Dialectical terms (1): Debate (vāda)

A debate (vāda) is defined as an argumentative discussion with an opponent based on scriptures (śāstras).^[1] It presupposes two opposite sides called disputants and opponents.

Debate is of two types:

1. wrangling (jalpa),
2. cavil (vitaṇḍā).

Wrangling is the advancement of arguments in support of establishing one's own views. For instance, if the disputant puts forth an argument in support of his proposition that there is rebirth (punarjanma), the opponent then advances argument in favour of his proposition that there is no rebirth, which is antagonistic to the first. The inner motive behind such counter argument is nothing but victory. A wrangler always aims at victory. A cavil is just the opposite of this. It is a destructive criticism. It is a perverse debate. The person engaged in a cavil is not bothered about his point of view. On the contrary, he confines himself to demurring against the opponent.^[2]

Akṣapāda, in his Nyāya-sūtra, does not consider wrangling and cavil as the two divisions of vāda. On the other hand, he considers discussion (vāda), wrangle (jalpa), and a cavil (vitaṇḍa) as the three fold division of a debate. They are collectively known as katha.^[3] Vācaspatimiśra defines katha as a chain of arguments and refutations by many disputants and opponents.^[4] The Nyāya-sūtra defines discussion (vāda) as presenting of two opposing views, setting forth ones own view in five membered syllogism, providing it by appeal to instruments of knowledge and to hypothetical reasoning (tarka), when correct conclusions are not thereby contradicted.^[5]

The main characteristic feature of discussion is that it maintains a friendly spirit on either side. The aim of discussion is neither victory nor fame. Its aims is to ascertain the truth; the real nature of objects.^[6] It is through discussion that one clarifies his old convictions and arrives at new insights. A wrangle is also a kind of discussion. But the difference is that it employs quibbles (cchala), futile rejoinders (jāti), and processes worthy of points of defeat (nigrahasthāna) which are not employed in discussion (vāda). They are employed because their main intention is victory.^[7] Similarly, a cavil is a kind of wrangle in which an opponent attacks the disputant's thesis, but does not establish his tenet.^[8] A caviller also makes use of quibbles, futile rejoinders, and points of defeat to refute the disputant. But he neither enunciates his thesis nor proves it by a reason. Even though wrangling and cavil are hostile in nature, they are justified on the ground that they may ward off attacks of skeptics, and protect the right doctrine like the thorny fence to guard the seed-beds.^[9]

From the above details it can be conceded that the vāda described in the Nyāya-sūtra corresponds to the friendly discussion (sandhāya saṃbhāṣa) of Caraka.^[10] Similarly, jalpa and vitaṇḍa described in the Nyāya-sūtra are hostile in nature and hence they can be identified with the jalpa and vitaṇḍa of the Carakasaṃhitā. But it should be noted that these two divisions subsumed under vāda are hostile discussions. So vāda and saṃbhāṣa can be considered as alternative names used in the Carakasaṃhitā. Thus, we can conclude that the ratiocinative procedure adopted in the Carakasaṃhitā and the Nyāya-sūtra are fundamentally the same.^[11]

Concept of syllogistic reasoning:

Carakasaṃhitā is the earliest book which gives a comprehensive knowledge of syllogistic reasoning with all five members systematically arranged. Syllogism consists of

1. proposition (pratijñā),
2. reason (hetu),
3. example (dṛṣṭānta),
4. application (upanaya),
5. conclusion (nigamana).

The procedure of establishing a thesis in debate by the subsequent four members of the syllogism is called sthāpana. Refutation and establishment of the antithesis by antagonistic members of syllogism is named pratiṣṭāpana.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

tatra vādo nāma sa yat pareṇa saha śāstrapūrvakaṃ vigṛhya kathayati. sa ca dvividhaḥ sṅgraheṇa—jalpaḥ vitaṇḍā ca. Ibid., 28.

[2]:

Ibid.

[3]:

tisraḥ kathā bhavanti vado jalpo vitaṇḍā ceti. Vātsyāyana on Nyāyasūtra.. I. ii. 1; Nyāya-Bhāṣya of Vātsyāyana. p. 68; Sarva-Darśana-Saṃgraha of Sāyaṇa-Mādhava., p. 239; Ṣaḍdarśanasamucaya of Haribhadra., p. 40.

[4]:

tathā ca nānāpravaktṛka vicāraviṣayavākyasandṛbdhiḥ katheti sāmānyalalakṣaṇaṃ., Nyāya-Vārttikatātparyaṭīkā of Vācaspati Miśra., p. 313.

[5]:

pramānatarkasādhanopālaṃbhaḥ siddhāntāviruddhaḥ pañcāvayavopapannaḥ pakṣapratipakṣaprigraho vādaḥ. Nyāyasūtra., I. ii. 1.

[6]:

tattvanirṇyabhalaḥ kathāviśeṣo vādaḥ, Sarva-Darśana-Saṃgraha of Sāyaṇa-Mādhava., p. 239.

[7]:

yathoktopapannaścchalajātinigrahasthānasādhantopālambho jalpaḥ. Nyāyasūtra., I. ii. 2; ubhayasādhanavati vijigīṣukathā jalpaḥ, Sarva-Darśana-Saṃgraha of Sāyaṇa-Mādhava., p. 239.

[8]:

sa pratipakṣasthāpanāhīno vitaṇḍā, Nyāyasūtra., I. ii. 3; See also Vātsyāyana on ibid., Nyāya-Bhāṣya of Vātsyāyana., p. 72.

[9]:

tattvadhyavasāyārthaṃ jalpavitaṇde bījaprarohaṇsaṃrakṣaṇārthaṃ kaṇṭakaśākhāvaraṇavat. Nyāyasūtra., IV. ii. 50.

[10]:

“The former (sandhāyasaṃbhāṣā) also called anulomasaṃbhāṣā, is known as vādakathā”. CHI, Vol. III. p. 563.

[11]:

Ibid.