Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s3: Debates in Mahābhārata
Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s3
- Language
- English
Debates in Mahābhārata
c6.s3.1
The tendency to use tricks in scholarly debate must have been in practice during the age of *Mahābhārata*. Śakuni when remonstrated by Yudhiṣṭhira on the use of trick in the game of dice, says: “a scholar surpasses a nonscholar only through his *nikṛti* (trick), but it is not regarded as trick”.⁵⁴
c6.s3.2
Techniques of *vāda* had systematically been developed when this great epic was being compiled. Vyāsa, delivering a discourse on governance before Yudhiṣṭhira and other Pāṇḍavas, recommends that the king should employ ministers who are well-versed in Tarkaśāstra (logic). He also emphasizes over the need for inculcating the Tarkaśātra in life.⁵⁵ Ānvīkṣikī is actually mentioned here in the enumeration of the four branches of learning.⁵⁶ There is a reference to *pañcāvayava-vākya* (five-member syllogism), which is essential for carrying out a debate as per the methodology laid down in *Nyāyadarśana*.⁵⁷ *Mahābhārata* also refers to four *pramāṇas*⁵⁸ and scholars especially adept in the virtues and flaws of *pañcāvayava-vākya*.⁵⁹
c6.s3.3
*Mahābhārata* reflects dilemmas on perennial questions of destiny, life and death to set the ground for debates on crucial issues of human life.
c6.s3.4
Immediately after the great war, Yudhiṣṭhira suffers from a moral dilemma. He is appalled at the devastation the war has caused and bitten with remorse and a persisting sense of guilt; he even declines to accept the throne and expresses his desire to retire to the forest and lead the life of an ascetic.⁶⁰ This puts him in bitter debate with Draupadī and Bhīma, who go to the extent of calling Yudhiṣṭhira a mentally deranged person; Draupadī even suggesting that her husband has gone insane and needs to be treated or be sent behind the bars along with the heretics (*nāstikas* or *Ājīvakas*).⁶¹
c6.s3.5
Ultimately Vyāsa joins this discussion and resolves the dilemma.⁶²
c6.s3.6
Again, Kausalyā, wife of Janaka, the celebrated patron of philosophy seminars, raises a debate when her husband is ready to leave the royal palace for forest and become a mendicant. She calls the monks as parasites sucking the householders because of their vow of poverty and living on alms.
c6.s3.7
Thus one of the recurring themes for debate in *Mahābhārata* is the conflict between *karma* (action) and *jñāna* (knowledge). The concept of *bhakti* (devotion) as an alternate vision for life came to be introduced later. The first thirty-five cantos of the Śāntiparva in *Mahābhārata* are devoted to this debate. The theme is again taken up in the dialogue between Suvarcalā and Śvetaketu referred earlier. Vyāsa comes back to the same question of choice between action and knowledge in the cantos 267-70 and also 326, opening the gateway of diverse conflicting views.
c6.s3.8
Another conflicting issue is the choice between violence and non-violence. How can a king observe his duties and rule over the kingdom without hurting any of the subjects — this is the question Yudhiṣṭhira asks Bhīṣma in the beginning of the canto 267. Bhīṣma narrates the story of the dialogue between Dyumatsena and Satyavān. Even condemnation and censure could sometimes suffice as punishments for severe offences if the offender does not inflict further harm on the society.⁶³ In the next canto Kapila discusses the question of violence in the rituals. And then he reverts back to the tussle between *pravṛtti* (empiricism) and *nivṛtti* (renunciation).
c6.s3.9
The royal courts functioned like academies for cultivating debates on issues related to literature, philosophy and arts. In *Mahābhārata*, the court of King Janaka is described in a number of episodes as a flourishing centre for vigorous intellectual discussions and debates. Chapter 266^th of Śāntiparva describes the visit of Pañcaśikha, one of the proponents of Sāṁkhya system, to this court to discuss his philosophy.
c6.s3.10
Besides the royal courts, a hermitage also became a potential venue for holding live debates. The 222^nd chapter of Śāntiparva describes the debates conducted in the assembly of 6,000 sages in the Himalayan region. The debates proceeded on the following questions — 1. what is the nature of this Universe and how was it created?, and 2. what is the nature of *karma*?
c6.s3.11
Diverse views were propounded in this assembly with regard to this Universe, some said it is eternal, some said it is created by a God, the other would say there is no God, still others would even deny the very existence of this universe.
