Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c2: Prologue

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c2

Language
English

Prologue

c2.1

Tʜɪꜱ monograph is mainly the result of studies conducted by me as a Fellow at the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla; during the year 2014-15. My areas of study were Sāhityaśāstra (Literary Theory) and Nāṭyaśāstra (Theory of Drama and Theatre). But as a teacher and researcher, I have always remained conscious of the vitality of *vāda* — which is roughly translated for the purpose of this work as a category involving theory and practice of intellectual debates, dialogues and discussions. Traditional knowledge systems in India thrived because of *vāda*. These traditional systems have been subjected to a general negligence during the last two centuries or have been largely misrepresented. There has been an over-emphasis on spirituality and religion in the recent studies on the ancient Indian knowledge systems, and the disciplines having a focus with logic and arguments remained sidetracked. Ānvīkṣikī (logic and investigation) was a major discipline which was highly valued in ʙᴄᴇ era. K. Satchidananda Murty rightly points out that “the study of classical philosophy in India has been dominated by *darśana*-concept, ignoring the Ānvīkṣikī-concept of philosophy”.¹ A revisit to the theories and practices of *vāda* will hopefully lead to viewing these knowledge systems in their right perspective.

c2.2

*Vāda* subsists on diversity. No *vāda* is possible if there is only one point of view. Also, *vāda* does not happen in singularity, it always is a prerequisite to the other and mostly promotes the presence of many others. India’s history of ideas and debates presents a multilinear view. The tradition of *vāda* envisages pluralism. The learned editors of *Isibhāsiyāin*, a neglected work, but immensely valuable for understanding the Indian *vāda*, tell us that during the days of Mahāvīra there were as many as 363 theories discussed under four well-known sects. *Vāda* vitalized intellectual life and the seers, monks and intellectuals residing in the *āśramas*, *vihāras* and *saṁghas*.

c2.3

I have used the Sanskrit term *vāda* in a broad sense here and have given its nearest approximation — “debate” in bracket where *vāda* is used to denote a restricted sense. The seven chapters of this book deal with various aspects of the theory and practice of *vāda*. Since no comprehensive study in this field has so far been made (the works by Amartya Sen and A. Raghuramaraju merely touch its fringes, and the work by Esher Solomon mostly takes up the dialectic divergences) and the present study is intended to be a groundwork only, it was not possible for me to go deep into so many versatile aspects of study on *vāda*. The use of the word “Indian” in the subtitle may be termed as a misnomer. Owing to my limitations, I have mostly used Sanskrit sources for the treatment of *vāda* in theory and practice. But the intention was not to keep this work confined only to Sanskrit traditions of *vāda*; I have tried to include alternate or parallel traditions. Reference to Naryosang, Al-Beruni, Dara Shikoh or the works like *Dabistān-e-mazahib*, how so ever insufficient and scanty they may be, do indicate a broad framework for a study like this.

c2.4

I hope that this book will prove how vital and important *vāda* — comprising theories and practices of debate, dialogue and discussion — has been, not only for the growth of our knowledge systems and ideologies, but also for our socio-political fabrics. *Vāda* was cultivated in India’s intellectual discourses to project the distinct nature and uniqueness of each concept. This was possible through the frank admittance of both the agreements and the disagreements. *Saṁvāda* (correspondence) and *vivāda* (difference) are two faces of *vāda*. Texts like *Isibhāsiyāin* and *Śāstravārtāsamuccaya* of Haribhadra Sūri could be composed because of the first, whereas the second inspired a vast mass of philosophical literature. But then, there are inherent correspondences in the differences and the differences loom large when correspondences are being sought out. Gauḍapāda categorically said in *Māṇḍūkyakārikā* IV.99 that he has not borrowed from Buddha, but his concept of *vijñāna* or consciousness as the Ultimate Reality and the world appearing due to the diverse nature of *vijñāna* together with the examples he has given to illustrate his thesis are derived from Buddhism. A little intriguing example of such correspondence is Śaṅkarācārya himself. He vehemently criticized Buddhist philosophies, but beneath a very intense tussle and difference of outlook, there is an inherent acceptance of the Vijñānavādin for which he is also labelled as a Buddhist in disguise (*pracchannabaudha*), not by a section of modern scholars alone, but by some of the adherents of classical non-dualist philosophers like Vedāntadeśika, an extraordinary philosopher-poet of thirteenth century CE and a nephew of Rāmānuja. F. Stcherbatsky and Dhirendra Sharma have shown that by begging to differ with his *guru* Kumārila on the nature of *abhāva* (non-existence), Prabhākara denied the status of a *pramāṇa* to *abhāva* and thus followed the path of Dharmakīrti, a well-known Buddhist logician; and hence he was decried as “a friend of the Buddhists” (*bauddhabandhuḥ*).

