Changes

=== जल्पः ॥ Jalpa ===

=== जल्पः ॥ Jalpa ===

As mentioned before, Vada is classified as a ‘good’ debate known as Sandhaya Sambhasha or Anuloma Sambasha (a congenial debate) while, Jalpa along with Vitanda is treated as ‘bad’ or hostile argument (Vigrhya Sambasha).<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 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 Nigrahasthana (Clinchers).<ref name=":4" /><blockquote>यथोक्तोपपन्नः छलजातिनिग्रहस्थानसाधनोपालम्भः जल्पः | १.२.२ |<ref name=":6">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> ''yathoktopapannaḥ chalajātinigrahasthānasādhanopālambhaḥ jalpaḥ | 1.2.2 |''</blockquote>Jalpa is essentially 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, even at the cost of truth.<ref name=":3" />Also, 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. Therefore, each tries to win the debate by fair or foul means. And each is prepared to employ various deceptive or sophistic devices for the same. such as

As mentioned before, Vada is classified as a ‘good’ debate known as Sandhaya Sambhasha or Anuloma Sambasha (a congenial debate) while, Jalpa along with Vitanda is treated as 'hostile' argument (Vigrhya Sambasha).<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 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 Nigrahasthana (Clinchers).<ref name=":4" /><blockquote>यथोक्तोपपन्नः छलजातिनिग्रहस्थानसाधनोपालम्भः जल्पः | १.२.२ |<ref name=":6">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> ''yathoktopapannaḥ chalajātinigrahasthānasādhanopālambhaḥ jalpaḥ | 1.2.2 |''</blockquote>Jalpa is essentially 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, even at the cost of truth.<ref name=":3" />Also, 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 to establish one’s own position or thesis, and to prove the opponent wrong and convert the other to one's own camp. Therefore, each tries to win the debate by fair or foul means. And each is prepared to employ various deceptive or sophistic devices for the same. Some such devices used to outwit the opponent are 

* quibbling (Chala);

* Quibbling (Chala)  

* unreasonable (Ahetu) responses;

* Unreasonable responses (Ahetu)

* shifting the reason or the topics (Hetvantara or Arthantara);

* Shifting of reason (Hetvantara) or Shifting of topics (Arthantara)  

* irrelevant rejoinders provoking the opponent to lose focus, to get perturbed and yet continue with the dispute (Jati) somehow;

* Irrelevant rejoinders (Jati) provoking the opponent to lose focus, etc.

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.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":3" />

Thus, Jalpa could, predictably, be noisy and unpleasant. Because, when one edges towards losing the argument (nigrahasthana), every sort of face-saving device or ruse is invented to wriggle out of the bad situation that is quickly turning worse.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":3" /> Even if the proponent takes a break, it is only to come back with more ammunition to defend himself.<ref name=":2" />Therefore, there is hardly any knowledge that gets established in these discussions. However, if the bystanders don't have any preconceived notions, they can learn from the defects in each of the proponent's arguments during the discussion.<ref name=":1" />

 

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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":1" />

==== जल्पसाधनानि ॥ Means of disputation ====

==== जल्पसाधनानि ॥ Means of disputation ====