Difference between revisions of "Types of Discourse (सम्भाषाप्रकाराः)"
(Added references and did editing) |
(→Detailed Discussion: Added content) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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.<ref name=":0">Bimal Krishna Matilal; Jonardon Ganeri; Heeraman Tiwari (1998). ''The Character of Logic in India''. SUNY Press. p. 31. <nowiki>ISBN 9780791437407</nowiki>.</ref> For example, Brhadaranyaka Upsanisad, a pre-Buddhist text, has references to King Janaka as not only organizing and patronizing debates between the sages and priests but also as participating in such debates.<ref name=":0" /> Even women used to participate in these debates. Gargi was a woman scholar who used to participate in the debates in King Janaka's court.<ref name=":0" /> | 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.<ref name=":0">Bimal Krishna Matilal; Jonardon Ganeri; Heeraman Tiwari (1998). ''The Character of Logic in India''. SUNY Press. p. 31. <nowiki>ISBN 9780791437407</nowiki>.</ref> For example, Brhadaranyaka Upsanisad, a pre-Buddhist text, has references to King Janaka as not only organizing and patronizing debates between the sages and priests but also as participating in such debates.<ref name=":0" /> Even women used to participate in these debates. Gargi was a woman scholar who used to participate in the debates in King Janaka's court.<ref name=":0" /> | ||
| − | There are four types of discussions - Samvaada (संवाद), Vaada (वाद) , Jalpa (जल्प) and Vitanda (वितंड). | + | In the Indian traditions, including the Buddhist and Jain traditions, four formats of discussions, debates and arguments are described. There are four types of discussions - Samvaada (संवाद), Vaada (वाद) , Jalpa (जल्प) and Vitanda (वितंड). The merit and esteem of each of these types of discussions is graded in terms of the honesty of their purpose, the quality of debate, the decorum and the mutual regard of the participants.<ref>Sreenivas Rao, http://swaminathanv208.blogspot.in/2016/05/discussions-debates-and-arguments.html</ref> |
== Detailed Discussion == | == Detailed Discussion == | ||
| − | Samvaada is the discussion between the teacher and the taught as in Shree Krishna-Arjuna samvaada. The student does not question the teacher but seeks clarifications. | + | Samvaada is the discussion between the teacher and the taught as in Shree Krishna-Arjuna samvaada. The student does not question the teacher but seeks clarifications. |
| − | + | Vaada 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>. Learning takes place at the end of vaada since the truth is established to the satisfaction of both parties.<ref name=":2" /> | |
| − | Vitanda is when one argues against the other fellow just to prove that the other one is wrong. | + | The debators 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. for Vedantic discussions the Pramaanas are specifically the Prasthaan Tritya - The [[Upanishads]], [[Bhagavad Gita]] and [[Brahma Sutras]]. There are judges to insure the discussion proceeds along the accepted pramaanas. The discussion proceeds until one accepts the other arguments. Some time the discussions can take days as in the famous discussion between Adi Sankara and Mandana Misra which lasted for 18 days till Mandana Misra accepted defeat and became Shankara's disciple. Mandana Misra's wife, Bharati, who was a scholar by herself served as a judge for that vaada.<ref name=":1">Explained by Sadananda, http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/oct2002/0016.html</ref> |
| + | |||
| + | Jalpa is where each debator comes to the table with a preconceived notion that he is right and the other fellow is wrong.<ref name=":1" /> The purpose of the discussion is not to discover or establish the truth but is only to convert the other fellow to his camp.<ref name=":2" /> | ||
| + | |||
| + | There is no knowledge that takes place in these discussions. Even if one is losing his arguments, he only goes and comes back with more ammunition to defend himself. The outcome of Jalpa is lot of noise.<ref name=":2" /> But those who are bystander 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.<ref name=":1" /> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Vitanda is when one argues against the other fellow just to prove that the other one is wrong. The focus is to prove that the opponent is not qualified to discuss and that there is no credibility for the opponent.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /> You are wrong, not because the statement by itself is wrong but it is wrong because you made that statement.<ref name=":1" /> | ||
Revision as of 14:50, 11 March 2018
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.[1] For example, Brhadaranyaka Upsanisad, a pre-Buddhist text, has references to King Janaka as not only organizing and patronizing debates between the sages and priests but also as participating in such debates.[1] Even women used to participate in these debates. Gargi was a woman scholar who used to participate in the debates in King Janaka's court.[1]
In the Indian traditions, including the Buddhist and Jain traditions, four formats of discussions, debates and arguments are described. There are four types of discussions - Samvaada (संवाद), Vaada (वाद) , Jalpa (जल्प) and Vitanda (वितंड). The merit and esteem of each of these types of discussions is graded in terms of the honesty of their purpose, the quality of debate, the decorum and the mutual regard of the participants.[2]
Detailed Discussion
Samvaada is the discussion between the teacher and the taught as in Shree Krishna-Arjuna samvaada. The student does not question the teacher but seeks clarifications.
Vaada is the discussion between two equals to establish the truth / to resolve the conflict[3]. Learning takes place at the end of vaada since the truth is established to the satisfaction of both parties.[3]
The debators 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. for Vedantic discussions the Pramaanas are specifically the Prasthaan Tritya - The Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras. There are judges to insure the discussion proceeds along the accepted pramaanas. The discussion proceeds until one accepts the other arguments. Some time the discussions can take days as in the famous discussion between Adi Sankara and Mandana Misra which lasted for 18 days till Mandana Misra accepted defeat and became Shankara's disciple. Mandana Misra's wife, Bharati, who was a scholar by herself served as a judge for that vaada.[4]
Jalpa is where each debator comes to the table with a preconceived notion that he is right and the other fellow is wrong.[4] The purpose of the discussion is not to discover or establish the truth but is only to convert the other fellow to his camp.[3]
There is no knowledge that takes place in these discussions. Even if one is losing his arguments, he only goes and comes back with more ammunition to defend himself. The outcome of Jalpa is lot of noise.[3] But those who are bystander 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.[4]
Vitanda is when one argues against the other fellow just to prove that the other one is wrong. The focus is to prove that the opponent is not qualified to discuss and that there is no credibility for the opponent.[4][3] You are wrong, not because the statement by itself is wrong but it is wrong because you made that statement.[4]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Bimal Krishna Matilal; Jonardon Ganeri; Heeraman Tiwari (1998). The Character of Logic in India. SUNY Press. p. 31. ISBN 9780791437407.
- ↑ Sreenivas Rao, http://swaminathanv208.blogspot.in/2016/05/discussions-debates-and-arguments.html
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Dr T P Sasikumar, http://trueindia.blogspot.in/2005/03/samvaada-vaada-jalpa-vitanda.html
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Explained by Sadananda, http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/oct2002/0016.html