c2.5

It is true that we find a lot of manoeuvring in *vādas*. But this has contributed to maturing a particular system of ideas. The search for truth led the seeker to traverse on diverse paths.

c2.6

During the days of the Pallava Renaissance, there was a close interconnection between the learned brāhmaṇas of Kerala and the Pallava court at Kāñcī. It is worth noting that Cheramān Perumāl, who could have been a contemporary of Śaṅkara or of his disciples, is said to have taken an interest in diverse religious faiths including Christianity and Islam. A story even relates to his conversion to Islam and pilgrimage to Mecca. He is also said to have partitioned Kerala in deference to Śaṅkara’s prescriptions.²

c2.7

Intellectual discourses in India have remained so much argumentative that most of the works written in Sanskrit under diverse knowledge systems are structured in the techniques of debate. This applies not only to philosophical writings but to works belonging to medical sciences (Āyurveda) or works related to the management of society and life like *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya or *Kāmasūtra* of Vātsyāyana. There are texts that have been thoroughly structured through *vāda*.

c2.8

Some of the issues that have repeatedly surfaced in *vādas* are concerned with the conflict between *karma* (action) and *jñāna* (knowledge), choice between violence and non-violence, the clash between two ideologies — *pravṛtti* (empiricism) and *nivṛtti* (renunciation) and these still persist in modern India in some form or the other. The doctrine of cumulative pursuit of *karma* and *jñāna* continued till Śaṅkara vehemently discarded it.

c2.9

Even though marginalized to a large extent in the textual tradition of philosophical literature and surviving in thin numbers, the *lokāyatas* — materialists — have always remained assertive. Due to their skills in *vāda*, they actually commanded respect and were given prominence in socio-political life. There are epigraphic records to prove that they flourished in Karnataka and continued to practically debate with Vedāntins and other philosophers till fourteenth-fifteenth centuries.³ The Cārvāka philosophy has remained a contentious issue with almost all the philosophical schools for more than two millennia. The modern scholars have vehemently debated on various perspectives of the Cārvākas.⁴ The present work repositions Cārvākas and their postulations in the light of *vāda*s and the *vāda* texts.

c2.10

That *vāda* could transform society, could bring changes in the lifestyles, and quite often could also result in conversions of faith or religion are evidenced through numerous examples in this work. The concepts and categories related to *vāda* not only shaped up the course of discussions in the areas of philosophy or religion, they cast everlasting impact on the milieu and traditions of arts and aesthetics also. In Chap. 6, I have discussed some well-known masterpieces from Sanskrit literature in which *vāda* forms the structural or narrative design. There are literary pieces in which the debate becomes a major theme, whereas in others, debates are employed as a device to enrich the narrative. *Āgamaḍambaraprahasana*, *Dhuttakkhāṇa* (*Dhūrtākhyāna*), *Mudritakumudacandra*, etc. are works by philosophers composed with the intention of projecting *vāda*. *Mahiṣaśatakam* by Vāñchānātha is a poem penned with fervour and intensity by a *paṇḍit-kavi* (scholar poet). It is a poetic statement in protest in which the author enters into *vāda* with social institutions and oppressive systems.

