The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate

[Simple_Jack]

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.

 

[doc benway]

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

 

Despite my earlier support for the book's selling price, I'm more of a practitioner than a scholar.

Doubt that I'll buy it but I'll share if I do.

[asunthatneversets]

 

 

Nope real life Buddhism is not like this.

Sectarian polemics in Tibetan Buddhism is common place. Debate is also seen as a way to refine one's relationship with the teachings in various ways. But whatever you're into, it's all good!

[asunthatneversets]

Anyway, some of you who are self-proclaimed anti-debaters are now debating about debate.

[Simple_Jack]

Nope real life Buddhism is not like this.

 

IRL, you're also in an environment where people have chosen to receive these teachings of their own accord, generally a person has to be receptive to the teachings in the first place in order to this. It's not that 'Buddhist' view is absent when attending Dharma talks or being taught how to practice vipassana, Mahamudra, etc., by attending these teachings and being taught these practices, the individual is being trained according to the view of buddhadharma. Whether the average person chooses to take the time, to become deeply familiarized with Buddhist tenet systems outside of receiving general teachings, since the means and programs are available to those who're interested, is another question altogether. It needs to be kept in mind, that Tibetans are the inheritors of the Indian scholastic traditions, which is why Buddhist dialectics are a prominent feature in each lineage, and why this tradition is being continued in the training of khenpos and geshes in monasteries, in the training of tulkus, etc.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[themiddleway]

@Gaito

 

My lama states that his education conditioned him, he is quite open about how brainwashed he was by Sakya polemics. He describes meeting his root Guru and how his master demolished all his preconceptions about awakening vis a vis Sakya teachings on emptiness.

 

The kagyu school is more focused on practise, owing to their early founders like Marpa and Milarepa, the atypical wild yogi.

 

The notion that Buddhism has to be based on a exhaustive intellectual approach is BS. There is an archetype within Tantra of the scholar abandoning study to find Gnosis in the everyday world.

 

The interesting question is why people keep persisting with it in Dharma circles. It's saddening to see Westerners perpetuating Indo-Tibetan sectarianism. We should be questioning the need for debate. Why dose Tibetan Buddhism have a superiority complex ? Is this the outcome of institutional debate? It's interesting that Tibet expelled a non-gradual form of Dharma, only to later have Dzogchen masters most prominent in the Rime movement.

 

The sectarianism within Tibet illustrates the latent toxicity in a overly scholastic approach. Lest we forget.

[Apech]

Sectarian polemics in Tibetan Buddhism is common place. Debate is also seen as a way to refine one's relationship with the teachings in various ways. But whatever you're into, it's all good!

 

 

I agree about debate. But certainly with the Lamas to which I have a connection they a) hold more than one lineage (kagyu and sakhya) and b ) refuse steadfastly to break samaya through the root downfall of disparaging other dharmas. In fact it is very hard to get them to say anything bad about anyone.

[Simple_Jack]

I think you guys are over exaggerating the sectarianism between the lineages today, but I'm not denying that there aren't still elements of this that still persist to this day. The average person I meet at retreats or whatever usually has received teachings from more than one Lama up to several different lineages. Historically, and today, many Lama's have received empowerments and teachings outside of their main lineage; many Lama's have connections to more than one lineage.

[Simple_Jack]

themiddleway, you're unknowingly perpetuating sectarian stereotypes, by stating that the Kagyu lineage is a "practice lineage", which in turn implies that other lineages (usually Gelugpa) are 'all study and no practice'. Sometimes people like to downplay the significance of scholarly study within lineages, but people overlook the hagiographical accounts of the Mahasiddhas who were founders of lineages, being praised for both their yogic accomplishments and depth of learning; Milarepa was not an illiterate yogi, he was quite learned himself as evidenced in the records of his teachings and yogic songs. Of course, it's not necessary for the average person to become thoroughly familiarized with Buddhist tenet systems unless they plan on becoming teachers and/or scholar-translators.