c6.s3.12
The brāhmaṇas (the knowledgeable ones) in this debate were armed with hundred kinds of reasoning and they had initiated several types of Śāstras (knowledge systems). In that grand debate, (the assembly came to be divided in two different groups of *vādins* (the proponents) and *prativādins* (the opponents). But they could not reach any solution to these fundamental problems. The sages were agitated to such an extent that out of fury they tore away cloths and destroyed the pots and sticks.⁶⁴ Then they calmed down and approached Sage Vasiṣṭha to resolve their questions with regard to the eternal truth. When Vasiṣṭha expressed his inability to do so, they all went to Nārada. Ultimately a divine voice told them to go to Sanatkumāra. They were finally preached by Sanatkumāra, much on the lines of the Upaniṣadic discourses, incorporating even sentences in prose instead of the usual verse form in which most of the epic is structured.
c6.s3.13
The word *saṁvāda* is used in *Mahābhārata* in the sense of a highly-profound discussion between two intellectuals that was carried out in past and lives in the collective memory of a race, constituting an *itihāsa*. Many such *saṁvāda*s are cited in *Mahābhārata*. The *saṁvāda* between Kṛṣṇa and Nārada on various questions of diplomacy of polity is cited as something that happened in yore.⁶⁵
c6.s3.14
It is during the age of *Mahābhārata* that the term *nyāya* came to be used for the proper methodology for discussions and debates involving the style and form that vouch for accuracy of the whole process of a debate or discussion.
c6.s3.15
The dice game between Duryodhana and Yudhiṣṭhira resulted in one of the most tense and exciting debates in human history. It is an example of impromptu debate as described earlier. This type of debate gets started under compulsion all of a sudden.
c6.s3.16
Yudhiṣṭhira lost Draupadī on his final bet in the game of dice. Duryodhana sent the messenger (*pratikāmin*) to bring Draupadī. Draupadī asked *pratikāmin* to go and ask the gambler (Yudhiṣṭhira) whether he had lost himself first or her.⁶⁶ Then Duryodhana sends his younger brother to bring Draupadī by force. Being forcibly taken to the assembly with her hair dishevelled and half her attire loosened, Draupadī told her tormentor Duḥśāsana:
c6.s3.17
My Lord Yudhiṣṭhira is bound by obligations of *dharma*, *dharma* however, is subtle. Only those who are possessed of clarity of vision are able to ascertain *dharma*.
c6.s3.18
Dragged forcibly by Duḥśāsana in the assembly, an utterly helpless Draupadī dares to confront the elders in the congregation with a question. The question raised by her pertains to *dharma*. She started a debate as a complainant and pleaded her case. Subjected to humiliation in public, she questioned the elders in the assembly and the question was: whether her husband was authorized to bet on her in the game of dice when after putting himself on stake, he had lost and become a slave himself.
c6.s3.19
Bhīṣma is perplexed and looks askance. At his wit’s end, he hesitates in answering the question of Draupadī, and then somehow manages to say that the *dharma* is very subtle and he is unable to decide on either side, because arguments can be advanced from both sides. It is true that having become a slave, Yudhiṣṭhira had no right to put her on bet, but then it is also true that he continues to be her husband even as a slave, and as a husband he had right to bet on her.⁶⁷ Only Vidura and Vikarṇa (the youngest brother of the Kauravas) stand in Draupadī’s defence.
c6.s3.20
One point which Bhīṣma had raised in his reply was that Yudhiṣṭhira chose to play the game of dice on his own, and he staked Draupadī voluntarily. Draupadī refuted this claim. She said:
c6.s3.21
The king (Yudhiṣṭhira) was summoned to this assembly, and though possessing no skill of dice, he was forced to play with skilled, wicked, deceitful and desperate gamblers. How can you say then that he staked me voluntarily? The chief of Pāṇḍavas was deprived of his senses by wretches of deceitful conduct and unholy instincts having joined their hands together and
c6.s3.22
defeated him. He could not understand their tricks and he was not his own when he did so (staked me). Here in this assembly there are Kurus who are the lords of their sons and their daughters-in-law. Let all of them consider my statement and duly decide the issue I have raised.
