Argumentation: Being Style

Over the last several posts, I have been developing the Theory of Being inspired by ancient Indian hermeneutics, as a universal theory.

The main idea here is the assertion that the fundamental building block of the universe is an abstract entity called "being" (Atma). A being has a certain capability (Prana), which is based on the energy and information content of the being. A being settles down in a stable state (dharma) relative to its environment (Vidhi) that maximizes its potential to express its capability.

Now that we have revised the essential elements of the Being theory, let me focus on an interesting aspect of argumentation in such hermeneutics.

*~*~*~*~*

One of the most celebrated debates from the first millennium India, was the debate between Adi Shankara and Mandan Misra, that took place in modern day Bihar, sometime in the 9th century CE. There are several commentaries and interpretations about what exactly happened in the debate and what were its key learnings. 

It is difficult to separate fact from myth in the several commentaries and narrations that exist about this debate. Here, I will discuss one such narration, which may or may not have reported the exact sequence of events as they happened in the debate. 

Mandan Misra was a learned scholar in the Mimamsa school of Vedic philosophy that stressed on the "karma kanda" -- or the formal, ritualistic way for spiritual exploration. In this school of thought, spiritual realization is sought through focusing upon our actions (karma) and performing each of them with the greatest possible commitment. 

Adi Shankara, who at that time was a young man in his 20s, was on a tour from the south of India where he hailed from, to the Himalayas, in his quest to identify and revive places of historical significance as mentioned in the epics like Vedas, Ramayana and Mahabharata. 

He was disillusioned by "karma kanda" and the way it was widely practiced. He had seen the enormous emphasis on rituals and facades actually obscuring, rather than facilitating the realization of the underlying wisdom. Thus, he chose to not take the "karma kanda" for his journey and instead chose the path of "jnana" (knowledge). The "jnana kanda" is characterized by skepticism as the primary tool for exploration. The explorer in this mode of exploration keeps rejecting assertions (also called the Neti or "not this" response), until an assertion sustains against the skepticism. (Yes, India practiced the scientific principle of falsification, centuries before Karl Popper). 

Following this process of exploration, Adi Shankara revived the underlying ideas of the Vedic worldview from the perspective of a skeptic, and called it Vedanta (literally, beyond Vedas). 

The debate between Mandan Misra and Adi Shankara about ritualism versus skepticism, was refereed by Mandan Misra's wife Ubhaya Bharati, who herself was a renowned scholar. At the end of the debate Ubhaya Bharati declared Adi Shankara's arguments as more sound than that of the much more learned and experienced husband of hers.

There are several narrations about the actual debate itself, which went on for about six months. But here is a story that piqued my interest. 

In this story, Ubhaya Bharati insisted that both Adi Shankara and Mandan Misra start their debates by wearing a garland of fresh flowers. And by the end of the debate, she duly noted the garland on which the flowers were most wilted. 

She found that the flowers on Adi Shankara's garland were consistently more fresh than that of the garland on Mandan Misra, every day after the debate. And this was one of the factors that contributed to her declaring Adi Shankara as the winner!

*~*~*~*~*~*

For someone who was educated in the "scientific" worldview as understood by the West, and having studied Stoicism, Objectivity, Socratic argumentation, modus ponens, modus tollens, etc. this makes no sense. 

I mean, what does the freshness of flowers (resulting from the emotional state of the wearer) have to do with the content of the argument? The objective merit of an argument is independent of how it is expressed or the emotional state of the argument maker. Right? 

For instance, someone may nervously state that the number of prime numbers is infinite, while another may confidently assert that the number of prime numbers is finite. That does not make the first assertion false and the second assertion true. We can prove that the number of prime numbers is infinite and is independent of how someone feels about it. 

Well yes, that is right, but, and there is always a but.. let's look at the big debate once again. 

Mandan Misra and Adi Shankara were debating about the relative merits of different pathways for the ultimate spiritual realization -- something which cannot be empirically verified. (There was and is no reliable test for "enlightenment"). Moreover, both "karma kanda" and "jnana kanda" are pathways for realization -- they don't guarantee anything. The seeker needs to pursue this pathway (perform "sadhana") for several years, before they can return any more wiser or enlightened. There is no way Ubhaya Bharati could have conducted a controlled experiment to determine the merits of each line of argumentation. 

What she instead noted was that both Mandan Misra and Adi Shankara were not just professing their respective philosophies, but were embodiments of these philosophies! They were not just preaching their philosophy -- they were living it!

Given this, if one of them consistently ended up flustered and emotionally insecure than the other, then the other embodiment displayed a greater level of sustainability or dharma.

Yet, one can still argue that, maybe Mandan Misra took a bigger emotional toll in the debate because he was emotionally insecure by nature, or maybe that he was much older than the young and energetic Adi Shankara, and hence got tired faster. 

Both are valid arguments and indeed if the adjudication were based solely on whether the flowers wilted or not, without any consideration of the actual contents of the argumentation, it would not be a sound judgment. 

However, given that Mandan Misra was a renowned scholar who knew how to argue objectively and dispassionately, the fact that he consistently felt emotionally insecure at the end of each day's debate, was evidence for Ubhaya Bharati to conclude that the objective merit of Adi Shankara's arguments were indeed strong -- strong enough to make a learned scholar who knew how to argue, feel emotionally insecure.

*~*~*~*~*~*

What I find really fascinating in the above, is the brilliant elucidation of what holistic thinking really means. 

We are taught so much to articulate and "divide and conquer" a complex issue, that we completely forget that the whole is much more than the sum of its parts. When we consider the entire system of being as a whole, its characteristics are vastly different from a simple aggregation of the characteristics of its parts. 

We have lost this ability to think holistically (read also this theory of synergistic thinking that I'd started to develop some 10 years ago, before I really understood dharmic thought). We instead, focus on just one dimension or aspect of an issue and blow it totally out of proportion. 

In most social matters, this one dimension usually pertains to what is a legal entitlement and what is not. For instance, the entire public debate on the issue of the movie on Rani Padmavati, has focused on whether the makers of this movie have a legal right to make an artistic rendering of a historical figure that greatly distorts and offends the sensibilities of a large segment of the population. 

Well, yes of course they do -- just like people are not forbidden from cursing in public. But that is not the issue. The issue is what happens to our collective world-view or disposition when history is continuously and subtly distorted in several different ways. For most of our lives, we are driven by perception -- not by reason. Where will the collective system of being end up?

The story of Ubhaya Bharati shows us that a good scholar is one who not only reasons on the objective elements of the argument, but also on the affective dimension of the argumentation!