Introduction
Adi Shankaracharya was a great philosopher and saint who single-handedly reshaped the Indian cultural and religious landscape. Born about 1400 years ago in Kerala, Shankara synthesized the teachings of the Vedas to provide it with robust intellectual grounding. He erected the magnificent structure of Advaita Vedanta. In his vast corpus of works, philosophical depth meets spiritual experience, clear argumentation meets metaphorical beauty. Even if his contributions were to be limited to the philosophical realm, he will find place amongst the greatest thinkers who ever lived. But Shankara was not content to speculate and write – he was also driven to action!
Hinduism in India during Shankara’s time was at a very weak point – it had lost some of its zest, it was getting mired in superstitions, it was getting shackled in unjustifiable prejudices and harmful divisions. Onto this stage strode Shankara, who walked the length and breadth of Bharat imparting the true message of Vedanta. He taught everyone the unity of existence and the divinity within each individual. He reawakened a vast sub-continent to the perennial philosophy, Sanatana Dharma.
What is unique in his entire project is that it was achieved entirely using words and reasoning. The spread of many other religions around the world happened through the sword, by leaving a trail of blood; but Shankara conquered minds and hearts through arguments, debates, and writing.
Imagine how good a communicator he must have been to have achieved this,
across such a vast and diverse country like India. Imagine how clearly and
compellingly he must have placed forth his arguments to have won over people
strongly committed to different points of view. Whether you are a student or a working professional, learning how to argue your point convincingly is important. We often have to do this in the midst of strong and forceful personalities who might disagree with our positions. The ability to argue your case calmly and rationally – and to convince people without hurting their feelings – is an urgent need today, given the explosion of opinions.
Everybody has an opinion, and no one hesitates to share them. Whether on news channels or in playgrounds, debates are everywhere. The master debater Shankara can provide us guidance on how to approach such situations.
Here is a 5-step framework inspired by Shankara.
1. Learn the subject in depth
This seems very obvious, but look around you – don’t you find that, most of
the time, people are arguing positions without fully understanding the
details and the nuances behind them? If you find someone raising their
voice righteously about an issue, ask them a few probing questions to test their knowledge – most of the time they will reveal their lack of understanding. Holding an opinion is easy, gaining knowledge and even a certain amount of expertise is hard.
Having a deep base of understanding will provide you the confidence to argue your point with calmness. You will not be wary of any questions thrown back at you – you will handle them all with poise and maybe even a smile. Even if your words are simple and straightforward, the deep pool of knowledge underneath will shine through. Anyone debating Shankara would have immediately realized the depth of knowledge he had – on the scriptures, on logic, on all schools of philosophy. That was his foundation.
Let us take the famous debate that occurred between Shankara and Mandana Mishra. One of the most revered minds of that time, Mandana Mishra was a leading proponent of the Purva Mimansa school of Hinduism.
Over many weeks, the two intellectual giants clashed. Word of this legendary debate spread all through India. Just imagine – in an era much before instant information exchange, people across the country were passionately talking about a debate on topics of high philosophy!
The judge of the debate was Mandana’s learned wife, Ubhaya Bharathi. Right when Mandana was finally about to concede defeat, Ubhaya
Bharathi added a twist. Since husband and wife were inseparable equals, Ubhaya Bharathi said that for Shankara to truly defeat Mandana, he must defeat her as well. She challenged Shankara to a debate on the topic of love and relationships.
Shankara was a sanyasi, one who had no experience with these aspects of life. So had Ubhaya Bharathi boxed the philosopher into a corner? The story goes that Shankara, acknowledging his limitation in this topic, went out seeking knowledge. According to legend, Shankara used yogic techniques to place himself in the body of a dead king and experience the
world of love and relationships. He learnt the subject matter in depth.
Armed with these experiences, he went back to Ubhaya Bharathi, ready to take on the challenge. Ubhaya Bharathi, moved by Shankara’s commitment to knowledge, conceded defeat. Mandana Mishra became
one of the most renowned devotees of Shankaracharya.
Even if one does not take some of the aspects of this story to be literally true, it symbolizes this core trait that Shankara and many other masters of the past had – they would not get into a discussion or an argument, on any subject, without first gaining all the knowledge and direct experience on it that they possibly could. Is this not quite the opposite of what we find around us today?
So, first and foremost, try to learn – as much as you can – about the subject
you are debating. Which also means – this is equally important – stay away from debates on matters that you do not have a good understanding about.
