Debates between western buddhist monks?

Any time I was ever able to make any spiritual progress, in my estimation, it was always because I was able to let something go, not because I acquired or accumulated something - even an improved philosophical view on some matter.

Can I ask a personal question ? Have you ever changed your main views about the world in your life ? If so, what views did you change and what views have you replaced them with ? And how did this happen ? Because of what did this happen ?

That is a very good point. It is worth coming up with a high level percentage of the occurrences of debates in suttas. I believe it will be small - and that tells us something about Buddha’s preference or not for debates.

The very concept of gradual teaching points towards that direction as well - the Buddha was always skillful in introducing little by little the pieces of what will become right view in the mind of those at his audience.

It is worth as well highlighting that some contemporary theories of dialogue see as a more interesting alternative to the extreme of raw debate the more constructive possibilities of skillful discussion and conversations.

1 Like

Yes, my views have changed many times. The views I had 40 years ago on the nature of morality, on the nature of time and space, on the fundamental principals of metaphysics and on the self are very different than the views I have now. My views were changed gradually over time by my engagement with philosophical writing and debate. I think the views I have now are substantial improvements over the ones I had earlier in my life.

But none of those improvements in my views really helped alleviate my suffering. The new and improved views didn’t - as far as I’m aware - make me less angry, less arrogant, less frustrated, less addicted to sensory pleasure, less sad, or less worried about the future. But I do think following the Buddhist path of practice and meditation has helped with those things. Those latter changes, and my reflections on them, have led to further changes in my views about many things. But the new changes in the views came from the changes in my way of life - not the other way around.

3 Likes

Would you practice the buddhist path if you had not changed your views to buddhist views using this method ? :

My views were changed gradually over time by my engagement with philosophical writing and debate.

What if the views you have now can be further changed by debating and good old “thinking and pondering/contemplation” like they have been changed in the past ? What makes you think that now they are unchangable through this method anymore ?

I don’t think they are unchangeable. In fact, I’m sure they will continue to change. I’m just skeptical that the changes will help me get any closer to where I really need to go .

I think I’ve found it. I don’t know if this is the one I’ve been speaking about, I’m reading it right now:

Bhikkhu Bodhi , Ajahn Brahmali , Bhante Sujato

Can someone provide the link of the ajahn sujato/bhikku bodhi debate??? There must have been many cuts and bruises? Did the loser convert to the views of the winner - like in India in the good old days?

Debating is an interesting process and it definitely helps one ascertain his or her own views.

However it’s not always that conducive to reaching the goals of the path. Here’s a short story to better explain this point…

"A fair few month ago I saw a documentary about a Buddhist monastery in a far place in the Russian Federation [1].

One of the monk there was the raining champion of a debating contest in India. And he was talking about the pressure to keep up with this and how this should be contrasted with the goals of monastic life.

However later in the documentary a lady came for counselling and she told him her difficulties in life with her husband, kids, family etc.

The monk then proceeded to advise her to take a holiday or go do some shopping, adding to that all he could do himself when he was feeling down or sad was to enjoy a pleasant meal."

I can’t help but wondering how worth all the work put into winning debates really is, if one cannot talk the dhamma when a lay person comes for help and if one gone forth admits to taking refuge in food instead of the triple gem when the going gets tough?

[1] It was in French on Arte or France5, but I couldn’t find any references to it on the TV channel I think I saw it, so I can’t source it here or find reference to the location.

1 Like

not necessarily evil, but debating certainly invokes some unwholesome states of mind because it’s normally underpinned by intent of asserting one’s ego which is the opposite of what the Dhamma teaches

to be made to change your point of view the debate isn’t necessary, it suffices to hear out alternative opinion and do some pondering, which can be done in the mode of discussion with no involvement of loss and victory

1 Like

@Shuka: That is a perfect example of how not to engage in debates. Just like cooking or driving or any other activity, an activity can be done in a good way or a bad way. There are people out there who drive very bad and cause a lot of problems with their bad driving. Should we conclude from this that driving is dangerous and is in general unwholesome ? Should we conclude that those who drive do it out of evil intentions, with the purpose of having an adrenaline rush ? Or are there people who drive because of other reasons than adrenaline rush ?

@LXNDR

to be made to change your point of view the debate isn’t necessary, it suffices to hear out alternative opinion and do some pondering, which can be done in the mode of discussion with no involvement of loss and victory

But what if your view is wrong view ? What if 2 persons have a different opinion on a subject ? Discussion is when they have the same opinion. Debate is when they have a different opinion.

Let’s take for example the eternal consciousness view of Thanissaro or the “true self” view witch is the main view of the Thai Forest school. If you do not believe that Buddha taught “true self” - would it not be good to get people out of this view by showing that Buddha did not teach true self ? Or show secular buddhist that Buddha actually did teach rebirth ?

