The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate

[gatito]

 

Buddhism is a wisdom tradition. It asserts that we are liberated by the power of our own understanding. 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. It is like the approach of a physician—to remove what does not belong and to strengthen what does.

 

Thus, for Buddhists, reasoning and debate are not ends in themselves or idle intellectual speculation. Rather, they are used as one path to spiritual wellness, taking practitioners closer to the health of liberation through these efforts to remove mistaken views and to understand and strengthen correct ones.

 

Reading and memorization are not enough. Students must be able to verbalize their understanding and defend it under the pressure of cross-examination. This book teaches the basic analytical skills and procedures used in Buddhist debate. It is based on the author’s own practice and experiences gained in the debating courtyards of Tibetan monasteries in India and matured through years of leading popular university courses on the subject. Sample debate exchanges show readers how to get started with the Buddhist style of analytical thinking to challenge and defend assertions.

 

Learning is supported by guided reflections, practical advice, and verbal exercises to be completed in practice with a partner. By the end of the course, readers will be able to engage in unscripted, full-fledged debates with a qualified partner about Buddhist characterizations and classifications of phenomena using the format and procedures of Buddhist debate. Moreover, these skills, once mastered, can then be applied to investigating the truth and falsity of views in any other subject.

 

http://www.shambhala.com/books/buddhism/tibetan/a-course-in-buddhist-reasoning-and-debate.html

 

www.shambhala.com/books/buddhism/tibetan/a-course-in-buddhist-reasoning-and-debate.html

 

and only $79.95 (+ shipping)

[doc benway]

Cool!

I just wanna learn to do the stomp…

[3bob]

"only" $80.00 for a book when most go for around $20.00, btw hasn't the "4 fold negation" of long ago already negated such a one- up-man-ship of holding of views as described?

[gatito]

Cool!

I just wanna learn to do the stomp…

 

Ah - "The Stomp" (aka "The Gagging Order" or "The Buddhist Bum's Rush" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bum%27s_rush (://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bum%27s_rush)

 

Pop along to The Dharma Wheel or to eSangha and question the dogma of the ruling "elite" there and I'm sure that they'll teach it to you.

[Apech]

"only" $80.00 for a book when most go for around $20.00, btw hasn't the "4 fold negation" of long ago already negated such a one- up-man-ship of holding of views as described?

 

 

You can buy the book, or not buy the book, or both buy it and not buy it, or neither buy it or not buy it.

[3bob]

You can buy the book, or not buy the book, or both buy it and not buy it, or neither buy it or not buy it.

 

Thus spoke Siddhartha

Edited March 5, 2014 by 3bob

[doc benway]

Ah - "The Stomp" (aka "The Gagging Order" or "The Buddhist Bum's Rush" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bum%27s_rush (://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bum%27s_rush)

 

Pop along to The Dharma Wheel or to eSangha and question the dogma of the ruling "elite" there and I'm sure that they'll teach it to you.

 

It reminds me a little bit of "Needle to the Bottom of the Sea" as done by Chen Pan Ling...

[gatito]

It reminds me a little bit of "Needle to the Bottom of the Sea" as done by Chen Pan Ling...

 

I prefer this...

 

[idiot_stimpy]

Is this why Buddhist love arguing?

[C T]

Buddhists debate as a way to enter a process of mental purification. You can call it arguing with a purpose, if you want, but also, its not really arguing, more like a way to dissolve self-inflicted boundaries caused by the accumulated conditions giving rise to prejudice, fear and other mental obstacles, notably wrong views. Mundane arguments tend to fester more negativity on the whole, so there is quite an obvious difference.

Edited March 5, 2014 by C T

[idiot_stimpy]

I've seen some spiritual arguments fester pretty badly with people resorting to all sorts of attacks on the others character.

[C T]

I've seen some spiritual arguments fester pretty badly with people resorting to all sorts of attacks on the others character.

Well, that happens due to people confusing the meaning of 'spiritual' i guess.

[Anderson]

what a rip-off ?

Really ?

Is it printed in gold or what ?

[Apech]

Is this why Buddhist love arguing?

 

 

They don't.

Yes they do!

No they don't!

Prove it!

Why should I? Make me!

Fascist!

Nazi!!!

Hey compassion, man.

Oh yeah.

Peace.

Sure.

Love.

What?

I said love.

