In Dhamma debates is it OK to name the “opponent” or is it better to just address the topic?
Dhamma controversies abound with important debates in written media. In an academic context the procedure is to identify the author holding the contested proposition for referencing.
In buddhadhamma its more nuanced. Identifying the person with an “alternative” view has some good points and some bad points. The good might include knowing the individuals backstory and lineage to understand the context. But:
You don’t say: ‘All those who have given up the fetter of continued existence are free of pain, harm, stress, and fever, and they are practicing the right way.’
Rather, by saying this you just teach Dhamma:
‘When the fetter of continued existence is given up, continued existence is also given up.’
That’s how there is neither flattering nor rebuking, and just teaching Dhamma.
The Analysis of No Strife MN 139
Does the import of this sutta indicate that in a modern dhamma (non-academic) debate, its better not to name the “opponent” and simply discuss the views?
The sutta doesn’t appear to me to be addressing debates about interpretation. Rather, it is addressing:
… how is there flattering and rebuking without teaching Dhamma?
and
…how is there neither flattering nor rebuking, and just teaching Dhamma?
In other contexts, where a student had a wrong view, the Buddha did rebuke. So, I imagine that if a student said:
‘Indulgence is the right way.’
they would be rebuked, as he rebuked Sāti in MN38:
But still you misrepresent me by your wrong grasp, harm yourself, and create much wickedness.
This will be for your lasting harm and suffering.
However, neither of these situations seems to be relevant to debates about interpretation that are not part of a student-teacher relationship.
Personally, I think it is unhelpful to make statements like:
“Some teachers say such-and-such, which is not correct”.
I would prefer to either simply hear the speakers opinion, or, if they have a disagreement, be told exactly who and what they are disagreeing with. In my experience, statements along the lines of the above that are often so oversimplified as to be completely worthless.
I think this is a good topic and I’ve been asking myself the exact same question. As you said, in academia it’s standard as you need to identify the person holding a certain view you wish to argue against. In ‘Buddhist circles’ -outside academia- I feel there is general tendency to not name any names - at least if we get into more controversial waters. But it might only be my personal impression…
We do have sammavaca to guide us before making a statement as to not misrepresent somebody’s position or say something divisive.
I guess it should be possible to refer to the ‘opponent’ even though
paraphrasing is a very difficult art, as Mikenz66 has pointed out.
There are multiple examples of senior dhamma teachers directly identifying “protagonists”. Not just in academic articles and debates where its appropriate. Debates have included dhamma, sila, vinaya and even publishing editing concerns.
There are also many senior dhamma teachers who never name names while discussing disputed topics.
Then there are some teachers who dont dispute at all.
Three approaches. Whats best? Maybe for senior teachers all three depending on the context? But for the rest of us maybe the first option is to be avoided? Or not?
This is a good question, one that I’ve also asked myself often when writing certain essays.
Both approaches have their own benefits and drawbacks, as you said. On the one hand, straw men are very common when a view is paraphrased. So I’m happy that Mike said:
When it’s our own view that is being oversimplified (or even strawmanned), we’d probably prefer to be quoted, or at least named, directly. Then the audience can at least make an informed decision. With this in mind, it may be helpful to name the other side directly.
We also have suttas like this, where the Buddha directly names someone:
“Mendicants, I do not see a single other person who acts for the detriment and suffering of the people, against the people, for the harm, detriment, and suffering of gods and humans, as that futile man, the bamboo-staffed ascetic [Makkhali]. Just as a trap set at the mouth of a river would bring harm, suffering, calamity, and disaster for many fish, so too that futile man, the bamboo-staffed ascetic, is a trap for humans, it seems to me. He has arisen in the world for the harm, suffering, calamity, and disaster of many beings.” (AN1.319)
On the other hand, if we name people directly, it can come across as overly argumentative and faultfinding. Like you’re challenging the person rather than their view. I think this is also what the sutta (MN139) is trying to say.
As a sort of middle way, I’ve often described a view that I think is wrong in the main text in general terms, but linked to some writings espousing such views in the footnotes. At least that gives the reader the option to make up their mind in an informed way. It just doesn’t seem fair to me to describe views completely without any reference. It seems, in a way, very dismissive and disrespectful of those views.
In the end, I decided it’s up to whoever is doing the speaking or writing to try and ensure their attitude is generous and not critical of the person they disagree with. However the audience will receive it, is not in your hands anyway. But I’m very interested to see what others think.
Also, one thing we can do when deciding to name others directly, especially in writing, is to ask for their permission and opinion first.
I think it greatly matters how we phrase something. There’s a lot of truth to the saying “It’s not what you say, but how you say it”. People are sensitive to tone and so if it’s rather sharp and bickerish - people will likely react defensively and probably not respond to the content.
If you’re highly trained (like Dhamma teachers), it should be possible to name the person you’re diasgreeing with without resorting to rhetoric strategies (Ven. Sunyo mentioned the strawmanning).
In my experience, some are better at this than others.
Secondly, Buddhists are not free fromthinkingin in-group out-group terms. So, critizising somebody from the same lineage/monastery publicly etc. might be harder because it’s (understandably) considered bad manners.
Do you realise that this post is literally the attitude you’re criticising?
Someone could use your arguments against your post like so:
Personally, I think it is very unhelpful to make statements like: Personally, I think it is unhelpful to make statements like "Some teachers say such-and-such, which is not correct”.
If you have a disagreement with people saying “Some teachers” etc., why don’t you tell exactly who and what it is these people are doing?
But I think your post is a great example that skillful also means being able to handle abstraction.
Case in point, for example: Many Buddhists believe that “self” doesn’t exist. I should be able to say this without going through footnotes of every scholar who thinks to, no?
Personally, I think there are ways to explain the logic of the opponent and their arguments without resorting to pointing fingers.
Pointing fingers can often be considered rude, as a challenge of authority, even when they’re none of those things. People are afraid of each other. And some of the people we’re criticising aren’t very mature people.
Besides, we’re not really criticising people to begin with. Behaviours, ideas, sure. I think it’s a good mental training to start actively viewing things in this way.
Thanks for the nuanced and insightful thoughts on the quandary of when, or indeed if its appropriate to reference the person in a debate; rather than just focus on the issue.
I found your post very helpful. It demonstrated how to interpret the Suttas as an interwoven body. It also showed how to apply them to the modern idiom. Thanks again!
