Types of Discourse (सम्भाषाप्रकाराः)

This article needs editing. Add and improvise the content from reliable sources.

Types of Discourse (Samskrit: सम्भाषाप्रकाराः) refers to the different styles of discussion and debate. Sambhasha (participating in debates) is considered one of the three methods to obtain knowledge; the other two being, adhyayana (study) and adhyapana (teaching), says the Charaka Samhita.

अध्ययनमध्यापनं तद्विद्यसम्भाषा चेत्युपायाः ॥४॥ adhyayanamadhyāpanaṁ tadvidyasambhāṣetyupāyāḥ ॥4॥

Meaning: To this end, we shall indicate the means viz. study, teaching and discussion with those versed in the same subject.

This article discusses the science of 'Tadvidya Sambhasha' (debate between experts of same field).

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 his work 'The Character of Logic in India':

.. The intellectual climate in India was bristling with questions such as: “Is there an atma different from sharira ?”; “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 debate 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 Tantrayukti (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.

व्युत्पत्तिः ॥ Etymology

Shabdakalpadruma explains Sambhasha as Sambhashana. It says,

सम्भाषा सम्भाषणम् ॥ sambhāṣā sambhāṣaṇam ॥

And Sambhashana is,

सम्भाषणं कथनम् । आलापनम् । sambhāṣaṇaṁ kathanam । ālāpanam ।

Vachaspatya highlights 2 aspects of conversing. That is,

1. सम्यक्कथने (samyakkathane | approprite speech/conversation)
2. परस्परकथने च (parasparakathane | conversing with each other)

संभाषायाः इतिहासः ॥ History of Sambhasha

Sambhasha is also called as Vada (discussion) in many texts. The concept of Vada is derived from the Nyaya darshana. It is said that,

प्रमाणतर्कसाधनोपालम्भः सिद्धान्ताविरुद्धः पञ्चावयवोपपन्नः पक्षप्रतिपक्षपरिग्रहः वादः ।।१।।

pramāṇatarkasādhanōpālambhaḥ siddhāntāviruddhaḥ pañcāvayavōpapannaḥ pakṣapratipakṣaparigrahaḥ vādaḥ ।।1।।

Amongst the 44 Vada marga padas (logical terms used in debate), the first one is Vada. It refers to a debate following the laws of shastra (text) ie. it should have 5 avayavas, paksha (in favour) and Pratipaksha (in opposing side) both laid down on the basis of Pramana (parametres of evidence) and tarka (logical reasoning).

Logic as the study of the form of correct arguments and inference patterns, developed in India from the methodology of philosophical debate. It developed in ancient India from the tradition of vada vidya, a discipline dealing with the categories of debate over various religious, philosophical, moral and doctrinal issues.

आन्वीक्षिकी ॥ Anvikshiki

The science of inquiry, Atmavidya, was at a later stage called Anvikshiki. However, while comprising the entire function of Atmavidya, Anvikshiki, was in fact different from it. Kautilya recognized Anvikshiki as a distinct branch of study over and above the three, viz, Trayi (the Vedas), Vartta (Commerce) and Dandaniti (Polity).

आन्वीक्षिकी त्रयी वार्त्ता दण्ड-नीतिश्चैति विद्याः ।। ०१.२.०१ ।। ānvīkṣikī trayī vārttā daṇḍa-nītiścaiti vidyāḥ ।। 01.2.01 ।।

The distinction between Atmavidya and Anvikshiki lay in this, that while the former embodied assertions about the nature of atman, the latter contained reasons supporting those assertions. Therefore, Anvikshiki dealt in fact with two subjects, viz. atman and hetu (theory of reasons). Later on, Anvikshiki was recognized as a distinct branch of learning that bifurcated into two branches - philosophy and logic.

संभाषाप्रकाराः ॥ Types of Sambhasha

There are 2 types of Sambhasha mentioned in the Charaka Samhita - Sandhaya Sambhasha and Vigrhya Sambhasha

द्विविधा तु खलु तद्विद्यसंभाषा भवति सन्धायसंभाषा विगृह्यसंभाषा च ।

dvividhā tu khalu tadvidyasaṁbhāṣā bhavati sandhāyasaṁbhāṣā vigr̥hyasaṁbhāṣā ca ।

Meaning: Such discussion with the men of the same branch of science is of two kinds - friendly discussion and the discussion of challenge or hostile discussion.

