The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate

[Apech]

Nearly every thread in the Buddhist sub-forum continues to be hijacked by the incessant posting of quotes from other fora (almost inevitably Dharma Wheel, which was destroyed by the constant petty internicine squabbles and bullying - i.e. talking over those who disagreed and eventually banning them) and/or by appeals to so-called authority (i.e. someone from the Tibetan Buddhist priesthood who has hijacked the Dharma themselves for profit and who cannot actually explain their pionts in plain and simple english).

 

I'd also point out that if anyone actually wants to promote obscure points of untranslatable Tibetan "Buddhist" dogma, there's nothing to stop them from starting their own thread to go round and round in ciircles either arguing about or agreeing with whatever this point or these point may be.

 

So, is there anybody who cares to discuss the level of "Buddhist" "debate" and "reasoning" and the violence inherent in the author's apparent assumptions in writing this book, rather than trying to hijack this thread in order to attemopt to promote their own agenda/dogma?

 

 

only joking Gatito ... but can you explain the 'violence inherent in the author's apparent assumption'. I don't know what you mean by this.

 

To me the problem with Buddhism on TBs is that nobody here understand Buddhist non-dualist thinking. They think they do but they don't. I don't believe in right or wrong when it comes to this subject ... but I do think its important for the arguments (in the proper philosophical sense) to be self consistent. Different schools have slightly different ways of expressing things and different emphasis. This then becomes the basis for petty disputes - when really we would be better looking for common ground. I'd include Advaita in this which although non-Buddhist of course is a great system which has helped/saved/enlightened many people.

 

PS. I screwed up the gif so its seems to having second thoughts about beating his head.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Apech

[C T]

Tenzin Namdak said that there is not "one mind" because if it were so, then when Buddha got enlightened we would have all gotten enlightened. There is more to all this than what was posted.

 

Perhaps it has something to do with the three kinds of rigpa...

From Wonders of the Natural Mind Tenzin Wangyal..

 

?

I believe Tsoknyi Rinpoche was hinting at the idea that we do not have to watch attentively to see if we are resting in the nature of mind, or whether we are distracted. That is like using one mind to watch another mind. I dont think Rinpoche was referencing a universal Mind as such.

[rex]

tuzki_011.gif

 

only joking Gatito ... but can you explain the 'violence inherent in the author's apparent assumption'. I don't know what you mean by this.

 

To me the problem with Buddhism on TBs is that nobody here understand Buddhist non-dualist thinking. They think they do but they don't. I don't believe in right or wrong when it comes to this subject ... but I do think its important for the arguments (in the proper philosophical sense) to be self consistent. Different schools have slightly different ways of expressing things and different emphasis. This then becomes the basis for petty disputes - when really we would be better looking for common ground. I'd include Advaita in this which although non-Buddhist of course is a great system which has helped/saved/enlightened many people.

 

PS. I screwed up the gif so its seems to having second thoughts about beating his head.

 

Haven't read the book on Buddhist reasoning and debate but reading your replies is an eduction in reasoned, non-combative debate.

[gatito]

 

tuzki_011.gif

 

only joking Gatito ... but can you explain the 'violence inherent in the author's apparent assumption'. I don't know what you mean by this.

 

To me the problem with Buddhism on TBs is that nobody here understand Buddhist non-dualist thinking. They think they do but they don't. I don't believe in right or wrong when it comes to this subject ... but I do think its important for the arguments (in the proper philosophical sense) to be self consistent. Different schools have slightly different ways of expressing things and different emphasis. This then becomes the basis for petty disputes - when really we would be better looking for common ground. I'd include Advaita in this which although non-Buddhist of course is a great system which has helped/saved/enlightened many people.

 

PS. I screwed up the gif so its seems to having second thoughts about beating his head.

 

 

Thanks for a (reasonably ) serious reply to a serious point Apech.

 

I'll just bookmark this for the time being until I have the time to put together a considered response.

 

In the interim, I trust that eveeryone else who isn't interested in discussing the level of discussion and debate - as opposed to the content - will take it upomn themselves to start threads about their own interests, which have nothing to do with this thread.

 

Thanks in anticipation.

 

 

 

Haven't read the book on Buddhist reasoning and debate but reading your replies is an eduction in reasoned, non-combative debate.

 

 

Leaving aside any sallies into humour - of course

Edited March 16, 2014 by gatito

[themiddleway]

At what point dose debate go too far?

 

We could up the stakes -no pun intended -see below

 

the consequences of being on the losing team in Ancient Indian dialectics:

 

when the Tamil Śaivite Ñānasambandar Nāyanār defeated the Jain ācāryas in Madurai before the Pāṇḍya King Māravarman Avaniśūlāmani (620-645) this debate is said to have resulted in the impalement of 8000 Jains, an event still celebrated in the Mīnāksi Temple of Madurai today.

 

Makes TTB look tame by comparison.

 

Of course there is the Samye Debate, also called Council of Lhasa, in Tibetan Buddhism, a two-year debate (c. 792794 ce) between Indian and Chinese Buddhist teachers held at Samye, the first Buddhist monastery in Tibet. The debate centred on the question of whether enlightenment (bodhi) is attained gradually through activity or suddenly and without activity.Which resulted in the expulsion of Chan from Tibet.

