The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate

[Apech]

In compaison to Malcolm's post that themiddleway referenced, which was from almost 2 years ago, here's some posts of Malcolm's from a few weeks ago:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=15699&start=20

 

Malcolm wrote: I have wavered on this over the years, as I have in so many other things, but my present thinking is that all Vajrayāna practitioners of whatever stripe need a solid grounding in Hinayāna and Mahāyāna paths....

 

ChNN only sets a minimum bar on what he expects people to know, but he expects _everyone_ to learn the base. Sadly, most people ignore him on this point, but it is partially because the translation is difficult to read....

 

...The reason why we need to acquaint ourselves with these tenet systems is so that we avoid falling into the same errors, thinking our view accords with Buddhadharma, when it really doesn't.

 

Not sure why he wavered on this. As far as I have experienced all practices have a hinayana/mahayana/vajrayana construction ... I thought it was obvious that this is how it is and how it should be.

[Simple_Jack]

So, Malcolm constantly changes his position - let me kmow if he ever figures it out.

 

In the meantime, remind me what he said about polemics

In compaison to Malcolm's post that themiddleway referenced, which was from almost 2 years ago, here's some posts of Malcolm's from a few weeks ago:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=15699&start=20

 

Malcolm wrote: I have wavered on this over the years, as I have in so many other things, but my present thinking is that all Vajrayāna practitioners of whatever stripe need a solid grounding in Hinayāna and Mahāyāna paths....

 

ChNN only sets a minimum bar on what he expects people to know, but he expects _everyone_ to learn the base. Sadly, most people ignore him on this point, but it is partially because the translation is difficult to read....

 

...The reason why we need to acquaint ourselves with these tenet systems is so that we avoid falling into the same errors, thinking our view accords with Buddhadharma, when it really doesn't.

 

Bump.

[gatito]

 

Bump.

 

No

 

Incorrect

 

What he said about polemics was: -

 

"And polemics are useful for nothing but passing the time, verbal flatulence for the most part."

 

I'm struggling to find a valid counterargument to that

[Simple_Jack]

I'm struggling to find a valid counterargument to that

 

No one's forcing you to get involved with buddhadharma at all. It's of your own volition to come into this sub-forum and debate Buddhist principles.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[asunthatneversets]

Excellent - dualistic non-duality

 

That could present a bit of a dilemma for anyone who isn't Self-realised

 

I guess that's the issue with polemics

The difference does not lie in mere polemics, but rather in the view each system champions.

 

If I was mounting a polemical argument I would assert the supremacy of one view over the other, but I have not done that. Obviously I am partial to the view of Buddhism, but that is besides the point.

 

At any rate, advaya and advaita are not synonymous.

 

It's always important to understand what certain terms are meaning to convey, especially if we understand that these descriptive terms are something like directions or instructions. Words can carry various meanings, even in English.

 

If we were to give directions to someone who doesn't speak English very well and told them 'Bear right at the fork in the road', we would be using three English words or phrases which can mean different things depending on how the word is viewed. We who are fluent in English have no issue with understanding the directions, however someone who doesn't speak English very well may misconstrue those instructions as suggesting there is a grizzly bear in the road, or that brown bears have equal rights when they are near the eating utensil lying in the road, all types of possibilities.

 

On the other hand, when the words are properly understood, and the context we find them in is understood, then we know full well that 'bear right' means to veer in a direction to the right, and we understand that 'fork in the road' means an area where the road splits. We have keen discernment because we understand the varying contexts, connotations, implications and meanings of the words.

 

The same goes for 'non-dual' in the buddhadharma and 'non-dual' in the Hindu schools.

 

If you choose to disregard the fact that the term 'non-dual' can carry different meanings then you are of course welcome to. However that does not mean the distinction is actually frivolous or arbitrary. It simply means you are choosing to disregard the possibility of words carrying different meanings.

Edited March 19, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[gatito]

No one's forcing you to get involved with buddhadharma at all.

 

That's something that you regularly trot out but while it's axiomatically correct, it's also totally irellevant .

 

However, it does illustrate the absence of basic reasoning/debating skills (which is what this threads all about - so thanks for that )

 

And why, especially as a practicing Buddhist, should I not have my say about Buddhism?

[Simple_Jack]

And why, especially as a practicing Buddhist, should I not have my say about Buddhism?

 

You definitely can, but that doesn't mean that it will be in accord with how its presently taught in any existing traditions today; regardless of whatever experience with Buddhism you may have: this doesn't automatically mean that it's exempt from biased and/or delusional views that you currently possess. Which is why I choose to rely on the sutras, shastras and the instructions from my teachers instead. I don't have to consent to your posts just as you don't have to do the same for mine.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[gatito]

The difference does not lie in mere polemics, but rather in the view each system champions.