• Sandhaya Sambhasha (friendly discussion) is characterised by

1. Participants having scientific knowledge
2. Power of argument and counter argument
3. Correct knowledge
4. Not rejoicing defeat of opponents
5. Answering questions with confidence
6. Having a polite approach with the opponent

It is said that,

तत्र ज्ञानविज्ञानवचनप्रतिवचनशक्तिसम्पन्नेनाकोपेनानुपस्कृतविद्येनानसूयकेनानुनेयेनानुनयकोविदेन क्लेशक्षमेण प्रियसम्भाषणेन च सह सन्धायसम्भाषा विधीयते ।

tatra jñānavijñānavacanaprativacanaśaktisampannenākopenānupaskr̥tavidyenānasūyakenānuneyenānunayakovidena kleśakṣameṇa priyasambhāṣaṇena ca saha sandhāyasambhāṣā vidhīyate ।

Meaning: The friendly discussion is enjoined with a person who is endowed with knowledge and experience, who is well versed in the dialectics of statement and rejoinder, who does not get angered, possessed of special insight into the subject, who is not carping, who is easily persuaded, who is an adept in the art pf persuasion, who has tolerance and pleasantness of speech.

• Vigrhya Sambhasha (hostile discussion) is characterised by examination of the good and bad qualities of the opponent based on which opponents are classified into superior, equal and inferior.

प्रागेव च जल्पाज्जल्पान्तरं परावरान्तरं परिषद्विशेषांश्च सम्यक् परीक्षेत् |...परीक्षमाणस्तु खलु परावरान्तरमिमान् जल्पकगुणान् श्रेयस्करान् दोषवतश्च परीक्षेत सम्यक्... ||18|| (Charaka Samhita, Vimana Sthana, Adhyaya 8)

prāgēva ca jalpājjalpāntaraṁ parāvarāntaraṁ pariṣadviśēṣāṁśca samyak parīkṣēt |...parīkṣamāṇastu khalu parāvarāntaramimān jalpakaguṇān śrēyaskarān dōṣavataśca parīkṣēta samyak... ||18||

It is said that one should not participate in a debate with superior opponent nor immediately defeat the inferior with tricky procedures. The debaters are to be acquainted with certain logical terms known as the 44 Vada marga pada which decide the victory of a debater over the opponent. These mostly consist of

• 5 Avayavas

• 6 Padarthas

• Vada

• Sthapana

• 6 Pramanas

• Pratisthapana

• Uttar

• Siddhanta

• Samshaya

• Paryojana

• Jigyasa

• Vyavasaya

• Sambhava

• Anujojya

• Annujojya

• Anuyoga

• Pratyanuyoga

• Vakyadosha

• Vakyaparsamsa

• Chala

• Ahetu

• Attikala

• Upalambha

• Parihara

• Pratigyahani

• Abhayanugya

• Hetvantara

• Arthantra

• Nigrahasthana

इमानि तु खलु पदानि भिषग्वादमार्गज्ञानार्थमधिगम्यानि भवन्ति; तद्यथा-वाद:, द्रव्यं, गुणाः, कर्म, सामान्यं, विशेषः, समवायः, प्रतिज्ञा, स्थापना, प्रतिष्ठापना, हेतुः, दृष्टान्तः, उपनयः, निगमनम्, उत्तरं, सिद्धान्तः, शब्दः, प्रत्यक्षम्, अनुमानम्, एतिह्यम्, औपम्यम्, संशयः, प्रयोजनं, सव्यभिचारं, जिज्ञासा, व्यवसायः,अर्थप्राप्तिः,संभवः, अनुयोज्यम्, अनुयोगः, प्रत्यनुयोगः, वाक्यदोषः, वाक्यप्रशंसा, छलम्, अहेतुः, अतीतकालम्, उपालम्भः, परिहारः, प्रतिज्ञाहानिः, अभ्यनुज्ञा, हेत्वन्तरम्, अर्थान्तरं, निग्रहस्थानमिति ||27|| (Charaka Samhita, Vimana Sthana, Adhyaya 8)

imāni tu khalu padāni bhiṣagvādamārgajñānārthamadhigamyāni bhavanti; tadyathā-vāda:, dravyaṁ, guṇāḥ, karma, sāmānyaṁ, viśēṣaḥ, samavāyaḥ, pratijñā, sthāpanā, pratiṣṭhāpanā, hētuḥ, dr̥ṣṭāntaḥ, upanayaḥ, nigamanam, uttaraṁ, siddhāntaḥ, śabdaḥ, pratyakṣam, anumānam, ētihyam, aupamyam, saṁśayaḥ, prayōjanaṁ, savyabhicāraṁ, jijñāsā, vyavasāyaḥ,arthaprāptiḥ,saṁbhavaḥ, anuyōjyam, anuyōgaḥ, pratyanuyōgaḥ, vākyadōṣaḥ, vākyapraśaṁsā, chalam, ahētuḥ, atītakālam, upālambhaḥ, parihāraḥ, pratijñāhāniḥ, abhyanujñā, hētvantaram, arthāntaraṁ, nigrahasthānamiti ||27||

If the opponent is using the 12 type of Nigrahasthana in his discussion and loses his proposition without explaining the relevant reasoning and evidence in its favour he will be considered as defeated in debate.

There are 7 Sambhashas in Charaka Samhita.

Debates, in Akşapāda's view, can be of three types: (i) an honest debate (called vāda) where both sides, proponent and opponent, are seeking the truth, that is, wanting to establish the right view; (ii) a tricky-debate (called jalpa) where the goal is to win by fair means or foul; and (iii) a destructive debate (called vitandā) where the goal is to defeat or demolish the opponent, no matter how.

