Changes

{{ToBeEdited}}Types of Discourse (Samskrit: सम्भाषाप्रकाराः) refers to the different styles of discussion and debate. Sambhasha (participating in debates) is considered one of the three methods to obtain knowledge; the other two being, adhyayana (study) and adhyapana (teaching), says the Charaka Samhita.<ref name=":9">Rajpreet Singh, Veenu Malhotra, Rimpaljeet Kaur and Shashikant Bharadwaj (2016) , [http://www.ijrap.net/admin/php/uploads/1534_pdf.pdf Comparative study of Sambhasha in Charaka Samhita with Sympoisums held in Modern Era], International Journal of Research in Ayurveda and Pharmacy. </ref><blockquote>अध्ययनमध्यापनं तद्विद्यसम्भाषा चेत्युपायाः ॥४॥<ref name=":14">Edited by Debendra Nath Sen and Upendra Nath Sen, Charaka Samhita, Vimana Sthana, Chapter 8, [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.322332/page/n399 Pg.no.326]</ref> ''adhyayanamadhyāpanaṁ tadvidyasambhāṣetyupāyāḥ ॥4॥''</blockquote>Meaning: To this end, we shall indicate the means viz. study, teaching and discussion with those versed in the same subject.<ref>Edited and Published by Ayurvedic Society (Jamnagar, 1949), Charaka Samhita (Volume 5), [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.326551/page/n375 Pg.no.324]</ref>

Types of Discourse (Samskrit: सम्भाषाप्रकाराः) refers to the different styles of discussion and debate. Sambhasha (participating in debates) is considered one of the three methods to obtain knowledge; the other two being, adhyayana (study) and adhyapana (teaching), says the [[Charaka Samhita (चरक संहिता)|Charaka Samhita]].<ref name=":9">Rajpreet Singh, Veenu Malhotra, Rimpaljeet Kaur and Shashikant Bharadwaj (2016) , [http://www.ijrap.net/admin/php/uploads/1534_pdf.pdf Comparative study of Sambhasha in Charaka Samhita with Sympoisums held in Modern Era], International Journal of Research in Ayurveda and Pharmacy. </ref><blockquote>अध्ययनमध्यापनं तद्विद्यसम्भाषा चेत्युपायाः ॥४॥<ref name=":14">Edited by Debendra Nath Sen and Upendra Nath Sen, Charaka Samhita, Vimana Sthana, Chapter 8, [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.322332/page/n399 Pg.no.326]</ref> ''adhyayanamadhyāpanaṁ tadvidyasambhāṣetyupāyāḥ ॥4॥''</blockquote>Meaning: To this end, we shall indicate the means viz. study, teaching and discussion with those versed in the same subject.<ref>Edited and Published by Ayurvedic Society (Jamnagar, 1949), Charaka Samhita (Volume 5), [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.326551/page/n375 Pg.no.324]</ref>

This article discusses the science of 'Tadvidya Sambhasha' (debate between experts of same field).

This article discusses the science of 'Tadvidya Sambhasha' (debate between experts of same field).

== परिचयः ॥ Introduction ==

== परिचयः ॥ Introduction ==

There was a long and a time-honored tradition in ancient India where philosophers and thinkers met to discuss metaphysical issues over which there were multiple views. There are detailed narrations of such discussions, debates and dialogues recorded in Chandogya Upanishad, Brhadaranyaka Upanishad and Prashna Upanishad. The other early texts such as Aitareya Brahmana, Kathopanishad and others use terms like : tarka (reasoning), Vada (debate), Yukti (sustained arguments), Prameya (object of knowledge), Pramana (proof), Nirnaya (ascertainment) etc. which later became the principal terminologies of the Nyaya School. It is also said that the idioms of inquiry (Anveshiki) dealing with the theory of reasons (Hetu vidya or Hetu shastra) were mentioned in Manu samhita and Panini’s Ashtadhyayi.<ref name=":3" />

There was a long and a time-honored tradition in ancient India where philosophers and thinkers met to discuss metaphysical issues over which there were multiple views. There are detailed narrations of such discussions, debates and dialogues recorded in [[Chandogya Upanishad (छान्दोग्योपनिषतद्)|Chandogya Upanishad]], [[Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्)|Brhadaranyaka Upanishad]] and Prashna Upanishad. The other early texts such as Aitareya Brahmana, Kathopanishad and others use terms like : tarka (reasoning), Vada (debate), Yukti (sustained arguments), Prameya (object of knowledge), [[Pramana (प्रमाणम्)|Pramana]] (proof), Nirnaya (ascertainment) etc. which later became the principal terminologies of the Nyaya School. It is also said that the idioms of inquiry (Anveshiki) dealing with the theory of reasons (Hetu vidya or Hetu shastra) were mentioned in Manu samhita and Panini’s Ashtadhyayi.<ref name=":3" />

As Bimal Krishna Matilal observes in his work 'The Character of Logic in India':<blockquote>''.. The intellectual climate in India was bristling with questions such as: “Is there an atma different from sharira ?”; “Is the world (loka) eternal?”; ”What is the meaning, goal, or purpose of life?”; and, “Is renunciation preferable to enjoyment?” etc. which were of major concern.'' </blockquote>As teachers and thinkers argued about such matters, there arose a gradual awareness of the characteristics or patterns of correct, acceptable and sound reasoning. There were also concerns to evolve the norms to distinguish sound reasoning from pseudo-reasoning (hetvabhasa) which is unacceptable.<ref name=":0">Bimal Krishna Matilal, Jonardon Ganeri & Heeraman Tiwari (1998), The Character of Logic in India, SUNY Press, p. 31. </ref>  

As Bimal Krishna Matilal observes in his work 'The Character of Logic in India':<blockquote>''.. The intellectual climate in India was bristling with questions such as: “Is there an [[Atman (आत्मन्)|atma]] different from sharira ?”; “Is the world (loka) eternal?”; ”What is the meaning, goal, or purpose of life?”; and, “Is renunciation preferable to enjoyment?” etc. which were of major concern.'' </blockquote>As teachers and thinkers argued about such matters, there arose a gradual awareness of the characteristics or patterns of correct, acceptable and sound reasoning. There were also concerns to evolve the norms to distinguish sound reasoning from pseudo-reasoning ([[Hetvabhasa (हेत्वाभासः)|hetvabhasa]]) which is unacceptable.<ref name=":0">Bimal Krishna Matilal, Jonardon Ganeri & Heeraman Tiwari (1998), The Character of Logic in India, SUNY Press, p. 31. </ref>  

