Debate

As our next Presidential election looms closer, we are all listening to the media, the sheer barbarism of the public arena vocalization filled me with great anguish as to how far we have fallen. On the current political debate stages, behavior like blatant lying, interrupting the opponents, childish insults have become a norm for the people vying to hold offices of public trust. In stark contrast is the ancient Hindu technique of debate called Purva (prior) paksha (side)and Uttar (later) paksha (side). The aim of any honest debate is to conclude what is the truth. Each debater brings his or her relative truth to the table. Based on their past experiences either intellectual or physical, each debater tries to prove that their relative truth is as close as possible to an absolute truth. For this to occur each debater must debate based on his perspective, and not based on personal ego or an undisclosed agenda. Further, each should be willing to embrace the resultant conclusion of the debate. Prior to the debate the opponents make a wager on the result. The usual wager in ancient India was that the defeated debater and his followers becomes the disciples of the winner. Purva paksha phase of the debate starts when each of the opposing debaters, states in greatest possible detail the perspective of his opponent. For this to occur each debater must have the deepest understanding of the stated position of his opponent. The rival then agrees that the opponent has indeed expressed his position correctly. Then the process is repeated by the other debater. This exercises also forces each debater to realize any weakness in his own perspective. Once the rivals agree that they have demonstrated the clear understanding of each other’s position, then comes the next phase of Uttara paksha. The first part of Uttara paksha is Khandana, where each debater presents the rebuttal of the antagonist’s position. Then comes Siddhanta, which is the perspective of the debater. Finally, as one of the debaters fails to provide rebuttals, the judge declares the winner, and the defeated party accepts the perspective of the winner. A classic example of this kind of debate occurred in 7th or 8th century (around middle of 600 CE) between the great philosopher Shankaracharya who was a proponent of Advaita (Monoism- which states unity of God, soul and world — ‘everything is God’) and Mandana Mishra who was proponent of Mimansa (a more ritualistic school of philosophy). Since Shankaracharya was a young monk in his mid-twenties, Mandana who was much older and a well-established scholar gave him the opportunity to choose the judge. Shankaracharya chose Mandana’s wife Ubhaya Bharati who was a great scholar in her own accord. The wager was that the losing scholar would become a renunciate (monk) and accept the winner’s school of philosophy. After intense and long debate Mandana was defeated. Just as he was going to take the vow of renunciation, his wife who did not want to lose her husband, challenged Shankara, saying that a wife is one half of the husband. Therefore, Shankara must debate her too, prior to proclaiming his victory. Ubhaya being a clever woman in addition to being a scholar, debated Shankara with questions involving marital issues. Shankara being a celibate has no marital knowledge. Being a fair contestant, she gave him a weeks’ time to get the knowledge. Incidentally, a King of a neighboring kingdom died at that time. Shankara using his yogic powers transmigrates his soul into the dead Kings body and the body becomes alive. By living as the King with his many wives and discussing in depth the intricacies of marriage with one of the wise queens, Shankara gains the requisite knowledge and by the end of the week departs the Kings body and returns to his own. Next day he soundly defeats Ubhaya based on his new found knowledge augmenting his profound knowledge and wisdom. Both the husband and wife then become Shankaras disciples and after his death at the age of 32 years, carry on his school of philosophy.

Imaging our Presidential candidates debating using Purva paksha and Uttara paksha technique. Even if the defeated does not accept the perspective of the opponent, the fact that he/she learns about the opponents position and the basis for holding that position, will make politics very civilized and through it the government will truly be OF the civilized people, FOR all the people and BY the reasonable people.