The gift of dhamma is the biggest gift one can give.

I enjoy and appreciate these comments very much, Dan. A nice set of wise and heartfelt thoughts to start the day with. Your perspective reminds me some of what Ven. Matthieu Ricard has said about his experiences growing up with a famous philosopher/writer father, and the friends and colleagues of his father’s that he had met.

He mentioned that so many of these men were distinguished thinkers, writers, artists, and achievers. Yet, he noted that most of them were bitter and miserable, generally. I recall that Ven. Matthieu mentioned that it wasn’t until he, as a promising young academic himself, began to meet and interact with Buddhist monks that he had some insight into true wisdom and happiness. He decided he wanted to learn to be happy. I believe Ajahn Brahm has echoed some of these perspectives from his days in the august academic halls at Cambridge.

1 Like

We must remember the great intention of not harming ourselves and others, helping ourselves and others, that is the baseline of discussion, debate, conversation, etc.

There are many ways to change views of others aside from debate like:

  • Practical jokes
  • Inserting subtle similes during conversation
  • Telling real life stories
  • Little bit sarcastic?
  • Showing good example in life

Because of the heaty side effect of debate, we shouldn’t consider it as a main approach. The problem with debate is the obsession of winning the debate, I do not have the data but for me it feels like more harm is done then good. Perhaps debate is a very strong medicine that can be used sparingly, not to be taken lightly.

But if both parties are not easily offended, intelligent and are willing to change, then debate is good. I guess majority of people like me are easily annoyed and takes long time to change. I find that letting go of “rock solid” ideas gives me more understanding than winning all debates.

Another thing I notice is that when I’m debating (or arguing?), words are like coming out from intellectual part of me, which feels artificial and agitating. Whereas when I speak at ease in a calmly manner in response to a genuine question in quest for answer, it feels warm, happy and with much peace. Perhaps that explain why many shy away from debating, it just so much of suffering even after a short session.

A very good example of ineffectiveness of debate is the belief of God, you can’t easily convert them out, in fact it’s takes a long time with careful craft. If you think buddhists are open minded, think again, many have their own version of God.

1 Like

I agree with what you say, that is why Buddha gave advice on how to debate correctly not just for the sake of feeling smart. But this does not mean debates are bad in itself and that all who debate do so because of this reason. The same as the fact that some drive just for adrenaline rush and put others in danger does not mean driving itself is bad and should be avoided.

I agree that english find it hard to debate because it is a highly anti-debate culture. And this is why we see US having such big struggles with democracy. US is a much more older democracy than my country and still are behaving like it was introduced yesterday. People can’t accept that their party lost. Debate is not only important for traversing the jungle of views but also for a good function of a democracy. I would say that those who struggle with debates should wear protection equipment while debating or reading the newspaper, not try to ban debates alltogether. That is like a feminist or red piller who had bad luck in his love life trying to say all men are rapist or all woman are only about the money. Almost all US collages have already imposed speech laws and ban views that they do not like. IT is not out of randomness that the called “safe space” phenomenon only exist in the english world and to a very very small extent in Germany. Clearly this has to do with the puritan past and anti-debate culture of the english.

This is the problem I have noticed at english people. Instead of trying to address this defects that they have and take pride only in their qualities (non-corruption, calmness, hard working) , they try to say their defects are also good and those who do not have them are actually evil or rude or narcissistic. I know this is called “american exceptionalist” but I say it’s also present in the english world. A latin european has no problem admiting his culture has a huge problem with corruption, with not been hard working, etc. but it is very difficult for english people to admit any mistake when it comes to their culture because they had a big empire in the past and how could they ever have any defect ? Not even the most nationalistic person in Romania or Italy or Spain would deny that his culture has a big problem with corruption and laziness. Though there are some people out there claiming this actually means “been smart” and northerners are stupid drones for not been like this. But this is not because of nationalism but because of clinging. First there comes clinging, then come views saying this is actually a quality not a defect.

Honestly, I have little idea what you mean here. The culture I live in here in the US is pervaded by incessant political, social and cultural debates of all kind. The print, internet and broadcast media present a non-stop parade of people arguing about every topic under the sun. Also, expressions of rejection, disavowal, guilt and disapproval toward the colonial and imperial legacy of Anglo-American culture are extremely commonplace.

It appears from your comments that you harbor a great deal of bitterness - and, I must say, in some cases, poorly informed bigotry and crude, reductive intellectual stereotypes - about English-speaking westerners. You also seem to be spoiling for some kind of fight. Well, I for one am not going to give it to you.

Yes but your country is one of the few where the safe space problem for example has manifested. Don’t you find it strange that the “safe space” phenomenon is present only in US/UK/AU/CA and to a very very small extent in Germany ? (witch are also puritans) Why is this not happening outside the english world ? Why not in France, Spain, Italy etc.

