Changes

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 (Parishads).

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 (Parishads).

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 (parishads). Their training modules included,

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 (Parishads). Their training modules included,

# Methods of presenting arguments as per a logically structured format

# Methods of presenting arguments as per a logically structured format

# Ways to stoutly defend one's thesis by means of genuine criteria of knowledge (Pramana)  

# Ways to stoutly defend one's thesis by means of genuine criteria of knowledge (Pramana)  

The methodology of philosophical debate in India, gave rise to the study of the form of correct arguments and inference patterns as part of the science of Logic.<ref name=":0" />

The methodology of philosophical debate in India, gave rise to the study of the form of correct arguments and inference patterns as part of the science of Logic.<ref name=":0" />

=== आन्वीक्षिकी ॥  Anvikshiki ===

=== 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).<ref name=":13">Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana (1921), [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.489008/page/n1 A History of Indian Logic], Calcutta University.</ref><blockquote>आन्वीक्षिकी त्रयी वार्त्ता दण्ड-नीतिश्चैति विद्याः ।। ०१.२.०१ ।।<ref>Kautilya, Arthashastra, Adhikarana 1, [https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D_%E0%A5%A7/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83_%E0%A5%A8 Adhyaya 2].</ref> ''ānvīkṣikī trayī vārttā daṇḍa-nītiścaiti vidyāḥ ।। 01.2.01 ।।''</blockquote>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.<ref name=":13" /> And this logic, developed in ancient India through the tradition of vada vidya, a discipline dealing with the categories of debate over various religious, philosophical, moral and doctrinal issues.<ref name=":0" /> Hence, Sambhasha is also called as Vada (discussion) in many texts.  

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).<ref name=":13">Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana (1921), [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.489008/page/n1 A History of Indian Logic], Calcutta University.</ref><blockquote>आन्वीक्षिकी त्रयी वार्त्ता दण्ड-नीतिश्चैति विद्याः ।। ०१.२.०१ ।।<ref>Kautilya, Arthashastra, Adhikarana 1, [https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D_%E0%A5%A7/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83_%E0%A5%A8 Adhyaya 2].</ref> ''ānvīkṣikī trayī vārttā daṇḍa-nītiścaiti vidyāḥ ।। 01.2.01 ।।''</blockquote>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.<ref name=":13" /> And this logic, developed in ancient India through the tradition of Vada Vidya, a discipline dealing with the categories of debate over various religious, philosophical, moral and doctrinal issues.<ref name=":0" /> Hence, Sambhasha is also called as Vada (discussion) in many texts.  

This concept of Vada is derived from the Nyaya darshana. It is said that,<blockquote>प्रमाणतर्कसाधनोपालम्भः सिद्धान्ताविरुद्धः पञ्चावयवोपपन्नः पक्षप्रतिपक्षपरिग्रहः वादः ।।१।।<ref>Nyaya Sutras, 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 Part 2].</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''pramāṇatarkasādhanōpālambhaḥ siddhāntāviruddhaḥ pañcāvayavōpapannaḥ pakṣapratipakṣaparigrahaḥ vādaḥ ।।1।।''</blockquote>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).<ref name=":9" />

This concept of Vada is derived from the Nyaya darshana. It is said that,<blockquote>प्रमाणतर्कसाधनोपालम्भः सिद्धान्ताविरुद्धः पञ्चावयवोपपन्नः पक्षप्रतिपक्षपरिग्रहः वादः ।।१।।<ref>Nyaya Sutras, 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 Part 2].</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''pramāṇatarkasādhanōpālambhaḥ siddhāntāviruddhaḥ pañcāvayavōpapannaḥ pakṣapratipakṣaparigrahaḥ vādaḥ ।।1।।''</blockquote>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).<ref name=":9" />

The notoriety of the third type was universal, although some philosophers (for example, Nagarjuna, Sri Harsha) 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 Sanatani divided the debates into four types:  

The notoriety of the third type was universal, although some philosophers (for example, Nagarjuna, Sri Harsha) 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 Sanatani divided the debates into four types:  

# the honest type (Vada)'',''

# the honest type (Vada)  

# the tricky type (Jalpa),

# the tricky type (Jalpa)  

# the type modeled after the tricky type (Jalpa) but for which only refutation is needed  

# the type modeled after the tricky type (Jalpa) but for which only refutation is needed  

# the type modeled after the honest one (Vada) where only the refutation of a thesis is needed  

# the type modeled after the honest one (Vada) where only the refutation of a thesis is needed  

=== The Nyaya Model ===

=== The Nyaya Model ===

Akshapada defined a method of philosophical argumentation, called the Nyaya method or the Nyaya model. This was the standard for an ideally organized philosophical disputation. Seven categories are identified as constituting the "prior" stage of a Nyaya''.'' A Nyaya 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 include,

Akshapada defined a method of philosophical argumentation, called the Nyaya method or the Nyaya model. This was the standard for an ideally organized philosophical disputation. Seven categories are identified as constituting each the "prior" and "posterior" stage of a Nyaya''.'' A Nyaya 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 of the prior stage include,

# Doubt

# Doubt

# Purpose  

# Purpose  

# Supportive Argument (Tarka)

# Supportive Argument (Tarka)

# Decision.  

# Decision.  

Out of these 7 categories, the need for 'Purpose' is self-explanatory, the 'example' is needed to ensure that the arguments would not be just empty talk, while the 'basic tenets' supply the ground rules for the argumentation.

Out of these 7 categories, the need for 'Purpose' is self-explanatory, the 'example' is needed to ensure that the arguments would not be just empty talk, while the 'basic tenets' supply the ground rules for the argumentation.  

The "limbs” (Avayavas) 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 Nyayasutras'','' there are five "limbs" or "steps" (Pancha Avayavas) in a structured reasoning. And they should all be articulated linguistically. Each of these 5 steps are explained with an example in the following table.

The "limbs” (Avayavas) 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 Nyayasutras'','' there are five "limbs" or "steps" (Pancha Avayavas) in a structured reasoning. And they should all be articulated linguistically. Each of these 5 steps are explained with an example in the following table.

|Therefore it is so, i.e., there is fire on the hill.

|Therefore it is so, i.e., there is fire on the hill.

|}

|}

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

The Nyaya school asserted all along that this Nyaya method is used by the arguer to convince others. And that, to satisfy completely the expectation (akanksha) 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 nyaya method itself, the supportive argument (tarka) is needed when doubts are raised about the implication of the middle part of the above inference schema. Like, Is the example right? Does it support the evidence? Is the general principle right? Is it adequate? The "supportive arguments” would examine the alternative possibilities, and try to resolve all these questions. And thus, after the supportive argument, comes the decision, one way or another.  

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

Another seven categories were identified as constituting the "posterior" stage of the Nyaya method. They consist of,  

Another seven categories were identified as constituting the "posterior" stage of the Nyaya method. They consist of,  

== 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 or arguments are described. Namely,

# Samvada (संवादः)

# Samvada (संवादः)

# Vada (वादः)

# Vada (वादः)

# the decorum  

# the decorum  

# the mutual regard of the participants

# 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 (based on tantrayukti) debates or arguments between rivals.<ref name=":3" />

== विषयविस्तारः ॥ 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 (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.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":3" />