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 (तन्त्रयुक्तिः)|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,

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 (न्यायदर्शनम्)|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" />

== सम्भाषाप्रकाराः ॥ Types of Sambhasha ==

== सम्भाषाप्रकाराः ॥ Types of Sambhasha ==

=== चरकसंहिता || Charaka Samhita ===

=== चरकसंहिता || Charaka Samhita ===

There are 2 types of Sambhasha mentioned in the Charaka Samhita - Sandhaya Sambhasha and Vigrhya Sambhasha<ref name=":9" /><blockquote>द्विविधा तु खलु तद्विद्यसंभाषा भवति सन्धायसंभाषा विगृह्यसंभाषा च ।<ref name=":11">Edited by Debendra Nath Sen and Upendra Nath Sen, Charaka Samhita, Vimana Sthana, Chapter 8, [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.322332/page/n403 Pg.no.329-30]</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''dvividhā tu khalu tadvidyasaṁbhāṣā bhavati sandhāyasaṁbhāṣā vigr̥hyasaṁbhāṣā ca ।''</blockquote>Meaning: Such discussion with the men of the same branch of science is of two kinds - friendly discussion and the discussion of challenge or hostile discussion.<ref name=":12">Edited and Published by Ayurvedic Society (Jamnagar, 1949), Charaka Samhita (Volume 5), [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.326551/page/n379 Pg.no.328]</ref>

There are 2 types of Sambhasha mentioned in the Charaka Samhita - Sandhaya Sambhasha and Vigrhya Sambhasha<ref name=":9" /><blockquote>द्विविधा तु खलु तद्विद्यसंभाषा भवति सन्धायसंभाषा विगृह्यसंभाषा च ।<ref name=":11">Edited by Debendra Nath Sen and Upendra Nath Sen, Charaka Samhita, Vimana Sthana, Chapter 8, [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.322332/page/n403 Pg.no.329-30]</ref> </blockquote><blockquote>''dvividhā tu khalu tadvidyasaṁbhāṣā bhavati sandhāyasaṁbhāṣā vigr̥hyasaṁbhāṣā ca ।''</blockquote>Meaning: Such discussion with the men of the same branch of science is of two kinds - friendly discussion and the discussion of challenge or hostile discussion.<ref name=":12">Edited and Published by Ayurvedic Society (Jamnagar, 1949), Charaka Samhita (Volume 5), [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.326551/page/n379 Pg.no.328]</ref>

* Sandhaya Sambhasha (friendly discussion) is characterised by

* Sandhaya Sambhasha (friendly discussion) is characterised by

# Participants having scientific knowledge

# Participants having scientific knowledge

# Answering questions with confidence

# Answering questions with confidence

# Having a polite approach with the opponent<ref name=":9" />

# Having a polite approach with the opponent<ref name=":9" />

It is said that,<blockquote>तत्र ज्ञानविज्ञानवचनप्रतिवचनशक्तिसम्पन्नेनाकोपेनानुपस्कृतविद्येनानसूयकेनानुनेयेनानुनयकोविदेन क्लेशक्षमेण प्रियसम्भाषणेन च सह सन्धायसम्भाषा विधीयते ।<ref name=":11" /></blockquote><blockquote>''tatra jñānavijñānavacanaprativacanaśaktisampannenākopenānupaskr̥tavidyenānasūyakenānuneyenānunayakovidena kleśakṣameṇa priyasambhāṣaṇena ca saha sandhāyasambhāṣā vidhīyate ।''</blockquote>Meaning: The friendly discussion is enjoined with a person who is endowed with knowledge and experience, who is well versed in the dialectics of statement and rejoinder, who does not get angered, possessed of special insight into the subject, who is not carping, who is easily persuaded, who is an adept in the art pf persuasion, who has tolerance and pleasantness of speech.<ref name=":12" />

It is said that,<blockquote>तत्र ज्ञानविज्ञानवचनप्रतिवचनशक्तिसम्पन्नेनाकोपेनानुपस्कृतविद्येनानसूयकेनानुनेयेनानुनयकोविदेन क्लेशक्षमेण प्रियसम्भाषणेन च सह सन्धायसम्भाषा विधीयते ।<ref name=":11" /></blockquote><blockquote>''tatra jñānavijñānavacanaprativacanaśaktisampannenākopenānupaskr̥tavidyenānasūyakenānuneyenānunayakovidena kleśakṣameṇa priyasambhāṣaṇena ca saha sandhāyasambhāṣā vidhīyate ।''</blockquote>Meaning: The friendly discussion is enjoined with a person who is endowed with knowledge and experience, who is well versed in the dialectics of statement and rejoinder, who does not get angered, possessed of special insight into the subject, who is not carping, who is easily persuaded, who is an adept in the art of persuasion, who has tolerance and pleasantness of speech.<ref name=":12" />

* Vigrhya Sambhasha (hostile discussion) is characterised by examination of the good and bad qualities of the opponent based on which opponents are classified into superior, equal and inferior.<ref name=":9" />  

* Vigrhya Sambhasha (hostile discussion) is characterised by examination of the good and bad qualities of the opponent based on which opponents are classified into superior, equal and inferior.<ref name=":9" />  