[gatito]

@Gaito

 

My lama states that his education conditioned him, he is quite open about how brainwashed he was by Sakya polemics. He describes meeting his root Guru and how his master demolished all his preconceptions about awakening vis a vis Sakya teachings on emptiness.

 

The kagyu school is more focused on practise, owing to their early founders like Marpa and Milarepa, the atypical wild yogi.

 

The notion that Buddhism has to be based on a exhaustive intellectual approach is BS. There is an archetype within Tantra of the scholar abandoning study to find Gnosis in the everyday world.

 

The interesting question is why people keep persisting with it in Dharma circles. It's saddening to see Westerners perpetuating Indo-Tibetan sectarianism. We should be questioning the need for debate. Why dose Tibetan Buddhism have a superiority complex ? Is this the outcome of institutional debate? It's interesting that Tibet expelled a non-gradual form of Dharma, only to later have Dzogchen masters most prominent in the Rime movement.

 

The sectarianism within Tibet illustrates the latent toxicity in a overly scholastic approach. Lest we forget.

 

That makes sense from what I've seen.

 

Debate can be useful as a tool for self inquiry (turning back the false beliefs upon themselves) but when there's a seeker "debating" from a merely intellectual (i.e. intrinsically dualistic) standpoint, it goes nowhere and descends into a childish argument about whose belief system is best because that seeker has neither realised the end-point of the path nor is s/he open to the understanding that whatever belief system being is being espoused is nothing more than an approximation and a potentially useful pointer, whose usefulness is destroyed as soon as it's adopted as a belief system.

 

What I see in internet "buddhism" usually reminds me of the playground dynamic of "my dad can beat-up your dad", "my dad's car's bigger/faster than your dad's car", etc. However, I've also come across it in real world "buddhism" (and neoadvaita) and it seems to be a natural consequence of the establishment of hierarchical organisations and groups. It therefore becomes as pointless an excercise as the endless MoPai arguments.

 

So, I question the entire premise behind "debate" it would be better viewed as a herlpful discussion than as the adverserial confrontation that seems to be touted as beneficial for the seeker.

 

Of course, a helpful discussion can only tale place from the premise that neither party is interested in the intrinsic violence of attempting to convert the other to a mere intellectual belief system.

[Simple_Jack]

Gatito, I can say the reverse towards you, since you seek to subsume the principles and praxis of buddhadharma under the fold of Vedanta; this attempt at whitewashing undesirable elements that undermine Upanishadic doctrine is an intrinsic act of violence.

 

None of it matters in the end, because anyone who sincerely applies the instructions for praxis in buddhadharma, will eventually come to an understanding of the underlying meaning of buddhadharma.

[Tibetan_Ice]

...

 

None of it matters in the end, because anyone who sincerely applies the instructions for praxis in buddhadharma, will eventually come to an understanding of the underlying meaning of buddhadharma.

Jack,

But that's the problem right there.

To find the correct practice in Buddhism is the hardest thing. First you listen to speakers who have little or next to no understanding of the English language. Then you read tons of books which I'm sure are saying the same thing, but the terms and words they use are all different. And they argue about their choice of words and why their system is the ultimate. There are hundreds of books on Buddhism yet each one of them claims that their teachings are the authentic ones, and the best, yet they can't even define rigpa, boddhicitta, clarity, emptiness, knowledge and be consistent. One Buddhist says to expand the gap between thoughts, another says that the gap is not the way, another says that you must practice shamatha and vispassana, another says that you don't have to, another says that you must practice in very short periods (seconds) as often as possible, another says that you should practice many hours a day in retreat, one says tantra and another puts down tantra as unnecessary, most talk about boddhicitta but not many call it love, You see where I'm going here?

 

Then most Buddhists argue about the insignificant variations of view like it really matters, like the form of enlightenment you will realize is somehow tainted by your conceptual mind's view.. Then Buddhists say there is no self, yet they believe and talk about reincarnation or being born into the various other realms. Then, they try to prove emptiness by expounding on how conglomerates don't really exist, yet I haven't seen or seen proof that an intellectual proof has any bearing on the ability to walk through mountains or leave footprints in stone.