The first kind signals the employment of logical arguments, and use of rational means and proper evidence to establish a thesis. It is said that the participants in this kind of debate were the teacher and the student, or the students themselves, belonging to the same school.

The second was, in fact, a winner-takes-all situation. The name of the game was wit or intelligence. Tricks, false moves, and unfair means were allowed according to the rules of the game. But if both the debaters were equally clever and competent, this could be kept within the bounds of logic and reasoning. Usually two teachers of different schools would be participants. This used to take place before a board or jury called the madhyastha (the mediators or adjudicators) and a chairman, usually a king or a man with power and money who would organize the debate. The winner would be declared at the end by the consensus of the adjudicators.

The notoriety of the third type was universal, although some philoso phers (for example, Nāgārjuna, Sriharsa) maintained that if the refutations of the opponent were done on the basis of good reason and evidence (in other words, if it followed the model of the first type, rather than the second type) then lack of a counter-thesis, or non-establishment of a counter-thesis, would not be a great drawback. In fact, it could be made acceptable and even philosophically respectable. That is why Gauda Sānātani (quoted by Udayana; see Matilal, 1986: 87) divided the debates into four types: (i) the honest type (vāda), (ii) the tricky type (jalpa), (111) the type modeled after the tricky type but for which only refutation is needed, and (iv) the type modeled after the honest one where only the refutation of a thesis is needed. Even the mystics would prefer this last kind, which would end with a negative result.

वादविद्या ॥ Vada Vidya

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

Nyaya Sutras treat 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). They are

• 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.

The Nyāya Model Akşapāda defined a method of philosophical argumentation, called the nyāya method or the nyāya model. This was the standard for an ideally organized philosophical disputation. Seven categories are identified as constituting the "prior" stage of a nyāya. A nyāya starts with an initial doubt, as to whether p or not-p is the case, and ends with a decision, that p (or not-p, as the case may be). The seven categories, including Doubt, are: Purpose, Example, Basic Tenets, the "limbs" of the formulated reasoning, Supportive Argument (tarka), and Decision. Purpose is self-explanatory. The example is needed to ensure that the arguments would not be just empty talk. Some of the basic tenets supply the ground rules for the argumentation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

वादप्रकाराः ॥ Types of debates

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

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 (Sambhasha) 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.

Vatsyayana at the beginning of his commentary on Nyaya Sutra (1.2.1) mentions that Katha is of three types:

1. Vada (Discussion)
2. Jalpa (Disputation)
3. Vitanda (Wrangling)

तिस्रः कथा भवन्ति वादो जल्पो वितण्डा चेति ।

tisraḥ kathā bhavanti vādo jalpo vitaṇḍā ceti ।

Katha is classified into two kinds of debates (Dvi-vidha sambhasha): Vada (the good - Sandhya sambhasha) on one hand; and Jalpa and Vitanda (the bad - Vigrhya sambhasha) on the other. Uddyotakara in his - Nyaya Varttika 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 sambhasha or sandhya sambhasha) or debate in the spirit of: ’let’s sit-down and talk’. The other two are hostile arguments (vigrhya sambhasha) 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 on the opponent.

संवादः ॥ Samvada

The commentary on the Nyaya sutras describe samvada as समाय वाद: । samāya vāda: ।

Meaning: Discussion for the sake of coming to an agreement.

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 own 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-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).

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.

The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad says :

स यथा कामो भवति तत्क्रतुर्भवति यत्क्रतुर्भवति तत्कर्म कुरुते यत्कर्म कुरुते तदभिसम्पद्यते ॥ ४.४.५ ॥

sa yathā kāmo bhavati tatkraturbhavati yatkraturbhavati tatkarma kurute yatkarma kurute tadabhisampadyate ॥ 4.4.5 ॥

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 fueled 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.

तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन परिप्रश्नेन सेवया । उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनस्तत्त्वदर्शिनः ॥४-३४॥

tadviddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā । upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ jñāninastattvadarśinaḥ ॥4-34॥

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. Rather, he encourages the learner 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. Towards the conclusion of the 4th Adhyaya of the Nyaya sutras, the topic of Samvada is handled. It is said,

ज्ञानग्रहणाभ्यासस्तद्विद्यैश्च सह संवादः ॥ ४.२.४६ ॥। तं शिष्यगुरुसब्रह्मचारिविशिष्टश्रेयोऽर्थि-भिरनसूयुभिरभ्युपेयात् ॥ ४.२.४७ ॥ प्रतिपक्षहीनमपि वा प्रयोजनार्थमर्थित्वे ॥ ४.२.४८ ॥

jñānagrahaṇābhyāsastadvidyaiśca saha saṁvādaḥ ॥ 4.2.46 ॥। taṁ śiṣyagurusabrahmacāriviśiṣṭaśreyo'rthi-bhiranasūyubhirabhyupeyāt ॥ 4.2.47 ॥ pratipakṣahīnamapi vā prayojanārthamarthitve ॥ 4.2.48 ॥

