.1) Vaada comprises defense and attack (Sadhana and Upalambha). One’s own thesis is defended by means of genuine criteria of knowledge (Pramana) and the antithesis (opponent’s theory) is refuted by negative dialectics of Tarka (logic). But, when defense or attack is employed excessively, merely for the sake of scoring a win, then there is the risk of the debate degenerating into Jalpa.

It is at this stage in the Vaada that the Madyastha might intervene to ensure that the participants, especially the one who is at the verge of defeat (Nigraha-sthana) do not resort to tricks such as quibbling (Chala) , false rejoinder (Jati) etc.

The Madyastha may even call off the Vada; and award to the candidate who in his view performed better.

The Vada could be also treated as inconclusive (savyabhicara) and brought to an end if there is no possibility of reaching a fair decision; or the very subject to be discussed is disputed (Viruddha); or when arguments stray away from the subject that is slated for discussion (prakarana-atita) ; or when the debate prolongs beyond a reasonable (Kalatita).

In this context, it is said the debate could be treated as concluded and one side declared defeated: a) When a proponent misunderstands his own premises and their implications; b) when the opponent cannot understand the proponent’s argument; c) when either party is confused and becomes helpless; d) when either is guilty of faulty reasoning or pseudo-reasoning (hetvabhasa); because, no one should be allowed to win using a pseudo-reason; or e) when one cannot reply within a reasonable time.

When one party is silenced in the process, the thesis stays as proven. Hence, in Vaada, there is no explicit ‘defeat’ as such. The sense of defeat (Nigraha-sthana) becomes apparent when there are contradictions in logical reasoning (hetvabhasa); and the debate falls silent.

And, at the end, one of the two might be proven wrong; or both could be right. In any case, when one is convinced that the doctrine and the argument presented by the opponent are valid, he adopts it with grace. Ideally, whatever might be the outcome of a Vaada, it should be accepted; and, both – Vadin and Prati-vadin – should part their ways without rancor.

[The most celebrated Vaada is said to be the one that took place between the young monk Sri Sankara and the distinguished Mimamsa scholar, householder, Mandana Misra. Considering the young age of the opponent, Mandana Misra generously offered Sri Sankara the option to select the Madyastha (Judge) for the ensuing debate. Sri Sankara, who had great respect for the righteousness of Mandana Misra, chose his wife Bharathi Devi, a wise and learned person.

During the course of the lengthy debate when Mandana Misra seemed to be nearing Nigrahasthana (clincher) Bharathi Devi raised questions about marital obligations. Sri Sankara being a monk had, of course, no knowledge in such matters. He requested for and obtained a ‘break’ to study and to understand the issue. It is said; he returned after some time equipped with the newly acquired knowledge, renewed the Vaada and won it. Thereafter, Mandana Misra and Bharathi Devi accepted Sri Sankara as their teacher, with grace and respect.]

Jalpa

Jalpa is described (in Nyaya Sutra 1.2.2) as a disputation or wrangling or 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. 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 only to convert the other to one's own camp. Therefore, there is no knowledge that takes place in these discussions. 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.

What is at stake here is the ‘prestige and honor’ of one’s School (Matha). And, therefore, each will try to win the debate by fair or foul means. And, when one senses that he might be losing the argument (nigrahasthāna), he 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.

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. The outcome of Jalpa is lot of noise. 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.

As per the classification made by Akshapada Gautama in his Nyaya Sutra (1.2.2), while Vaada is a ‘good’ or congenial debate ( anuloma sambasha or Sandhya sambasha), Jalpa along with Vitanda is treated as ‘bad’ or hostile argument (Vigrahya sambasha).

Jalpa is described as debate between two rivals who are desperate to win, by fair or foul means. It is characterized as clever or tricky disputation and a quarrelsome verbal fight that is often noisy.

Unlike Vaada 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. Each party to the Jalap is already convinced that his thesis is true and perfect; while that of the opponent is false and totally wrong. Each is not prepared to understand and appreciate the rival argument; but, is over anxious to ensure the opponent is ‘defeated’ and is made to accept his thesis. Even while it becomes apparent that one might be on the verge of defeat , he will not accept the position; instead , he will try to devise a strategy or will take a ‘break’ to gather some material or to concoct a fallacious argument to evade defeat and , if possible, to prove the other wrong.

Both the Vadin and the Prati-vadin work hard to establish their thesis through direct and indirect proofs. In Jalpa, the Pramana-s, the means of valid knowledge do not have much role to play. The arguments in Jalpa relay more on negation or negative tactics, such as: discrediting the rival argument, misleading the opponent or willfully misinterpreting rival’s explanations. The main thrust of the arguments in Jalpa is not so much as to establish the thesis directly, as to disprove or refute the rival’s thesis, through circumvention.

The reason why Jalpa is labeled as tricky is that apart from traditional means of proving one’s thesis and for refuting the opponent’s thesis, the debater can use elusive and distracting devices such as: quibbling or hair-splitting (Chala); inappropriate rejoinders (Jati), and any kind of ruse that tries to outwit and disqualify the opponent (nigrahasthana), circumvention, false generalization and showing the unfitness of the opponent to argue; without, however, establishing his own thesis.

Nyaya Sutra gives a fairly detailed treatment to the negative tactics of Jalpa. Nyaya Sutra (1.2.11-14; 5.1.1- 39; and 5.2.1-25) enumerates three kinds of quibbling (Chala); twenty-four kinds of inappropriate rejoinders (Jati); and twenty-two kinds of clinchers or censure-situations (Nigrahasthana).

It is said; such measures or tricks to outwit the opponent are allowed in Jalpa arguments, since the aim of the debate is to score a victory. However, those maneuvers are like double-edged swords; they cut both ways. Over-indulgence with such tactics is, therefore, rather dangerous. One runs the risk of being censured, decaled unfit and treated as defeated, if the opponent catches him at his own game.

