4,503
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: − + − + Line 31:
Line 31: − + Line 41:
Line 41: − 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 (Vada) are never simple. A Katha, in essence, is a reasoned and a well-structured philosophical discussion.<ref name=":3" /> − − Vatsayana at the beginning of his commentary on Nyaya Sutra (1.2.1) mentions that Katha is of three types: − # Vada (Discussion) − # Jalpa (Disputation) − # Vitanda (Wrangling)<ref name=":4">Ganganatha Jha (1939), [https://ia802902.us.archive.org/23/items/GautamasNyayaSutrasWithVatsyayanaBhashyaGNJha/Gautama%27s%20Nyaya%20Sutras%20with%20Vatsyayana%20Bhashya%20-%20GN%20Jha.pdf Gautama's Nyayasutras with Vatsyayana Bhasya], Poona: Oriental Book Agency.</ref> − <blockquote>तिस्रः कथा भवन्ति वादो जल्पो वितण्डा चेति ।<ref name=":5">Gangadhara Sastri Tailanga (1896), [https://ia802908.us.archive.org/31/items/06nNyayaSutrasWithVatsyayanaBhashya/06nNyaya%20Sutras%20With%20Vatsyayana%20Bhashya.pdf The Nyayasutras with Vatsyayana's Bhashya], The Viziangram Sanskrit Series (Volume IX), Benaras: E.J.Lazarus & Co.</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''tisraḥ kathā bhavanti vādo jalpo vitaṇḍā ceti ।''</blockquote>Katha is classified into two kinds of debates (Dvi-vidha sambasha): Vada (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, Vada 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 Vada, 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 Vada is establishment of truth or an accepted doctrine; and that of the other two hostile debates (Jalpa and Vitanda) is seeking victory.<ref name=":3" /> − − Of the two types of hostile debates, Jalpa (disputation) is described (in Nyaya Sutra 1.2.2) as that which is endowed with the said characteristics and in which there is supporting and condemning by means of Chala (casuistry/quibbling), Jati (futile/irrelevant rejoinders provoking the opponent to lose focus) and Nigraha sthana (Clinchers).<ref name=":4" /> <blockquote>यथोक्तोपपन्नः छलजातिनिग्रहस्थानसाधनोपालम्भः जल्पः | १.२.२ |<ref>Maharshi Gautama, Nyayasutras, Adhyaya 1, [https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%BF/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83_%E0%A5%A7/%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%83 Ahnika 2].</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''yathoktopapannaḥ chalajātinigrahasthānasādhanopālambhaḥ jalpaḥ | 1.2.2 |''</blockquote>It is 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 is prepared to employ various deceptive or sophistic devices like chala as mentioned above. − − Unlike in Vada, 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’. And, therefore, each will try to win the debate by fair or foul means. And, when one senses that one might be losing the argument (nigrahasthana), one 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.<ref name=":3" /> − − 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. The aggressive Vaitandika goes on picking holes in the rival’s arguments and destabilizes his position, without any attempt to offer an alternate thesis. <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. − − It is further mentioned that the Wrangler here, does not establish the view (that which he himself holds), but only goes on to criticise the othe 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 criticising 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 (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.<ref name=":3" /> − − 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. − − Line 74:
Line 50: − + − + − + + − === 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.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":1" />+ + + + − 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.<ref name=":3" />+ − + − + − 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.+ − + − ‘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).+ − + − − Tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya I Upadeksyanti te jnanam jnaninas tattva-darsinah II (B G.; Ch.4; verse 34) − − − − 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.<ref name=":3" /> − + − + − + − + Line 175:
Line 148: + + + + Line 239:
Line 216: + + + + + +
Types of Discourse (सम्भाषाप्रकाराः) (view source)
Revision as of 13:17, 7 May 2019
, 13:17, 7 May 2019Adding sanskrit verses with references and editing
# How to behave with a senior opponent
# How to behave with a senior opponent
# How to handle an aggressive and troublesome opponent
# How to handle an aggressive and troublesome opponent
# How to conduct oneself in prestigious Parishads, to influence the flow of debate and to impress the judges and the onlookers etc.<ref name=":3" />
# How to conduct oneself in prestigious Parishads, to influence the flow of debate and to impress the judges and the onlookers etc.<ref name=":3">Sreenivasa Rao, [https://swaminathanv208.blogspot.com/2016/05/discussions-debates-and-arguments.html Discussions, Debates and Arguments: Ancient India.]</ref>
== 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-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, 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:
Nyaya Sutras treat mainly 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)
Therefore, types of debates and arguments come under the purview of Nyaya Shastra.
