Changes

* He has no thesis of his own – either to put forward or to defend.  

* He has no thesis of his own – either to put forward or to defend.  

* He is aggressive and goes on picking holes in the rival’s arguments and destabilizes his position, without any attempt to offer an alternate thesis.  

* He is aggressive and goes on picking holes in the rival’s arguments and destabilizes his position, without any attempt to offer an alternate thesis.  

* He may 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.  

* He may 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 the thesis itself might not be as bad as the opponent is making it out to be due to his arguments. By that, 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.  

* He 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. It is wrong because you said it.'  

* He 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. It is wrong because you said it.'  

* He might sometimes, pick up a thesis just for argument’s sake, even though he may have no faith in the truth of his own argument.  

* He might sometimes, pick up a thesis just for argument’s sake, even though he may have no faith in the truth of his own argument.  

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, 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. Thus, there is no place for either ‘valid knowledge’ or ‘truth’ in such type of debate.<ref name=":3" /> In that sense, Vitanda is some what peculier.<ref name=":1" /> The Nyaya-Sutra describes Vitanda as,<blockquote>सः प्रतिपक्षस्थापनाहीनः वितण्डा ।।१.२.३।।<ref name=":6" /> ''saḥ pratipakṣasthāpanāhīnaḥ vitaṇḍā ।।1.2.3।।''</blockquote>This definition of Vitanda becomes clearer as the difference between Jalpa and Vitanda are enumerated.

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, 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. Thus, there is no place for either ‘valid knowledge’ or ‘truth’ in such type of debate.<ref name=":3" /> In that sense, Vitanda is some what peculiar.<ref name=":1" /> Hence, Nyaya-Sutra describes Vitanda as,<blockquote>सः प्रतिपक्षस्थापनाहीनः वितण्डा ।।१.२.३।।<ref name=":6" /> ''saḥ pratipakṣasthāpanāhīnaḥ vitaṇḍā ।।1.2.3।।''</blockquote>This definition of Vitanda becomes clearer as the difference between Jalpa and Vitanda are enumerated.

==== जल्पवितण्डयोः भेदः || Difference between Jalpa and Vitanda ====

==== जल्पवितण्डयोः भेदः || Difference between Jalpa and Vitanda ====

|Vitanda also employs various tactics. But, does not seriously attempt to put up any counter-thesis.<ref name=":3" />  

|Vitanda also employs various tactics. But, does not seriously attempt to put up any counter-thesis.<ref name=":3" />  

|}

|}

Therefore, it is said that, <blockquote>स जल्पो वितण्डा भवति किं विशेषणः प्रतिपक्षस्थापनया हीनः ।<ref name=":5" /></blockquote><blockquote>''a jalpo vitaṇḍā bhavati kiṁ viśeṣaṇaḥ pratipakṣasthāpanayā hīnaḥ ।''</blockquote>Meaning: That Jalpa (disputation) becomes Vitanda (wrangling) which is devoid of counter conception.  

 

Therefore, it is said that,<blockquote>स जल्पो वितण्डा भवति किं विशेषणः प्रतिपक्षस्थापनया हीनः ।<ref name=":5" /></blockquote><blockquote>''a jalpo vitaṇḍā bhavati kiṁ viśeṣaṇaḥ pratipakṣasthāpanayā hīnaḥ ।''</blockquote>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.<ref name=":4" />

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.<ref name=":4" />

Also, both the participants in a Vitanda are prepared to  

Also, both the participants in a Vitanda are prepared to resort to mean tactics in order to mislead the opponent by fallacies (hetvabhasa), attack the opponents statement by willful misrepresentation (Chala) and ill-timed rejoinders (Atita-kala), etc. He tries to effectively silence the opponent, though what he says might be irrational or illogical. In fact, it is virtually akin to a ‘no-holds-barred’ sort of street fight. Thus, ethereal values such as truth, honesty, mutual respect and such others are conspicuously absent here. Therefore, in terms of merit, Vitanda is rated inferior to Jalpa.<ref name=":3" />  

* 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’.  

* he tries to effectively silence the opponent, though what he says might be irrational or illogical

It is virtually akin to a ‘no-holds-barred’ sort of street fight. Thus, ethereal values such as truth, honesty, mutual respect and such others are conspicuously absent here. Therefore, in terms of merit, Vitanda is rated inferior to Jalpa.<ref name=":3" />

==== Role of a Madhyastha ====

==== Role of a Madhyastha ====

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  

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 ‘Sadhu’ (permissible) or ‘A-sadhu’ (not permissible).

* what is true (Sat) what is just a bluff (A-sat).  

* 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  

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. At times, he may even disqualify both the parties and scrap the event declaring it null and void.<ref name=":3" />  

* 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.<ref name=":3" />

 

== चरकसंहितायां सम्भाषाविधिः ॥ Sambhasha in Charaka Samhita ==

== चरकसंहितायां सम्भाषाविधिः ॥ Sambhasha in Charaka Samhita ==

It is said that,  <blockquote>भिषक् भिषजा सह संभाषेत ।<ref name=":11" /> ''bhiṣak bhiṣajā saha saṁbhāṣeta ।''</blockquote>Meaning: A physician should discuss (a problem) with another physician<ref name=":12" /> to solve the problem and clear the doubt is a 'Tadvidya Sambhasha'.  

It is said that,  <blockquote>भिषक् भिषजा सह संभाषेत ।<ref name=":11" /> ''bhiṣak bhiṣajā saha saṁbhāṣeta ।''</blockquote>Meaning: A physician should discuss (a problem) with another physician<ref name=":12" /> to solve the problem and clear the doubt is a 'Tadvidya Sambhasha'.