 

If I was mounting a polemical argument I would assert the supremacy of one view over the other, but I have not done that. Obviously I am partial to the view of Buddhism, but that is besides the point.

 

At any rate, advaya and advaita are not synonymous.

 

It's always important to understand what certain terms are meaning to convey, especially if we understand that these descriptive terms are something like directions or instructions. Words can carry various meanings, even in English.

 

If we were to give directions to someone who doesn't speak English very well and told them 'Bear right at the fork in the road', we would be using three English words or phrases which can mean different things depending on how the word is viewed. We who are fluent in English have no issue with understanding the directions, however someone who doesn't speak English very well may misconstrue those instructions as suggesting there is a grizzly bear in the road, or that brown bears have equal rights when they are near the eating utensil lying in the road, all types of possibilities.

 

On the other hand, when the words are properly understood, and the context we find them in is understood, then we know full well that 'bear right' means to veer in a direction to the right, and we understand that 'fork in the road' means an area where the road splits. We have keen discernment because we understand the varying contexts, connotations, implications and meanings of the words.

 

The same goes for 'non-dual' in the buddhadharma and 'non-dual' in the Hindu schools.

 

If you choose to disregard the fact that the term 'non-dual' can carry different meanings then you are of course welcome to. However that does not mean the distinction is actually frivolous or arbitrary. It simply means you are choosing to disregard the possibility of words carrying different meanings.

 

Ah, the meaning of words - there cannot, by definitiion, be two or more non-dualities - end of! - full stop!

 

The Buddha was also quite specific about this at Kalama (apparently ), which is fortunate because I'm sure that the vast majority of practicing Buddhist's would place no reliance on any of Malcolm Smiths wavering opinions especially if they witness the shambles of the Dharma Wheel

 

However, as I said I find it impossible to refute his stance on polemics

[gatito]

You definitely can, but that doesn't mean that it will be in accord with how its presently taught in any existing traditions today; regardless of whatever experience with Buddhism you may have: this doesn't automatically mean that it's exempt from biased and/or delusional views that you currently possess. Which is why I choose to rely on the sutras, shastras and the instructions from my teachers instead. I don't have to consent to your posts just as you don't have to do the same for mine.

 

Again, tangential and entirely irrelevant.

 

The point is that: -

 

 

"And polemics are useful for nothing but passing the time, verbal flatulence for the most part."

 

Malcolm Smith

 

Go ahead and refute that

 

End of thread

[dawei]

~~~ MOD WARNING ~~~

 

If there is a continuation of belittling, insulting or rubbing some issue in someone's nose continues, some mod action may be taken.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

I'm not offended Simple_Jack, I realise that you haven't got a clue about the Buddha's teachings.

 

 

So, it's clear that your similarly clueless about the Buddha's teachings Jeff

 

 

---

 

Or did your suspension cure you of that?

 

That was explained as only temporary halt to posting to allow mods to figure out the issue...

 

I could do that now so other mods can decide on any possible action or not. I will choose not to for now, but any continuation of treating others with this kind of talk may result in something more.

 

Thanks for taking this into consideration as you continue.

[gatito]

~~~ MOD WARNING ~~~

 

If there is a continuation of belittling, insulting or rubbing some issue in someone's nose continues, some mod action may be taken.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

That was explained as only temporary halt to posting to allow mods to figure out the issue...

 

I could do that now so other mods can decide on any possible action or not. I will choose not to for now, but any continuation of treating others with this kind of talk may result in something more.

 

Thanks for taking this into consideration as you continue.

 

Thanks dawei

 

I'm finished with this

[dawei]

~~~ MOD MESSAGE: ~~~

 

Just to be clear: The warning was to Gatito for postings to SJ and Jeff.

 

 

As this is your thread, we can lock it or let others continue as they want.

 

It stays open until a direct request is made to close it.

 

 

~~~

 

P.S. Some posts are 'split and pit'

[asunthatneversets]

 

Ah, the meaning of words - there cannot, by definitiion, be two or more non-dualities - end of! - full stop!

 

The Buddha was also quite specific about this at Kalama (apparently ), which is fortunate because I'm sure that the vast majority of practicing Buddhist's would place no reliance on any of Malcolm Smiths wavering opinions especially if they witness the shambles of the Dharma Wheel

 

However, as I said I find it impossible to refute his stance on polemics

Advaya means that conditioned entities, objects, etc. [dharmins] are truly non-arisen. Which means that the unconditioned nature [dharmatā] of so called objects [dharmins] is not found apart from said objects. The unconditioned nature is non-dual with the conditioned. The 'ultimate' nature is the non-arising of the relative.

 

Advaita is something completely different. In advaita, the unconditioned is a stand alone essence which is the source of relative phenomena. Everything is eventually subsumed into that source, which is the one true reality.

