Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c5.s6: Ethics of Debate
Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c5.s6
- Language
- English
Ethics of Debate
c5.s6.1
*Mahābhārata* describes one of the greatest debates of our history that occurred when the Kauravas made an attempt to humiliate Draupadī in the presence of her husbands (the Pāṇḍavas). Draupadī raised a question about the legality of staking her in the game of dice. This resulted in a fierce debate involving perennial questions of morality (*dharma*) and also the rights of slaves and women. Vidura, the step-brother of King Dhṛtarāṣṭra, spoke about the norms and ethics of debate in an assembly on this occasion. He said:
c5.s6.2
Knowing the rules of *dharma*, and attending an assembly, he who does not answer a query that is put forward, incurs a half of the demerit that is attached to telling a lie. If a person in the assembly knows the rules of *dharma* and speaks and gives a wrong answer, he incurs the sin of telling a lie.³¹
c5.s6.3
In this connection, Vidura recounted the tale of Prahlāda. Prahlāda was made arbitrator in a quarrel between Virocana and Sudhanvan, the former being his son. Facing a dilemma, Prahlāda approached Kaśyapa and asked him:
c5.s6.4
What are the other worlds in which a man falls if he chooses not to answer a question in a debate/quarrel or if he gives a wrong answer?
c5.s6.5
Kaśyapa told him:
c5.s6.6
A person who knows but prefers not to give an answer gets himself encaged in a thousand nooses of Varuṇa. If a person called as a witness in a dispute speaks carelessly, he also gets himself encaged in a thousand nooses of Varuṇa. Out of these one thousands nooses, one noose is released annually. Therefore a person should speak truth without concealment (whenever there is a dispute or a debate) in the assembly. If *dharma* is entangled with *adharma* in an assembly, it is the duty of each and every member of the assembly to take off the dart, lest they themselves be entangled with that *adharma*. In an assembly where a sinful act is not condemned, half of the demerit of that sinful act clings to the head of that assembly, one-fourth of it to the guilty, and the remaining fourth to the members of the assembly present there.
c5.s6.7
In this way Kaśyapa continued to dwell upon the guilt a person is subjected to, in case he utters a lie during the course of a dispute or debate. After hearing Kaśyapa, Prahlāda told his son the truth: "your contender Sudhanvan is superior to you".
c5.s6.8
In the Śāntiparva of *Mahābhārata*, Bhīṣma establishes *ānṛśaṁsya* (non-cruelty) as a criterion for carrying out a proper discussion. A person hurting the other by his speech is also a cruel person. Using of foul and harsh language is equated with inflicting violence.³² A good speaker is the one who speaks without going against his own intentions and also against the intentions of the hearer.
c5.s6.9
Yājñavalkya in his law book gives a list of persons with whom no debate should be taken up. The list includes parents, guests, brothers, married ladies, in-laws, maternal uncle, an old man (above seventy according to Vijñāneśvara), a child, a patient, an *ācārya* (who has given initiation by sacred thread, according to Vijñāneśvara), a *vaidya* (physician), those who are dependents (for their livelihood), relatives (belonging to both the father's and mother's side), *ṛtvik* (the priest), *purohita* (the person who performs rituals), sons, daughters, wife, servants and real brothers.³³
c5.s6.10
³³ 33
c5.s6.11
The efficacy of *vāda* lies in encouraging the others to speak out and to establish communication. Debate for the sake of debate was never appreciated. Buddha has used the words *kalaha* (quarrel) and *vivāda* (verbal combat) to indicate the negative aspects of human personality. What is the genesis of *kalaha*, *vivāda* (debate), *vilāpa* (lamentation), *śoka* (sorrow), *mātsarya* (jealousy), *māna* (pride), *abhimāna* (ego) and *paiśūnya* (backbiting) — this question is asked to him in *Kalahavivādasutta* of *Suttanipāta*. Buddha says that all these evils are produced by attachment. The question of the propriety of creating controversies through debates is raised again in the next *sutta* (*Cūlavyūhasutta*) of *Suttanipāta*. Buddha is of the view that if a man does not follow the middle path, he gets stuck with a certain view and then he starts declaring that his view alone is right. He has denounced the tendency to enter into debates for creating controversies. Both praise and denouncement are fruits of this tendency. There are persons who would praise their own sects, methods and *dharmas*, and they will just decry the other systems as degraded (*hīna*). In fact, Buddha's discourse on the ethics of debate here is very pertinent:
c5.s6.12
A brāhmaṇa does not depend on others, he transcends the quarrels and verbal duals.³⁴
It is difficult to pacify or bring a person to senses who out of prejudice regards his own view as right and quarrels with others about it.³⁵
Controversies are created by those only who are lacking in true knowledge and understanding. A man who has developed equality of view will not join any debate.³⁶
Those who go to an assembly to join the debate with an intention to prove that their opponents are fools, do so to earn public applaud. They shoot arrows at their opponents to earn praise. When they are defeated, they hide themselves, when they are condemned, they are furious and start searching the faults of the others. In *vāda*–*vivāda*, a man either attacks the other or harms himself. Such debates are of no use except earning praise or abuse. The arrogance that a man develops after emerging victorious in the debates ultimately leads to his downfall. A wise man therefore should avoid indulging in such debates. If the debates do not lead to self-purification, what is the use of nourishing one's own ego through them? A person who is free of ego will not enter into debate with anyone.³⁷
c5.s6.13
³⁴ 34
c5.s6.14
³⁵ 35
c5.s6.15
³⁶ 36
c5.s6.16
³⁷ 37
c5.s6.17
On the contrary, many of the followers of Buddha themselves came to regard *vāda* essential for protecting his message. *Upāyahṛdaya*, a text of pre-Diṅnāga period wrongly ascribed to Nāgārjuna, begins with a *vāda* on the utility of *vāda* and the author of this text argues against the view that the debate only “creates bitterness, strife and hard-heartedness, and so should be avoided”.³⁸
Linked texts (1)
- Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit