Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c7.s4.9

c7.s4.9

Dharmakīrti has divided *nigrahasthānas* into two categories — *asādhanāṅga-vacana* (non-statement of a constituent proof) and *adoṣodbhāvana* (failure to point out the fault of the opponent). The former belongs to *vādī* (disputant) and the latter to *prativādī* (opponent or defendant). In the former, the digression by the opponent leads to disruption in the debate. Dharmakīrti advises the juries that if the opponent starts employing this malpractice, the debate should be adjourned. *Asādhanāṅga-vacana* would become an occasion of defeat of the disputant only when the opponent points it out, otherwise none of them can be held victorious or defeated just on the basis of the use of *asādhanāṅga-vacana* by the disputant. Dharmakīrti prescribes a gap between the occurrence of *nigrahasthāna* and actual declaration of defeat and in this way has avoided a paradoxical situation which occurs in the framework of Gautamīya Nyāya, viz. if the disputant commits the fault of using a *hetvābhāsa* and the opponent at the same time is guilty of *paryanuyojyopekṣaṇa* — by the way of not pointing out this fault of the disputant, then both of them are to be declared defeated! But this kind of peculiar situation has an occurrence in Dharmakīrti’s concept of *adoṣodbhāvana* as well. The inability to point out the defect in presenting *sādhana* (proof) of the disputant is naturally an occasion of defeat of the opponent. This is the first *nigrahasthāna* for the opponent called *adoṣodbhāvana*. But what happens if the disputant points out or fails to point out his opponent’s inability to point out his (disputant’s) defect? Dharmakīrti says that in either case neither the disputant nor the opponent loses a point, and the debate should be taken up again.