Quibbling (Chala) is basically an attempt to misinterpret the meaning of an expression (Vak-chala); or, improperly generalize its meaning (samanya-chala); or by conflation of an ordinary use of a word with its metaphorical use (upacara-chala), with a view to derange the argument.

For instance; when one says: the boy has a nava kambala smile emoticon new) blanket; the other would look horrified and exclaim: why would a little boy need nava (=nine) blankets !

And, when one says: he is a hungry man smile emoticon purusha) , the other would generalize Man – Purusha as ‘ humans’ , and ask why are all the human beings hungry?

Similarly, term ‘mancha’ ordinarily means a cot; but, its metaphorical meaning could be platform or dais or the people sitting on it.

Improper rejoinder or futile rejoinder (Jati) is generally through falsifying the analogy given; and ridiculing it.

For instance; when one says: sound is impermanent because it is a product, such as a pot; the other would ignore the ‘impermanent’ property of the analogy (pot), but would pick up a totally un-related property of the analogy (say, the hollow space or emptiness in the pot) and say that a pot is filled with space (akasha) which is eternal, then how could you say that a pot is impermanent? And, further pot is not audible either.

Censures or the point at which the Jalpa could be force-closed (Nigrahasthana) by pointing out that the opponent is arguing against his own thesis ; or that he is willfully abstracting the debate; or to his inappropriate ways.

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.

And, 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 said; that Jalpa way of arguments is at times useful as a defensive measure to safeguard the real debate (Vada), ‘just as the thorns and branches are used for the protection of the (tender) sprout of the seed’.

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.

The next question would be why would a debater resort to such tactics as quibbling and dishonest rejoinder? Or why would anyone waste his time and effort in learning those tactics?

Bimal Krishna Matilal in his The Character of Logic in India explains:

‘ 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.

Difference between Vada and Jalpa

It is said; Vaada and Jalpa are contrasting counterparts. In Vaada, 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

[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’.]

The crucial difference between Vada and Jalpa appears to be that 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.

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.

The scholarly opinion is that the rejection or refutation of a position may not always amount to the assertion of a counter-position. And, determination and establishment of truth depends upon positive evidence; and not merely on refutation.

Vitanda

Vitanda is some what peculier. 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.

The focus is to prove that the opponent is not qualified to discuss and that there is no credibility for the opponent. Vitanda is the worst type of argument or squabbling descending to the level of quarrel and trickery. The sole aim of each party is 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. 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. The aggressive Vaitandika goes on picking holes in the rival’s arguments and destabilises his rival's position, without any attempt to offer an alternate thesis. Both the participants in a Vitanda are prepared to resort to mean tactics in order to mislead, browbeat the opponent by fallacies (hetv-abhasa); by attacking the opponents statement by wilful 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.

In Akshapada’s Nyaya-Sutra (1.2.3), Vitanda is classified as a ’bad’ or hostile argument (Vigrahya sambasha) or wrangling. 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. That is because, its debater has no thesis of his own to put forward. 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.

Vitanda is a ruthless debate, the major part of which is spent in denying the opponent’s views, in discrediting him or in quarrelling. Vaitandika, the one who adopts Vitanda style of argument, 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. Then he would shout:” go back and study for one more year at the feet of your teacher; you have done enough for today”.

What the Vaitandika says might be irrational or illogical; but, he tries to effectively silence the opponent. In such type of debates either ‘valid knowledge’ or ‘truth’ has no place.

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 Madyastha 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.

Vatsayana, the commentator of the Nyaya Sutra finds the Vitanda debate irrational and rather pointless. He observes that it is unfair that a debater is simply allowed to get away with irresponsible statements, particularly when he is neither putting forward a thesis nor is defending one. In fact, most of the times, he has no position of his own, but attacks rabidly whatever the other debater utters. This is a travesty and abuse of the platform.

According to Vatsayana, the format of Vitanda is totally wrong. Vatsayana insists, whatever might be the tactics adopted by Vaitandika, he must be forced to specify his stand. And, when the opponent states his thesis, the Vaitandika must be asked either to accept it or oppose it. If he concedes, the debate is virtually over. And, if he argues against the thesis, he must argue logically, in which case he gives up his status of Vaitandika (refuter). And, if he does not choose either of the options then, his rationale should be questioned; or, the debate be brought to an end, if need be, by disqualifying him.

Vatsayana’s observations and recommendations are sound and healthy. But, sadly, they were hardly acted upon.

Differences between Vada and Samvada

In the 3rd verse of the Upadesha Panchaka, Adi Shankaracharya says,

बुधजनैर्वादः परित्यज्यताम् ॥ ३ ॥

Meaning: May you never argue with wise people.

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,

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.

Differences between Samvada and Vivada

1. In Vivada, one looks upon that person as equal or inferior, where as, in Samvada, one looks upon the other as equal or superior; this reflects in the language, tone etc.
2. In Samvada, one has his/her conviction, but does not force it upon another as his/her conclusion. The person is open-minded, and willing to refine or improve his/her understanding.
3. In Samvada, the propensity to talk is balanced with the propensity to hear/listen. In vivada, one talks as much as is required to present his/her idea  briefly and, allows the other person also to talk and listens with 200% attention.
4. In 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.
5. Just like Arjuna inquired from Krishna when he was unclear about anything Krishna spoke, an aspect of Samvada is that a person inquires when any point spoken by the other person is unclear. In a vivada, there will be no room for this almost.
6. Following a samvada, there is no disturbance or bitterness in the mind. In a vivada, there is always disturbance or bitterness in the mind