<blockquote>प्रागेव च जल्पाज्जल्पान्तरं परावरान्तरं परिषद्विशेषांश्च सम्यक् परीक्षेत्  |...परीक्षमाणस्तु खलु परावरान्तरमिमान् जल्पकगुणान् श्रेयस्करान् दोषवतश्च परीक्षेत सम्यक्... ||18|| (Charaka Samhita, Vimana Sthana, Adhyaya 8)<ref name=":15">Acharya Priyavrata Sharma, [https://archive.org/details/charakasamhitaagnivesapriyavratasharmachowkambha_928_c/page/n147/mode/2up Charaka Samhita], Varanasi: Chaukhambha.</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''prāgēva ca jalpājjalpāntaraṁ parāvarāntaraṁ pariṣadviśēṣāṁśca samyak parīkṣēt |...parīkṣamāṇastu khalu parāvarāntaramimān jalpakaguṇān śrēyaskarān dōṣavataśca parīkṣēta samyak... ||18||''</blockquote>It is said that one should not participate in a debate with superior opponent nor immediately defeat the inferior with tricky procedures. The debaters are to be acquainted with certain logical terms known as the 44 Vada marga pada which decide the victory of a debater over the opponent. These mostly consist of<ref name=":9" />  

<blockquote>प्रागेव च जल्पाज्जल्पान्तरं परावरान्तरं परिषद्विशेषांश्च सम्यक् परीक्षेत्  |...परीक्षमाणस्तु खलु परावरान्तरमिमान् जल्पकगुणान् श्रेयस्करान् दोषवतश्च परीक्षेत सम्यक्... ||18|| (Charaka Samhita, Vimana Sthana, Adhyaya 8)<ref name=":15">Acharya Priyavrata Sharma, [https://archive.org/details/charakasamhitaagnivesapriyavratasharmachowkambha_928_c/page/n147/mode/2up Charaka Samhita], Varanasi: Chaukhambha.</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''prāgēva ca jalpājjalpāntaraṁ parāvarāntaraṁ pariṣadviśēṣāṁśca samyak parīkṣēt |...parīkṣamāṇastu khalu parāvarāntaramimān jalpakaguṇān śrēyaskarān dōṣavataśca parīkṣēta samyak... ||18||''</blockquote>It is said that one should not participate in a debate with superior opponent nor immediately defeat the inferior with tricky procedures. The debaters are to be acquainted with certain logical terms known as the 44 Vada marga pada which decide the victory of a debater over the opponent. These mostly consist of<ref name=":9" />  

*Pratisthapana

*Pratisthapana

*Uttar

*Uttara

*Siddhanta

*Siddhanta

*Paryojana

*Paryojana

*Jigyasa

*Jijnasa

*Vyavasaya

*Vyavasaya

*Anujojya

*Anujojya

*Anuyoga

*Anuyoga

*Vakyadosha

*Vakyadosha

*Vakyaparsamsa

*Vakyaparshamsa

*Chala

*Chala

*Ahetu

*Ahetu

*Attikala

*Atitakala

*Upalambha

*Upalambha

*Parihara

*Parihara

*Pratigyahani

*Pratijnahani

*Abhayanugya

*Abhayanujna

*Hetvantara

*Hetvantara

*Arthantra

*Arthantara

*Nigrahasthana|Colwidth=15em|Style=width: 600px;}}<blockquote>इमानि तु खलु पदानि भिषग्वादमार्गज्ञानार्थमधिगम्यानि भवन्ति; तद्यथा-वाद:, द्रव्यं, गुणाः, कर्म, सामान्यं, विशेषः, समवायः, प्रतिज्ञा, स्थापना, प्रतिष्ठापना, हेतुः, दृष्टान्तः, उपनयः, निगमनम्, उत्तरं, सिद्धान्तः, शब्दः, प्रत्यक्षम्, अनुमानम्, एतिह्यम्, औपम्यम्, संशयः, प्रयोजनं, सव्यभिचारं,  जिज्ञासा, व्यवसायः,अर्थप्राप्तिः,संभवः, अनुयोज्यम्, अनुयोगः, प्रत्यनुयोगः, वाक्यदोषः, वाक्यप्रशंसा, छलम्, अहेतुः, अतीतकालम्, उपालम्भः, परिहारः, प्रतिज्ञाहानिः, अभ्यनुज्ञा, हेत्वन्तरम्, अर्थान्तरं, निग्रहस्थानमिति ||27|| (Charaka Samhita, Vimana Sthana, Adhyaya 8)<ref name=":15" /></blockquote><blockquote>''imāni tu khalu padāni bhiṣagvādamārgajñānārthamadhigamyāni bhavanti; tadyathā-vāda:, dravyaṁ, guṇāḥ, karma, sāmānyaṁ, viśēṣaḥ, samavāyaḥ, pratijñā, sthāpanā, pratiṣṭhāpanā, hētuḥ, dr̥ṣṭāntaḥ, upanayaḥ, nigamanam, uttaraṁ, siddhāntaḥ, śabdaḥ, pratyakṣam, anumānam, ētihyam, aupamyam, saṁśayaḥ, prayōjanaṁ, savyabhicāraṁ, jijñāsā, vyavasāyaḥ,arthaprāptiḥ,saṁbhavaḥ, anuyōjyam, anuyōgaḥ, pratyanuyōgaḥ, vākyadōṣaḥ, vākyapraśaṁsā, chalam, ahētuḥ, atītakālam, upālambhaḥ, parihāraḥ, pratijñāhāniḥ, abhyanujñā, hētvantaram, arthāntaraṁ, nigrahasthānamiti ||27||''</blockquote>