Meaning: (For the purpose of attaining apavarga) There should also be repetition of the study of the science, as also samvada (friendly discussion) with persons learned in the science. That samvada should be carried on with the pupil, the teacher, companions in study, and other well-known learned persons, who wish well (to the enquirer) and who are not jealous of him. In fact, being a seeker (of truth), one should carry it on even without putting forward any counter theories for the accomplishment of his purpose. For, putting forward of theories and counter theories would be unpleasant to the other person. More so if the other person in this case is a teacher. The bhashya explains further that,

ज्ञायतेऽनेनेति ज्ञानमात्मविद्याशास्त्रम् । तस्य ग्रहणमध्ययनधारणे अभ्यासः सततक्रियाऽध्ययनश्रवणचिन्तनानि तद्विद्यैश्च । सह संवाद इति प्रज्ञापरिपाकार्थे परिपाकस्तु संशयच्छेदनमविज्ञातार्थबोधोऽध्यवसिताभ्यनुज्ञानमिति । समापवादः संवादः । वा.भा. ।

jñāyate'neneti jñānamātmavidyāśāstram । tasya grahaṇamadhyayanadhāraṇe abhyāsaḥ satatakriyā'dhyayanaśravaṇacintanāni tadvidyaiśca । saha saṁvāda iti prajñāparipākārthe paripākastu saṁśayacchedanamavijñātārthabodho'dhyavasitābhyanujñānamiti । samāpavādaḥ saṁvādaḥ । vā.bhā. ।

Jnana here refers to 'that by which things are known' ie. the science of atmavidya. And Jnana grahana (acquisition of that knowledge) consists in reading it and retaining it in the mind. The repetition of such study means the carrying on of it continuously, in the shape of reading it, listening to it (being expounded) and pondering over it. And the purpose of Samvada with persons learned in the science is to bring about consolidation of the knowledge acquired. This consolidation consists in,

1. the removing of doubts
2. the knowing of things not already known
3. the confirmation of the conclusions already arrived by oneself through the opinions of the learned

वादः ॥ Vada

Vada is a debate between two persons of equal standing to establish the truth/to resolve the conflict. 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. However, 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. And learning takes place at the end of vada since the truth is established to the satisfaction of both parties.

Also, 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, Brahma Sutras and 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.

Vatsayana in his commentary Nyaya Bhashya, says that congenial debate (Anuloma Sambhasha) or Vada 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 (Sambhasha 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 (1.2.1) states that

प्रमाणतर्कसाधनोपालम्भः सिद्धान्ताविरुद्धः पञ्चावयवोपपन्नः पक्षप्रतिपक्षपरिग्रहः वादः ।।१.२.१।।

pramāṇatarkasādhanopālambhaḥ siddhāntāviruddhaḥ pañcāvayavopapannaḥ pakṣapratipakṣaparigrahaḥ vādaḥ ।।1.2.1।।

Meaning: Vada (Discussion) consists in the putting forward (by two people) of a comception and a counter-conception, in which there is supporting and condemning by means of proofs and reasonings - neither of which is quite opposed to the main doctrine (or thesis), and both of which are carried on in full accordance with the method of reasoning through the five factors.

Therefore, Vada, the good or honest debate, is constituted by the following characteristics:

1. Establishment of the thesis and refutation of the counter thesis based upon adequate evidence or means of knowledge (pramana) as well as upon proper reasoning (tarka)
2. The conclusion that does not entail contradiction with analytical or ‘accepted doctrine’
3. Use of the well-known five steps (syllogism) of the demonstration (Sthapana) explicitly by both sides
4. Clear recognition of a thesis to be defended and a counter thesis to be refuted.

At the commencement of the Vada, the Judge or the arbiter (Madhyastha) lays down rules of the Vada. 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 Supreme being and the Atman. And, any position taken during the course of Vada 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, they had to abide by the rules and discipline specifically laid down by the Madhyastha.

As mentioned earlier, according to Nyaya Sutra (1.2.1) Vada 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 Vada that the Madhyastha might intervene to ensure that the participants, especially the one who is on the verge of defeat (Nigraha-sthana) do not resort to tricks such as quibbling (Chala), false rejoinder (Jati) etc. The Madhyastha 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:

1. When a proponent misunderstands his own premises and their implications;
2. When the opponent cannot understand the proponent’s argument
3. When either party is confused and becomes helpless
4. When either is guilty of faulty reasoning or pseudo-reasoning (hetvabhasa); because, no one should be allowed to win using a pseudo-reason
5. When one cannot reply within a reasonable time.

When one party is silenced in the process, the thesis stays as proven. Hence, in Vada, there is no explicit ‘defeat’ as such. The sense of defeat (Nigrahasthana) 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 Vada, it should be accepted; and, both – Vadin and Prativadin – should part their ways without rancor.