 

They they say to dedicate merit to all sentient beings,yet they say that no sentient beings exist. Then they say that they are dedicated to the whole infinite set of sentient beings in all the planes yet the goal of Buddhism is to not return. (Non-returner, arahats). How is anyone going to save anybody when they don't want to return here?

 

Then, you get a guru and are bound by samaya so you can't talk about your experiences, yet the guru turns around and sells books describing experiences and accomplishments, but I thought that true Buddhists were not allowed to sell their dharma...

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against Buddhism, it is a rich culture of teachings and intellectual points of view, but it has been a real chore to try to figure out who is right and what exactly one should practice.

 

And really, who needs more debate? You don't win anyone over by proving they were wrong, you win them over by healing them, by walking through walls, by performing miracles, by living a life of unconditional love in the truest sense. Maybe that is the only true practice..

 

Edited March 18, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[doc benway]

You don't win anyone over by proving they were wrong, you win them over by healing them….

 

I like that…

 

And you really can't help anyone else until you heal yourself.

[Simple_Jack]

TI, you misunderstand, I don't want to 'win anyone over', but I would like to see Buddhism represented accurately on TTB's. Gatito is only perpetuating what dwai, 3bob, and practically every other person that posted regularly on the bums has done. All that does is make Buddhist principles and praxis something nebulous. In any case, what you are describing are methods for different proclivities; choose one that works for you and see how that goes for a while. Also, 'no-self' and emptiness does not equate to nihilism: this is exactly what I mean when I rant about Buddhism not being represented accurately or not being portrayed fairly on this board. You're free to remain ignorant on the finer points of Buddhism. If you want to discuss your experiences with like minded people: go to dharmaconnectiongroup, dharmaoverground or kennethfolkdharma.

[Simple_Jack]

TI, don't just rely on books: seek a teacher or a group meet up for whatever aspect of Buddhism you're interested in. If you really want to comprehend, in a shorter period of time, vipassana practice: then go to an Insight Meditation Society meet up in your area or attend a 10 day S.N. Goenka vipassana retreat, where you'll learn anapana along with vipassana. If you want to learn anything Vajrayana, definitely seek out a teacher to receive empowerments and teachings, that you're interested in.

[doc benway]

TI, you misunderstand, I don't want to 'win anyone over', but I would like to see Buddhism represented accurately on TTB's. Gatito is only perpetuating what dwai, 3bob, and practically every other person that posted regularly on the bums has done. All that does is make Buddhist principles and praxis something nebulous. In any case, what you are describing are methods for different proclivities; choose one that works for you and see how that goes for a while. Also, 'no-self' and emptiness does not equate to nihilism: this is exactly what I mean when I rant about Buddhism not being represented accurately or not being portrayed fairly on this board. You're free to remain ignorant on the finer points of Buddhism. If you want to discuss your experiences with like minded people: go to dharmaconnectiongroup, dharmaoverground or kennethfolkdharma.

 

I actually think that Buddhism is reasonably well represented here, but take that with a grain of salt because I'm no authority.

 

There are some very knowledgeable folks, and some that are less so.

There are those who focus more on practice (and don't say much) and some who are accomplished scholars and very vocal.

And probably some who have struck a nice balance between the two.

There is some bickering and some displays of equanimity and compassion.

I do think there is a strong predilection for the Tibetan approach, which I think is a Western bias.

Quite a few Dzogchen masters have expressed the opinion that Dzogchen is particularly suited to Western sensibilities.

[gatito]

Anyone reading this thread should be aware that Goenka Viipassana retreats are a brainwashing cult indocrination system.

 

Here's something to get you started: -

 

http://youtu.be/N6Rj8SDUI7Q

 

 

[Apech]

I actually think that Buddhism is reasonably well represented here, but take that with a grain of salt because I'm no authority.

 

There are some very knowledgeable folks, and some that are less so.

There are those who focus more on practice (and don't say much) and some who are accomplished scholars and very vocal.

And probably some who have struck a nice balance between the two.

There is some bickering and some displays of equanimity and compassion.

I do think there is a strong predilection for the Tibetan approach, which I think is a Western bias.