*Nigrahasthana|Colwidth=15em|Style=width: 600px;}}<blockquote>इमानि तु खलु पदानि भिषग्वादमार्गज्ञानार्थमधिगम्यानि भवन्ति; तद्यथा-वाद:, द्रव्यं, गुणाः, कर्म, सामान्यं, विशेषः, समवायः, प्रतिज्ञा, स्थापना, प्रतिष्ठापना, हेतुः, दृष्टान्तः, उपनयः, निगमनम्, उत्तरं, सिद्धान्तः, शब्दः, प्रत्यक्षम्, अनुमानम्, एतिह्यम्, औपम्यम्, संशयः, प्रयोजनं, सव्यभिचारं,  जिज्ञासा, व्यवसायः,अर्थप्राप्तिः,संभवः, अनुयोज्यम्, अनुयोगः, प्रत्यनुयोगः, वाक्यदोषः, वाक्यप्रशंसा, छलम्, अहेतुः, अतीतकालम्, उपालम्भः, परिहारः, प्रतिज्ञाहानिः, अभ्यनुज्ञा, हेत्वन्तरम्, अर्थान्तरं, निग्रहस्थानमिति ||27|| (Charaka Samhita, Vimana Sthana, Adhyaya 8)<ref name=":15" /></blockquote><blockquote>''imāni tu khalu padāni bhiṣagvādamārgajñānārthamadhigamyāni bhavanti; tadyathā-vāda:, dravyaṁ, guṇāḥ, karma, sāmānyaṁ, viśēṣaḥ, samavāyaḥ, pratijñā, sthāpanā, pratiṣṭhāpanā, hētuḥ, dr̥ṣṭāntaḥ, upanayaḥ, nigamanam, uttaraṁ, siddhāntaḥ, śabdaḥ, pratyakṣam, anumānam, ētihyam, aupamyam, saṁśayaḥ, prayōjanaṁ, savyabhicāraṁ, jijñāsā, vyavasāyaḥ, arthaprāptiḥ,s aṁbhavaḥ, anuyōjyam, anuyōgaḥ, pratyanuyōgaḥ, vākyadōṣaḥ, vākyapraśaṁsā, chalam, ahētuḥ, atītakālam, upālambhaḥ, parihāraḥ, pratijñāhāniḥ, abhyanujñā, hētvantaram, arthāntaraṁ, nigrahasthānamiti ||27||''</blockquote>

=== न्यायसूत्राणि || Nyaya Sutras ===

=== न्यायसूत्राणि || Nyaya Sutras ===

== वादविद्या ॥ Vada Vidya ==

== वादविद्या ॥ Vada Vidya ==

Nyaya, one among the Shad Darshanas, deals with well-organized logical ways of ascertaining the true nature of the objects and subjects of human knowledge (Pramana Shastra). It is also called Tarka vidya (logic) and Vada vidya or Vadartha (reasoned argument); and is included among the Chaturdasha Vidyasthanani (fourteen principal branches of learning).

Nyaya, one among the [[Shad Darshanas (षड्दर्शनानि)|Shad Darshanas]], deals with well-organized logical ways of ascertaining the true nature of the objects and subjects of human knowledge (Pramana Shastra). It is also called Tarka vidya (logic) and Vada vidya or Vadartha (reasoned argument); and is included among the Chaturdasha Vidyasthanani (fourteen principal branches of learning).

The Nyaya Sutras mainly treat five subjects:  

The Nyaya Sutras mainly treat five subjects:  

Therefore, types of debates and arguments come under the purview of Nyaya Shastra.  

Therefore, types of debates and arguments come under the purview of Nyaya Shastra.  

While discussing Vada, Nyaya Sutra talks about sixteen padarthas (topics or categories) involved in the development of the debate (Vada marga). They are  

While discussing Vada, Nyaya Sutra talks about sixteen [[Padarthas (पदार्थाः)|padarthas]] (topics or categories) involved in the development of the debate (Vada marga). They are  

* The four reliable means of obtaining valid knowledge (pramana). Namely, Pratyaksha (perception), Anumana (inference), Upamana (comparison) and Shabda (reliable testimony)  

* The four reliable means of obtaining valid knowledge (pramana). Namely, Pratyaksha (perception), Anumana (inference), Upamana (comparison) and Shabda (reliable testimony)  

* The five-part syllogism (Nyaya)  

* The five-part syllogism (Nyaya)  

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 (पञ्चावयवाः)|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.

{| class="wikitable"

{| class="wikitable"

* A friend as in Krishna-Arjuna Samvada or Krishna-Uddhava Samvada.  

* A friend as in Krishna-Arjuna Samvada or Krishna-Uddhava Samvada.  

* A Son as in Uddalaka-Shvetaketu Samvada.  

* A Son as in Uddalaka-Shvetaketu Samvada.  

* A Spouse as in Shiva-Parvati Samvada or Yajnavalkya-Maitreyi Samvada where a wife is curious to learn from her husband the secrets of immortality.  

* A Spouse as in Shiva-Parvati Samvada or [[Yajnavalkya Maitreyi samvada (याज्ञवल्क्यमैत्रेय्योः संवादः)|Yajnavalkya-Maitreyi Samvada]] where a wife is curious to learn from her husband the secrets of immortality.  

* Or anyone else seeking knowledge as in Yama Nachiketa Samvada where a teenage boy approaches Yama to learn the truth of life and death or the six people who approach Sage Pippalada in Prashna Upanishad.   

* Or anyone else seeking knowledge as in [[Yama Nachiketa Samvada (यमनचिकेतसोः संवादः)|Yama Nachiketa Samvada]] where a teenage boy approaches [[Yama (यमः)|Yama]] to learn the truth of life and death or the six people who approach Sage Pippalada in Prashna Upanishad.   

There are also instances when a Raja seeks instruction from a recluse sage who speaks from his experience, brahmanas advanced in age and wisdom sit at the feet of a Kshatriya prince seeking instructions as also inspiration, etc. In fact, in the Chandogya Upanishad, there are instances of dialogue where Rshi Jabala is taught by bulls and birds (4.4-9), Upakosala by the sacred fires (4.10-15) and Baka by a dog (1.12).<ref name=":3" />

There are also instances when a Raja seeks instruction from a recluse sage who speaks from his experience, brahmanas advanced in age and wisdom sit at the feet of a Kshatriya prince seeking instructions as also inspiration, etc. In fact, in the Chandogya Upanishad, there are instances of dialogue where Rshi Jabala is taught by bulls and birds (4.4-9), Upakosala by the sacred fires (4.10-15) and Baka by a dog (1.12).<ref name=":3" />

* the humility in his/her approach  

* the humility in his/her approach  

* the absolute trust in the teacher.  

* the absolute trust in the teacher.  