 

The above debate is still used to perpetuate Indo-Tibetan pejoratives against Chan/Zen.

 

But wait there's more, tsongkhapa definition of emptiness opens another can of worms. The Sakya's believed that Tsong. was possessed by a demon, that's how strongly they disagree with his version of stuff existing but not existing.

 

More often than not debate leads to sectarianism, the old adage of silence is golden seems fitting and peaceful.

 

My lama CHNN was chastised by his root Guru for being too overly invested in Tibetan dialectics. When the young CHNN started spouting a Sakya interpretation of the madhyamika, his root guru remarked: " The madyamika is your nose and your mouth." This nonsensical remark was taken to mean shut up you have no real knowledge.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Gatito, my friend, if you keep banging your head on the wall you risk having your head look like this..

 

 

[steve]

 

 

So, is there anybody who cares to discuss the level of "Buddhist" "debate" and "reasoning" and the violence inherent in the author's apparent assumptions in writing this book, rather than trying to hijack this thread in order to attemopt to promote their own agenda/dogma?

Yes - from what I can tell the book is not published yet…

[Tibetan_Ice]

April 22, release date..

http://www.amazon.com/The-Course-Buddhist-Reasoning-Debate/dp/1559394218

[steve]

So who's going to buy a copy!?

 

[Apech]

So who's going to buy a copy!?

 

 

 

I think I may be able to get by without it.

[themiddleway]

From the blurb:

Reading and memorization are not enough; students must be able to verbalize their understanding and defend it under the pressure of fierce cross-examination.

 

This whole thread is an example of ' fierce cross-examination' , lol. As for the 'violence inherent in the author's apparent assumption' all debates begin with the presupposition by either party that they are right until proven otherwise. This books subject really originates in classical Indian epistemology and dialectics. This vibrant intellectual milieu produced the complexities and nuances we see in all the Dharmic religions.

 

The prominence of debate in Buddhist scholasticism was also linked to competing for patronage in India. This wasn't just limited to Buddhism, the Jains and Shaivites all indulged in it. The Buddha was depicted as being a fierce critic of brahmanism and also received death threats during his preaching career. My view on debate is that it's all ready been done to death, terms like crypto- advaita illustrate peoples endless ability to spin new jargon.

[Simple_Jack]

I'd also point out that if anyone actually wants to promote obscure points of untranslatable Tibetan "Buddhist" dogma, there's nothing to stop them from starting their own thread to go round and round in ciircles either arguing about or agreeing with whatever this point or these point may be.

 

So, is there anybody who cares to discuss the level of "Buddhist" "debate" and "reasoning" and the violence inherent in the author's apparent assumptions in writing this book, rather than trying to hijack this thread in order to attemopt to promote their own agenda/dogma?

 

I understand how you feel, if an individual isn't already receptive to the meaning of buddhadharma, then more than likely it will be met with aversion manifesting in the form of outright contempt or a feeling of dejection. It can be tough to handle especially if you're coming from a background in Hinduism. It doesn't help that you have assholes like me, on internet forums such as this, who refuse to give into common consensus, but once you start to really delve into buddhadharma then it becomes blatantly apparent that its message undermines the commonly held assumptions of other philosophies and traditions: both East and West.

 

To me the problem with Buddhism on TBs is that nobody here understand Buddhist non-dualist thinking. They think they do but they don't. I don't believe in right or wrong when it comes to this subject ... but I do think its important for the arguments (in the proper philosophical sense) to be self consistent. Different schools have slightly different ways of expressing things and different emphasis. This then becomes the basis for petty disputes - when really we would be better looking for common ground. I'd include Advaita in this which although non-Buddhist of course is a great system which has helped/saved/enlightened many people.

 

Buddhadharma does not invalidate other paths, but it does seek to cut all 'ties that bind', specifically stemming from extremes of reification and depreciation. In certain online communities, there are people who openly discuss their experiences, and from reading some of these discussions: it verifies that there is a consistency between certain individuals insights that reveals a common fabric between traditions. In other words, some of these people describe the refinement of their insights that mirrors what is described in traditions such as Advaita Vedanta, but they will readily delineate these insights from the insight into anatta for example.

 

As we both know many posters on TTB's will be opposed to hearing the above, refusing to acknowledge the possibility of differences, and more than likely regarding the above as dogmatic bullshit. I would like to say though, that in actuality insights are neither "wrong" nor "right", merely revealing deeper intimation with wisdom that is inherent in all of us. As the Diamond Sutra says:

 

"Subhuti, what do you think? Has the Tathagata attained anything by anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Does the Tathagata in fact expound a Dharma?" Subhuti replied, "As I understand the teaching of the Buddha, there is no definitive Dharma which the Tathagata can expound. Why is this? The Dharma which the Tathagata expounds is inconceivable and beyond words. It is neither Dharma nor not-Dharma. All of the saints and sages vary only in mastery of this."