For example, the most celebrated Vada is said to be the one that took place between the young Sri Shankara and the distinguished Mimamsa scholar, householder, Mandana Mishra. Considering the young age of the opponent, Mandana Mishra generously offered Sri Shankara the option to select the Madhyastha (Judge) for the ensuing debate. Sri Shankara, who had great respect for the righteousness of Mandana Mishra, chose his wife Bharati Devi, a wise and learned person. During the course of the lengthy debate when Mandana Mishra seemed to be nearing Nigrahasthana (clincher) Bharati Devi raised questions about marital obligations. Sri Shankara being a sanyasi 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 Vada and won it. Thereafter, Mandana Mishra and Bharati Devi accepted Sri Shankara as their teacher, with grace and respect.]

जल्पः ॥ Jalpa

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

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 (of Vada) 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).

यथोक्तोपपन्नः छलजातिनिग्रहस्थानसाधनोपालम्भः जल्पः | १.२.२ |

yathoktopapannaḥ chalajātinigrahasthānasādhanopālambhaḥ jalpaḥ | 1.2.2 |

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 (Pratipaksha) on a given subject; and, sometimes at the cost of truth.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 to establish one’s own position or thesis, and to prove the opponent wrong and convert the other to one's own camp. And, therefore, each tries to win the debate by fair or foul means. 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. 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.

Therefore, 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. 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.

जल्पसाधनानि ॥ Means of disputation

Both the Vadin and the Prativadin work hard to establish their thesis through direct and indirect proofs. In Jalpa, the Pramanas, 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 enumerates

• Three kinds of quibbling (Chala)

तत्त्रिविधं वाक्छलं सामान्यच्छलं उपचारच्छलं च इति ।।१.२.११।।

tattrividhaṁ vākchalaṁ sāmānyacchalaṁ upacāracchalaṁ ca iti ।।1.2.11।।

• Twenty-four kinds of inappropriate rejoinders (Jati)

साधर्म्यवैधर्म्योत्कर्षापकर्षवर्ण्यावर्ण्यविकल्पसाध्यप्राप्त्यप्राप्तिप्रसङ्गप्रतिदृष्टान्तानुत्पत्तिसंशयप्रकरणहेत्वर्थापत्त्यविशेषोपपत्त्युपलब्ध्यनुपलब्धिनित्यानित्यकार्यसमाः ॥ ५.१.१ ॥

sādharmyavaidharmyotkarṣāpakarṣavarṇyāvarṇyavikalpasādhyaprāptyaprāptiprasaṅgapratidr̥ṣṭāntānutpattisaṁśayaprakaraṇahetvarthāpattyaviśeṣopapattyupalabdhyanupalabdhinityānityakāryasamāḥ ॥ 5.1.1 ॥

• Twenty-two kinds of clinchers or censure-situations (Nigrahasthana).

प्रतिज्ञाहानिः प्रतिज्ञान्तरं प्रतिज्ञाविरोधः प्रतिज्ञासंन्यासो हेत्वन्तरमर्थान्तरं निरर्थकमविज्ञातार्थमपार्थकमप्राप्तकालं न्यूनमधिकं पुनरुक्तमननुभाषणम-ज्ञानमप्रतिभा विक्षेपो मतानुज्ञा पर्यनुयोज्योपेक्षणं निरनुयोज्यानुयोगोऽप-सिद्धान्तो हेत्वाभासाश्च निग्रहस्थानानि ॥५.२.१ ॥

pratijñāhāniḥ pratijñāntaraṁ pratijñāvirodhaḥ pratijñāsaṁnyāso hetvantaramarthāntaraṁ nirarthakamavijñātārthamapārthakamaprāptakālaṁ nyūnamadhikaṁ punaruktamananubhāṣaṇama-jñānamapratibhā vikṣepo matānujñā paryanuyojyopekṣaṇaṁ niranuyojyānuyogo'pa-siddhānto hetvābhāsāśca nigrahasthānāni ॥5.2.1 ॥

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, descaled unfit and treated as defeated, if the opponent catches him at his own game.

छलम् ॥ Chala

Chala (Quibbling) is basically,

• an attempt to misinterpret the meaning of an expression (Vak chala)

अविशेषाभिहिते अर्थे वक्तुः अभिप्रायातर्थान्तरकल्पना वाक्छलम् ।।१.२.१२।।

aviśeṣābhihite arthe vaktuḥ abhiprāyātarthāntarakalpanā vākchalam ।।1.2.12।।

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

• improperly generalize its meaning (samanya chala)

सम्भवतः अर्थस्य अतिसामान्ययोगातसम्भूतार्थकल्पना सामान्यच्छलम् ।।१.२.१३।।

sambhavataḥ arthasya atisāmānyayogātasambhūtārthakalpanā sāmānyacchalam ।।1.2.13।।

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

• conflation of an ordinary use of a word with its metaphorical use (upachara chala), with a view to derange the argument.