In fact, the Bhagavad-Gita suggests that an ardent seeker of truth should approach a learned teacher in humility and seek instructions from him; and question him repeatedly.<ref name=":3" /> <blockquote>तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन परिप्रश्नेन सेवया । उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनस्तत्त्वदर्शिनः ॥४-३४॥<ref>Bhagavad Gita, [https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE/%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9E%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%83 Chapter 4].</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''tadviddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā । upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ jñāninastattvadarśinaḥ ॥4-34॥''</blockquote>Even in the Upanishads, nothing is more vital than the relationship between a student and his guide. The teacher talks, out of his experience, about his ideas of the nature of the world, of truth etc. or about particular array of phenomena visualized through mental images that stay etched in memory. An Upanishad teacher ignites in the heart of the student a spark that sets ablaze his desire to learn and to know the central principles which make sense of the world we live in. The guide inflames the sense of challenge, the urge to reach beyond the student’s grasp and to know the unknown.<ref name=":3" />  

In fact, the [[Bhagavad Gita (भगवद्गीता)|Bhagavad Gita]] suggests that an ardent seeker of truth should approach a learned teacher in humility and seek instructions from him; and question him repeatedly.<ref name=":3" /> <blockquote>तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन परिप्रश्नेन सेवया । उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनस्तत्त्वदर्शिनः ॥४-३४॥<ref>Bhagavad Gita, [https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE/%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9E%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%83 Chapter 4].</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''tadviddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā । upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ jñāninastattvadarśinaḥ ॥4-34॥''</blockquote>Even in the [[Upanishads (उपनिषदः)|Upanishads]], nothing is more vital than the relationship between a student and his guide. The teacher talks, out of his experience, about his ideas of the nature of the world, of truth etc. or about particular array of phenomena visualized through mental images that stay etched in memory. An Upanishad teacher ignites in the heart of the student a spark that sets ablaze his desire to learn and to know the central principles which make sense of the world we live in. The guide inflames the sense of challenge, the urge to reach beyond the student’s grasp and to know the unknown.<ref name=":3" />  

The student also, questions the teacher not because he doubts the wisdom or the understanding of the teacher; nor because he doubts the authenticity of the teaching. In fact, the student here, does not question the teacher but questions his own understanding for clarification. The questions are asked with an open mind and guileless heart to clear doubts and to gain a flawless understanding of the teaching. And the wise teacher, in turn, gracefully imparts instructions out of enormous love for the ardent seeker of truth. The teacher is neither annoyed nor does he discourage the student from asking questions. Rather, he encourages the learner to examine, enquire and test the teaching handed down to him. A true teacher, in a Samvada, does not prescribe or proscribe. He lets the student have the freedom to think, to ponder over and to find out for himself the answers to his questions. All a student needs is humility, persistence and honesty of purpose to go further and to arrive at his own understanding.<ref name=":3" />

The student also, questions the teacher not because he doubts the wisdom or the understanding of the teacher; nor because he doubts the authenticity of the teaching. In fact, the student here, does not question the teacher but questions his own understanding for clarification. The questions are asked with an open mind and guileless heart to clear doubts and to gain a flawless understanding of the teaching. And the wise teacher, in turn, gracefully imparts instructions out of enormous love for the ardent seeker of truth. The teacher is neither annoyed nor does he discourage the student from asking questions. Rather, he encourages the learner to examine, enquire and test the teaching handed down to him. A true teacher, in a Samvada, does not prescribe or proscribe. He lets the student have the freedom to think, to ponder over and to find out for himself the answers to his questions. All a student needs is humility, persistence and honesty of purpose to go further and to arrive at his own understanding.<ref name=":3" />

Vada can take place between scholars of the same subject or those with contrary views.  

Vada can take place between scholars of the same subject or those with contrary views.  

* When a learned person debates with another scholar versed in the same subject, it increases the depth of their knowledge, clears misapprehensions, if any, and leads them to find certain minor details which hitherto might have escaped their attention. Besides, it also heightens their zeal to study further and bring happiness to both.

* When a learned person debates with another scholar versed in the same subject, it increases the depth of their knowledge, clears misapprehensions, if any, and leads them to find certain minor details which hitherto might have escaped their attention. Besides, it also heightens their zeal to study further and bring happiness to both.

* When the scholars hold contrary views, both the Vadin and Prati-vadin each try very hard to establish the doctrine which he believes is true and try to convince the other to accept its veracity through fair and effective presentation and arguments. However, each is also willing to understand and appreciate the arguments of the other and accept any merit they might find in it. In fact, if one of them is in doubt or is unable to respond satisfactorily, he can take a break to re-group his position or to re-examine the issue to see whether he can refute the opponent’s argument more effectively or put up a sounder defense. And, if one is convinced that the doctrine and the argument presented by the opponent is valid, he adopts it with grace. At the end, one of the two is proven wrong or both could be right. In any case, they accept the outcome of the debate and part their ways without rancor.<ref name=":3" />

* When the scholars hold contrary views, both the Vadin and Prativadin each try very hard to establish the doctrine which he believes is true and try to convince the other to accept its veracity through fair and effective presentation and arguments. However, each is also willing to understand and appreciate the arguments of the other and accept any merit they might find in it. In fact, if one of them is in doubt or is unable to respond satisfactorily, he can take a break to re-group his position or to re-examine the issue to see whether he can refute the opponent’s argument more effectively or put up a sounder defense. And, if one is convinced that the doctrine and the argument presented by the opponent is valid, he adopts it with grace. At the end, one of the two is proven wrong or both could be right. In any case, they accept the outcome of the debate and part their ways without rancor.<ref name=":3" />

Therefore, Vada is called an honest debate and both parties are expected to     

Therefore, Vada is called an honest debate and both parties are expected to     

* Have mutual regard and respect for each other’s learning and status  

* Have mutual regard and respect for each other’s learning and status  

* 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, Brahma Sutras and 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 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" />

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 Prativadin 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" />

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" />   

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 (Nigrahasthana) 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" />   

==== वादपरिणामः || Result of the Vada ====

==== 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.  

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 (आदिशङ्कराचार्यः)|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.  

