The Notion of "Trolling" in Ancient Sanskrit

[This is a guest post by Varun Khanna]

In the Nyāya Sūtra by Akṣapāda Gautama (composed sometime between the sixth century BCE and the second century CE), a three-fold conception of dialogue is discussed. It appears that at the time this was written, dialectic culture was strong in the Sanskritic world. Hence the rules of dialogue and debate started being codified by several authors, such as Gautama in his Nyāya Sūtra and Caraka (third century BCE) in his seminal Ayurveda work Caraka Saṁhitā. In Gautama's work, he defines three types of dialogue.

The first is known as vāda, which he defines as “that [discussion] which is based on proper epistemology, reasoning, and path, which is based on the five-fold technique of argumentation, which reaches a final conclusion that is consistent with the doctrine, and which is inclusive of the viewpoints of both discussants is known as “vāda” (Nyāya Sūtra 1.2.1).. This type of dialogue could be called “discussion”, where the goal of the two discussants is to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion that includes the viewpoints of both parties. The objective is not to win, nor is it to defeat the other person, but rather is to reach a logically acceptable conclusion together with the other person. Both discussants must come into the discussion with an open mind, and must be willing to learn from the other. There are no “opponents” here, only friends.

The second type of dialogue is known as jalpa (Nyāya Sūtra 1.2.2), which can be translated in this context as “debate”. In the jalpa variety of dialogue, the objective is to prove one’s own viewpoint to be correct. It is accepted that the two sides of the debate have irreconcilably different conclusions. The debate begins with a mutually agreed upon epistemology, and ends when one of the debaters agrees that the other’s conclusion is, in fact, more correct than one’s own. This is not easy to do, however! After an argument is defeated by one’s opponent, the debater returns with some other wily argument that defends the conclusion in some other way. Only after cornering the opponent and allowing for no more possible avenues out can the debate finally end. The value of jalpa is that the debaters must acknowledge that there is no point holding on to an opinion if it can be logically defeated by another (however long it may have taken). So in the jalpa style of debate, a person goes from debate to debate, updating one’s opinion, until it cannot be defeated anymore. This final opinion becomes known as the siddhānta, the “established doctrine”.

The third type of dialogue, if it can be called dialogue at all, is known as vitaṇḍa (Nyāya Sūtra 1.2.3). We may call this “trolling”, because its objective is not to win by proving one’s own idea correct, but to make the other person lose by opposing every argument of the opponent no matter what. Vitaṇḍa is considered a destructive style of argumentation. Here, the person who employs vitaṇḍa has no position of one’s own, and does not attempt to defend any thesis. A person may even adopt a viewpoint that is opposed to one's own for the sake of vitaṇḍa. There is nothing to be gained by either party in this encounter. It is the troll’s point of view – “I will humiliate you and argue that you are wrong, not because I fundamentally disagree with your position, but because it was you who said it!”

Reading

Logic, Language and Reality: Indian Philosophy and Contemporary Issues by Bimal Krishna Matilal.

"The toll of the trolls" (5/25/19)

"Eristic argument" (4/6/19)