One need not have a point of view on everything!
2. Put yourself in your opponent’s shoes
In Shankara’s writings – and in most of the philosophical literature in India – one structure emerges very clearly: He first starts by arguing the case for the opponent, and then provides his counter-argument. This might seem like a strange thing to do, especially today when we are quick to shove our own ideas down people’s throats, so let us try to understand this better.
When Shankara was debating someone from a different school of philosophy, he would first state the opponent’s point of view with complete detail and fairness. This requires a solid grasp of the subject matter from all points of view (see Step1). He would then check if the opponent was satisfied with Shankara’s summary of their position. At times he might even bring in arguments that the opponent might not have thought of (arguments that will strengthen the opponent’s case)! And then, Shankara will swoop in with his own counter-arguments, to which opponents will have no response.
Far from drawing up convenient caricatures of opponents’ positions and
attacking those (like we find, unfortunately, all around us today), Shankara made sure that he took on the best possible articulation of every debater’s position. If he convincingly argued his own stance after all this, he not only won the debate, he won over his opponent’s respect as well.
Let us take the Brahma Sutra Bhasya, one of Shankara’s most important works, that systematically lays out the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta. The text is in the form of commentaries to Badarayana’s sutras – short, often cryptic-sounding aphorisms that condense Vedantic teachings. For most of the verses, Shankara devotes page after page to opponents’ views – opponents from other Hindu schools, Buddhists, etc. And the opponents’ views are armed with comprehensive arguments and scriptural references.
As one reads argument after argument by opposing schools, one wonders how Shankara is going to respond. The opponents seem to have a very strong case! But then, after laying out all possible objections, Shankara will step in with his counter arguments, calmly and clearly establishing his case. Only someone with command over his subject and complete confidence in his position will be able to take on opponents at their strongest.
The reason Shankara gained the respect and following of vastly diverse schools of philosophy was because he went out of his way to represent their views with complete fairness. Without this, you might win temporary verbal battles, but you will not be able to leave lasting impacts on people.
For all of us, and especially for those of us seeking leadership positions – at school, at the workplace, or in society – the ability to put ourselves in the others’ shoes is essential.
3. Seek common ground wherever possible
It is easy in a debate, or in a highly-charged conversation, to see the other person purely as an opponent. Has this not happened with all of us, at
various times in our lives – at home, in school, or elsewhere? In our eagerness to argue our position, we often end up viewing the other as fundamentally different and irreconcilably opposed to us. If the other person thinks the same way too, how will you both ever arrive at an agreement?
What Shankara – like so many other Indian philosophers and spiritual teachers – astutely realized was the importance of understanding what the
shared interests, priorities, and principles were between himself and the opponent.
In other words, what is the common ground between the various parties in the discussion? One will be surprised how often you will find strongly shared principles that can help you reach a very constructive conclusion.
For example, when Shankara argued Advaita’s case against the other Hindu schools, he would constantly bring in the Vedas, and indicate how
the opponent’s argument went against the teachings of the Vedas. Since both Shankara and his Hindu opponent held the Vedas to be the authoritative word on Reality (in other words, the Vedas were the ‘common
ground’), this grounding ensured that the conversation stayed positive and constructive, resulting in a fair outcome that both parties could ultimately be comfortable with. After all, what is the point of winning an argument if it results in me having to give up my core principles, in this case the authority of the Vedas?
But when Shankara debated, say, a Buddhist, he did not bring in the Vedas (since the Buddhists did not consider the Vedas to be authoritative) – instead, he used many of the logical techniques and frameworks devised by the Buddhists themselves, often borrowing their own terminology wherever applicable. So much so that some disgruntled Hindus wondered whether Shankara was a Buddhist in disguise! But Shankara, the master,
was creating common ground with the Buddhists to enable a constructive dialogue – if, by using the Buddhist’s frameworks, Shankara could convincingly argue his own position, then the Buddhist would have no option but to concede.
There is always common ground between you and your ‘opponent’ – find what it is, and center your argument around that. This will help you not just
arrive at positive outcomes, but will help you retain your friendship at the end of the debate!
4. Be open to changing your position
Many of us tend to get into discussions or debates with closed minds, especially on topics that we care deeply about. We are convinced about the correctness of our position and keen on making the other person see the light – and we cannot imagine ever having to change our position.