c2.11

At the surface level, the culture of *vāda* involves verbal duals, attacks and even violence of speech — debates on the propriety of such ramifications of *vāda* have been noticed in this monograph. But at the deeper levels, the *vāda* culture imbibes values and harmony. Al-Beruni, whom I have viewed as a source of inspiration for this work, had closely watched the people of our country and our habits of debate 1,000 years ago. His remarks on the Hindus are noteworthy:

c2.12

. . . at the utmost they fight with words, but they will never stake their soul, or body or their property on religious controversy.⁵

c2.13

The *vāda* traditions have not simply subsisted on refutation. They evolved methods for critiques of reasoning. Each system established its uniqueness through *vāda*. Prashant Dave rightly pointed out during the discussions with the present author that *vāda* led to revitalizing each theory, and each system got further developed by undergoing a series of *vāda*s with other systems. In fact, history of Indian philosophy should be rewritten from the point of view of *vāda* which led to culling out the essentialities of a system and assumption of its precise nature.⁶ *Vādas* were taken up to reinvigorate a thought system and also to sharpen one’s own intellect. Mahima Bhaṭṭa, a logician wanted to prove the applicability of *anumiti* in the field of *belless lettress* and for this he composed an extensive text — *Vyaktiviveka* — with a twofold purpose, i.e. to establish the theory of poetic inference (*kāvyānumiti*) and also to earn instant recognition by the way of posing a potent challenge to as great a stalwart as Ānandavardhana.⁷ Texts such as *Vyaktiviveka* are created in deep structures of agreement with surface structures in sharp disagreements.

c2.14

Finally it is intended to search the resonances and percolations of the *vāda* traditions in modern times, to investigate how this tradition still continues to enrich our intellectual life and can contribute to create better stands and harmony in our society. Some of the spiritual or religious *gurus* like Ramana Maharshi, J. Krishnamurti and Vinoba Bhave have served as men of dialogues. Of these, Vinoba Bhave, remains most misunderstood, yet most versatile and learned *bhāṣyakāra* of ancient wisdom. His *āśrama* at Paunar, Wardha functioned as a vibrant place for discussions on social, moral and religious issues, and continued to be frequently visited by persons from diverse walks of life. Vinoba Bhave strived to create conciliations in a society torn by strife. Texts like *Samaṇasutta*, *Svarājyaśāstra*, commentaries on *Gītā* and *Japujī*, as well as the institutions like Ācāryakula and Sarvasevāsaṅgha were created due to his efforts. The idea of giving up the fight (*raṇachoḍanīti*), Sakalāyatanapaddhati and silence mooted by him are fresh manifestations of the potential nature of *vāda*.

c2.15

*Vāda* has manifested in our responses to the opinions on Indian traditions of intellectual discourse by Western philosophers. S. Radhakrishnan gave a critique of Albert Switzer’s view which he had expressed in *Indian Thought and Its Development* in 1939. Switzer had opined that Indian philosophy has been escapist. Radhakrishnan challenged his views in his *Eastern Religion and Western Thought* in the year 1939 itself. In another work he also presented a critique of Burgsan.

c2.16

In the last chapter, I have tried to present the manifestations of *vāda* on a vast canvas during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. India was facing the onslaught of modernity and social reforms as well as the ethics evolved through its contact with Christianity during these two centuries, drawing sharp reactions from fundamentalists or puritans. “Modern Indian thought finds itself in a historical context created by Europe, and it has difficulties speaking for itself. Even in its self-representation and self-assertion, it speaks to a large extent in a European idioms. This does not however mean that the dialogue between India and Europe has been decided in favour of Europe, or that India has been superseded by Europe. The power of the Indian tradition has not exhausted itself in self-representation and self-interpretation of modern India. The dialogic situation is still open.” At the backdrop of these remarks by Wilhelm Halbfass, this chapter raises several questions, i.e. whether with the anthropocentric self-confidence of the West remains an overpowering force; whether the relationship between Orient and Occident is a relationship of subordination of India and subjugation by the West; or there are possibilities in the *paṇḍit’s* tradition for rejuvenating itself. Ananda K. Coomarswamy says that India would come out unscathed from the colonial onslaught though its body was badly damaged.⁹ Sri Aurobindo would view the scenario as a mere surface deterioration.