Oh fuck off.

[C T]

They don't.

Yes they do!

No they don't!

Prove it!

Why should I? Make me!

Fascist!

Nazi!!!

Hey compassion, man.

Oh yeah.

Peace.

Sure.

Love.

What?

I said love.

Oh fuck off.

Shit!! You used the F word!!!!

So what?

You'll burn in hell for that.

Fuck off... im not Christian.

Well, then you burn in Buddhist hell.

So now there are 2 hells, eh?

More than 2 actually.

Really?

Yup.

Name them.

I cant.

Why?

Its secret.

You mean secret, like, Only Dzogchen practitioners can know?

Yes. Are you one?

No, i am a neo-advaitin.

Then you dont belong here.

Make me go if you can.

Thats against the rules of the board.

So, shut the f up.

You have double standards.

Me? Look at yourself in the mirror.

I did. All's fine there.

Thats what you think.

I dont think. Empty mind.

BS.

Fascist.

Pig.

Cow.

Snake.

Otter.

[Apech]

Shit!! You used the F word!!!!

So what?

You'll burn in hell for that.

Fuck off... im not Christian.

Well, then you burn in Buddhist hell.

So now there are 2 hells, eh?

More than 2 actually.

Really?

Yup.

Name them.

I cant.

Why?

Its secret.

You mean secret, like, Only Dzogchen practitioners can know?

Yes. Are you one?

No, i am a neo-advaitin.

Then you dont belong here.

Make me go if you can.

Thats against the rules of the board.

So, shut the f up.

You have double standards.

Me? Look at yourself in the mirror.

I did. All's fine there.

Thats what you think.

I dont think. Empty mind.

BS.

Fascist.

Pig.

Cow.

Snake.

Otter.

 

That's otter rubbish!

[doc benway]

I've seen some spiritual arguments fester pretty badly with people resorting to all sorts of attacks on the others character.

That's because they haven't read the book!

 

Yes, it's an expensive book and quite possiblly, a very rare and valuable resource. It's probably the result of a very long course of study and a lot of hard work. I think it's a rare opportunity for Westerners to get a glimpse into the art of Buddhist debate. When you think of the time, effort, travel expense, and time lost from work that would be involved in the average Westerner getting exposure to these methods from a credible resource, I actually think it's quite a bargain (assuming, of course, its a good book). It's no more than your average undergraduate textbook, quite a bit less than many in fact. For anyone seriously interested in the intellectual and analytic aspect of Buddhism, I think it's probably well worth the cost, as long as you can put together a group of like minded folks to debate... I know folks who spend that much on a couple of boxes of good incense, a fancy mala, or a pair of jeans... (not to mention a bag of weed....)

 

And if you wait a few months, you can get it from Amazon for ~ $50, and if you're patient you can probably get a used copy for even less

Edited March 5, 2014 by steve

[Simple_Jack]

Is this why Buddhist love arguing?

 

'View' is paramount in buddhadharma:

 

Apart from meditation on the correct view

There is no path that can destroy the root of samsara. ~ Khedrup Je

 

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Tirthika

 

"Although [tirthikas] have many different beliefs, when condensing the root of all of them, there are two: proponents of eternalism and proponents of nihilism....in the last analysis they all come down to one thing, the assertion of a truly existent entity." ~ Mipham Rinpoche

 

What differentiates the approach between sutrayana and vajrayana is upaya.

[doc benway]

'View' is paramount in buddhadharma:

 

Apart from meditation on the correct view

There is no path that can destroy the root of samsara. ~ Khedrup Je

 

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Tirthika

 

"Although [tirthikas] have many different beliefs, when condensing the root of all of them, there are two: proponents of eternalism and proponents of nihilism....in the last analysis they all come down to one thing, the assertion of a truly existent entity." ~ Mipham Rinpoche

 

What differentiates the approach between sutrayana and vajrayana is upaya.

 

Yes, view is absolutely critical.

 

In my experience there are two different kinds of view.

 

The first type is that generated through study, reading, analysis, debate, teachings, and so forth. It is important to develop and very unstable. It can change with a thought or a word because it is little more than a concept.

 

The second type is that generated through the spontaneous and direct experience of reality. That is very stable even though it may not be easy, or even possible to express through words. It cannot be changed by any words, concepts, argument, or force. It just is as it is. That is the source of deep devotion and trust. That is the source of refuge. That, I think, is what we're ultimately after in terms of view.