Conviction and passion about the causes we are arguing for is good – it shows that we are driven by principles, it shows that we are not simply ‘professional’ debaters who will argue for or against any stance. But this conviction should not come at the cost of an open mind.
Ask yourself this – your opponent might be as passionate about their stance as you are about yours; if you both are unwilling to change your stance come what may, then what use is it to have the conversation at all?
What is going to come out of such conversations? If you expect your opponent to keep an open mind and listen – and perhaps get convinced – by your arguments, is it not right for you to keep an open mind as well?
The only way to have a constructive dialogue, is if both parties come to the
table with a willingness to drop all their deeply held positions, if the opponent can convincingly argue their case. You can – and must – place a very high bar for you to change your mind – you certainly must not give up on your positions easily. But you must leave room to change your mind.
All philosophical and religious debates in ancient and medieval India, including all of Shankara’s famous debates, were conducted on this premise. Just think about the broadmindedness and courage of these great Indian thinkers! They were willing to stake their entire life’s work, and everything they stood for, at the altar of reason – If you are able to convince me about the incorrectness of my position, using logical frameworks that we both agree on, then I will become your disciple, and all of my followers will become followers of your philosophical school.
Being open to changing your stance is a very important prerequisite for healthy debates. Swami Vivekananda – another great philosopher, spiritual leader and mass communicator in the rich lineage of Shankara – fearlessly said that religion must be put to the same standards of scrutiny as modern science is – if it is the truth, its light will burst through all these tests. By saying this, he is indicating an open mind. In the modern world, the ‘opponent’ to Advaita Vedanta is not so much other religions but a very materialistic perspective to reality. By facilitating a fruitful dialogue with science, by inviting the best of scientific minds to understand, question, and argue against the message of the Upanishads, Swami Vivekananda portrayed an openness of mind which is very rare to find in the world’s religions. In doing this he was carrying forward the torch handed down from the Buddha, from Shankara, and many other masters of the past.
5. Keep your mind on the larger objective
Many philosophers and commentators after Shankara argued over some of
the open ends that the master left in his writings – did he really mean this or did he mean that? There would be severe arguments over some of these finer points that Shankara didn’t seem to be bothered to address; often there emerged parallel schools of philosophy, each claiming to be the correct interpretation of Shankara’s teachings, and pointing to some of the same writings as authority for their differing position, for example the Bhamati and the Vivarana schools of Advaita Vedanta.
We need not worry here about the details of these sub-schools, but the question is – Why did Shankara leave room for such different interpretations? Similarly, Shankara’s writings often combined clear rational
argumentation with leaps of bhakti or devotion. This was especially so in his advice on spiritual practice – while knowledge and understanding is paramount, his guidelines are also couched in bhakti.
This would leave some later commentators scratching their head – is he a rationalist philosopher or a bhakta?
The clear answer – pointed out by many commentators – is that Shankara was not unaware of these open-ends in his arguments. Why then did he choose to leave them unaddressed? Because he knew that each person
might require a different path, that multiple approaches could lead to that final leap of insight. While he was uncompromising and philosophically water-tight in his articulation of ultimate Reality, he kept open multiple paths to spiritual realization.
Shanakra’s goal was not to be regarded as a great philosopher – if this was his primary concern, he would have closed all the apparent gaps in his writings, and he might have even kept devotion out of his philosophical work. Shankara’s larger objective was not to win logical arguments, but to provide everyone a path to realization. He cared about you, me and all of us being able to achieve freedom – right here, in this life; he didn’t care about any certificates of approval from philosophers around the world. He didn’t mind losing some philosophical battles if it led to more people finding their way to the Vedic truth.
This is something that applies to all of us, at all times – never lose focus on the larger objective. At the workplace, you and your colleague might have strong disagreements about certain matters, but in arguing your case you must not lose sight of the larger picture – your company’s success. What is
the point of winning the personal battle if it hurts your company in the process? You and your friend might fight over who is going to bat first on the cricket field, but what good is it if the fight results in all of you going
home without playing? You must be willing to step away from some battles.
You must be willing to let go of your ego if it comes in the way of the end
goal that you really care about. Winning at all costs is not the point.
Having this clarity – keeping your eye on the big picture – will help you stay strong and grounded as you move through the various challenges that life throws at you. Like Shankara sings in his famous hymn Bhaja Govindam,
‘Your rules of grammar will not help you at the time of your death! Pray to Govinda, oh fool, pray to Govinda!’ He had his mind firmly on the larger
objective.