Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s1: Upaniṣadic Debates

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s1

Language
English

Upaniṣadic Debates

c6.s1.1

The Upaniṣads refer to various schools of thought and constant dialogues going on between them. Niyativādins, Kālavādins, Svabhāvavādins and Bhūtavādins were promulgating their ideologies. *Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad* describes the Niyati School and Pāṇini refers to it as *diṣṭāmati*.

c6.s1.2

V.S. Aggrawal opines that Prajñāvāda arose in opposition to Niyativāda, offering a rationalistic view of life. Kṛṣṇa was a Prajñāvādin. He adjusts Vidura as one of the prominent advocates of Prajñāvāda school.²²

c6.s1.3

*Brahmodya* comprised of questions raised by one wing and answers provided from the other wing. This method is followed in the great debate or *brahmodya* between Yājñavalkya and other scholars in the court of Janaka as described in the Upaniṣad. Yājñavalkya, having been challenged by a multitude of the Brahmavādins or scholars in an assembly, suggests that either they confront him with their questions one by one or he confronts them with his questions one by one.²³ In fact, this was one of the biggest debates held in the assembly of King Janaka around 1000 BCE. It has been termed as *brahmodya* in *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad*. Śaṅkarācārya in his *Bhāṣya* has called the whole of its proceedings as *saṁvāda-prakaraṇa*. Amongst hundreds of intellectuals present, Gārgī, a *brahmavādinī* (lady philosopher) alone could stand as a peer to Yājñavalkya. Besides Yājñavalkya, Janaka and Gārgī, several participants — all opponents of Yajñavalkya — the disputants — have been described. The disputants raise questions, counter questions and their resolutions are given by the respondent — Yājñavalkya. The extensive record of the proceedings of this debate in the Upaniṣad is one of the most valuable and authentic documentations of a philosophical debate. Even if the characters of this narrative do not belong to the history in the modern sense of the term, they are very much parts of a larger history of ideas.

c6.s1.4

Aśvala was first to confront Yajñavalkya with his question:

c6.s1.5

By what means, the sacrifice is liberated having overcome the clutches of death?

c6.s1.6

Yājñavalkya replied:

c6.s1.7

By speech which is fire in the shape of *hotā*, the first priest. The speech is fire, and fire is *hotā*, this fire of *hotā* is liberation, and this liberation is absolute liberation.

c6.s1.8

Aśvala again asked:

c6.s1.9

Yājñavalkya, all this is pervaded by day and night, all this is subjected by day and night. By what means, the sacrifice is liberated having overcome the clutches of the day and night?

c6.s1.10

Yājñavalkya replied:

c6.s1.11

By the eye, which is Āditya, in the form of the *adhvaryu* priest. Verily, the eye of the sacrifice is *adhvaryu*. This eye is Āditya, this Āditya is *adhvaryu*, and *adhvaryu* is liberation, and this liberation is absolute liberation.

c6.s1.12

There is a pattern in the questions posed by all challengers. Aśvala’s further questions pertain to the means of overcoming the clutches of the light and dark halves of the lunar month.

c6.s1.13

In reply to Jāratkārava Ārtabhāga, Yājñavalkya described eight fetters and eight auxiliaries. These include all the sense-organs and mind with their subjects as auxiliaries. If all phenomenon is the food of death, then for whom death becomes the food? — Jāratkārava Ārtabhāga questions. Fire is death and it becomes food for water — replied Yājñavalkya. What remains when the man dies? “The name” replies Yājñavalkya.

c6.s1.14

The questions in this way became sharper and more penetrating. They pertained to the other world, life after death and destiny. Uṣastā asked Yājñavalkya about *Brahman* and soul.

c6.s1.15

Gārgī declared in *brahmodya* held in the assembly at the royal court of King Janaka: “If Yājñavalkya answers my questions correctly, I swear that none amongst you will be able to win him in this *brahmodya*.”²⁴

c6.s1.16

The questions posed by Gārgī were cleverly formulated and in the terminology of the Nyāya, they were likely to trap the respondent in *nigrahasthānas* (clinchers), which are being described in the next chapter of this work. Gārgī knew that her question pertained to the Ultimate was indescribable. If Yājñavalkya replied it, he would be committing a mistake by saying that which aught not to be said. (Technically that was a *nigrahasthāna* called *avācyavacana*). If he avoided the question, he would be trapped in the *nigrahasthāna* called *apratibhā*.