A Vada can also be treated as concluded and one side declared as defeated when,

A Vada can also be treated as concluded and one side declared as defeated when,

<blockquote>तद्विद्यसम्भाषा हि ज्ञानाभियोगसंहर्षकरो भवति, वैशारद्यमपि चाभिनिवर्तयति, वचनशक्तिमपि चाधत्ते, यशश्चाभिदीपयति पूर्वश्रुते च संदेहवतः पुनः श्रवणाच्छ्रुतसंशयमपकर्षति श्रुते चासंदेहवतो भूयोऽध्यवसायमभिनिर्वर्तयति अश्रुतमपि च कञ्चिदर्थे श्रोत्रविषयमापादयति यच्चाचार्यः शिष्याय शुश्रूषवे प्रसन्नः क्रमेणोपदिशति गुह्याभिमतमर्थजातं तत् परस्परेण सह जल्पन् पिण्डेन विजिगीषुराह संहर्षात् तस्मात्तद्विद्यसंभाषाम्भिप्रशंसन्ति कुशलाः ॥१२॥<ref name=":11" /> </blockquote><blockquote>''tadvidyasambhāṣā hi jñānābhiyogasaṁharṣakaro bhavati, vaiśāradyamapi cābhinivartayati, vacanaśaktimapi cādhatte, yaśaścābhidīpayati pūrvaśrute ca saṁdehavataḥ punaḥ śravaṇācchrutasaṁśayamapakarṣati śrute cāsaṁdehavato bhūyo'dhyavasāyamabhinirvartayati aśrutamapi ca kañcidarthe śrotraviṣayamāpādayati yaccācāryaḥ śiṣyāya śuśrūṣave prasannaḥ krameṇopadiśati guhyābhimatamarthajātaṁ tat paraspareṇa saha jalpan piṇḍena vijigīṣurāha saṁharṣāt tasmāttadvidyasaṁbhāṣāmbhipraśaṁsanti kuśalāḥ ॥12॥''</blockquote>Meaning: Discussion with a person of the same branch of science is indeed what makes for the increase of knowledge and happiness. It contributes towards the clarity of understanding, increases dialectical skill, broadcasts reputation, dispels doubts regarding things heard by repeated hearing, and confirms the ideas of those that have no doubts. It enables one to hear a few things in the course of discussion. Sometimes, secret meanings which the teacher imparts to the ministering disciple in a propitious moment gradually, is revealed by the excited disputant, desirous of victory, in the process of discussion. Hence, it is that discussion with men of the same branch of science, that is applauded by the wise.<ref name=":12" />

<blockquote>तद्विद्यसम्भाषा हि ज्ञानाभियोगसंहर्षकरो भवति, वैशारद्यमपि चाभिनिवर्तयति, वचनशक्तिमपि चाधत्ते, यशश्चाभिदीपयति पूर्वश्रुते च संदेहवतः पुनः श्रवणाच्छ्रुतसंशयमपकर्षति श्रुते चासंदेहवतो भूयोऽध्यवसायमभिनिर्वर्तयति अश्रुतमपि च कञ्चिदर्थे श्रोत्रविषयमापादयति यच्चाचार्यः शिष्याय शुश्रूषवे प्रसन्नः क्रमेणोपदिशति गुह्याभिमतमर्थजातं तत् परस्परेण सह जल्पन् पिण्डेन विजिगीषुराह संहर्षात् तस्मात्तद्विद्यसंभाषाम्भिप्रशंसन्ति कुशलाः ॥१२॥<ref name=":11" /> </blockquote><blockquote>''tadvidyasambhāṣā hi jñānābhiyogasaṁharṣakaro bhavati, vaiśāradyamapi cābhinivartayati, vacanaśaktimapi cādhatte, yaśaścābhidīpayati pūrvaśrute ca saṁdehavataḥ punaḥ śravaṇācchrutasaṁśayamapakarṣati śrute cāsaṁdehavato bhūyo'dhyavasāyamabhinirvartayati aśrutamapi ca kañcidarthe śrotraviṣayamāpādayati yaccācāryaḥ śiṣyāya śuśrūṣave prasannaḥ krameṇopadiśati guhyābhimatamarthajātaṁ tat paraspareṇa saha jalpan piṇḍena vijigīṣurāha saṁharṣāt tasmāttadvidyasaṁbhāṣāmbhipraśaṁsanti kuśalāḥ ॥12॥''</blockquote>Meaning: Discussion with a person of the same branch of science is indeed what makes for the increase of knowledge and happiness. It contributes towards the clarity of understanding, increases dialectical skill, broadcasts reputation, dispels doubts regarding things heard by repeated hearing, and confirms the ideas of those that have no doubts. It enables one to hear a few things in the course of discussion. Sometimes, secret meanings which the teacher imparts to the ministering disciple in a propitious moment gradually, is revealed by the excited disputant, desirous of victory, in the process of discussion. Hence, it is that discussion with men of the same branch of science, that is applauded by the wise.<ref name=":12" />

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. For example, [[Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्)|Brhadaranyaka Upanishad]], has references to Raja Janaka as not only organizing and patronizing debates between the sages and priests but also as participating in such debates. Women also participated in these debates. [[Gargi (गार्गी)|Gargi]] was a woman scholar who used to participate in the debates in Raja 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. For example, Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, has references to Raja [[Janaka (जनक)|Janaka]] as not only organizing and patronizing debates between the sages and priests but also as participating in such debates. Women also participated in these debates. [[Gargi (गार्गी)|Gargi]] was a woman scholar who used to participate in the debates in Raja Janaka's court.<ref name=":0" />

== जल्पवितण्डयोः प्रयोजनम् अधिकारी च ॥ Prayojana and Adhikari of Jalpa and Vitanda ==

== जल्पवितण्डयोः प्रयोजनम् अधिकारी च ॥ Prayojana and Adhikari of Jalpa and Vitanda ==

Explaining the need for Jalpa and Vitanda, it is said in the Nyaya Sutras and the corresponding bhashya that,<blockquote>स्वपक्षरागेण चैके न्यायमतिवर्तन्ते तच ।<ref name=":5" /> तत्त्वाध्यवसायसंरक्षणार्थं जल्पवितण्डे बीजप्ररोहसंरक्षणार्थं कण्टकशाखावरणवत् ॥ ४.२.४९ ॥<ref name=":8" /></blockquote><blockquote>''svapakṣarāgeṇa caike nyāyamativartante taca । tattvādhyavasāyasaṁrakṣaṇārthaṁ jalpavitaṇḍe bījaprarohasaṁrakṣaṇārthaṁ kaṇṭakaśākhāvaraṇavat ॥ 50 ॥''</blockquote>Meaning: Through excessive partiality to their own theories, some people transgress all bounds of reasoning; in that case, Jalpa (disputation) and Vitanda (Wrangling) should be carried on for the purpose of defending one's own determination to get at the truth; just as the hedge of thorny branches is put up for the protection of sprouting seeds.