 

In advaya there is no actual reality or essence which remains when the relative collapses, because the abstractions of the relative only ever arose in the first place as the result of delusion. So the unconditioned in advaya is simply a literary device to convey the insight that the delusory abstractions of ignorance are actually non-arisen. No 'ultimate' remains. There is no 'one without a second'.

[gatito]

~~~ MOD MESSAGE: ~~~

 

Just to be clear: The warning was to Gatito for postings to SJ and Jeff.

 

 

As this is your thread, we can lock it or let others continue as they want.

 

It stays open until a direct request is made to close it.

 

 

~~~

 

P.S. Some posts are 'split and pit'

 

As I said dawei

 

I'm finished with this - if others wish to continue, I'm entirely happy to let them get on with it

 

Thanks for the PS

[gatito]

Advaya means that conditioned entities, objects, etc. [dharmins] are truly non-arisen. Which means that the unconditioned nature [dharmatā] of so called objects [dharmins] is not found apart from said objects. The unconditioned nature is non-dual with the conditioned. The 'ultimate' nature is the non-arising of the relative.

 

Advaita is something completely different. In advaita, the unconditioned is a stand alone essence which is the source of relative phenomena. Everything is eventually subsumed into that source, which is the one true reality.

 

In advaya there is no actual reality or essence which remains when the relative collapses, because the abstractions of the relative only ever arose in the first place as the result of delusion. So the unconditioned in advaya is simply a literary device to convey the insight that the delusory abstractions of ignorance are actually non-arisen. No 'ultimate' remains. There is no 'one without a second'.

Sorry, but I'm out of here

 

Edit for the record: -

 

Although he managed to delete the last one before I could capture it in a quote, some of the grossly abusive memes posted by Simple_Jack that were reported by me prior to this appalling "moderation" can be seen here: -

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/34139-buddhist-reason-split-and-pit/#entry532453

thetaobums.com/topic/34139-buddhist-reason-split-and-pit/#entry532453

 

The correct way to have handled this would have been for dawei to have sent me a PM inviting me to discuss his ongoing personal issues with me, especially after a previous intervention which led to him offering me what was clearly an insincere apology.

Edited May 30, 2014 by gatito

[themiddleway]

 

The above would only have significance if you understood how this diverges from Upanishadic doctrine in both intent and praxis. It's a prime component of Buddhism that features throughout Hinayana and Mahayana; it's significance is more than just a rhetorical device. Mahayana focuses on the realization of 2-fold emptiness, so as lead the practitioner from the limitations of Hinayana, to enter the path of seeing. On the other hand, the above won't be fully appreciated unless a person understands how Mahayana builds upon Hinayana:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Munindra

 

Whatever we see, it is not I, not me, nor a man, not a woman. In the eye, there is just color. It arises and passes away. So who is seeing the object? There is no seer in the object. Then how is the object seen? On account of certain causes. What are the causes? Eyes are one cause; they must be intact, in good order. Second, object or color must come in front of the eyes, must reflect on the retina of the eyes. Third, there must be light. Fourth, there must be attention, a mental factor. If those four causes are present, then there arises a knowing faculty called eye consciousness. If any one of the causes is missing, there will not be any seeing. If eyes are blind, no seeing. If there is no light, no seeing. If there is no attention, no seeing. But none of the causes can claim, "I am the seer." They're just constantly arising and passing.

 

As soon as it passes away, we say, "I am seeing." You are not seeing; you are just thinking, "I am seeing." This is called conditioning. Because our mind is conditioned, when we hear the sound, we say, "I am hearing." But there is no hearer waiting in the car to hear the sound. Sound creates a wave, and, when it strikes against the eardrum, ear consciousness is the effect. Sound is not a man, nor a woman; it is just a sound that arises and passes away. But, according to our conditioning, we say, "That woman is singing and I am hearing." But you're not hearing, you are thinking, "I am hearing." Sound is already heard and gone. There is no "I" who heard the sound; it is the world of concept. Buddha discovered this in the physical level, in the mental level: how everything is happening without an actor, without a doer - empty phenomenon go rolling on. ~ Munindra

 

I don't need a lesson in Buddhism. I was after an explanation of what Hindu La-la land meant? You buttress your argument on Buddhism with novel length quotes and pass off Hinduism with a short statement from a nursery line.

 

Could you mean that by giving primacy to consciousness (or should I say mind..) one proceeds to Hindu La-la land? I mean how dare they infer the primacy of consciousness from reality, cause that's so far from experience. And on the other side of the reality scales we have the Tetra lemma, x exists, x dose not exist, x neither exists or dose not exist, you get the idea.

Forgive me for injecting some incidental reality into internet Dharma debates but dose any of the above have any bearing on ones day to day life? Splitting hairs over such abstract finger pointers just shows scholars predication for pointless confrontation, as Malcolm says, ultimately as a species if we are to survive we have to put down our banners.

