JaneSmith105
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2019
- Messages
- 362
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
A Very Short Introduction to the Three Types of Kathaa
The second chapter of the first book of the Nyaaya Sutras discusses the various kinds of kathaa or dialogue as well as the different types of argumentation that can arise during them. I present a partial summary of the contents of that chapter below.
Vaada (discussion) is that kind of dialogue in which a thesis (paksha) and an anti-thesis (prati-paksha) regarding the same subject are advanced by opposing sides. Each side seeks to support their position and defeat that of their opponent by means of taking recourse to proofs (pramaana) and syllogistic reasoning (avayavaa). The overall purpose of Vaada for both parties is to discover the truth – whether they ‘win’ or ‘lose’ the argument is of little to no importance. For this reason, Vaada is traditionally associated with the quality of sattva or purity.
By ‘proofs’, something very specific is meant, and this is directly related to how syllogistic reasoning is to be employed. The system of Nyaaya recognizes four primary means of acquiring right knowledge, also referred to as ‘proof’ or ‘pramaanas’. These are:
1. Perception: This is that knowledge which arises from the contact of a power of perception (indriya) with its object (artha). The qualifications of a perception are:
(a) It must be determinate.
(b) It must not be prefigured by linguistic constructs imposed by the mind.
(c) It must not be based on an illusion or deception of any kind.
2. Inference: This is that knowledge gained of a thing through reasoning based on a prior perception. The kinds of inference are:
(a) From cause to effect: We see dark clouds and infer that there will be rain.
(b) From effect to cause: We see a swollen river and infer that there was rain.
(c) From concomitance: We see smoke and infer that there is also fire.
3. Comparison: This is that knowledge gained of a thing through its similarity or dissimilarity to a thing previously known.
4. Verbal Testimony: This is that knowledge gained through the declaration of a reliable person. It can refer to two types of thing:
(a) To that which is seen, i.e. that which can be directly verified through personal observation.
(b) To that which is unseen, i.e. that which cannot be directly verified through personal observation.
Nyaaya also accepts the existence of other means of acquiring right knowledge, but sees them as being included under the four above-mentioned categories. These four, however, have been chosen for their role in how the syllogism is formed.
The logically correct syllogism consists of five members (avayavaa). They are:
1. Proposition: This is the statement of that which is to be proven. In traditional discussions, the proposition is typically one derived from a scriptural statement of which the meaning is not clear and which is to be clarified through dialogue with the learned. For this reason, it is aligned with Verbal Testimony.
2. Reason: This is the grounds upon which the Proposition is based, usually formulated as a general rule. The Reason is directly connected with Inference.
3. Example: This is a familiar instance which demonstrates the reliability of the Reason and which (usually) anyone can verify for themselves. The Example, therefore, is based upon Perception.
4. Application: This is the demonstration of the way in which the Reason pertains to the case in the Proposition. The Application is the result of Comparison.
5. Conclusion: This is the restatement of the Proposition in light of the Reason, Example and Application. It is the summary of the entire syllogism, and is therefore connected to all the means of acquiring right knowledge.
Example 1:
Proposition: There is fire on the hill.
Reason: For there is smoke coming from the hill, and wherever there is smoke, there is fire.
Example: That wherever there is smoke, there is fire can be seen in the case of a kitchen.
Application: Now, just as in the case of a kitchen, there is smoke coming from the hill.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is fire on the hill.
Example 2:
Proposition: Sound is non-eternal.
Reason: For sound is produced, and whatever is produced is non-eternal.
Example: That whatever is produced is non-eternal can be seen in the case of a pot.
Application: Now, just as in the case of a pot, sound is something which is produced.
Conclusion: Therefore, sound is non-eternal.
Jalpa (wrangling) is that kind of dialogue in which one or both of the parties involved is primarily interested in victory rather than establishing the truth. For this reason, it is traditionally associated with the quality of rajas or passion. It is similar to Vaada in that both sides are advancing a thesis which is supported by proof and syllogistic reasoning. In Jalpa, however, one or both of the opponents resorts to the use of less-than-honourable tactics to defeat the argument of the opposition. These are:
1. Quibbling: This is intentionally misinterpreting something the other party has said. It has three primary forms:
(a) Verbal Quibble: To take a word or phrase as indicating something that the speaker clearly did not intend but which he technically did not exclude.
(b) Generalising Quibble: To argue against a general rule based on a rare or freak exception.
(c) Figurative Quibble: To take something the speaker said literally when it was intended figuratively or metaphorically and vice versa.
2. Futile Rejoinder: This is to oppose an argument which is clearly formally correct on the grounds that its Reason does not warrant the Conclusion due to some extraneous or exaggerated defect.
Vitandaa (cavil) is that kind of dialogue in which the only interest of one of the parties involved is to attack and defame the other. For this reason, it is traditionally associated with the quality of tamas or ignorance. It is formally similar to Jalpa, except one side, rather than setting up and defending an anti-thesis, simply resorts to attacking the thesis of his opponent by any means available, honourable or dishonourable.
