debates, grammar, & Vedic

[Madhav Deshpande]

The skill in debate was indeed an essential skill for most traditions in 
India, not limited to grammarians by any means.  The focus on debate was 
more a focus on the logic built into any situation, rather than on 
language per se.  Currently I am reading the Carakasamhitaa with a 
student, and the debates in Carakasamhita are as exhilerating as the 
debates in Patanjali's Mahabhaazya.  It was through debates that one 
would sharpen both one's conclusions, as well as one's intellectual 
skills.  This is perhaps why the tradition claims:  kaaNaadam paaNiniiyam 
ca sarvaSaastropakaarakam 'the traditions of PaaNini and KaNaada are useful 
for all traditions.'  By the KaNaada tradition, this line mainly intends 
the skill in logic.  
	Madhav Deshpande

On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, George Thompson wrote:

> Preoccupied as I am with things Vedic, I found the recent discussion of debates
> rather interesting, and I am reluctant to see it close without further
> comment [I also confess that I've lost interest in the current thread on
> the New Year and would like to change the subject].  It seems to me that
> throughout its history Vedic and Brahmanic India has shown a certain
> predilection for debate, for the assertion of personal authority through
> verbal dexterity, i.e., through performance in verbal contests of various
> sorts.  The various postings have shown that this predilection has
> persevered through the Vedic period into the classical and medievel
> periods, even up to the present time. I think that it can be said, *without
> debate*, that the Brahmins of classical India were known to their
> contemporaries in, e.g., Greece, Rome, and China, as skillful rhetoricians.
> 
> 
> It seems to me that this skill in debate and in rhetoric is clearly related
> to another prominent feature of classical India: the long distinguished
> history of the native grammarians, a tradition of profound linguistic study
> that I think goes all the way back to the RV.  Would any of Indology's
> specialists on the grammarians, or anyone else, care to comment on this
> claim?
> 
> Sincerely,
> George Thompson
> 
> 
> 
> 
>