 

[trans. by Hue En, The Diamond Sutra Explained by Nan Hauijin; sec. 7, pg. 101]

[asunthatneversets]

Thank you. Simply said. Not two minds (or more), just shared or universal mind. It is nice to see that he is willing to explain/teach with a two-fold emptiness structure. Much simpler for the mind to conceive.

Well, surely not a shared or universal mind, as that is ultimately impossible.

 

Two fold emptiness means a shared or universal mind is also unfounded.

 

Emptiness does not say something is empty yet there is something else, everything is equally empty.

 

This is why emptiness is chik'she kundrol [cig shes kun grol]; 'the one knowledge which liberates all'.

[asunthatneversets]

Nearly every thread in the Buddhist sub-forum continues to be hijacked by the incessant posting of quotes from other fora (almost inevitably Dharma Wheel, which was destroyed by the constant petty internicine squabbles and bullying - i.e. talking over those who disagreed and eventually banning them) and/or by appeals to so-called authority (i.e. someone from the Tibetan Buddhist priesthood who has hijacked the Dharma themselves for profit and who cannot actually explain their pionts in plain and simple english).

 

I'd also point out that if anyone actually wants to promote obscure points of untranslatable Tibetan "Buddhist" dogma, there's nothing to stop them from starting their own thread to go round and round in ciircles either arguing about or agreeing with whatever this point or these point may be.

 

So, is there anybody who cares to discuss the level of "Buddhist" "debate" and "reasoning" and the violence inherent in the author's apparent assumptions in writing this book, rather than trying to hijack this thread in order to attemopt to promote their own agenda/dogma?

Welcome to Buddhism.

[asunthatneversets]

Or perhaps I should say 'welcome to the internet' ha.

 

Or 'welcome to any place humans interact and share opinions'.

[Apech]

Welcome to Buddhism.

 

 

Nope real life Buddhism is not like this.

[gatito]

Nope real life Buddhism is not like this.

 

QFT Apech

[Apech]

QFT Apech

 

 

I didn't mention Quantum Field Theory did I?

[Apech]

Or perhaps I should say 'welcome to the internet' ha.

 

Or 'welcome to any place humans interact and share opinions'.

 

 

Hmmm we could have a good debate on here if we all stick to our principles and try to be good.

[gatito]

Yes - from what I can tell the book is not published yet…

 

I know

 

I thought that this thread might turn into an illustration of internet "buddhism" in action and, so far, it has lived up to that expectation about 90% - 168 posts and innumerable detours and quotes in a thread about a book that hasn't even been published yet.

 

So how valuable is the internet as a tool to discuss Buddhism - which, ultimately, is about an all-inclusive love, the route to which is barred by the sort of attempts to construct an intellectual model of duality (as opposed to deconstucting it) that we see illustrated so clearly?

 

And @ Apech regarding the violence inherent in the book's original premise: -

 

The three purposes of Buddhist debate are to defeat your own and others’ misconceptions, to establish your own correct view, and to clear away objections to your view.

 

The teachings should be an education (educere) leading out of the darkness of ignorance nto the light of love/happiness/peace.

[Apech]

.....

 

And @ Apech regarding the violence inherent in the book's original premise: -

"The three purposes of Buddhist debate are to defeat your own and others’ misconceptions, to establish your own correct view, and to clear away objections to your view."

 

The teachings should be an education (educere) leading out of the darkness of ignorance nto the light of love/happiness/peace.

 

Love, happiness and peace ... wot! you hippy you

 

Manjushri does carry a sword ... so there is a cutting edge to discriminating wisdom. I'm interested that you see this as violent. I think it is quite healthy to be able to carry an argument through ... and misconceptions should be challenged.

[Simple_Jack]

So how valuable is the internet as a tool to discuss Buddhism - which, ultimately, is about an all-inclusive love, the route to which is barred by the sort of attempts to construct an intellectual model of duality (as opposed to deconstucting it) that we see illustrated so clearly?

 

QFT: Typical Vedantin Sectarianism.

[gatito]

"The three purposes of Buddhist debate are to defeat your own and others’ misconceptions, to establish your own correct view, and to clear away objections to your view."

 

 

Love, happiness and peace ... wot! you hippy you

 

Manjushri does carry a sword ... so there is a cutting edge to discriminating wisdom. I'm interested that you see this as violent. I think it is quite healthy to be able to carry an argument through ... and misconceptions should be challenged.

 

Not quite old enough to be a hippy sadly

 

I've no objection to the use of the sword but the problem is that the sort of indiscriminate slash and burn that I see is not the use of the sword as a scalpel to cut out the root of ignorance but more the sort of willy-waving that I'd expect to see amongst a group of badly parented and hence emotionally-stunted, insecure and fearful Club 18-30 children on holiday in Ibiza.

[Apech]

Not quite old enough to be a hippy sadly

 

I've no objection to the use of the sword but the problem is that the sort of indiscriminate slash and burn that I see is not the use of the sword as a scalpel to cut out the root of ignorance but more the sort of willy-waving that I'd expect to see amongst a group of badly parented and hence emotionally-stunted, insecure and fearful Club 18-30 children on holiday in Ibiza.

 

 

Well I can agree with you there. Sorry you missed the Summer of Love though.

[gatito]

You only had one?