धर्मविकल्पनिर्देशे अर्थसद्भावप्रतिषेधः उपचारच्छलम् ।।१.२.१४।।

dharmavikalpanirdeśe arthasadbhāvapratiṣedhaḥ upacāracchalam ।।1.2.14।।

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

जातिः ॥ Jati

Jati (Improper rejoinder or futile rejoinder) 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.

निग्रहस्थानम् ॥ Nigrahasthana

Censures or the point at which the Jalpa could be force-closed (Nigrahasthana) is

• by pointing out that the opponent is arguing against his own thesis
• he is willfully abstracting the debate; or to his inappropriate ways.

जल्पसाधनप्रयोजनानि ॥ Need for means of disputation

Explaining the need for a debater to resort to tactics such as Chala and Jati, and the need to invest time and effort in learning these tactics, Bimal Krishna Matilal in his 'The Character of Logic in India' says,

"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."

यदा वादी परस्य साधनं साध्विति मन्यते लाभपूजाख्यातिकामश्च भवति तदा जातिं प्रयुङ्क्ते कदाचिदयं जात्युत्तरेणाकुलीकृतो नोत्तरं प्रतिपद्यते उत्तराप्रतिपत्त्या च निगृह्यते । अनभिधाने च जातिरेकान्तजयः परस्येत्यैकान्तिकात्पराजयाद्वरमस्तु संदेह इति युक्तो जातेः प्रयोगः ॥ न्या.वा. ॥

yadā vādī parasya sādhanaṁ sādhviti manyate lābhapūjākhyātikāmaśca bhavati tadā jātiṁ prayuṅkte kadācidayaṁ jātyuttareṇākulīkr̥to nottaraṁ pratipadyate uttarāpratipattyā ca nigr̥hyate । anabhidhāne ca jātirekāntajayaḥ parasyetyaikāntikātparājayādvaramastu saṁdeha iti yukto jāteḥ prayogaḥ ॥ nyā.vā. ॥

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.
• 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.

Apart from developing a theory of evidence (pramāna) and argument (tarka) needed for the first type of debate, the manuals go on to list a number of cases, or situation-types, where the debate will be concluded and one side will be declared as "defeated" (or nigraha-sthāna, the defeat situation or the clinchers). The Nyāyasūtra lists 22 of them. For example, (a) if the opponent cannot understand the proponent's argument, or (b) if he is confused, or (c) if he cannot reply within a reasonable time limit-all these will be cases of defeat. Besides, these manuals identify several standard "false" rejoinders or jāti (24 of them are listed in the Nyāyasūtra), as well as some underhand tricks (chala) like equivocation and confusion of a metaphor for the literal.

वितण्डा ॥ 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.

Therefore, Vitanda is a type of argument or squabbling that descends to the level of quarrel and trickery. It is described as a destructive type of argument; the sole aim of each party being not only to inflict defeat on the opponent but also to demolish and humiliate him. The Vaitandika, the debater who employs Vitanda, is basically a refuter; he relentlessly goes on refuting whatever the proponent says. He has no thesis of his own – either to put forward or to defend. The aggressive Vaitandika goes on picking holes in the rival’s arguments and destabilizes his position, without any attempt to offer an alternate thesis. In other words, the debater here tries to ensure his victory simply by refuting or demolishing the thesis put forward by the other side, by browbeating or misleading or ridiculing the opponent. The whole purpose of the exercise seems to be to prove the opponent wrong and incompetent; and to humiliate him. Therefore, the major part of Vitanda is spent in denying the opponent’s views, in discrediting him or in quarreling. The Vaitandika might at times pick up the opponent’s thesis (though he himself might not believe in it) and argue in its favor just to demonstrate that the opponent is not doing a ‘good job’; and rebuke him saying that his thesis might not be after all so bad, but he made it look worse by making a terrible mess of it. Vaitandika makes it a point to disagree with the other, no matter what the other says. It is a way of saying: you are wrong, not because your statement by itself is wrong; but, it is wrong because you said it. He tries to effectively undermine the credibility of the opponent; and demonstrate to him that he is neither competent nor qualified to discuss the subtleties of the logic. In such type of debates either ‘valid knowledge’ or ‘truth’ has no place. It is said that,

स जल्पो वितण्डा भवति किं विशेषणः प्रतिपक्षस्थापनया हीनः ।

a jalpo vitaṇḍā bhavati kiṁ viśeṣaṇaḥ pratipakṣasthāpanayā hīnaḥ ।

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.

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.

In the Nyaya-Sutra, Vitanda is described as

सः प्रतिपक्षस्थापनाहीनः वितण्डा ।।१.२.३।।

saḥ pratipakṣasthāpanāhīnaḥ vitaṇḍā ।।1.2.3।।

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

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

चरकसंहितायां सम्भाषाविधिः ॥ Sambhasha in Charaka Samhita

It is said that,

भिषक् भिषजा सह संभाषेत । bhiṣak bhiṣajā saha saṁbhāṣeta ।

Meaning: A physician should discuss (a problem) with another physician to solve the problem and clear the doubt is a 'Tadvidya Sambhasha'.