 

The first kind of view can help to generate the second but it is not a given. I think that meditation is also an important tool to try and generate the second type of view, as is our daily behavior. Even those things are no guarantee however... That is why it is so important to pursue all aspects of the path with dedication.

[gatito]

^^^

QFT

 

When I look inside and see that I am nothing, that is wisdom.
When I look outside and see that I am everything,that is love.
And between these two, my life turns.
- Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

[yabyum24]

Well I'm not sure if this book has the same quantity or quality of debating MSG, but it's a lot cheaper and covers pretty much all you need to know in order to set yourself up as in internet debating jihadi. So, read it and come back here to kick some some serious butt. You know the infidel deserve it, and it's all because you're *ahem* (cough) compassionate!!! Don't forget to remind them it's for their own good.

The juicy review:

The Cornerstone of All Subsequent Madhyamaka Research
his encyclopedic and gound-breaking work inaugurated a new era of Buddhist scholarship in the West and significantly raised the standard for the study of Buddhism. This book is based on Professor Hopkins' Ph.D. dissertation of the same name. Since writing this book he has gone on to supervise the scholarship of numerous leaders in the field of Tibetan Buddhist studies at the University of Virginia, such as Elizabeth Napper, Anne Klein, Joe Wilson, Daniel Perdue, Donald Lopez, Guy Newland, and Georges Dreyfus among others. Together these scholars have produced a body of work which gives us a context and a philosophical vocabulary with which we can plunge into the world of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. This is of immense benefit not only to scholars but to Buddhist practitioners as well. This book started it all. It is a work of amazing depth which plunges into the Tibetan exegesis of the Indian Madhyamaka meditation. This analytical meditation tradition is designed to induce, through meticulous analysis, a direct perception of the absence of the mental and perceptual distortions which are at the root of suffering. The core delusion under which all mind-posessing beings suffer is the belief that phenomena exist inherently, or independently of their causes and conditions, their parts, and their designation by a valid consciousness. The fact that they do not exist in this way is called emptiness. Indian Madhyamaka masters Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Chandrakirti, and Shantideva express this view in their works. Their analysis is picked up by great luminaries of the Ge-lug-ba tradition in Tibet, such as Dzong-ka-ba and his disciples. Professor Hopkins primarily focuses his exegesis on the practical instructions of Chandrakirti as they are espoused by Tibetan masters Jam-yang-shay-ba, Nga-wang-bel-den, and Jang-gya. It is said by some that an analytic approach to meditation is contrary to the non-dual nature of realization in the Buddhist tradition. Such a view loses sight of the fact that all of these reasonings are aimed precisely at giving rise to such a direct experience. Putting these reasonings into practice can be the basis of profound and transformative growth, but it is up to the reader to breath life into the tradition by bringing these reasonings alive for one's self. Professor Hopkins here gives us a monumental collection of reasonings as well as a supportive analysis of pertinent aspects of Buddhist philosophy and the philosophical history of the Prasangika-Madhyamaka position which can be a cornerstone of our practice as well as future scholarship. Few works before, or even since, can begin to match the ambitious nature of this work which, in my opinion, is fully realized. In this book we see the serious engagement with some questions of fundamental import continued in the West.

[gatito]

The world's religions can be categorically said to be either aggressive or nonaggressive. Each religion has a certain promise in the form of an ultimate goal. Their faithful people try to live the prescribed life and reach the promised goal. Neither they nor their clergy are out to bring the people of other religions to their flock. Zorastrians follow their religious tradition without attempting to convert anybody to their religion. This is true with the followers of the Jewish tradition, Vedic religion (now known as Hinduism), Shintoism, Taoism and the many other religions of various tribes in the world. I call these religious traditions nonaggressive because they do not believe in aggressive conversion.

 

Conversion is an Act of Violence

by Swami Dayananda Saraswati

Full article here: - http://www.swamij.com/conversion-violence.htm (www.swamij.com/conversion-violence.htm)

 

It's interesting that Buddhism wasn't given as an example of a non-aggressive religion here and certainly it's not my experience that internet "Buddhism" is non-aggressive.

 

There is, of course a fundamental difference between a set of religious beliefs/misapplied philosophical arguments and the spirituality (direct knowledge) that once lay at the heart of all the main religions.