Explaining the need for Jalpa and Vitanda, it is said in the Nyaya Sutras and the corresponding bhashya that,<blockquote>स्वपक्षरागेण चैके न्यायमतिवर्तन्ते तच ।<ref name=":5" /> तत्त्वाध्यवसायसंरक्षणार्थं जल्पवितण्डे बीजप्ररोहसंरक्षणार्थं कण्टकशाखावरणवत् ॥ ४.२.४९ ॥<ref name=":8" /></blockquote><blockquote>''svapakṣarāgeṇa caike nyāyamativartante taca । tattvādhyavasāyasaṁrakṣaṇārthaṁ jalpavitaṇḍe bījaprarohasaṁrakṣaṇārthaṁ kaṇṭakaśākhāvaraṇavat ॥ 50 ॥''</blockquote>Meaning: Through excessive partiality to their own theories, some people transgress all bounds of reasoning; in that case, Jalpa (disputation) and Vitanda (Wrangling) should be carried on for the purpose of defending one's own determination to get at the truth; just as the hedge of thorny branches is put up for the protection of sprouting seeds.

The bhashya also clarifies further that, <blockquote>अनुत्पन्नतत्त्वज्ञानानामग्रहीणदोषाणां तदर्थे घटमानानामेतदिति ।<ref name=":5" /></blockquote><blockquote>''anutpannatattvajñānānāmagrahīṇadoṣāṇāṁ tadarthe ghaṭamānānāmetaditi ।''</blockquote>Meaning: This method (of Jalpa and Vitanda) however, is meant only for those persons who have not acquired True knowledge, whose defects have not been entirely removed, and who are still making an attempt for those purposes.

The bhashya also clarifies further that, <blockquote>अनुत्पन्नतत्त्वज्ञानानामग्रहीणदोषाणां तदर्थे घटमानानामेतदिति ।<ref name=":5" /> ''anutpannatattvajñānānāmagrahīṇadoṣāṇāṁ tadarthe ghaṭamānānāmetaditi ।''</blockquote>Meaning: This method (of Jalpa and Vitanda) however, is meant only for those persons who have not acquired True knowledge, whose defects have not been entirely removed, and who are still making an attempt for those purposes.

It further says that,

It further says that,

When one has been rudely addressed by an opponent; either through arrogance (of superior knowledge), or through sheer prejudice (against truth), or through some other similar reasons (i.e.desire for wealth, fame, etc.) then one (failing to perceive the right answer to the ill-mannered allegations of the opponent) should pick up a quarrel with him and proceed to deal with him by Jalpa (disputation) and by Vitanda (wrangling). This quarrel is with a view to defeating the opponent and not with a view to getting at the truth. But this should be done only for the purpose of defending true Science, and not for the purpose of obtaining wealth, honopur or fame.

When one has been rudely addressed by an opponent; either through arrogance (of superior knowledge), or through sheer prejudice (against truth), or through some other similar reasons (i.e.desire for wealth, fame, etc.) then one (failing to perceive the right answer to the ill-mannered allegations of the opponent) should pick up a quarrel with him and proceed to deal with him by Jalpa (disputation) and by Vitanda (wrangling). This quarrel is with a view to defeating the opponent and not with a view to getting at the truth. But this should be done only for the purpose of defending true Science, and not for the purpose of obtaining wealth, honour or fame.

According to the Tatparya Tika, the motive prompting the man should be - if this ill mannered person is allowed to go undefeated, then ordinary men will accept his conclusions as the right ones, and this would bring about a total confusion relating to dharma and true philosophy.<ref name=":4" /><blockquote>विद्यानिर्वेदादिभिश्च परेणावज्ञायमानस्य ।<ref name=":5" /> ताभ्यां विगृह्य कथनम् ॥ ४.२.५० ॥<ref name=":8" /> विगृह्येति विजिगीषया न तत्त्वबुभुत्सयेति । तदेतद्विद्यापालनार्थं न लाभपूजाख्यात्यर्थमिति ।<ref name=":5" /> </blockquote><blockquote>''vidyānirvedādibhiśca pareṇāvajñāyamānasya । tābhyāṁ vigr̥hya kathanam ॥ 4.2.50 ॥ vigr̥hyeti vijigīṣayā na tattvabubhutsayeti । tadetadvidyāpālanārthaṁ na'' </blockquote>

According to the Tatparya Tika, the motive prompting the man should be - if this ill mannered person is allowed to go undefeated, then ordinary men will accept his conclusions as the right ones, and this would bring about a total confusion relating to dharma and true philosophy.<ref name=":4" /><blockquote>विद्यानिर्वेदादिभिश्च परेणावज्ञायमानस्य ।<ref name=":5" /> ताभ्यां विगृह्य कथनम् ॥ ४.२.५० ॥<ref name=":8" /> विगृह्येति विजिगीषया न तत्त्वबुभुत्सयेति । तदेतद्विद्यापालनार्थं न लाभपूजाख्यात्यर्थमिति ।<ref name=":5" /> </blockquote><blockquote>''vidyānirvedādibhiśca pareṇāvajñāyamānasya । tābhyāṁ vigr̥hya kathanam ॥ 4.2.50 ॥ vigr̥hyeti vijigīṣayā na tattvabubhutsayeti । tadetadvidyāpālanārthaṁ na'' </blockquote>

|1. Jalpa is an argument where each strives to impose his thesis on the other. The question of ascertaining the ‘truth’ does not arise here.

|1. Jalpa is an argument where each strives to impose his thesis on the other. The question of ascertaining the ‘truth’ does not arise here.