c2.17

One of the issues that consistently came up in all the knowledge texts is related to freedom. The concept of salvation in *darśanas* seeks individual liberation linked to social aspirations. The last criterion of *dharma* defined by Manu is *svasya ca priyam ātmanaḥ* (that which pleases the self). There is a continuity of search for the liberation in Smṛti texts, philosophical discourses, texts on aesthetics and literary theory through logics and reasoning, and this has continued to the twentieth century.

c2.18

Due to the nature of this work and my own limitations, I have profusely used original terms from Sanskrit sources. I have also tried to limit myself to the original sources following the model set by Mallinātha, the great commentator of Sanskrit classics. In the preface to his commentary on *Kirātārjunīyam*, an epic by the poet Bhāravi, he said:

c2.19

इहान्वयमुखेनैव सर्वं व्याख्यायते मया।
नामूलं लिख्यते किञ्चिन्नानपेक्षितमुच्यते।।
Here I have explained everything just by paraphrasing, have not written anything without the base of the original and have not said anything unwanted.

c2.20

Giving the final touches to this work, the memories of Pratapchandra and Bachchulal Awasthi have been flooding in my mind. The informal sittings (chitchats) in their homes at Gournagar, Sagar during 1973-83 were the best practical demonstrations of *vāda* for me and they also represent two faces of *vāda* which I have talked about.

c2.21

I could access the two volumes of *Indian Dialectics* by Esther Solomon after I had finalized the preliminary draft of this work. In fact, Solomon has already covered some of the topics dealt with here in a more comprehensive way. The last three chapters of my work, however, make a departure from the line adopted by her. In the earlier chapters I have tried to substantiate or to avoid repetition by referring to Solomon's work.

c2.22

*Vāda* has been within and without me over these years and hopefully it will continue to grow.

c2.23

¹ K. Satchidananda Murty, 1985, *Philosophy in India: Traditions, Teaching and Research*, p. 194.

c2.24

² K. Satchidananda Murty, 1985, *Philosophy in India*, p. 77.

c2.25

³ Ibid., p. 17.

c2.26

⁴ Sadashiv Athawale in the Preface to the third edition of his Marathi book *Cārvāka: Itihāsa āṇi Tattavajñāna* (1997) gives a brief resume of these debates, referring to the divergence of opinions between A.H. Salunkhe and Shrinivas Dikshit.

c2.27

⁵ *Albiruni's India*, ed. Edward C. Sachan, 2005, p. 19.

c2.28

⁶ Narmada Shankar Mehta in his Gujarati work *Hind Tattvajñāna no Itihāsa* made such an attempt.

c2.29

⁷ Cf. his prefatory remarks — “युक्तोऽयमात्मसदृशान् प्रति मे प्रयत्नो, नास्त्येव तज्जगति सर्वमनोहरं यत्। केचिज्ज्वलन्ति विकसन्त्यपरे निमीलन्त्यन्ये यदभ्युदयभाजि जगत्प्रदीपे।। इह सम्प्रतिपत्तितोऽन्यथा वा ध्वनिकारस्य वचोविवेचनं नः। नियतं यशसे प्रपत्स्यते यन्महतां संस्तव एव गौरवाय।।” (I am appropriately making an effort for those who are like me, everything is not agreeable in this world. When the lamp of the world (the Sun) rises in the horizon, some start burning, some are blooming, while others wither out. The propositions of the author of *dhvani* theory by agreements or disagreements are being taken up here for fame, because acquaintance with great theories leads to glory.)

c2.30

⁸ Extract from the Preface to the German edition of *India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding*, Wilhelm Halbfass, 1988, p. xiii.

c2.31

⁹ A. Raghuramaraju, 2006, *Debates in Indian Philosophy: Classical, Colonial and Contemporary*, p. 6.

c2.32

Radhavallabh Tripathi

Linked texts (10)