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).
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) viz. Pratyaksha (perception), Anumana (inference), Upamana (comparison ) and Shabda (reliable testimony)
* the five-part syllogism (Nyaya)
* the five-part syllogism (Nyaya)
== वादप्रकाराः ॥ Types of debates ==
== वादप्रकाराः ॥ Types of debates ==
In the Indian traditions, four formats of discussions, debates and arguments are described. Namely,
In the Indian traditions, four formats of discussions, debates and arguments are described. There are four types of discussions. Namely,
# Samvada (संवादः)
# Samvada (संवादः)
# Vada (वादः)
# Vada (वादः)
# the quality of debate
# the quality of debate
# the decorum
# the decorum
# the mutual regard of the participants.<ref name=":3">Sreenivasa Rao, [https://swaminathanv208.blogspot.com/2016/05/discussions-debates-and-arguments.html Discussions, Debates and Arguments: Ancient India.]</ref>
# 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.<ref name=":3" />
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.<ref name=":3" />
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.<ref name=":3" />
== Detailed Discussion ==
== विषयविस्तारः ॥ Detailed Discussion ==
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 (Vada) are never simple. A Katha, in essence, is a reasoned and a well-structured philosophical discussion.<ref name=":3" />
Vatsayana at the beginning of his commentary on Nyaya Sutra (1.2.1) mentions that Katha is of three types:
# Vada (Discussion)
# Jalpa (Disputation)
# Vitanda (Wrangling)<ref name=":4">Ganganatha Jha (1939), [https://ia802902.us.archive.org/23/items/GautamasNyayaSutrasWithVatsyayanaBhashyaGNJha/Gautama%27s%20Nyaya%20Sutras%20with%20Vatsyayana%20Bhashya%20-%20GN%20Jha.pdf Gautama's Nyayasutras with Vatsyayana Bhasya], Poona: Oriental Book Agency.</ref>
<blockquote>तिस्रः कथा भवन्ति वादो जल्पो वितण्डा चेति ।<ref name=":5">Gangadhara Sastri Tailanga (1896), [https://ia802908.us.archive.org/31/items/06nNyayaSutrasWithVatsyayanaBhashya/06nNyaya%20Sutras%20With%20Vatsyayana%20Bhashya.pdf The Nyayasutras with Vatsyayana's Bhashya], The Viziangram Sanskrit Series (Volume IX), Benaras: E.J.Lazarus & Co.</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''tisraḥ kathā bhavanti vādo jalpo vitaṇḍā ceti ।''</blockquote>Katha is classified into two kinds of debates (Dvi-vidha sambasha): Vada (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, Vada 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 Vada, 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 Vada is establishment of truth or an accepted doctrine; and that of the other two hostile debates (Jalpa and Vitanda) is seeking victory.<ref name=":3" />
Samvada is thus a dialogue that teaches, imparts instructions or passes on knowledge.
=== संवादः ॥ 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.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":1" />
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-Shvetaketu); or spouse (as in Shiva-Parvati 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 Yama to learn the truth of life and death; a Raja seeks instruction from an recluse sage who speaks from his experience; Brahmanas advanced in age and wisdom sit at the feet of a Kshatriya prince seeking instructions as also inspiration; and, at times, 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).
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad calls upon :
Nothing in the Upanishads is more vital than the relationship between a student and his guide. The teacher talks, out of 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 student 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 student’s grasp and to know the unknown.<ref name=":3" />
The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad says :<blockquote>स यथा कामो भवति तत्क्रतुर्भवति यत्क्रतुर्भवति तत्कर्म कुरुते यत्कर्म कुरुते तदभिसम्पद्यते ॥ ४.४.५ ॥<ref>[https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A3%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%95_%E0%A4%89%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B7%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D_4p Brhadaranyakopanishad]</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''sa yathā kāmo bhavati tatkraturbhavati yatkraturbhavati tatkarma kurute yatkarma kurute tadabhisampadyate ॥ 4.4.5 ॥''</blockquote>Meaning: You are what your deep, driving desire is; as your desire is, so is your will; as your will is, so is your deed; as your deed is, so is your destiny.
In the end, all achievement is fuelled by burning desire.
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:
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.<ref name=":3" /> <blockquote>तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन परिप्रश्नेन सेवया । उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनस्तत्त्वदर्शिनः ॥४-३४॥<ref>Bhagavad Gita, [https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE/%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9E%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%83 Chapter 4].</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''tadviddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā । upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ jñāninastattvadarśinaḥ ॥4-34॥''</blockquote>The student questions the teacher not because he doubts the wisdom or the understanding of the teacher; nor is he/she questioning the authenticity of the teaching. The questions are asked with an open mind and guileless heart; and, are meant to clear doubts, and to gain a flawless understanding of the teaching. At the same time, 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 have 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.<ref name=":3" />
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.