Quite a few Dzogchen masters have expressed the opinion that Dzogchen is particularly suited to Western sensibilities.

 

 

From my point of view I think that you would get a very distorted view of Buddhism from reading what is here. I don't quite follow you about the emphasis on Tibetan Buddhism being a western bias. In fact I would say that the Buddhism which first came west was particularly dualist and Hinayana (if I can use that phrase without offending anyone).

 

The big, big problem is that a) the texts are not yet properly translated into English (or other western tongues) so extracting quotes and using them can be very misleading and b ) Buddhism seems to attract a lot of people who prefer a distorted view based on their own emotional conditioning (as proof just look at the average Tibetan - happy, relaxed, smiling, open and the average western Buddhist neurotic, anxious, self absorbed, often just plain daft).

 

So I think it is clear that although many people are attracted to Tibetan Buddhism, for instance because of the engaging personality of HHDL and others ... they need years of study and practice to get the basics right (I include myself in this by the way).

[Simple_Jack]

I actually think that Buddhism is reasonably well represented here, but take that with a grain of salt because I'm no authority.

 

Only very recently has it been able to be reasonably presented accurately. You still occasionally get people (usually from a background in Hinduism) who come onto this sub-forum and try to force slanted interpretations of buddhadharma from within an eternalist framework.

 

Quite a few Dzogchen masters have expressed the opinion that Dzogchen is particularly suited to Western sensibilities.

 

It's not surprising that they would say this, next to Zen, Vajrayana is the most popular form of buddhadharma in the West. Not everyone is interested in or even suited to Dzogchen practice. Some people prefer chanting the "Lotus Sutra" and reciting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo like they do in Sokka Gakkai or doing nianfo/nembutsu of East Asian Pure Land practice; you know the saying: "84000 dharma gates".

Edited March 18, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

Anyone reading this thread should be aware that Goenka Viipassana retreats are a brainwashing cult indocrination system.

 

They usually have a waiting list in order to get an available space in the retreat as the entire retreat (including retreat housing and food) is completely free; it's completely donations based operated. They ask that people put aside any practices they are currently doing in order to devote the entire retreat to anapana and vipassana. Other than that there's some chanting. On top of that it's a silent retreat until the end of the 10 days; there's segregation of the sexes, until the last day of the retreat, so as to avoid distractions during the course of the retreat. They encourage people to attend the entirety of the course, but they don't force anyone to stay the entire retreat, and some people do end up trickling out of the retreat even within the first couple days. If you're not used to sitting in a silent retreat setting for a consecutive number of hours of the day, only stopping for meals, to use the bathroom, and to get some personal downtime: then this will be a tough experience.

 

You can read other people's testimonials on the internet, but ultimately it's up to the individual to come to their own conclusions or to try out the course for themselves. Here's a few links to read some people's experiences:

 

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=15291&hilit=goenka

 

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=8667

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=11618&start=0

Edited March 18, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

The big, big problem is that a) the texts are not yet properly translated into English (or other western tongues) so extracting quotes and using them can be very misleading...

 

Keep in mind: bad translations die hard.

[Jeff]

Keep in mind: bad translations die hard.

 

And even good translations are killed with poor understanding.

[Simple_Jack]

And even good translations are killed with poor understanding.

 

Definitely, which is why becoming familiarized with the basics of Hinayana and Mahayana, helps in preventing that.

[doc benway]

From my point of view I think that you would get a very distorted view of Buddhism from reading what is here. I don't quite follow you about the emphasis on Tibetan Buddhism being a western bias. In fact I would say that the Buddhism which first came west was particularly dualist and Hinayana (if I can use that phrase without offending anyone).

 

If this was one's primary source of information, I would agree with your first statement. If one has a teacher, a dedicated practice, and some guidance in their study, then I think one can weigh the various points of view offered and come away with some good information. At least I can say that this is the case for me. Some of the recent contributions here have been quite eloquent. My own observation of Buddhism in the USA seems fairly Tibetan-centric. Just an observation. Quite possibly skewed and inaccurate.

