Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 265: Line 265:  
* Participate with an open mind in order to explore various dimensions of the subject on hand  
 
* Participate with an open mind in order to explore various dimensions of the subject on hand  
 
* Examine the subject thoroughly by applying the accepted norms of logic and reasoning (Tarka)
 
* Examine the subject thoroughly by applying the accepted norms of logic and reasoning (Tarka)
* Support the reasoning with passages from texts of undisputed authority (Shabda Pramana);<ref name=":2" />Like in case of Vedantic discussions, the Pramanas are specifically the Prasthana Trayi - The [[Upanishads (उपनिषदः)|Upanishads]], Brahma Sutras and [[Bhagavad Gita (भगवद्गीता)|Bhagavad Gita]]. <ref name=":1" />  
+
* Support the reasoning with passages from texts of undisputed authority (Shabda Pramana).<ref name=":2" />Like, in case of Vedantic discussions, the Pramanas are specifically the Prasthana Trayi - The [[Upanishads (उपनिषदः)|Upanishads]], Brahma Sutras and [[Bhagavad Gita (भगवद्गीता)|Bhagavad Gita]]. <ref name=":1" />  
 
Thus, Vada is characterized by politeness, courtesy and fair means of presenting the arguments. In other words, it is a healthy discussion<ref name=":3" /> that culminates in learning as, at the end, truth gets established to the satisfaction of both parties.<ref name=":2" />
 
Thus, Vada is characterized by politeness, courtesy and fair means of presenting the arguments. In other words, it is a healthy discussion<ref name=":3" /> that culminates in learning as, at the end, truth gets established to the satisfaction of both parties.<ref name=":2" />
    