c6.s1.17

After receiving satisfactory answers of her questions she made this announcement:

c6.s1.18

O knowledgeable ones, it will be the best thing for you all to offer obeisance to Yājñavalkya and free yourselves from him. There is none amongst you who could win over him!

c6.s1.19

The *ṛṣis* who participated in the debate with Yājñavalkya were intellectuals, seers and thinkers of their own standing. Many of them, though they lost and suffered a defeat because of the quick wit and brilliance of their adversary, had otherwise influenced the milieu by their ideas through *vāda* (debates and discussions). Amongst them Śvetaketu was an eminent ideologist and thinker. The earliest reference to Śvetaketu occurs in *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*.²⁵ He was a descendant of Gautama and grandson of Āruṇa. His father Uddālaka Āruṇi is a well-known seer and thinker in the Upaniṣads and is also referred in *Mahābhārata*. Even great sages like Yājñavalkya, Vājasaneya and Kauṣītaki are said to be his disciples.

c6.s1.20

Uddālaka was a resident of Kurupāñcāla and was a student of Ayoda Dhaumya. He had learnt *brahmavidyā* with King Pravahaṇa Jaivāli. *Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa* gives the detailed views of Uddālaka and Śvetaketu on the duties of a priest. Śvetaketu was also a man who could stand against the prevailing notions and customs and change the course of history. *Gopatha Brāhmaṇa* and *Śāṅkhāyana Brāhmaṇa* (I.33) describe how even as a student he had violated the ban on eating of sweets for *brahmacārins* of the *gurukula*.²⁶

c6.s1.21

*Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad* also describes his dialogues with the King Pravahaṇa Jaivāli and Janaka. Śvetaketu also disagreed with his own father on the performance of rituals. In *Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra* he is referred as an *avara* type of priest.

c6.s1.22

Sujātā, his sister, was married to Kahoṭaka, father of Aṣṭāvakra. Aṣṭāvakra was initiated and educated in the hermitage of Uddālaka. He was a dwarf and suffered from physical deformity, but an intellectual giant, he defeated the detractor of his father in a debate.

c6.s1.23

Śvetaketu must have been somewhat of an irritating, proud and envious nature in his childhood. He did not join his father, when the latter was going to learn *brahmavidyā* (spiritual knowledge).²⁷ He was also proud of his knowledge of rituals and expressed his dissatisfaction when the kings of Kāśī, Kosala and Videha nominated Jātukarṇya as their priest. The course of the life of Uddālaka by this time had undergone a change, and he advised his son to devote himself to the pursuit of knowledge and spirituality.

c6.s1.24

That Śvetaketu with his Vedic lineage and Upaniṣadic background continued to be remembered as a thinker during the later centuries is evident from two episodes in *Mahābhārata*. He was the first person to have protested against the violence on women. The episode narrated in *Mahābhārata* is as follows.²⁸ It so happened that Śvetaketu saw his mother being dragged out of the house by a brāhmaṇa, who was intoxicated. He was declaring that he needs a woman for satiation of his sexual urge and he is therefore taking away this woman with him. “Why don’t you stop this man?” — Śvetaketu asked his father. His father said — “Under what law can I stop him? The law in our society gives a man right to take any woman for the satiation of his sexual urge.” Śvetaketu said — “I raise my voice of I dissent against such law. Henceforth no man will forcefully take any woman.”

c6.s1.25

Yaśodhara, a well-known commentator on Vātsyāyana’s *Kāmasūtra*, also cites this episode. Śvetaketu is said to have composed a text on Kāmaśāstra also and Vātsyāyana in his *Kāmasūtra* refers to him as one of the authorities on Kāmaśāstra.

c6.s1.26

Another narrative in *Mahābhārata* describes Śvetaketu’s marriage with Suvarcalā. Suvarcalā herself chose to marry Śvetaketu because he could prove himself a suitable match by satisfying her queries.²⁹ Besides fulfilling their responsibilities as householder, the couple frequently had discussions on the perennial questions related to the reality, language and speech. *Mahābhārata* tells that they were spending their life on two levels, at one level they were living a normal life as the husband and the wife, and discharging their duties as householders. But they also soared above in the world of intellectual debates. Suvarcalā, when she felt that they were too much engrossed in the worldly affairs, enticed her husband to join her for a discussion. On one such occasion, she raised the questions of language and reality.