The second chapter of the first book of the Nyaaya Sutras discusses the various kinds of kathaa or dialogue as well as the different types of argumentation that can arise during them. I present a partial summary of the contents of that chapter below.
Vaada (discussion) is that kind of dialogue in which a thesis (paksha) and an anti-thesis (prati-paksha) regarding the same subject are advanced by opposing sides. Each side seeks to support their position and defeat that of their opponent by means of taking recourse to proofs (pramaana) and syllogistic reasoning (avayavaa). The overall purpose of Vaada for both parties is to discover the truth – whether they ‘win’ or ‘lose’ the argument is of little to no importance. For this reason, Vaada is traditionally associated with the quality of sattva or purity.
By ‘proofs’, something very specific is meant, and this is directly related to how syllogistic reasoning is to be employed. The system of Nyaaya recognizes four primary means of acquiring right knowledge, also referred to as ‘proof’ or ‘pramaanas’. These are:
1. Perception: This is that knowledge which arises from the contact of a power of perception (indriya) with its object (artha). The qualifications of a perception are:
(a) It must be determinate.
(b) It must not be prefigured by linguistic constructs imposed by the mind.
(c) It must not be based on an illusion or deception of any kind.
2. Inference: This is that knowledge gained of a thing through reasoning based on a prior perception. The kinds of inference are:
(a) From cause to effect: We see dark clouds and infer that there will be rain.
(b) From effect to cause: We see a swollen river and infer that there was rain.
(c) From concomitance: We see smoke and infer that there is also fire.
3. Comparison: This is that knowledge gained of a thing through its similarity or dissimilarity to a thing previously known.
4. Verbal Testimony: This is that knowledge gained through the declaration of a reliable person. It can refer to two types of thing:
(a) To that which is seen, i.e. that which can be directly verified through personal observation.
(b) To that which is unseen, i.e. that which cannot be directly verified through personal observation.
Nyaaya also accepts the existence of other means of acquiring right knowledge, but sees them as being included under the four above-mentioned categories. These four, however, have been chosen for their role in how the syllogism is formed.
The logically correct syllogism consists of five members (avayavaa). They are:
1. Proposition: This is the statement of that which is to be proven. In traditional discussions, the proposition is typically one derived from a scriptural statement of which the meaning is not clear and which is to be clarified through dialogue with the learned. For this reason, it is aligned with Verbal Testimony.
2. Reason: This is the grounds upon which the Proposition is based, usually formulated as a general rule. The Reason is directly connected with Inference.
3. Example: This is a familiar instance which demonstrates the reliability of the Reason and which (usually) anyone can verify for themselves. The Example, therefore, is based upon Perception.
4. Application: This is the demonstration of the way in which the Reason pertains to the case in the Proposition. The Application is the result of Comparison.
5. Conclusion: This is the restatement of the Proposition in light of the Reason, Example and Application. It is the summary of the entire syllogism, and is therefore connected to all the means of acquiring right knowledge.
Example 1:
Proposition: There is fire on the hill.
Reason: For there is smoke coming from the hill, and wherever there is smoke, there is fire.
Example: That wherever there is smoke, there is fire can be seen in the case of a kitchen.
Application: Now, just as in the case of a kitchen, there is smoke coming from the hill.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is fire on the hill.
Example 2:
Proposition: Sound is non-eternal.
Reason: For sound is produced, and whatever is produced is non-eternal.
Example: That whatever is produced is non-eternal can be seen in the case of a pot.
Application: Now, just as in the case of a pot, sound is something which is produced.
Conclusion: Therefore, sound is non-eternal.
Jalpa (wrangling) is that kind of dialogue in which one or both of the parties involved is primarily interested in victory rather than establishing the truth. For this reason, it is traditionally associated with the quality of rajas or passion. It is similar to Vaada in that both sides are advancing a thesis which is supported by proof and syllogistic reasoning. In Jalpa, however, one or both of the opponents resorts to the use of less-than-honourable tactics to defeat the argument of the opposition. These are:
1. Quibbling: This is intentionally misinterpreting something the other party has said. It has three primary forms:
(a) Verbal Quibble: To take a word or phrase as indicating something that the speaker clearly did not intend but which he technically did not exclude.
(b) Generalising Quibble: To argue against a general rule based on a rare or freak exception.
(c) Figurative Quibble: To take something the speaker said literally when it was intended figuratively or metaphorically and vice versa.
2. Futile Rejoinder: This is to oppose an argument which is clearly formally correct on the grounds that its Reason does not warrant the Conclusion due to some extraneous or exaggerated defect.
Vitandaa (cavil) is that kind of dialogue in which the only interest of one of the parties involved is to attack and defame the other. For this reason, it is traditionally associated with the quality of tamas or ignorance. It is formally similar to Jalpa, except one side, rather than setting up and defending an anti-thesis, simply resorts to attacking the thesis of his opponent by any means available, honourable or dishonourable.
