Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s5.t2: Buddha’s Dialectical Method of Discourse

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s5.t2

Language
English

Buddha’s Dialectical Method of Discourse

c6.s5.t2.1

Buddha developed a unique method of resolving contradictions. It seems that he was often criticized for accepting opposite stand-points. He himself is reported to have remarked that he has propounded the doctrines which are *ekāṁśikas* (one-sided) and also the doctrines which are *anekāṁśikas* (many-sided). Matilal (1981: 6) says that “the word *anekāṁśika* was probably another name for *anekānta* and Buddha’s method of *anekāṁśika* could be taken to be a precursor of the Jaina Anekānta doctrine”.

c6.s5.t2.2

In *Majjhimanikāya* (*sutta* 99) Buddha proclaims that he is not an Ekāntavādin, he is a Vibhajyavādin. Through Vibhajyavāda, Buddha presented his own analytical method. Vibhajyavāda consisted of division, classification, qualified negations or qualified affirmation. The analysis is to be made by way of questioning each part of a theory to be discussed, with the acceptance or rejection of each one on fair grounds. Vasubandhu defines a Vibhajyavādin in the following terms:

c6.s5.t2.3

Those who say that everything exists — past, present and future — are Sarvāstivādins. But there are Vibhajyavādins who say that only certain things exist, viz. — the present *karma* as well as the past *karma* which have fructified — they exist. The future *karma* which have not fructified do not exist.⁸⁸

c6.s5.t2.4

By his analytical method, Buddha classified all the philosophical questions into four categories — *ekāṁśa-vyākaraṇīya* (answerable in affirmative or negative terms), *vibhajyavādena-vyākaraṇīya* (answerable by division and analysis), *pratipraśnena-vyākaraṇīya* (answerable by putting counter-questions) and *sthāpanīya* (to be answered by silence or to be set aside). This was in accordance with his philosophy of avoiding extremes — the *madhyamā pratipad* (the middle path). There can be two aspects emerging out of any theory and they may form two extremes. Avoidance of these two extremes is *madhyamā pratipad*. Buddha followed the middle path by rejecting the two extremes. In the theory of Anekānta also, middle path is accepted albeit with acceptance of the two extremes as well. Matilal (1981: 18) explains Buddha’s way as “exclusive middle” and the Anekānta theory as “inclusive middle”.

c6.s5.t2.5

The way Buddha applied the technique of Vibhajyavāda in his discourse led to the development of Anekāntavāda. He not only presented an alternate world-view, he also encouraged arguments and discussions. Before his enlightenment he had met a number of philosophers and thinkers of his times. His quest for enlightenment has been termed *ariyapariyesana* (The Noble Quest) in Pāli canons. During his restless wandering and search for knowledge, he met Ālāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta.⁸⁹ Sañjaya Kātyāyana, Purāṇakaśyapa, Makkali Gosāla and Ajitakeśakambalin — these were Buddha’s contemporaries. Kakuda Kaccāyana was a humpbacked philosopher, belonging to the Ājīvaka sect in fifth century BCE. These philosophers have been raising questions on prevailing norms. It is perhaps to condemn them that the interpolation in Vālmīki’s *Rāmāyaṇa* comprising Jābāli’s conversation with Rāma was added. Buddha rejected their views. He is reported to have described, Makkali Gosāla, an exponent of Ājīvaka sect, as “a burden on earth” a person responsible for leading people astray.⁹⁰ He also launched a crusade against the hypocrisy of the priestly class. Pratap Chandra (1977) says:

c6.s5.t2.6

There is little doubt that Buddha treated the priestly class with a contempt and rejected their claims of supremacy with disdain. They are always treated as ideal gossipers with no worthwhile contribution to make to general religious debate.

c6.s5.t2.7

Rather than launching a movement for protest, Buddha kept open all the doors for debate and discussion. It was because of the dialogic nature of his discourses, the correspondences between Vedic philosophies and Buddhism were accepted and Buddha was accepted as one of the ten incarnations of Viṣṇu. Buddha also did not launch a rebellion against the prevalent religions. A rebel would not consider an established viewpoint he is refuting at par with his own views. In all fairness, Buddha limited all his debates to a fair criticism without being hostile or destructive, never to cause any violence.

c6.s5.t2.8

Buddha and his followers developed a specific method of indulging in *kathā* (discussion). It has been termed as *paṭipucchā kathā* (*pratipṛcchā kathā* — delivering a discourse by the way of asking questions). In *Nandakavāda Sutta* of *Majjhimanikāya*, Nandaka exemplifies this method of *kathā*. In the same way, *Anumānasutta* and *Upālisutta* in the same scripture present the concept of inference and *vāda* in the sense of a controversy. The debating skills of the monks like Vāseṭṭha and Bhāradvāja are described in the Piṭakas or Buddhist scriptures. Buddha’s debate with Saccaka is also described.⁹¹ The genre of *dhammakathā* (discussion of *dhamma*) was cultivated and practised with the advent of Buddha. The basic tenets of the theory of *kathā* were also evolved with Buddha’s discourse on *dhamma*. *Kathāvatthu* in *Abhidhamma Piṭaka* which composed around 255 BCE mentions *anuyoga* (inquiry), *udāharaṇa* (illustration), *paṭiññā* (proposition), *upanayana* (application of reason), *niggama* (conclusion) and *niggaha* (capture or defeat) as various techniques of *kathā*.⁹²

Linked texts (5)