c6.s1.27

Śvetaketu agrees that the language fails to comprehend reality, but it can become a medium leading to the path of knowing reality. The words actually do not consist of the meaning, the meaning slips and slides on the word, like a drop of water on the petals of a lotus flower.³⁰ The relationship between the word and its meaning is not *ātyantika* (invariably permanent).

c6.s1.28

Suvarcalā very pertinently objects here and suggests that the relationship has to be accepted as eternal, otherwise the words of the scriptures would also become fragile (like of drop of water on the petals of a lotus flower). Śvetaketu resolves the dilemma by the illustration of space holding the world, and also by introducing the concept of *upacāra* (figurative use). The whole discussion, in the words of Śuvarcalā, was to drag Śvetaketu out of the rut of routine activities, as she felt that his knowledge is in the danger of vanishing.³¹

c6.s1.29

Bhīṣma narrates the story of Sulabhā in *Mahābhārata*.³² It is a woman’s fight against man’s pretensions and arrogance. Janaka displays overconfidence in his spiritual attainments and appears to be blind to reason. There is a heated argument from Janaka, who pretends to be a liberated soul, but starts talking in a vulgar and licentious tone. He attributes ulterior motifs to Sulabhā’s visit. This is followed by very patient and insightful rejoinder from Sulabhā. She clearly tears away the mask worn by the king. But *Mahābhārata* does not tell us who won this debate. Arindam Chakrabarti points out:

c6.s1.30

The indecisiveness of *Mahābhārata* as to who is the winner, Janaka or Sulabhā, narratively draws us nearer to the cognitive — discursive caution of never claiming dogmatically to have “got it right”.³³

c6.s1.31

*Mahābhārata* also indicates that this debate is happening in *dharmayuga* (time of morality) inside Janaka, because Bhīṣma, who describes this debate, also says that the debate happened in a single locus.³⁴

c6.s1.32

In the very preceding chapter (319ᵗʰ), *Mahābhārata* depicts Janaka as a liberated soul. Here he is portrayed in all garrulousness with his pompous behaviour and manner quite unbecoming of a “saint-king”. Perhaps *Mahābhārata* suggests that there are layers of liberation. Janaka himself says — how am I any less liberated than you are?

c6.s1.33

The questions posed by Yakṣa in *Mahābhārata* and by Karkaṭī (a titan) in *Yogavāsiṣṭha* indicate how the techniques of *vāda* were adopted for meta-discourses.

c6.s1.34

The Upaniṣads also evolved some simple but very systematic techniques for carrying out *vāda*. They are:

c6.s1.35

1. *Praśna*: questioning to initiate a dialogue,
2. *Anupraśna*: counter-questions arising out of the discussions on the preliminary query,
3. *Anatipraśnanivāraṇa*: avoiding too much questioning which leads to the sidetracking of the issue itself,
4. *Vyākhyā*: detailed explanation of the theory,
5. *Anuvyākhyā*: further explanations,
6. *Dṛṣṭānta*: illustration,
7. *Ākhyāyikā*: narrating a story as an exposition of the theory, and
8. *Ūrdhvapravacana*: deciphering the extant of learning that has already been acquired by a disciple, so that discussion be carried on after it.

c6.s1.36

These techniques became the precursors of the concept of *pañcāvayava-vākya* (sentence with five divisions).

c6.s1.37

That the lady seers (*brahmavādinīs*) used to participate in the debates is exemplified by the narratives related to Gārgī, Maitreyī, Suvarcalā and Sulabhā.

c6.s1.38

The Cārvākas or Lokāyatikas known for their debating skills, dominated the discussions in *āśramas* (hermitages) or in royal courts. The tale of Śakuntalā in *Mahābhārata* describes that the hermitage of Kaṇva was resounding with the voices of the chief Lokāyatikas engaged in propounding their theses, raising objections and establishing the theory.³⁵

Linked texts (10)