Edited March 5, 2014 by gatito

[Simple_Jack]

Well I'm not sure if this book has the same quantity or quality of debating MSG, but it's a lot cheaper and covers pretty much all you need to know in order to set yourself up as in internet debating jihadi. So, read it and come back here to kick some some serious butt. You know the infidel deserve it, and it's all because you're *ahem* (cough) compassionate!!! Don't forget to remind them it's for their own good.

It's interesting that Buddhism wasn't given as an example of a non-aggressive religion here and certainly it's not my experience that internet "Buddhism" is non-aggressive.

 

No one's forcing you to adopt Buddhist teachings, much less to even agree with its tenets, but it cannot be denied that the historical Buddha distinguished his teachings of dependent origination from the prevalent views of the different schools of thought during his time The only way to avoid acknowledging this is by proverbially burying your head in the sand.

 

 

There is, of course a fundamental difference between a set of religious beliefs/misapplied philosophical arguments and the spirituality (direct knowledge) that once lay at the heart of all the main religions.

 

This is called perennialism:

 

http://www.religioperennis.org/documents/Fabbri/Perennialism.pdf

 

"...They claim that the historically separated traditions share not only the same divine origin but are based on the same metaphysical principles, sometimes called philosophia perennis."

Buddhadharma is antithetical to periennalist views.

[Simple_Jack]

Yes, view is absolutely critical.

 

In my experience there are two different kinds of view.

 

The first type is that generated through study, reading, analysis, debate, teachings, and so forth. It is important to develop and very unstable. It can change with a thought or a word because it is little more than a concept.

 

The second type is that generated through the spontaneous and direct experience of reality. That is very stable even though it may not be easy, or even possible to express through words. It cannot be changed by any words, concepts, argument, or force. It just is as it is. That is the source of deep devotion and trust. That is the source of refuge. That, I think, is what we're ultimately after in terms of view.

 

The first kind of view can help to generate the second but it is not a given. I think that meditation is also an important tool to try and generate the second type of view, as is our daily behavior. Even those things are no guarantee however... That is why it is so important to pursue all aspects of the path with dedication.

 

My stance differs somewhat as to the role of correct inference gained from studying, but this is due to starting out in sutrayana, as well as influence from the Gelugpas. In both, familiarity with right view, although on the basis of conceptual inference, leads to non-conceptual realization. The same principle applies to meditation on a koan, which is conceptual by nature, but can eventually lead to a non-conceptual "awakening", which is then continually refined until the moment of "great awakening". In Gelug, due to Tsongkhapa's formulation of conventional and ultimate levels of emptiness, though emptiness is an ultimate truth: it also exists conventionally as the characteristic of an object, which in turn is the ultimate nature of the object; therefore, being that emptiness is a characteristic of an object, it merely exists as what's designated by the mind and is ascertainable by means of logic and analysis. Basically, emptiness is an ultimate truth, but it exists conventionally, which means that emptiness can be continually apprehended conceptually, as the object of a mental consciousness, up until the moment of non-conceptual realization.

 

In Dzogchen, after the recognition of the nature of mind, one continually refines, familiarizes, and integrates with the 'View' through the practice of tregcho, togal, etc.:

 

http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-all-creating-king-and-implications.html

 

Jean-Luc Wrote:

Hi Daygo,

It's a subject that we've been discussing quite a lot in other Yahoo lists. I personally think that "Presence" is the worst word ever to use in order to translate Rigpa. Presence is a sensation, so it belongs to the aggregate of sensations. It, of course, involves consciousnesses (both sensory and mental) and that's precisely where the problem lies. Rigpa is beyond sensations and consciousnesses. It does not depend on these. It is the knowledge of the natural state. What does that mean really? It means that the Natural State has two qualities : Emptiness and Clarity. Emptiness means absence of inherent existence and Clarity means that this state is self-discerning ("it knows itself by itself", as Lopon [Tenzin Namdak] often puts it). In other words, the Clarity of the natural state corresponds to what Rigpa is. This Rigpa is that through which one knows the natural state (when being introduced to it by the master) and that through which our natural state knows itself (just like a lamp illuminates both itself and what is around). And how does it know itself since it's not a mental consciousness? It precisely discerns (rig) itself from the ordinary mind (sems), from consciousness (rnam-shes), intellect (blo), intelligence (blo gros), mental (yid), etc. So when you are in the state of Rigpa, you clearly discerns (rig) what pertains to Mind (sems-nyid, the ultimate nature of Mind) from what pertains to ordinary, conditioned mind (sems). In Thogel context, Rigpa corresponds to the fourth Lamp — the Lamp of the Self-Arisen Sublime Knowledge (shes-rab rang-byung gi sgron ma) — which is, precisely, the Sublime (rab) Knowledge (shes) corresponding to the state of Trekchö. In all of this, there is a very active and dynamic aspect of total Discernment (rig-pa) or real Knowledge (shes rab) of the natural state, not a mere state of sensing a presence (of what by the way?)....