=== Vada ===
=== Vada ===
Vada is the discussion between two equals to establish the truth / to resolve the conflict.<ref name=":2">Dr T P Sasikumar, http://trueindia.blogspot.in/2005/03/samvaada-vaada-jalpa-vitanda.html</ref> The purpose of Vada is to settle what is the truth.<ref name=":1" /> Learning takes place at the end of vada since the truth is established to the satisfaction of both parties.<ref name=":2" />
Vada is the discussion between two equals to establish the truth/to resolve the conflict.<ref name=":2">Dr T P Sasikumar, http://trueindia.blogspot.in/2005/03/samvaada-vaada-jalpa-vitanda.html</ref> The purpose of Vada is to settle what is the truth.<ref name=":1" /> Learning takes place at the end of vada since the truth is established to the satisfaction of both parties.<ref name=":2" />
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 (उपनिषदः)|Upanishads]], Brahma Sutras and [[Bhagavad Gita (भगवद्गीता)|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.<ref name=":1">Kuntimaddi Sadananda (2002), [https://ramanuja.org/sri/BhaktiListArchives/Article?p=oct2002%2F0016.html Types of arguments], Bhakti List Archives.</ref>
In Vada, both the sides come to the table for discussion with an open mind and the discussion is based on some accepted pramana of authority. For e.g. In Vedantic discussions, the Pramanas are specifically the Prasthana Trayi - The [[Upanishads (उपनिषदः)|Upanishads]], Brahma Sutras and [[Bhagavad Gita (भगवद्गीता)|Bhagavad Gita]]. There are judges to ensure 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 herself served as a judge for that vada.<ref name=":1">Kuntimaddi Sadananda (2002), [https://ramanuja.org/sri/BhaktiListArchives/Article?p=oct2002%2F0016.html Types of arguments], Bhakti List Archives.</ref>
Vada is a debate between two persons of equal standing. The term Vada by itself means a theory, doctrine or thesis. In the debate, the proponent who puts forward arguments in support of his doctrine (Vada) 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.
Vada is a debate between two persons of equal standing. The term Vada by itself means a theory, doctrine or thesis. In the debate, the proponent who puts forward arguments in support of his doctrine (Vada) 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 Vada 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 Vada is to resolve the conflict; and, to establish ‘what is true’. The proceedings of the Vada should be characterized by politeness, courtesy and fair means of presenting the arguments. You might call it a healthy discussion.
Ideally, both the parties to the Vada 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 (Shabda Pramana). The principal aim of a wholesome Vada is to resolve the conflict; and, to establish ‘what is true’. The proceedings of the Vada is characterized by politeness, courtesy and fair means of presenting the arguments. In other words, it is 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.<ref name=":3" />
Vatsayana in his commentary Nyaya Bhashya, 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.<ref name=":3" />
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.
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.
=== Jalpa ===
=== Jalpa ===
Of the two types of hostile debates, Jalpa (disputation) is described (in Nyaya Sutra 1.2.2) as that which is endowed with the said characteristics and in which there is supporting and condemning by means of Chala (casuistry/quibbling), Jati (futile/irrelevant rejoinders provoking the opponent to lose focus) and Nigraha sthana (Clinchers).<ref name=":4" /><blockquote>यथोक्तोपपन्नः छलजातिनिग्रहस्थानसाधनोपालम्भः जल्पः | १.२.२ |<ref>Maharshi Gautama, Nyayasutras, Adhyaya 1, [https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%BF/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83_%E0%A5%A7/%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%83 Ahnika 2].</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''yathoktopapannaḥ chalajātinigrahasthānasādhanopālambhaḥ jalpaḥ | 1.2.2 |''</blockquote>It is 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 is prepared to employ various deceptive or sophistic devices like chala as mentioned above.
Unlike in Vada, 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’. And, therefore, each tries to win the debate by fair or foul means. And, when one senses that one might be losing the argument (nigrahasthana), one 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.<ref name=":3" />
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.<ref name=":3" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3" />
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.<ref name=":3" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3" />
=== Vitanda ===
=== Vitanda ===
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. The aggressive Vaitandika goes on picking holes in the rival’s arguments and destabilizes his position, without any attempt to offer an alternate thesis. <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.
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" />
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" />
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" />