Mithila’s Śāstrārtha as a Hermeneutic Practice?

Research record

It is insufficient to call the scriptural debate simply a ‘public debate between two scholars’. In the Indian philosophical tradition, terms such as argument, conversation, debate, premise, theory, cause, example, counter-question, deception, caste and restraint describe different forms, purposes and disciplines of argumentation. But it is not reasonable to assume that the actual historical scriptural debate was a mechanical copy of this textual classification. In the intellectual history of Mithila, Nyaya-Navya-Nyaya, Mimansa, Smriti, Grammar and other classical traditions developed through question-and-answer, Purvapaksha-uttarapaksha, Bhashya-tika and oral teaching. It would be an anachronism to call this tradition the ancient Indian form of modern ‘hermeneutics’; However, understanding meaning, recasting opponents’ views, demarcating terms, checking the meaning of traditional texts and responding to objections—these are definitely exegetical problems. In a scriptural debate, an argument is not possible without first understanding the meaning of the opposing views. If the opponent's claims are misrepresented, then victory will be on artificially weakened votes, not on genuine votes. For this reason, the best form of scriptural debate demands an ethics of interpretation: put the opponent's point in a form that he himself can accept, then criticize. The basic assertion of this chapter is that the scriptural debates of Mithila can be read not as a historical precursor to modern hermeneutics, but as an independent classical practice of interpretation, argumentation, and dialogue. The comparison is fruitful at the problem-level; Claims of identity or influence are not without proof. The interpretive aspect of the scriptural debate appears on three levels: first—what the counterpart’s statement actually says; second—in what terms, traditions, proofs, and controversies does that statement find meaning; Third—how the meaning or doctrine is modified after the objection and reply. The argument of the judicial tradition provides an ideal of truthful exchange of arguments, but it is important to remember the difference between gossip and gossip. Not every debate is a truth-finding; Sometimes victory, prestige or opposition-refutation can become the objective. Therefore, keep aside the historical events and classical ideals of scriptural debate.

Structured debate

Pūrvapakṣa

The first premise states—scriptural debate is essentially a logical dispute, not an exegetical exercise. To combine it with hermeneutics is to impose modern categories. The second premise states—if the goal of the argument is truth, then ‘understanding others’ is secondary; Arguments are legitimate or illegitimate, the question of historical horizon unnecessary. The third precedent is Romany—the old scriptural debates of Mithila were automatically a free, high-quality and impartial intellectual culture; Modern criticism diminishes its glory. The fourth antecedent is from social criticism—the classical Sanskrit debate was an institution of the elite educated class; Calling it the ‘public conscience’ of the region masks the silence of excluded groups. The fifth antecedent is postmodern—every antecedent is a creation of the author; We cannot reach the ‘true meaning’ of the counterclaim, so a claim for a just reconstruction is impossible.

Uttarapakṣa

The answer to the first precedent—scriptural debate is not being called modern hermeneutics; The semantic problems inherent within it are being exposed. The comparison is at the problem-level, not the historical identification. Answer to the second precedent—In order to check the validity of the argument, the meaning of the statement must first be certain. If the parties take a different meaning of ‘the same sentence’, then the logical test may be confused. Clarity of meaning is a prerequisite for reasoning. Answer to the third precedent—glory and history apart. Scriptural debate can be considered an achievement, but questions of admission, power, language, institutions and exclusion should also be examined. Criticism is not an insult to tradition; There is a historical responsibility. Answer to the fourth precedent—the classical tradition is not representative of the entire Mithila society. Read it as an important intellectual stream; Also read vernacular language, oral tradition, women's experience, the world of labour, administrative documents and material culture. Answer to the fifth premise—full, unadulterated ‘original meaning’ may be difficult, but this does not make all reconstructions equally arbitrary. Consistency of text, language, quotations, historical context, counter sources and arguments distinguish better/poorer readings.

Parallel conclusion

It is historically inappropriate to call the scriptural debates of Mithila an ancient version of modern hermeneutics, but within them there is a complex interpretive discipline of meaning-understanding, counter-argument-reconstruction, definition, proof and answer. The best ideal of scriptural debate is not victory, but clarity and truth-testing. It is therefore important to remember the distinction between argument, gossip, and controversy—not all controversy is truthful. The former–latter teaches a critical ethic: first strengthen the opposing view, then criticize. Victory over the distorted picture of the opponent is not a philosophical victory. The classical tradition of Mithila is important, but not synonymous with the whole of social knowledge. Along with that, equally evidence-sensitive studies of oral, folk, female, regional and other sources are necessary.

Section index

1. Problem and scope · 5 source passages
2. Central thesis · 5 source passages
3. Major arguments · 18 source passages
4. Pūrvapakṣa · 6 source passages
5. Uttarapakṣa · 6 source passages
6. Indian philosophical dialogue · 7 source passages
7. Mithila’s parallel perspective · 8 source passages
8. Contemporary applications · 10 source passages
9. Chapter conclusion · 6 source passages
10. Chapter bibliography · 14 source passages

Cite this record

Gajendra Thakur. “Mithila’s Śāstrārtha as a Hermeneutic Practice?.” Videha Digital Research Archive: Mithila–Vajji–Anga. Videha — https://www.videha.co.in/ · ISSN 2229-547X · GitHub mirror: https://videha-ejournal.github.io/videha/ · Digital Research Archives on GitHub: https://github.com/videha-ejournal. https://videha-ejournal.github.io/mithila-vajji-anga/records/idea/philosophy-v2-53/