Style Of Writing For Debate In Indian Philosophy - Book Summary

Here is a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Style of Writing for Debate in Indian Philosophy" by Bhishan Swarup Rastogi:

The article explores the evolution and styles of debate within Indian philosophy, focusing on the contributions and perspectives of Jainism. It begins by acknowledging that metaphysical truths are difficult to investigate, and Indian scholars developed various methods for inquiry, with debates being a significant one, extensively detailed in the Nyaya Sutras.

Three Main Types of Debate in Nyaya Philosophy:

Vāda (Discussion): The primary goal of Vāda is to ascertain metaphysical truths. It generally involves a preceptor and disciples, or a conference with doubters. In Vāda, one's own thesis is supported by evidence and logic, while the opponent's thesis is refuted through sound reasoning. It adheres to the five-membered syllogism and is consistent with the established doctrines of the participants. The dialogue between Naciketas and Yama in the Kathopanishad is cited as an example.
Jalpa (Wrangling): Jalpa occurs between representatives of rival schools to discuss controversies with the aim of achieving effect and victory. Contestants in Jalpa rely on fallacious means like Chala (quibble), Jati (futile objection), and Nigraha-sthāna (point of defeat), in addition to evidence and logic. The debates between Yajnavalkya and other scholars in Janakaraja's court, as described in the Brihadaranyakopanishad, are given as an example.
Vitanda (Cavil): Vitanda is when the primary objective of a Jalpa debate shifts to discrediting and repudiating the opponent's dogma and tenets without making a significant effort to establish one's own position. Sri Madhva's refutation of Advaitic Upadhi, Mayavada, and Mithyavada is presented as an example.

In both Jalpa and Vitanda, the article notes the necessity of learned, impartial, and unbiased interrogators who have the right to cross-examine and deliver a judgment to ensure effectiveness and victory.

Caraka's Perspective on Debate:

The Caraka Samhita, an Ayurvedic work, also discusses debates, using the term Sambhāṣā. It categorizes Sambhāṣā into two types:

Sandhāya-sambhāṣā (Friendly Discussion): Also known as Anuloma-sambhāṣā.
Vigrhya-sambhāṣā (Aggressive Debate): Caraka advises against engaging in Vigrhya-sambhāṣā with one's preceptor or superiors, recommending Sandhāya-sambhāṣā for knowledge enhancement.

Jaina and Buddhist Contributions to Debate:

Buddhists: Criticized the Nyaya theory of using Chala, Jati, and Nigraha-sthāna in debates. However, they introduced their own Nigraha-sthānas, such as Asādhanänga-vacana and Adosodbhāvana.
Jainas: Disagreed with the concepts of debate presented by both Nyaya and Buddhist philosophies. They emphasized honest proof of one's dogma and tenets as the correct form of debate, rejecting the use of Chala, Jati, and Nigraha-sthānas.

Jainas classified debates into two types:

Vitarāga-kathā (Debate of the Passionless): This form of debate must be free from all false means.
Vijigisu-kathā (Debate of the Victorious): Jainas argue that Vāda cannot be considered Vitarāga-kathā. According to thinkers like Akalankadeva and Prabhācandra, Vāda and Jalpa were used interchangeably. Prabhācandra clarified that while Nyaya definition of Vāda might consider some points of defeat (like Apasiddhanta or Nyūna) as permissible within certain parameters, a true Vitarāga-kathā must be entirely free from fallacies. Vitanda is considered a fallacy of Vāda (Vādābhāsa).

Jaina philosophy also stipulated that a debate must have four components: the chairman (Sabhāpati), two contestants, and interrogators.

The Pinnacle of Aggressive Debate: Written Debate (Patra)

The article highlights the Jaina contribution to the peak of aggressive debate through the introduction of written debate, termed Patra (letter).

Etymological Definition of Patra: A sentence where a disputant, desiring victory, hides the inflected words (Padāni) from the opponent, by concealing their root (prakrti) and suffix (pratyaya). This style is unique to Jainism.

The article then analyzes a complex Patra written in a highly stylized and encrypted Sanskrit, attributed to the Nyaya-Vaisheshikas but discussed by Jainas. This Patra exemplifies a five-membered syllogism:

Pratijña (Proposition): Identifies the "body" (Dehah) as the entity enjoying the soul's pastimes.
Hetu (Middle Term): Argues that since the universe is an assemblage of effects, it has an beginningless cause.
Udaharana (Example): Uses an analogy of a cloth woven from threads to illustrate the relationship between cause and effect.
Upanaya (Application): Applies the analogy to the body, stating it is like an effect.
Nigamana (Deduction): Concludes that the body has an intelligent cause.

The article breaks down the intricate Sanskrit words used in this Patra, explaining their philosophical and grammatical derivations to reveal the underlying argument for an intelligent cause of the universe.

Later, the article discusses Vidyānanda's example of Patra, which emphasizes a simpler, more direct expression. Vidyānanda suggests that Pratijña, Hetu, and Udaharana are sufficient, with the other two being optional.

Prabhācandra provides another example of Patra which uses only Pratijña and Hetu, deeming them sufficient for the Patra, with the remaining components being optional.

Conclusion on Modern Debates:

The article concludes by noting that aggressive debates are rare in modern times. While occasional aggressive debates occur within rival groups of similar philosophical thought in India, the practice of Patra-writing is no longer common. Friendly discussions between teachers and pupils, however, persist, and Patra-writing can be seen in the modern examination system.

In essence, the article traces the development of debate in Indian philosophy, highlighting the nuanced classifications of Vāda, Jalpa, and Vitanda, and emphasizing the Jain unique contribution of written debate (Patra) as a sophisticated method for argumentative discourse.