Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c2.4

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*).