I find it interesting that similar to Chinese rhetoric, Indian rhetoric was also perceived as being either undeveloped or non-existent. Though this was due to the belief that because India was a very religious society that it must not have no defined method for discourse. Contrary to this, the Nyaya Sutra are a very codified method of organizing an argument. Despite this it was derided when it was first discovered as being inferior to western rhetoric. “Indeed the whole form of this philosophy is a proof of the incapacity of its expositors to enter into the intrinsic development of ideas, whatever knowledge they may have possessed of the external laws of composition.” (Lloyd, p 373) Just like with Chinese rhetoric this grew out of a sense of the superiority of western rhetoric.

The Nyaya Sutra explains a five part discussion method as well as sixteen categories defining the ultimate goals of any debate, as well as the pitfalls that can occur during a debate. These concepts are ones that I have heard discussed before in a class during my Bachelor’s education. The concepts were very similar to vada, jalpa and vitanda. In what we termed cooperative argumentation, or vada in the Nyaya Sutra, the goal was for the two debaters to try and come to a greater communal understanding of the subject, rather then seeking to either win the argument or to destroy your opponent, regardless of their position.

In comparison to traditional Aristotelian rhetoric where the goal is to convince others of the truth of your position, this method of rhetoric could be seen as strange to westerners. And yet it’s emphasis on increasing communal knowledge and trying to find commonalities is one that we really should learn in our modern world. A concept built around increasing common knowledge would help us to understand other cultures.