संभाषायाः प्रयोजनम् ॥ Purpose of Sambhasha

The purposes of Sambhasha are enumerated as,

1. Enjoyment through knowledge
2. Encouraging oratory skills
3. Gaining command and confidence over a certain topic as well as fame
4. To acquire new knowledge about various things as well as develop scholarship and skill of defeating the opponent. (Charaka Samhita, Vimana Sthana, Chapter 8, Verse 15-16)

तद्विद्यसम्भाषा हि ज्ञानाभियोगसंहर्षकरो भवति, वैशारद्यमपि चाभिनिवर्तयति, वचनशक्तिमपि चाधत्ते, यशश्चाभिदीपयति पूर्वश्रुते च संदेहवतः पुनः श्रवणाच्छ्रुतसंशयमपकर्षति श्रुते चासंदेहवतो भूयोऽध्यवसायमभिनिर्वर्तयति अश्रुतमपि च कञ्चिदर्थे श्रोत्रविषयमापादयति यच्चाचार्यः शिष्याय शुश्रूषवे प्रसन्नः क्रमेणोपदिशति गुह्याभिमतमर्थजातं तत् परस्परेण सह जल्पन् पिण्डेन विजिगीषुराह संहर्षात् तस्मात्तद्विद्यसंभाषाम्भिप्रशंसन्ति कुशलाः ॥१२॥

tadvidyasambhāṣā hi jñānābhiyogasaṁharṣakaro bhavati, vaiśāradyamapi cābhinivartayati, vacanaśaktimapi cādhatte, yaśaścābhidīpayati pūrvaśrute ca saṁdehavataḥ punaḥ śravaṇācchrutasaṁśayamapakarṣati śrute cāsaṁdehavato bhūyo'dhyavasāyamabhinirvartayati aśrutamapi ca kañcidarthe śrotraviṣayamāpādayati yaccācāryaḥ śiṣyāya śuśrūṣave prasannaḥ krameṇopadiśati guhyābhimatamarthajātaṁ tat paraspareṇa saha jalpan piṇḍena vijigīṣurāha saṁharṣāt tasmāttadvidyasaṁbhāṣāmbhipraśaṁsanti kuśalāḥ ॥12॥

Meaning: Discussion with a person of the same branch of science is indeed what makes for the increase of knowledge and happiness. It contributes towards the clarity of understanding, increases dialectical skill, broadcasts reputation, dispels doubts regarding things heard by repeated hearing, and confirms the ideas of those that have no doubts. It enables one to hear a few things in the course of discussion. Sometimes, secret meanings which the teacher imparts to the ministering disciple in a propitious moment gradually, is revealed by the excited disputant, desirous of victory, in the process of discussion. Hence, it is that discussion with men of the same branch of science, is applauded by the wise.

It could also be used to solve the war issues between the nations and family disputes also. Sambhasha is that which is used to discuss a problem or a topic to explore the thoughts of intellectual people and to give a relevant conclusion. Rgveda (1.89.1) and nyaya darshana also give the clues about Sambhasha.

The method of discussion with experts of the same field serves the purpose of achieving thorough knowledge of the subject. In the context of Charaka samhita, Sambhasha refers to the discussion of a physician with another physician. Or in general, the discussion amongst experts of one branch about a topic related to their subject.

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. Women also participated in these debates. Gargi was a woman scholar who used to participate in the debates in Raja Janaka's court.

जल्पवितण्डयोः प्रयोजनम् अधिकारी च ॥ Prayojana and Adhikari of Jalpa and Vitanda

Explaining the need for Jalpa and Vitanda, it is said in the Nyaya Sutras and the corresponding bhashya that,

स्वपक्षरागेण चैके न्यायमतिवर्तन्ते तच । तत्त्वाध्यवसायसंरक्षणार्थं जल्पवितण्डे बीजप्ररोहसंरक्षणार्थं कण्टकशाखावरणवत् ॥ ४.२.४९ ॥

svapakṣarāgeṇa caike nyāyamativartante taca । tattvādhyavasāyasaṁrakṣaṇārthaṁ jalpavitaṇḍe bījaprarohasaṁrakṣaṇārthaṁ kaṇṭakaśākhāvaraṇavat ॥ 50 ॥

Meaning: Through excessive partiality to their own theories, some people transgress all bounds of reasoning; in that case, Jalpa (disputation) and Vitanda (Wrangling) should be carried on for the purpose of defending one's own determination to get at the truth; just as the hedge of thorny branches is put up for the protection of sprouting seeds. The bhashya also clarifies further that,

अनुत्पन्नतत्त्वज्ञानानामग्रहीणदोषाणां तदर्थे घटमानानामेतदिति ।

anutpannatattvajñānānāmagrahīṇadoṣāṇāṁ tadarthe ghaṭamānānāmetaditi ।

Meaning: This method (of Jalpa and Vitanda) however, is meant only for those persons who have not acquired True knowledge, whose defects have not been entirely removed, and who are still making an attempt for those purposes.

