The argumentative Indian is not a myth

Sans the Sacred

Given the widespread debates on everything from abortion to sedition to religious intolerance that are doing the rounds on social media, I thought we could all use some ideas from Sanskrit philosophers on how to make and recognise sound arguments.

Philosophers in ancient and medieval India clearly loved to argue and debate. We see a plethora of interesting, convoluted, and very technical, debates, not only about whether it is necessary to accept the existence of God and whether the world is ultimately real, but also about things we wouldn’t imagine anyone could feel so vehemently about – for instance, what do I mean when I say ‘cow’? Or how do I really know that there’s no pot on the floor? Do I see the pot’s absence, or do I infer it? In fact, philosophers of the Nyaya school enjoyed reasoning so much that there is a standing joke about them amongst other philosophers: “Even if a Nyaya philosopher sees an elephant standing right in front of him, he’ll still construct an inference that it must be an elephant because it trumpets!”

Most philosophers agreed on some conventions -- the subject of the debate, and the two contrary positions on the subject must be stated clearly and represented fairly at the start of the debate, an impartial and qualified arbiter should be present to decide whose arguments are sound, and so on. You might recall that in the legendary debate about Adi Shankara and Mandana Mishra, Mandana’s wife Ubhaya Bharati assumes the role of the arbiter. Sometimes, the stakes in these debates were very high! We hear of philosophers who admitted defeat and became disciples of the opponent who defeated them.

The Nyaya Sutra lays down various categories of debate, depending on the purpose of it. For instance, a Vaada was the best kind of philosophical debate, where both participants are sincerely trying to reach the truth of the matter rather than arguing to win; Jalpa refers to a debate in which the participants are simply playing to win by any means whatsoever, rather than understand the truth; Vitandaa is one in which each participant is trying to refute the other’s argument without offering an alternative view of the matter that can stand up to criticism.

The Nyaya Sutra also gives us a list of unacceptable moves in a debate that would result in a loss, apart from fallacies in reasoning. Some of these include being incoherent, denying one’s own initial position (“I never said that”), stopping the debate with the excuse that you have to go away on some work, not replying despite the argument being repeated thrice by your opponent within the hearing of the audience, or making an argument that is unintelligible to both the opponent and your audience.

When someone makes an allegation, such as calling you a thief, if you respond by saying they are a thief, too, it counts as admitting their allegation, not challenging it, and is a good way to lose the debate!

The famous Buddhist philosopher Dharmakirti, in his text Vadanyaya, which explains the rules of debate, strongly criticises any debate in which people are simply arguing to win. In fact, he states that it is impossible to have a legitimate debate if the participants are arguing just to win. And to those who say, “Well, we must use any technique we can to protect the truth, even if it counts as cheating,” Dharmakirti has a simple but fabulous answer: “What is to stop someone else from scratching, slapping, beating up, or setting their opponents on fire under the pretext of protecting the truth? There’s only one way that rational people protect the truth -- by presenting good arguments and refuting counter-arguments.” This was likely written fourteen centuries ago, but it should make us all squirm in our seats, at least a bit. Doesn’t it seem like Dharmakirti was thinking of us, especially our TV debates, when he said it?