The Hindu ideas about DISCUSSION

Hindu sages had thought about various ideas and possibilities. In one of the six Hindu Darshana's, the nature of Discussion and various types of discussions have been thoroughly discussed. One friend showed me this nice piece that captures the ideas.

"It is said that discussions are of four types: Samvaada, Vaada, Jalpa and Vitanda. Samvaada is the discussion between the teacher and the taught. All our scriptures are written in the form of samvaada. Before the teaching starts, the teacher and the taught invoke the grace of the Lord, .Om Sahanavavatu... Ma vidvishavahai, OM Santi....etc. to make sure there is no hatred between the two so that teaching can take place. The student is allowed to question, and the questioning is not intended to test the teacher but to clarify student's understanding (or misunderstanding).

They are no commandments that "that thou shall do this or that" but only declarations of what is required to reach the highest goal. The Bhagawad Geeta, as it says, is a KrishaArjun Samvaada, a dialogue between Lord Krishna and Arjuna on Brahmavidya.

Vaada is the discussion between any two (generally among equals) to establish the truth. As the English phrase "Let us sit down and discuss", implies the purpose is to resolve the conflict and to establish what is the truth. Both parties are open minded, even though they are convinced that they are right, they are ready to listen and to accept the opponents' version if they are convinced that other's interpretation is more correct based on whatever the pramana that they use as the authority. The famous dialogue that supposed to have lasted for many days between Sankaracharya and Mandana Mishra is a typical example. The level of honesty of the discussion was exemplified by the fact that Mandana Mishra's wife Umabharati who was believed to be the embodiment of goddess of Knowledge, Saraswati, was chosen as the Judge for the Vada. In the end she declares that her husband lost the contest. After 18 or so days of discussions, Mandana Misra was convinced to the validity of Sankaracharya's interpretation of the scriptures that he became his disciple. He was the well know Sureswaracharya who became the head of one of the four Mutts. Learning takes place at the end of even vaada since the truth is established to the satisfaction of both parties.

Jalpa is the discussion between the two who are also convinced that each one is right and the opponent is wrong. Unlike in vaada, the purpose is not to discover or establish the truth, but only to convert the other guy. The outcome of this whole jalpa is lot of noise. Even if it appears that one has lost an argument, he will not accept it, instead he goes back to get some more materials or concocts some other arguments only to establish he is right and other is wrong.
But even in Jalpa, the discussions are still objective, each is strongly convinced (some times bordering to beliefs) that he is right and the other is wrong.

Jalpa arises in vedanta because of (1) the apparent contradictions (please note the word apparent) in the scriptures and (2) flexibility of Sanskrit to split the words in a way that suites the basis of theargumentation (because the same word in sanskrit can be construed usingseveral Dhatus or roots) (3) multiple meanings for several important words and the interpreter's preference to choose a particular meaning over the other and (4) contextual meaning that changes with phrase, sentence and the topic. Typical example is the word Dharma - Any good sanskrit dictionary will give at least 3 to 4 pages of meaning for this two syllable word. Confusion for example could arise since the word Atma has been interpreted to denote Jeeva and sometimes the Brahman.

Just to say that Sri Prabhupada's or any one else's is "As it is" and the rest are all interpretations or misinterpretations only borders to fanaticism and does not establish a fact. Everyone can make the same statement about their interpretation. That obviously cannot be a basis for argument.I will come back to this topic of what then is the pramana or basis for discussion.
Jalpa may not be of use to the two who are arguing, in terms of their learning. But the bystanders who are carefully following the two arguments can get lot of benefit. It helps to establish their own convictions provided the arguments are scholarly.

The fourth and the last (recognized) type of discussion is Vitanda. The sole purpose is only to defeat the opponent. In contrast to Jalpa, neither one may have any conviction other than to prove that Mr. iamfordemocracy is wrong, why because he is Mr. iamfordemocracy and not Mr. R. The same statement from Mr. R would be right. This type of arguments have been used as valid means to establish that the opponent is not qualified to discuss the subtleties of the logic. There is no leaning experience out of this kind of arguments even to the bystanders other than the learning that either or both of them are not worth listening to!

Name calling (those that disagree with their notions are idiots and rascals and the profanity ) unfortunately does not fall in any one of these four established discussion types, because our ancestors never imagined that our culture will degrade to that".

Please let me know your opinion in the accompanying poll.

Like all bullies, XXX is basically a coward

Where there are no ideas, beer bar culture prevails. How will ideas help? Read this latest post. There is a school close to Vatican wherein students dont like the pope.

You could react in two ways to that news. You could celebrate and say a few more bad words about the Pope or you could wonder why students acted that way. What would happen if these students come to know about the atrocities evangelicals are commiting in India? Would you not have more partners in your effort of delivering justice to poor Hindus in India?

But then, you (the JL Nehru of the blogworld) have to keep your ego aside. We like these lines from the post.

Like all bullies, XXX is basically a coward. He canceled the visit to the University apprehending a threat from University professors and students, hardly violent insurgents!

Make a little change to them.

Like all bullies, Ra... is basically a coward. He deletes posts apprehending a threat from others with better ideas, hardly violent insurgents!

Tendulkar and the (Indian) Nationalist perspective.

You can judge whether a person is a nationalist by following his actions, not words. There are people shouting from the rooftop that they are nationalists and have a nationalist perspective. On closer examination, you often find that they have done little for the nation.

There are others who let their deeds do the talking. All of us have watched the farce that the second Australia-India test match was. We have seen the beligerent Austalian players throw all decorum to the wind. We also saw a classy innings from Tendulkar. But all that was about cricket.

When ICC chose to reprimand Harbhajan for the alleged racial slur, the Nationalist in Sachin came to the fore. Sachin has SMS'd BCCI. The team has stayed put in Sydney. The matter has come to a boil and I am certain some Australian players as well as some Umpires are going to have to pay for their 'Papa'. This was the proverbial 100th crime of the Shishupal.

I am waiting to see the reaction of one Hindu natioanlist. Perhaps, he might realise the big mistake he did in singling out Tendulkar for cricket criticism. One of the commentators has even referred a Lalu Quote to belittle Tendulkar. (He too claims he is a hindu nationalist. I guess he believes Godhra fire was lit from inside the train). In another post, The Jawaharlal Nehru of the blogworld had called Tendulkar names. I once again deplore the tendency of the TOOTBWAHNP to throw mud at our icons.

I hope some of his readers demand a more careful and responsible posting from you know who.

As for cricket, make no mistake about what to expect. The full force of the Indian might will be felt by those who played pranks. India will demand justice and it they will get it. Don't forget the presence of the ICL, the other cricket body. They will fan nationalistic feelings. BCCI cannot afford a negative reaction in this issue. Democracy and market forces will ensure the deliverance of justice in this issue.