c6.s3.23
She asked the elders to think of *dharma*, and found that they have been taken aback. Then she condemned them in most unequivocal terms:
c6.s3.24
The virtue of the people of Bharata race is gone! The practices of the kṣatriyas have disappeared! Otherwise the Kurus present here would never have silently watched such an act being performed which violates these very practices! Both Droṇa and Bhīṣma have lost their energy, and so has the noble Vidura and also this King (Dhṛtarāṣṭra). Else why are they sitting silently over this crime?⁶⁸
c6.s3.25
The whole unsavoury episode included a fierce debate between two sides. The court of Duryodhana was immediately converted into a scene of debate and a court for justice, where not only the fate of a woman was to be decided; the destiny of the two races (Kauravas and Pāṇḍavas) was also to be rewritten. This is one of the greatest debates in the history of civilization. It raises serious questions with regard to man’s attitude towards women, property rights, values and social norms. Draupadī not only pleads her own case, she is able to generate a public opinion in her favour. After going through the whole agony and ordeal, she wins her case and also successfully gets herself and her five husbands freed from the bond of slavery.
c6.s3.26
It is only through her debating skill and moral courage to put up a question that Draupadī poses a challenge before an entirely nonchalant and chauvinistic gathering and is able to create a conscience to win the verdict in her favour. The *Mahābhārata* presents this whole episode to be viewed as a scene of debate. Draupadī is therefore made to make a remark about the responsibilities of the members of the assembly. She says:
c6.s3.27
An assembly not attended by the elders is not a proper assembly for the debate and men who do not speak *dharma* are not elders. The *dharma* without truth is not *dharma*, and the truth imbued with deception is not truth.⁶⁹
c6.s3.28
Vikarṇa and Vidura also use similar terms to invoke the conscience of the members of the assembly. Vikarṇa gave reasons why Draupadī could not be considered to have been won and why the issue raised by her needs to be considered.⁷⁰ He finally made a fervent appeal to decide the case in Draupadī’s favour. There was uproar in the assembly. Vikarṇa’s fervent appeal was applauded. Karṇa rose to silence Vikarṇa, telling him that he is too immature and young to take a decision in this case while the elders have not spoken a word. He emphatically said that Draupadī, being a possession of Yudhiṣṭhira which has been lost in stake is properly won and acquired rightfully.
c6.s3.29
Amidst the clamour, people in the assembly started censuring Dhṛtarāṣṭra, who as a king ought to have stopped the heinous act of dishonour to a lady. Vidura then said:
c6.s3.30
Draupadī has put up a question and is weeping helplessly. Virtue and *dharma* are being persecuted by such conduct (of Kauravas). When an afflicted person asks an assembly of noble persons about his rights, as sanctioned by *dharma*, members of the assembly should, without being affected by interest and anger, answer his question.
c6.s3.31
With these words he supported the statement of Vikarṇa.⁷¹ Both Vikarṇa and Vidura expressed their opinion in unequivocal terms that Draupadī cannot be forced to become a slave because putting her on stake by Yudhiṣṭhira was illegal.⁷² Vidura was silenced by Duryodhana, calling him a śūdra. But listening to Vikarṇa’s fervent appeal, the members of the assembly raised their voices to support him.⁷³ Again there were arguments and counter-arguments. The debate can be summarized as under.
c6.s3.32
Draupadī is a property put on the stake.
• She was put on the stake by her husband Yudhiṣṭhira and he lost the bet.
• Whatsoever is put on the stake in the game of dice and lost is to be claimed by the opposite party.
• Therefore the treatment given to Draupadī by the Kauravas is justified.
c6.s3.33
This was the argument from Duryodhana’s side. What Vikarṇa and Vidura were trying to establish can be logistically summarized in the following way:
• Yudhiṣṭhira was not authorized to put Draupadī on stake in the game of dice because he was not in his senses when he started playing the game.
• The stake was also illegal because Yudhiṣṭhira had become a slave, hence he had lost his rights on any property and was not authorized to stake claim on any property.
