Explaining Debate Science of Bharat

Do you remember the Debate competitions or MUNs we had in school?

What if I told you our Bharat invented the science of formal debating?

Here’s the tea.

A lot of people think that being religious means being close-minded but our Sanatan Dharma has always encouraged having healthy open debates that can lead us to the truth.

The basis for how to do it is found in Sage Gautam’s epic work Nyaya Sutra, which details the science of how to logically get & verify knowledge.

Our ancestors engaged in Vada - which is the proper way of debating in which two opponents agree on some siddhantas i.e. fundamental truths, like the Sun rises in the East, and Pramanas i.e. ways to verify that knowledge, such as through direct observation, comparison or reliable testimony.

Then they use many methods like tarka i.e. reasoning to get to the Truth, Satya, which is the common ultimate goal.

But when people get personal & want to defeat each other for the sake of it, not to pursue Satya, it turns into a Jalpa, which is like a disputation or quarrel.

Even worse, if one person starts aggressively critiquing the other without making any point of their own or providing a counter to what’s been said, it turns into the worst form of debate called Vitanda.

If someone is making a big fuss out of a petty small point, its chala or quibbling.

To make a good argument…

+ Each opponent may first raise a प्रतिज्ञा (Pratijñā | प्रतिज्ञा | pra-ti-jñā) - a claim - such as: the hill from which smoke is seen is on fire (पर्वतो वह्निमान्).

+ This must be followed by a हेतु (Hetu | हेतु | he-tu) - a valid reason - -such as the presence of smoke (धूमवत्त्वात्).

+ This Hetu must be grounded in a व्याप्ति (Vyāpti | व्याप्ति | vyāp-ti), an invariable and universal relation, for example: यत्र यत्र धूमः तत्र तत्र वह्निः - wherever there is smoke, there is fire.

+ This universal relation is then supported by an उदाहरण (Udāharaṇa | उदाहरण | u-dā-ha-ra-ṇa) - a commonly accepted instance - such as a kitchen, where fire used for cooking is invariably accompanied by smoke (यथा महानसे).

+ Next comes उपनय (Upanaya | उपनय | u-pa-na-ya), the application of this universal rule to the present case, stating that the hill too possesses smoke.

+ Finally, the inference concludes with निगमन (Nigamana | निगमन | ni-ga-ma-na) - the logical conclusion - that therefore, the hill is on fire.

To decide who’s the winner, we had 22 points of defeat or Nigraha Sthana, which include self-admission, self-contradiction of defeat or running away from the main point.

With such an intricate system in place, we hosted the most legendary debates the world has seen - right from Yājñavalkya vs. Gārgī to Ādi Śaṅkara vs. Maṇḍana Miśra, moderated by Misra’s wife Ubhaya Bhāratī. That debate on the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta vs. ritual-based Mimansa & karma-kanda, lasted for days & attracted a huge audience from all over India.

So the next time someone tells you that our culture doesn’t encourage discussion, show them this & start the debate!