==== Role of the Madhyastha ====
 
==== Role of the Madhyastha ====
A Vada generally took place in front of a board or jury called the Madhyastha (the mediators or adjudicators) to ensure that the discussion proceeded along the accepted pramanas.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" />At the commencement of the Vada, it was the Madhyastha (Judge or arbiter) who laid down rules of the Vada. And the disputants were required to honor those norms and regulations. They were also required to adhere to permissible devices and not breach certain agreed limits known as Vada maryada. For example: If both the Vadin and Prati-vadin belonged to the Vedic tradition, they were not permitted to question the validity of the Vedas or the existence of Supreme being and the Atman. And any position taken during the course of the Vada could not contradict the Vedic injunctions. Similarly, if one of the proponents belonged to the Vedic tradition and the other to a Non-Vedic tradition, both had to abide by the rules and discipline specifically laid down by the Madhyastha.<ref name=":3" />
+
A Vada generally takes place in front of a board or jury called the Madhyastha (the mediators or adjudicators) to ensure that the discussion proceeds along the accepted pramanas.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" />At the commencement of the Vada, it is the Madhyastha (Judge or arbiter) who lays down rules of the Vada. And the disputants are required to honor these norms and regulations. They are also required to adhere to permissible devices and not breach certain agreed limits known as Vada maryada. For example: If both the Vadin and Prati-vadin belong to the Vedic tradition, they are not permitted to question the validity of the Vedas or the existence of Supreme being and the Atman. And any position taken during the course of the Vada cannot contradict the Vedic injunctions. Similarly, if one of the proponents belongs to the Vedic tradition and the other to a Non-Vedic tradition, both have to abide by the rules and discipline specifically laid down by the Madhyastha.<ref name=":3" />
# Clear recognition of a thesis to be defended and a counter thesis to be refuted.<ref name=":3" />
  −
As regards the benefits (Sambhasha prashamsa or prayojana) of such peaceful and congenial debates: The winner would be declared at the end by the consensus of the adjudicators.<ref name=":0" />  
     −
The discussion proceeds until one accepts the others' arguments. Sometimes the discussions can take days as in the famous discussion between Adi Shankara and Mandana Mishra which lasted for 18 days till Mandana Mishra accepted defeat and became Shankara's disciple. Mandana Mishra's wife, Bharati, who was a scholar herself served as a judge for that vada.<ref name=":1" />
+
As mentioned earlier, according to the Nyaya Sutra (1.2.1), Vada comprises defense and attack (Sadhana and Upalambha). That is, one’s own thesis is defended by means of genuine criteria of knowledge (Pramana) while, the antithesis (opponent’s theory) is refuted by negative dialectics of Tarka (logic). However, 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) does not resort to tricks such as quibbling (Chala), false rejoinder (Jati) etc. In such cases, the Madhyastha may even call off the Vada and declare the candidate who, in his view performed better, as the winner.<ref name=":3" />
#
  −
Role of 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).<ref name=":3" />
+
==== वादपरिणामः || Result of the Vada ====
 +
It is seen that, a Vada proceeds until one accepts the others' arguments.<ref name=":1" /> And the winner is declared, at the end, by the consensus of the adjudicators.<ref name=":0" /> However, this can take days as is understood from the famous episode of a Vada between Adi Shankaracharya and Mandana Mishra In fact, it was Bharati, Mandana Mishra's wife and a great scholar herself, who had served as a judge for this Vada.<ref name=":1" /> Therefore, one of the two proponents has to be silenced in order to establish a thesis as proved.
   −
Vada Parinama || Result of the Vada   
+
A Vada can also be treated as concluded and one side declared as defeated when,
 +
# A proponent misunderstands his own premises and their implications
 +
# The opponent cannot understand the proponent’s argument 
 +
# Either party is confused and becomes helpless 
 +
# Either is guilty of faulty reasoning or pseudo-reasoning (hetvabhasa) because, no one should be allowed to win using a pseudo-reason. 
 +
# One cannot reply within a reasonable time.
 +
The Madhyastha may also treat the Vada as inconclusive (savyabhichara) if
 +
* there is no possibility of reaching a fair decision
 +
* the very subject to be discussed is disputed (Viruddha)
 +
* the arguments stray away from the subject that is slated for discussion (prakarana-atita)
 +
* the debate prolongs beyond a reasonable time (Kalatita).
 +
Hence, in Vada, there is no explicit ‘defeat’ as such. The sense of defeat (Nigrahasthana) becomes apparent only when there are contradictions in logical reasoning (hetvabhasa) and the debate falls silent. In any case, when the doctrine and the argument presented are valid, it is to be adopted with grace.<ref name=":3" />  
   −
In this context, it is said the debate could be treated as concluded and one side declared defeated: 
+
==== वादप्रसङ्गः || An Incident of Vada ====
# When a proponent misunderstands his own premises and their implications;
+
The most celebrated Vada is said to be the one that took place between young Sri Shankara and the distinguished Mimamsa scholar and householder, Sri Mandana Mishra. It is said that, considering the young age of the opponent, Mandana Mishra generously offered Sri Shankara the option to select the Madhyastha (Judge) for the ensuing debate. At the same time, Sri Shankara, who had great respect for Sri Mandana Mishra's righteousness, chose his wife Bharati Devi, a wise and learned person as the Madhyastha. It is noted that, 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. Thus, he requested for and obtained a ‘break’ to study and understand the issue. He then returned after some time equipped with the newly acquired knowledge, renewed the Vada and won it. Thereafter, Mandana Mishra accepted Sri Shankara as his teacher, with grace and respect.<ref name=":3" />  
# When the opponent cannot understand the proponent’s argument 
  −
# When either party is confused and becomes helpless 
  −
# When either is guilty of faulty reasoning or pseudo-reasoning (hetvabhasa); because, no one should be allowed to win using a pseudo-reason 
  −
# 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.
  −
 
  −
Example:
  −
 
  −
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.<ref name=":3" />  
      
=== जल्पः ॥ Jalpa ===
 
=== जल्पः ॥ Jalpa ===

Navigation menu