 

...There exists 15 forms or modalities of Rigpa (which we may discuss in another post, right now I lack time to enter details), but basically when explaining what it is in Bon, we use mainly these three modalities:

1. Khyab-rig (All-Pervasive Discernment) which is the same as the Sugatagarbha, the potential for Buddhahood (it is nothing else, just this potential). What it pervades is the heart of all beings; in other words, all beings have this Pervasive Discernement which embraces each being endowed with a mind;

2. bSam-rig (Knowing Discernment) which is the knowledge you generate when you study and get experiences of the teachings (it is a fluctuating phenomenon according to the capacities of the individual; the more you study correctly, the more your Knowing Discernement is developed);

3. Ye-rig (Primordial Discernment) which is, precisely, the Rigpa that is referred to in Dzogchen texts. There exists three modalities indicating whether or not you are in this state : an outer one, an inner one and an intermediate one. According to the outer one, you know (you realize, you discern) that the outer manifestations are really non-substantial (you realize their absence of tangible reality). According to the inner one, you are in the experience of Mind itself (sems-nyid) and you realize it as being devoid of self (bdag-med). In other words, you discerns your real nature as being empty of a conditioned self. Then according to the intermediate one, all discursive thoughts arise as Wisdoms. It does not mean that thoughts disappear; on the contrary they continue to arise but they are left as they are and we do not follow after them. At that time they simply arise but are seen as empty. Still their potential for arising is there and since it is not tainted by ego-grasping, then this potential manifests its enlightened side which is that of Wisdoms. In other words, thoughts arise as Wisdoms. They are exactly the same as before, exactly and precisely the same as before, with the cosmic exception that there is no grasping at them anymore.

All this comes from the teachings of Shardza Rinpoche and the oral instructions associated with the Trekchö section of the Kuzang Nyingthik.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[doc benway]

… familiarity with right view, although on the basis of conceptual inference, leads to non-conceptual realization.

 

My only point of disagreement with your post is the following - I would qualify the above statement by replacing "leads to" with "may lead to." I don't think it is a given. It's very difficult to know what leads to the spontaneous experience of "non-conceptual realization" whether big or small. Maybe it's our karma and the activities in this incarnation have very little to do with it. I am aware of many instances of this in folks who have had no formal training of the "right view" and no meditative experience. On the other hand, I do have confidence that the Buddhist methods (and others) are more likely to take us there than many other activities we may engage in.

 

I also take issue with translating rigpa as knowledge. In the sense that knowledge refers to awareness or familiarity gained through experience, then yes - that aspect is applicable. We've been through this before and I won't debate it much but I think knowing, for example, is a much better English word if we want to point to that which is beyond words and concepts than is the word knowledge. Knowledge in English generally refers to a facts, information, or experience stored within the dualistic mind. Knowledge is finite. Knowing at least implies activity and does not imply boundaries. I do follow Jean Luc's argument and acknowledge his criticism of the use of the word presence and yet I think reducing rigpa to the word knowledge is even more misleading to uninitiated and inexperienced native English speakers than using a word like knowing or awareness.

 

Words are very tricky, much better to practice…. but equally important to practice skillfully and with proper guidance.

 

Edit - Serendipitously, after finishing this post, I opened the book I'm currently reading, Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings, and encountered this quote from Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche by way of John Reynolds - "The capacity of the Natural State to be aware intrinsically is called Rigpa and that Rigpa is not thought (rnam-rtog)." To my Western ear and sensibility, the word knowledge implies the product of thought and so I tend to reject that word as synonymous with Rigpa…

Edited March 7, 2014 by steve