Types of Discourse (सम्भाषाप्रकाराः)

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, a pre-Buddhist text, has references to King Janaka as not only organizing and patronizing debates between the sages and priests but also as participating in such debates. Even women used to participate in these debates. Gargi was a woman scholar who used to participate in the debates in King Janaka's court.

In the Indian traditions, including the Buddhist and Jain traditions, four formats of discussions, debates and arguments are described. There are four types of discussions - Samvaada (संवाद), Vaada (वाद) , Jalpa (जल्प) and Vitanda (वितंड). The merit and esteem of each of these types of discussions is graded in terms of the honesty of their purpose, the quality of debate, the decorum and the mutual regard of the participants.

The Vaada, is a candid friendly discussion (anuloma sambasha or sandhya sambasha) or debate in the spirit of: ’let’s sit-down and talk’. The other two are hostile arguments (vigrhya sambasha) between rivals who desperately want to win. Thus, while the goal of a Vaada is establishment of truth or an accepted doctrine; and that of the other two hostile debates (Jalpa and Vitanda) is seeking victory on the opponent.

Detailed Discussion

Samvaada

Samvaada is the discussion between an ardent seeker of truth and an enlightened teacher. For example: Shree Krishna-Arjuna samvaada. The student does not question the teacher but seeks clarifications. Most of the ancient Indian texts are in this format.

Vaada

Vaada is the discussion between two equals to establish the truth / to resolve the conflict. Learning takes place at the end of vaada since the truth is established to the satisfaction of both parties.

The debators come to the table for discussion with an open mind and the discussion is based on some accepted pramaana of the authority. For e.g. for Vedantic discussions the Pramaanas are specifically the Prasthaan Tritya - The Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras. There are judges to insure the discussion proceeds along the accepted pramaanas. The discussion proceeds until one accepts the other arguments. Some time the discussions can take days as in the famous discussion between Adi Sankara and Mandana Misra which lasted for 18 days till Mandana Misra accepted defeat and became Shankara's disciple.  Mandana Misra's wife, Bharati, who was a scholar by herself served as a judge for that vaada.

Jalpa

Jalpa is described (in Nyaya Sutra 1.2.2) as a disputation or wrangling or 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 purpose of the discussion is not to discover or establish the truth but is only to convert the other fellow to his camp. Each is prepared to employ various deceptive or sophistic devices, such as quibbling (Chala); unreasonable (Ahetu) responses; shifting the reason or the topics (Hetvantara or Arthantara); irrelevant rejoinders provoking the opponent to lose focus, to get perturbed and yet continue with the dispute (Jati) somehow; and such other devices to outwit the opponent.

What is at stake here is the ‘prestige and honor’ of one’s School (Matha). And, therefore, each will try to win the debate by fair or foul means. And, when one senses that he might be losing the argument (nigrahasthāna), he 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.

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. The outcome of Jalpa is lot of noise.  But those who are bystander 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.

Vitanda

In the case of Jalpa the contending parties have a position of their own, fight hard to defend it, and aim to make the rival accept it, by whatever means. However, in the Vitanda, the disputant has neither a position of his own nor is he trying to defend any specific thesis. He is merely trying to derange and humiliate the other party to the debate.

The focus is to prove that the opponent is not qualified to discuss and that there is no credibility for the opponent. Vitanda is the worst type of argument or squabbling descending to the level of quarrel and trickery. The sole aim of each party is not only to inflict defeat on the opponent but also to demolish and humiliate him. The Vaitandika, the debater who employs Vitanda, is basically a refuter; he relentlessly goes on refuting whatever the proponent says. He has no thesis of his own – either to put forward or to defend. Sometimes he might pick up a thesis just for argument’s sake, even though he may have no faith in the truth of his own argument. The aggressive Vaitandika goes on picking holes in the rival’s arguments and destabilises his rival's position, without any attempt to offer an alternate thesis. Both the participants in a Vitanda are prepared to resort to mean tactics in order to mislead, browbeat the opponent by fallacies (hetv-abhasa); by attacking the opponents statement by wilful misrepresentation (Chala) ; ill-timed rejoinders (Atita-kala) and, make the opponent ‘bite the dust’. It is virtually akin to a ‘no-holds-barred’ sort of street fight. The ethereal values such as: truth, honesty, mutual respect and such others are conspicuously absent here.

Differences between Vada and Samvada

In the 3rd verse of the Upadesha Panchaka, Adi Shankaracharya says,

बुधजनैर्वादः परित्यज्यताम् ॥ ३ ॥

Meaning: May you never argue with wise people.

In this context, Shri.Yegnasubramanian explains subtle distinctions between Vada and Samvada. He says,

Generally there are several ways of distinguishing between vada and samvada. For example,

1. In an argument, one looks upon that person as equal or inferior, where as, in samvAda, one looks upon the teachers as superior. Thus there is a basic diff in the attitude itself which reflects in one’s addressing the other, the language, tone etc.
2. Often when one enters into an argument, one has made one’s conclusion on a topic, and through argument, one tries to establish one’s conclusion or refute the other. Whereas in a student’s approach, the student may have some opinions, or notions, but he never made a conclusion or wants to refute the teacher’s conclusion or teaching, He is open-minded, and willing to accept his wrong understanding.
3. In arguments, one tries to talk more and almost, doesn’t allow the other to talk at all. And if the other person talks, one doesn’t listen properly, and one always interferes before the other has concluded. Whereas a student talks the minimum, just enough to put his/her idea briefly and, allows the teacher to talk more and listens with 200% attention without interference. And even after the teacher has stopped, the student waits to see whether the teacher has anything more to say.
4. In addition, in arguments, since one does not listen to the other, one has nothing to reflect upon later. Whereas, in a samvAda with the teacher – not only one listens, one also reflects upon the thought giving maximum respect to the teacher.
5. Even after elaborate answering, one may not be convinced; politely, one will ask again and again, if needed, and might want to think about it more and ask again. Whereas, in an argument, there will be no room for this almost.
6. After samvAda, there is no disturbance or bitterness in the mind , but in argument, there is always disturbance or bitterness in the mind.

Thus there is lot of difference between a student asking a question to the teacher, which is welcome and is part of learning, trying to argue with a mahatma. Argument is positively condemned and asking questions for clarification is encouraged. And therefore samvAdah kriyatAm; vAdah prityajyatAm.

Differences between Samvada and Vivada

1. In Vivada, one looks upon that person as equal or inferior, where as, in Samvada, one looks upon the other as equal or superior; this reflects in the language, tone etc.
2. In Samvada, one has his/her conviction, but does not force it upon another as his/her conclusion. The person is open-minded, and willing to refine or improve his/her understanding.
3. In Samvada, the propensity to talk is balanced with the propensity to hear/listen. In vivada, one talks as much as is required to present his/her idea  briefly and, allows the other person also to talk and listens with 200% attention.
4. In Samvada, one is constantly reflecting upon what he/she is speaking as well as reflecting upon what the other is speaking. This is another aspect of giving respect.
5. Just like Arjuna inquired from Krishna when he was unclear about anything Krishna spoke, an aspect of Samvada is that a person inquires when any point spoken by the other person is unclear. In a vivada, there will be no room for this almost.
6. Following a samvada, there is no disturbance or bitterness in the mind. In a vivada, there is always disturbance or bitterness in the mind