Samvada & Vada Debate — Indian Debate Theory

The Good and Honest Debate

“Sadhu” by FullofTravel is licensed under CC BY 2.0

The katha or conversation of Vada is complex, rational, and well structured. According to Udyotakara the Vada katha is honest, peaceful, and congenial. It takes places between people of equal credibility, exploring a variety of dimensions in a subject with the goal to establish ultimate truths. The best Vada debate is a simple civil conversation, or a structured sit down.

Samāyavāda

This is a discussion which seeks an agreement. Samvada is held in the highest regard among the four types of debate, it is a conversation between a truth seeker and a Guru or any capable teacher. Thus, it is a discussion which seeks to impart knowledge. Majority of Indian text falls under this format, some examples include the Upanishads, Vaisheshika Sutra, and Shilpa Shastra.

This type of discussion requires the student to completely submit to the teacher. Samvada possess the following traits (DharmaWiki):

1. The sincerity and eagerness of the student
2. The student’s humility when approaching the teacher
3. The student’s absolute trust in the teacher

The teacher’s goal is to motivate, challenge, and urge the student to chase knowledge by sharing knowledge gained from experience, and study. The student in return asks many questions to the teacher, to clear any doubt and have a clear understanding of the Guru’s ideas. The teacher must encourage the student to ask questions, and impart knowledge to the best of their ability. However, the teacher must answer in a way which neither prescribes nor proscribes; thus, allowing the student freedom to ponder and build their own conclusions (DharmaWiki.)

The Nyaya Sutra 4.2.46–4.2.48, “There should also be repetition of the study of the science, as also samvada with people knowledgeable in the sciences. That samvada should be carried on with the pupil, the teacher, classmates or fellow students, and other well-known learned people, who wish well and are not jealous of the enquirer. In fact, being a seeker of truth, one should carry on the Samvada without putting forward any counter thesis for the accomplishment of their self-interest. This is because putting forward theories and counter thesis would be unpleasant to the other person, especially if this other person is the teacher(DharmaWiki.)”

The ultimate purpose of Samvada is to understand and consolidate the acquired knowledge by the removal of all doubt, learning new knowledge, and confirming one’s conclusion with their Guru or learned counsel (Dharmawiki.)

Vāda:

Vada means theory, or thesis. This debate takes place among equals seeking to establish the truth or resolve conflict. The debate starts with two parties putting forth a thesis and a counter-thesis, with ample supporting evidence backed by logical proofs and valid reasoning. Tradition dictates that Vada take place between two groups or two individuals, one party must put forth a thesis and is called Vadin while the other prepares a counter-thesis and is called Prati-vadin (DharmaWiki.) Vatsayana’s Nyaya Bhashya further elaborates that Vada takes places only when the parties involved possess four traits (Jha.) The four traits entail the following:

• There is no malicious or wrathful intent
• The parties are learned, wise, patient, and eloquent
• The participants are skilled in the art of persuasion
• All parties involved have a pleasant manner of speaking

Vadaprayojanam | Purpose of Vada:

Scholars from the same field can increase their knowledge within their subject, clarify and examine details, and point out ideas which one of them may not have considered prior. Furthermore, it fuels the passion and enjoyment of the respective parties.

Scholars from different fields or views try to assert their argument over the other via a convincing and rational manner. Both parties aim to understand each other’s points, and accept any point raised if it possesses merit. Vada also allows the debaters to take a break if one of them is unable to build a sound argument, or must reconsider and study their position. However, if one is persuaded by the merit of the opposing doctrine then one must accept it with grace (DharmaWiki.) The conclusion of the debate may find one party in the wrong, or both parties in the right, regardless all involved accept the outcome and part ways without hostilities (DharmaWiki.)

The individuals involved in Vada have mutual respect, open minds, explore a variety of dimension regarding the topic, apply the rules of logic and reasoning, and support this reasoning with Pramana or valid sources of knowledge. It is due to these characteristics that Vada is called the honest debate.

Madhyastha

Vada generally takes place in front of judges or arbitrators called Madhyastha. It is the responsibility of the Madhyastha to lay and enforce the ground rules, ensure that the debate matches the requirements of Vada, protect the Vada nature of the debate from transforming into Jalpa or Vitanda, along with checking for correct usage of supporting Pramana. The Madhyastha themselves must follow a set of guidelines called Vada Maryada.

An example scenario of Vada Maryada is if two individuals are debating a concept from the Upanishads, then the Madhyastha and the debaters must not raise questions regarding the validity of the Upanishads.

Vadaparinama: | Result of Vada:

A Vada debate continues until one side accepts the other sides doctrine, or the Madhyastha declarers a winner through consensus.

The conclusion of a Vada can be determined by the Madhyastha via the following guidelines (DharmaWiki):

• A debater misunderstanding their own premise and its implications
• A lack or inability to understand the opposing argument
• Confusion or helplessness in either debating party
• The use of hetvabhasha or pseudo-reasoning
• An inability of either opponent to respond within a reasonable time frame

The Madhyastha may also determine a Vada to be savyabhichara or inconclusive via the following guidelines (DharmaWiki):

• There is no possibility of reaching a fair decision
• The topic discussed is itself disputed, known as viruddha
• The discussion strays from the main topic, known as prakarana-atita
• The debate goes beyond a reasonable time period, known as Kalatita

Ultimately, there is no real loss in Vada as both parties generally benefit from reaching upon a conclusion or establishing a Truth. Nigrahasthana or the sense of defeat may occur if hetvabhasha or pseudo-reasoning is used.

Sources

Jha, G. (1999). The nyāya-sūṭras of gauṭama: With the bhāṣya of vāṭsyāyana and the vārṭika of uḍḍyoṭakara. Motilal Banarsidass.

Dharmawiki. (2021, August 5). Types of discourse (सम्भाषाप्रकाराः). Dharmawiki. Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://dharmawiki.org/index.php/Types_of_Discourse_(%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B7%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%83)#.E0.A4.B8.E0.A4.AE.E0.A5.8D.E0.A4.AD.E0.A4.BE.E0.A4.B7.E0.A4.BE.E0.A4.AA.E0.A5.8D.E0.A4.B0.E0.A4.95.E0.A4.BE.E0.A4.B0.E0.A4.BE.E0.A4.83_.E0.A5.A5_Types_of_Sambhasha.

Rao, S. (2021, April 7). Retrieved October 31, 2021, from https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/madhyastha/.

Matilal, B. K., Ganeri, J., & Tiwari, H. (1999). The character of logic in India. Oxford University Press.

Vidyabhusana, S. C. (1988). A history of Indian logic: Ancient, mediaeval and modern schools. Motilal Banarsidass.