 

 

The big, big problem is that a) the texts are not yet properly translated into English (or other western tongues) so extracting quotes and using them can be very misleading and b ) Buddhism seems to attract a lot of people who prefer a distorted view based on their own emotional conditioning (as proof just look at the average Tibetan - happy, relaxed, smiling, open and the average western Buddhist neurotic, anxious, self absorbed, often just plain daft).

 

Yes - books are not the best way to learn Buddhism, IMO.

Even if one read Tibetan fluently and did not rely on translations, that is not enough.

Having a competent teacher is important.

Having a stable and skillful practice is important.

Bringing the principles into one's daily live (body, speech, and mind) is important.

I think that a lot of the differences between the emotional and psychological composure and stability you refer to relate to industrialization, technology, loss of community, etc... I think Westerners probably need Buddhism more than anyone and the ones that I know who have a stable practice feel and show results.

 

 

So I think it is clear that although many people are attracted to Tibetan Buddhism, for instance because of the engaging personality of HHDL and others ... they need years of study and practice to get the basics right (I include myself in this by the way).

 

Absolutely true and that is no different than any meditative and trans-formative practice, be it Tibetan Buddhism or Daoism, for example. One can study texts, light incense, wear a shawl, and smile a lot but deep personal change requires not only getting the basics right but having the devotion and commitment to actually integrate that into one's life. And our fast-paced, technologically driven culture makes very little room for that sort of integration. One has to be highly motivated to make it work.

Edited March 18, 2014 by steve

[Apech]

If this was one's primary source of information, I would agree with your first statement. If one has a teacher, a dedicated practice, and some guidance in their study, then I think one can weigh the various points of view offered and come away with some good information. At least I can say that this is the case for me. Some of the recent contributions here have been quite eloquent. My own observation of Buddhism in the USA seems fairly Tibetan-centric. Just an observation. Quite possibly skewed and inaccurate.

Yes this is kind of what worries me - if people rely on sites like this for information, ideas or opinion. I think if your practice is already well embedded then its not a problem.

 

Of corse the origin of Tibetan Buddhism is different to other forms as it arises from the Buddhism practiced in India from maybe 800 - 1200 (mainly) which was a combination of monasticism (through teachers like Atisha) and tantric Buddhism from the mahasiddhis (and also you could add mahamudra/dzogchen also from certain mahasiddhis). Also quite early they rejected the sudden ch'an style for the gradual approach thus creating a broad church approach which more or less encompasses any extant style. I think it is a very attractive school because of this ... coupled with the very positive approach of the Tibetan mentality and the attractive nature of Tibetan art and culture.

 

I guess you are right about the US. I really don't know. I know theraveda is quite strong in the UK too.

 

 

Yes - books are not the best way to learn Buddhism, IMO.

Even if one read Tibetan fluently and did not rely on translations, that is not enough.

Having a competent teacher is important.

Having a stable and skillful practice is important.

Bringing the principles into one's daily live (body, speech, and mind) is important.

I think that a lot of the differences between the emotional and psychological composure and stability you refer to relate to industrialization, technology, loss of community, etc... I think Westerners probably need Buddhism more than anyone and the ones that I know who have a stable practice feel and show results.

 

The way I am taught is that apart from generalist reading around the subject all text which are studied seriously as practice are accompanied by the 'lung' and an empowerment where appropriate.

 

Sure you are right about western psychology. We have the benefits of science and industry - and the resultant wealth - but the violence inherent in the industrial revolution two major world wars and countless other wars, social upheaval, colonialism and so on have their price in mental instability and emotional insecurity. The dharma has the answers to these problems but it will take time for realised beings who really understand the west to emerge (I think).

 

 

Absolutely true and that is no different than any meditative and trans-formative practice, be it Tibetan Buddhism or Daoism, for example. One can study texts, light incense, wear a shawl, and smile a lot but deep personal change requires not only getting the basics right but having the devotion and commitment to actually integrate that into one's life. And our fast-paced, technologically driven culture makes very little room for that sort of integration. One has to be highly motivated to make it work.

 

Its not easy ... a thousand time true