• Therefore the game he played after having become a slave is illegal.
c6.s3.34
This way, the argumentative design of *vāda* as envisaged through five-member syllogism (see next chapter) was inherent in this debate.
c6.s3.35
*Śākuntalopākhyāna* in *Mahābhārata* is comprised of a vigorous debate between a lady and her lover who deliberately refuses to recognize her in public. Duṣṣanta,⁷⁴ an emperor of Kuru dynasty, is enchanted by the beauty of Śakuntalā when he visits the hermitage of Kaṇva. Śakuntalā accepts the proposal of a *gāndharva-vivāha* (love marriage) from him on the condition that her son, born from this marriage, will be given the royal throne. After making love with her, the king leaves the forest grove assuring her that a royal entourage will soon be sent to bring her to the capital. The promise was never fulfilled and when, Bharata, the son, born out of this marriage grew up to be young enough, Śakuntalā came to Hastināpura, Duṣṣanta’s capital, and met the king with a demand for being accepted as the queen in the royal harem and enthronement of her son. Duṣṣanta’s ill-conceited and roguish denial to recognize her resulted in a fierce debate between the two, which involved moral and ethical issues apart from the personal grievance of the lady. Śakuntalā said:
c6.s3.36
An imposter is a thief and a sinner. You think that you were alone when you committed a sin, but that is not true. My father, the Sage Kaṇva knows of your evil design because of the power of his penance. A person having committed a sin thinks that no one has seen him, but gods see him doing the evil, and his *antarapuruṣa* (the soul) sees him doing the evil.
c6.s3.37
Śakuntalā then threatens the traitor that his head will split into hundred pieces if he betrays her in this way:
c6.s3.38
A husband having made an intercourse with a lady duly wedded is reborn as his son. By refusing to accept your son therefore, you are denying your own self.
c6.s3.39
Like the debate started by Draupadī after the game of dice between Yudhiṣṭhira and Duryodhana, the war of words between Śakuntala and Duṣṣanta here is conceived as a debate on morality and human weaknesses. Śakuntalā delivers a discourse on sin, human destiny and relations between the father and the son. The arrogant king behaves in a most outlandish manner and abuses her in filthy language. He laughs at her, calling her an unchaste woman, doting upon her illicit relations. Śakuntalā’s remarks on the character of men here bring out a minute study of inner contradictions of a man’s character. She is all set to depart with the promise that one day her son, trained to be a mighty warrior, will take her revenge and Duṣṣanta will have to pay for his sins. At this juncture, a divine intervention, as an *ākāśavāṇī* (voice from heaven), forces the king to change his stance and accept her.
c6.s3.40
The Vanaparva of *Mahābhārata* presents the scene of intriguing debates between Vandin, a courtier of the king on one hand and Kahoḍa on the other. Venue of this debate was a prolonged sacrifice performed by King Janaka of Videha.
c6.s3.41
Aṣṭāvakra was the son of Kahoḍa, the brother-in-law of Śvetaketu. Even when he was in the womb of his mother, Aṣṭāvakra is said to have raised an objection upon his father’s studying in the night, and was cursed to be born with eightfold deformity in his limbs.
c6.s3.42
Vandin was known as a notorious debater. Defeated by him in a debate, Kahoḍa had to be drowned in waters. When Aṣṭāvakra came to know of this unsavoury episode, he decided to visit the premises of the sacrifice. Upon being told that only elders are allowed to enter the pavilion of the sacrifice, Aṣṭāvakra gave a scholarly discourse defining who is a real elder.
c6.s3.43
The king himself entered into a debate with Aṣṭāvakra. Being satisfied he allowed the boy to debate with his protege — Vandin. Aṣṭāvakra debated with Vandin on numbers and cosmology. Vandin was silenced when they reached number thirteen. Aṣṭāvakra had his revenge and also regained his lost father. These debates of Aṣṭāvakra with the king and Vandin are described in the Vanaparva of *Mahābhārata* (chaps. 133-34).
c6.s3.44
One of the most crucial debates in *Mahābhārata* occurs when Viśvāmitra, facing death out of starvation, stole dog’s meat from the house of an untouchable (*cāṇḍāla*), just to keep himself alive in the days of famine. Caught red-handed in this act, he is questioned about the propriety of his action, which is so unbecoming of him, by the *cāṇḍāla*, who appears to be more concerned about the loss of *dharma* which this theft would cause for the noble sage. The whole episode presents a feast of arguments and counter-arguments in the prolonged debate between the sage and the untouchable. It examines a man’s action in utter crisis with an analysis of his choice between his own death and a harmless sin. *Cāṇḍāla* starts preaching the sage on the importance of saving the *dharma*. “This act of yours would not be called a sin had it been to save some other person” — he says. Viśvāmitra retorts by saying that his own body is his friend, and allowing this friend to die out of hunger would cause a bigger loss of *dharma* to him than the sinful act of stealth.⁷⁵
Linked texts (2)
- Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
- Kāṇva — Sanskrit