|-

|-

|2. In Vada, the thesis is established by Pramana-s; and the anti-thesis is disproved by Tarka or different set of Pramana-s.  

|2. In Vada, the thesis is established by Pramanas and the anti-thesis is disproved by Tarka or different set of Pramanas.  

|2. In Jalpa, the main function is negation; the Pramana-s do not have much use here.

|2. In Jalpa, the main function is negation; the Pramanas do not have much use here.

|-

|-

|3. Jalpa in general could be the dialectical aid for Vada

|3. Jalpa in general could be the dialectical aid for Vada

|3. Jalpa tries to win the argument by resorting to quibbling, such as Chala, Jati and Nigrahasthana. None of these can establish the thesis directly, because their function is negation. But, indirectly , they help to disprove anti-thesis.  

|3. Jalpa tries to win the argument by resorting to quibbling, such as Chala, Jati and Nigrahasthana. None of these can establish the thesis directly, because their function is negation. But, indirectly, they help to disprove anti-thesis.  

|-

|-

|4. In the case of Vada, the ‘truth’ is established by positive evidence; and, the invalid knowledge (A-pramana) masquerading as a good reason (that is, a hetvabhasa) is detected and eliminated. No one is really defeated and the truth is established.

|4. In the case of Vada, the ‘truth’ is established by positive evidence and the invalid knowledge (A-pramana), masquerading as a good reason (that is, a hetvabhasa) is detected and eliminated. No one is really defeated and the truth is established.

|4. In the case of Jalpa, it mainly depends on negation (which is non-committal) and on effective refutation of the proponent’s argument. There is no earnest effort to build positive irrefutable proof. And, the fear of defeat overhangs the whole proceedings.

|4. In the case of Jalpa, it mainly depends on negation (which is non-committal) and on effective refutation of the proponent’s argument. There is no earnest effort to build positive irrefutable proof. And, the fear of defeat overhangs the whole proceedings.

|}

|}

== Differences between Samvada, Vada and Vivada ==

== Differences between Samvada, Vada and Vivada ==

Samvada is generally understood as a dialogue between those like the teacher and the taught. Whereas, Vada refers to systematic establishment of a theory through logical reasoning in a cordial manner. While, the use of negation techniques as in Jalpa and Vitanda, transform a discourse into Vivada.     In the 3rd verse of the Upadesha Panchaka, Adi Shankaracharya says, <blockquote>बुधजनैर्वादः परित्यज्यताम् ॥ ३ ॥ ''budhajanairvādaḥ parityajyatām ॥ 3 ॥''</blockquote>Meaning: May you never argue with wise people.

Samvada is generally understood as a dialogue between those like the teacher and the taught. Whereas, Vada refers to systematic establishment of a theory through logical reasoning in a cordial manner. While, the use of negation techniques as in Jalpa and Vitanda, transform a discourse into Vivada. In the 3rd verse of the Upadesha Panchaka, Adi Shankaracharya says, <blockquote>बुधजनैर्वादः परित्यज्यताम् ॥ ३ ॥ ''budhajanairvādaḥ parityajyatām ॥ 3 ॥''</blockquote>Meaning: May you never argue with wise people.

In this context, Shri.Yegnasubramanian explains subtle distinctions between Vada and Samvada which may be extended to Vivada as well. He says,

In this context, Shri.Yegnasubramanian explains subtle distinctions between Vada and Samvada which may be extended to Vivada as well. He says,

# An aspect of Samvada is that a person inquires when any point spoken by the other person is unclear. Even after elaborate answering, if one is not convinced; there is scope to ask again. Just like Arjuna inquired from Krishna when he was unclear about anything Krishna spoke. However, in Vivada, there is almost no room for this.

# An aspect of Samvada is that a person inquires when any point spoken by the other person is unclear. Even after elaborate answering, if one is not convinced; there is scope to ask again. Just like Arjuna inquired from Krishna when he was unclear about anything Krishna spoke. However, in Vivada, there is almost no room for this.

# A Samvada or Vada never leaves disturbance or bitterness in the mind. But in Vivada, there is always disturbance or bitterness in the mind.  

# A Samvada or Vada never leaves disturbance or bitterness in the mind. But in Vivada, there is always disturbance or bitterness in the mind.  

Thus, there is lot of difference between Samvada, Vada and Vivada. Just as a student asking a question to the teacher is welcome and is a part of learning. While, one trying to argue with a mahatma is not. Therefore, Vivada is positively condemned and asking questions for clarification is encouraged.<ref>S.Yegnasubramanian (2012), [http://svbf.org/newsletters/year-2012/upadesa-pancakam-part-ii/ Upadesa Pancakam of Adi Sankaracarya - Part II], Paramartha Tattvam.</ref>

Thus, there is lot of difference between Samvada, Vada and Vivada. A student asking a question to the teacher is welcome and is a part of learning. While, one trying to argue with a mahatma is not. Therefore, Vivada is positively condemned and asking questions for clarification is encouraged.<ref>S.Yegnasubramanian (2012), [http://svbf.org/newsletters/year-2012/upadesa-pancakam-part-ii/ Upadesa Pancakam of Adi Sankaracarya - Part II], Paramartha Tattvam.</ref>

 

 

Since there can be fire without smoke (as in a red-hot iron ring), if somebody wants to infer presence of smoke in the kitchen on the basis of the presence of fire there, his evidence would be pseudo-evidence called the "deviating." Where the evidence (say a pool of water) is usually the sign for the absence of fire, rather than its presence, it is called the contradictory. An evidence-reason must itself be established or proven to exist, if it has to establish something else. Hence, an "unestablished" evidence-reason is a pseudo-evidence or a pseudo-sign. A purported evidence-reason may be countered by a purported counter-evidence showing the opposite possibility. This will be a case of the "counter-balanced." An "untimely" is one where the thesis itself precludes the possibility of adducing some sign as being the evidence-reason by virtue of its incompatibility with the thesis in question. The "untimely" is so-called because as soon as the thesis is stated, the evidence will no longer be an evidence.<ref name=":0" />

== References ==

== References ==

<references />

<references />

[[Category:Shastras]]

[[Category:Shastras]]