It further says that,

When one has been rudely addressed by an opponent; either through arrogance (of superior knowledge), or through sheer prejudice (against truth), or through some other similar reasons (i.e.desire for wealth, fame, etc.) then one (failing to perceive the right answer to the ill-mannered allegations of the opponent) should pick up a quarrel with him and proceed to deal with him by Jalpa (disputation) and by Vitanda (wrangling). This quarrel is with a view to defeating the opponent and not with a view to getting at the truth. But this should be done only for the purpose of defending true Science, and not for the purpose of obtaining wealth, honopur or fame.

According to the Tatparya Tika, the motive prompting the man should be - if this ill mannered person is allowed to go undefeated, then ordinary men will accept his conclusions as the right ones, and this would bring about a total confusion relating to dharma and true philosophy.

विद्यानिर्वेदादिभिश्च परेणावज्ञायमानस्य । ताभ्यां विगृह्य कथनम् ॥ ४.२.५० ॥ विगृह्येति विजिगीषया न तत्त्वबुभुत्सयेति । तदेतद्विद्यापालनार्थं न लाभपूजाख्यात्यर्थमिति ।

vidyānirvedādibhiśca pareṇāvajñāyamānasya । tābhyāṁ vigr̥hya kathanam ॥ 4.2.50 ॥ vigr̥hyeti vijigīṣayā na tattvabubhutsayeti । tadetadvidyāpālanārthaṁ na

वादजल्पयोः भेदः ॥ Difference between Vada and Jalpa

वादः ॥ Vada	जल्पः ॥ Jalpa
1. Vada is an honest debate aiming to ascertain ‘what is true’	1. Jalpa is an argument where each strives to impose his thesis on the other. The question of ascertaining the ‘truth’ does not arise here.
2. In Vada, the thesis is established by Pramana-s; and the anti-thesis is disproved by Tarka or different set of Pramana-s.	2. In Jalpa, the main function is negation; the Pramana-s do not have much use here.
3. Jalpa in general could be the dialectical aid for Vada	3. 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.
4. 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.	4. 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.

Differences between Samvada, Vada and Vivada

Samvada is generally understood as a dialogue between those like the teacher and the taught. Whereas, Vada refers to systematic establishment of a theory through logical reasoning in a cordial manner. While, the use of negation techniques as in Jalpa and Vitanda, transform a discourse into Vivada. In the 3rd verse of the Upadesha Panchaka, Adi Shankaracharya says,

बुधजनैर्वादः परित्यज्यताम् ॥ ३ ॥ budhajanairvādaḥ parityajyatām ॥ 3 ॥

Meaning: May you never argue with wise people.

In this context, Shri.Yegnasubramanian explains subtle distinctions between Vada and Samvada which may be extended to Vivada as well. He says,

1. In Vada and Vivada, one looks upon the opponent as equal or inferior respectively, where as, in samvada, one looks upon the other person as equal or superior (as in case of a teacher). Thus, there is a basic difference in the attitude itself which reflects in one’s addressing the other, the language, tone etc.
2. When one enters into Vada or Vivada, one has often made one’s conclusion on a topic, and through the debate, one tries to establish one’s conclusion or refute the other. Whereas in Samvada, one has his/her conviction, but does not force it upon another as his/her conclusion. Like a student’s approach, where the student may have some opinions, or notions, but doesn't make a conclusion nor wants to refute the teacher’s conclusion or teaching. The person is open-minded, and willing to refine or improve his/her understanding.
3. In the course of debates, one tries to talk more and focuses on restricting the other person from talking. The inclination to listen is lacking and one always interferes before the other has concluded. Whereas in Samvada, the propensity to talk is balanced with the propensity to hear/listen. In Samvada, one talks only as much as is required to present his/her idea  briefly and, allows the other person also to talk and listens with 200% attention without interference. Just like a student who waits to see whether the teacher has anything more to say even after the teacher has stopped.
4. In the course of debates, especially in Vivada, there is less scope to reflect upon later since one does not listen to the other. Whereas, in a 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. Just as with the teacher, not only does one listen, but also reflects upon the thought giving maximum respect to the teacher.
5. An aspect of Samvada is that a person inquires when any point spoken by the other person is unclear. Even after elaborate answering, if one is not convinced; there is scope to ask again. Just like Arjuna inquired from Krishna when he was unclear about anything Krishna spoke. However, in Vivada, there is almost no room for this.
6. A Samvada or Vada never leaves disturbance or bitterness in the mind. But in Vivada, there is always disturbance or bitterness in the mind.

Thus, there is lot of difference between Samvada, Vada and Vivada. Just as a student asking a question to the teacher is welcome and is a part of learning. While, one trying to argue with a mahatma is not. Therefore, Vivada is positively condemned and asking questions for clarification is encouraged.