I can see elements of crypto-idealism in one and crypto-nihilism in the other but neither has any primacy in day to day living. And more importantly neither catches the richness and wonder of being alive, so fuck Buddhism and Advaita.

 

"My philosophy is kindness" Simple and more pertinent than any Tetra lemma.

Edited March 20, 2014 by themiddleway

[Simple_Jack]

Forgive me for injecting some incidental reality into internet Dharma debates but dose any of the above have any bearing on ones day to day life?

 

Yeah, its applicable if you practice vipassana in the Theravada tradition, as this is an elaboration of the 3 seals i.e. anicca, dukkha, anatta in actual practice, but since you're a Vajrayana practitioner: then it's your prerogative to disregard the above.

 

May your progress in the path be swift, meeting with few obstacles, on the road to bodhi. Take care.

[Tibetan_Ice]

...

Then Buddhists say there is no self, yet they believe and talk about reincarnation or being born into the various other realms.

...

 

Gee found an answer all by myself... From As It Is Vol II

 

finally the body dies, but mind is not some ‘thing’ that can die. The reason why there can be a succession of lives is because of this mind. If mind could die, there would be no rebirth. Because mind does not die, because it is still ignorant, again it will unfold the twelve links: formation, then dualistic consciousness, and again up to aging and death. Like a wheel incessantly spinning, this is called the wheel of samsara.

 

Thank you very much Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche!!!

 

 

[asunthatneversets]

The point of reincarnation without a self is that the self has never occurred in the first place. What we refer to as a 'self' is merely a collection of afflictive patterns and the habituated tendencies which sustain those patterns.

 

Ignorance and karmic patterns are the mother and father of samsara. As long as those two factors are able to proliferate then the cycle of life, death, bardo will repeat. The continuity of selfhood is merely the continuity of these processes. There is no self within nor apart from those processes, yet those processes are treated as an individual entity out of sheer ignorance.

 

This is why when ignorance is overturned, and karma is exhausted, there is liberation.

 

The self has no part of any of this, Buddhism doesn't deal with a self or a lack thereof. The self has been non-arisen since beginningless time. All Buddhism works with is ignorance and a lack thereof (wisdom).

[Tibetan_Ice]

The point of reincarnation without a self is that the self has never occurred in the first place. What we refer to as a 'self' is merely a collection of afflictive patterns and the habituated tendencies which sustain those patterns.

Ignorance and karmic patterns are the mother and father of samsara. As long as those two factors are able to proliferate then the cycle of life, death, bardo will repeat. The continuity of selfhood is merely the continuity of these processes. There is no self within nor apart from those processes, yet those processes are treated as an individual entity out of sheer ignorance.

This is why when ignorance is overturned, and karma is exhausted, there is liberation.

The self has no part of any of this, Buddhism doesn't deal with a self or a lack thereof. The self has been non-arisen since beginningless time. All Buddhism works with is ignorance and a lack thereof (wisdom).

 

If the self has never occurred then to Buddhists the ignorant mind is the same as the western term "self". Get over it. I have.

 

[asunthatneversets]

If the self has never occurred then to Buddhists the ignorant mind is the same as the western term "self". Get over it. I have.

 

Well, the ignorant mind has never truly occurred either. Both mind and self are abstractions, where there is a self you find a mind, where there is a mind you find a self. Recognizing the emptiness of one is recognizing the emptiness of the other, and that species of knowledge reveals that both are primordially non-arisen.

[idiot_stimpy]

Is it safe to give up all, including the Buddhas teachings?

[asunthatneversets]

Is it safe to give up all, including the Buddhas teachings?

 

Not sure if that is directed at my comment, but I was not advocating for an utter lack of ignorance, nor that the path is extraneous. I was merely saying there is no inherent mind and no inherent self, but that doesn't mean there is no affliction to overcome, nor does it mean there is no path to traverse.

[yabyum24]

Is it safe to give up all, including the Buddhas teachings?

As I understand it, they are a means to an end - not an end in themselves. You need the raft to cross the river but after that, there's no need to keep carrying it around.

 

The tenets have a personal use for some people, namely challenging innate assumptions about what we think we are. They can be exciting if studied amongst friends in a spirit of enquiry. If used to 'defeat' others or made into some kind of ontology, they become a poison and a hindrance.

Edited March 21, 2014 by yabyum24

[themiddleway]

As I understand it, they are a means to an end - not an end in themselves. You need the raft to cross the river but after that, there's no need to keep carrying it around.

 

The tenets have a personal use for some people, namely challenging innate assumptions about what we think we are. They can be exciting if studied amongst friends in a spirit of enquiry. If used to 'defeat' others or made into some kind of ontology, they become a poison and a hinderance.

A more succinct version of what I was trying to say