As for political debates, yes they exist because like it or not, US is still a democracy. But look how these debates are going. It’s like who is shouting louder than the other is right. And look at the protests of people that could not accept their political party had lost the ellections. You do not see that thing happening outside US.

In my country for example, people who are really monstruously corrupt won the ellections and there were zero protests. It would be quite ridiculous to protest an election and would only damage your party. Shorter than 1 month after the election, they legalized corruption. (yes, it’s no joke, google “romania legalized corruption” - it actually happened) It took 7 days of gigantinc protests to make the socialist retreat the law and make corruption illegal again. 15% of Bucharest population (280k people) was in the street in winter to do it, biggest protest since the 89 revolution. After the law was taken back, protests have instantly stopped. Some expected them to continue and ask for the government to resign but they did not because that would not be correct. Socialist won the ellection, they have 4 years to govern. They tried legalizing corruption, people protested against that not against the government. The protesters even issued a statement saying that their goal has been completed and they are not a political tool to be used against removing a democratically elected government. - Google it, it happened like 2-3 weeks ago

Compare this understanding of democracy with US witch is a much older democracy.

True, but that doesn’t mean those who criticize them sudently think that english culture is bad. As a matter of fact, most of these people are leftist and therefore the ones who have the strongest anti-debate mentality and even rationalize it. Safe spaces or censorship laws are not pushed by nationalist. They are the ones who take the biggest pride in english puritan culture. They would not change an inch of it.

They might change their religion from christianity to religious humanism but they take the puritanism with them. They never had the slightest problem with puritanism, many of them been as puritan as victorian era people.

It appears from your comments that you harbor a great deal of bitterness - and, I must say, in some cases, poorly informed bigotry and crude, reductive intellectual stereotypes - about English-speaking westerners. You also seem to be spoiling for some kind of fight. Well, I for one am not going to give it to you.

There is some bitternes out there witch is not because of this forum but because of another that I’ve frequented for a longer time. This is what I have noticed about the english. Every culture in the world has good traits and bad traits. The obvious problem of the english is been a highly anti-debate culture and been in the uttermost extreme of politeness. English even consider Germans to be super rude witch are nr 3 most polite in europe out of 48 countries after the english and the portugese. What does that say about the english ? You really do not accept that english culture might have any flaws at all ?

And this takes it’s toll on the western shanga too, witch is majority english because of buddhism been decently popular only in US. The almost absolute lack of debates between western bhikkhus is proof of this.

From Asia’s point of view, western English countries really like debate. I guess anti-debate thing is not just English, it’s very common.

Neh, it happens in Malaysia, protest after election is common activity.

I’d be worried if there are many debates going on among monks, that’d mean they are not contemplative enough :joy:

I’m not sure what you’ve been through, but culture is not something we can change easily, even if we try very hard. We have to consider that it’s there to stay and there’s nothing we can do about it. But we can change ourselves, to see things differently as it is, for example if anti-debate is the reality, then who are we to say that it’s shouldn’t be like that? Saying that reality should be different and flawed is very hard to justify. Instead, we could understand why the reality come to be, what happened in history, who and what influenced it, etc. If you dig deep enough you’ll come to understand that it should be like that. Peace at last :anjal:

1 Like

I agree. I am not one of those idealist dreaming of a perfect society. I just pointed that out because it’s a flaw of english culture same as honor killings are a flaw of albanian culture. And Mara only disappears when it is seen. Many never stop to think that this anti-debate attitude is actually something bad not something to be proud of.

From Asia’s point of view, western English countries really like debate. I guess anti-debate thing is not just English, it’s very common.

I’ve heard about this too. I heard a monk say that Thai and Japanese buddhist online forums atmosphere is like a ballroom atmosphere not a place where people are actually looking for right view.

I’d be worried if there are many debates going on among monks, that’d mean they are not contemplative enough

I’d be worried that they’re contemplating but contemplating like a dog is contemplating a calendar :smiley:

Because we know that we can’t convince the other, or we know we can’t be convinced, plus the suffering in debating just makes use take a simpler path - celebrate the common ground.

Rather than both of us worrying, let us both not worry at all!

I think if we can debate like the philosophers but without the angry and weary faces, we can promote that way of achieving right views. Let’s see if someone can post more of such debates here then.

I have complained about this too in my OP post of this topic. English do not change their views after a debate like normal people. So it is understandable why a person might conclude that debate is useless since most people in their country never change their views. Since the person never saw somebody change his views after a debate, naturally he will believe debates are not effective.

My country is nowhere near ancient india in terms of debate culture and easiness in changing views, but it’s also nowhere near the english world. You might find it hard to believe but there are people out there ( in general novices) that do not have granite solid clinging to views even in the english world. So debates are not entirely useless even in such a place. Plus, there are people who become aware of the danger of clinging to views along the buddhist path and may be a little more open. I have seen such people. Not many but they exist.