EBTs' take on debates

Discussion
1

I randomly came across the SN22.3 earlier today while looking for something totally unrelated.

Interestingly we see here the Buddha giving some advice on the avoidance of disputing things in a way that pretty much resembles the concept of what some call a “Buddhist debate”:

‘You don’t understand this Dhamma and Discipline. I understand this Dhamma and Discipline. What, you understand this Dhamma and Discipline!
You’re practising wrongly, I’m practising rightly. What should have been said before you said after; what should have been said after you said before.
I’m consistent, you’re inconsistent. What you took so long to think out has been overturned.
Your thesis has been refuted. Go off to rescue your thesis, for you’re defeated, or disentangle yourself if you can.’

I am sure this may not be the only occurrence of such sort of advice by the Blessed One against disputes and polemics , and therefore open the topic with the intention of putting together other extracts from the Sutta pointing to a similar or different direction.

“And how, householder, does one engage people in dispute?
Here, householder, someone engages in such talk as this:
‘You don’t understand this Dhamma and Discipline. I understand this Dhamma and Discipline. What, you understand this Dhamma and Discipline!
You’re practising wrongly, I’m practising rightly. What should have been said before you said after; what should have been said after you said before. I’m consistent, you’re inconsistent. What you took so long to think out has been overturned.
Your thesis has been refuted. Go off to rescue your thesis, for you’re defeated, or disentangle yourself if you can.’
It is in such a way that one engages people in dispute.

“And how, householder, does one not engage people in dispute?
Here, householder, someone does not engage in such talk as this:
‘You don’t understand this Dhamma and Discipline
…
‘ It is in such a way that one does not engage people in dispute.
“Thus, householder, when it was said by the Blessed One in ‘The Questions of Magandiya’ of the Aṭṭhakavagga:
‘Having left home to roam without abode,
In the village the sage is intimate with none;
Rid of sensual pleasures, without expectations,
He would not engage people in dispute’—

it is in such a way that the meaning of this, stated in brief by the Blessed One, should be understood in detail.”

Another one would be what we find in the Snp4.9:

For one detached from perception, there exist no ties,
for one by wisdom freed, no delusions are there,
but those who have grasped perceptions and views,
they wander the world stirring up strife.

7 Likes
2

Again, you’re quoting suttas where Buddha explains how not to engage unwholesomelly in debated to make a case for Buddha having an anti-debate, Zen attitude.

Of course you will never see Buddha engaging in debates in this manner:

What you took so long to think out has been overturned. Your thesis has been refuted. Go off to rescue your thesis, for you’re defeated, or disentangle yourself if you can.’ It is in such a way that one engages people in dispute.

But if you’re making a case that Buddha been against wholesome debates, you have a big problem because he did it quite a lot of times. And there are suttas where he praises monks for admonishing wanderers of other sects in a debate or criticizing monks for now knowing how to debate.

When Buddha engaged in debates, he did his best not to ruin other people egos. For example one time he was meat with a monk who did not know how to practice mindfulness correctly. He did not say “you are wrong, your practice is worthless, etc”. He said “that is mindfulness allright, I do not say it is not. But… that is not right mindfulness. As for how right mindfulness is practiced”

This is like taking a person advice against driving in a reckless way for the sake of adrenaline rush to mean that the person was against driving alltogether.

2 Likes
3

By the way, check this out:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta’s Grove, Anathapindika’s monastery. Now on that occasion Potthapada the wanderer, together with a large following of about 300 wanderers, had taken up residence in the debating hall near the Tinduka tree in the single-pavilion park of Queen Mallika. Then the Blessed One, early in the morning, taking his robes & bowl, entered Savatthi for alms. Then the thought occurred to him, “While it’s still too early to go into Savatthi for alms, why don’t I go to the debating hall near the Tinduka tree in the single-pavilion park of Queen Mallika to see Potthapada the wanderer?” So he went to the debating hall near the Tinduka tree in the single-pavilion park of Queen Mallika.

DN 9

Or:

  1. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park.
    2. Then, when it was morning, a number of bhikkhus dressed, and taking their bowls and outer robes, [84] went into Sāvatthī for alms. Then they thought: “It is still too early to wander for alms in Sāvatthī. Suppose we went to the park of the wanderers of other sects.” So they went to the park of the wanderers of other sects and exchanged greetings with the wanderers.

MN 13

4

I suspect that in the Suttas you either see the Buddha or is awakened disciples engaging in such debates.

I cannot speak for yourself, but I am far from any fruition. Hence, I won’t even start a debate with you! :grin:

3 Likes
5

The above sutta, along with Muni Sutta, are truly therapeutic and help one avoid needless arguments, when the mind is still floundering in vanity and delusion. And the sutta in which the Buddha decribes his austerities and physical exertions in a straightforward, candid way and doesn’t make himself a martyr. Sometimes I think that his years of lonesome, painful struggle contribute quite a lot to the picture of unshakeable strength that we get from the suttas. The bit about dwelling in the jungle during night time and waiting for fear and then subduing it repeatedly, for example. Yesterday, I came face to face with a full grown adult gaur in a narrow lane and the palpitation in my heart when I scrambled back the way I came took some time to calm down…

1 Like
6

I still could not find the sutta where Buddha praised that monk for admonishing a wanderer in a debate. It was also quoted in a topic around here recently but can’t find it. About the one criticizing some bhikkhus for not knowing how to debate, it’s the one containing the simile of the baby.

More than that, when it comes to intra-buddhist dialogue, disciples are advised to admonish fellow buddhist when prenicious views arrise in them. We even see strong words used such as “foolish man, such a prenicious view has arisen in you”.

Here is some direct advice about that:

“So it is, friend S›riputta, for those venerable ones who have
such compassionate and benevolent brothers in the holy life to
admonish and instruct them. And now that I have heard this
Dhamma teaching of the Venerable S›riputta, my mind is liberated
from the taints by nonclinging.”

or

“So it is, friend Ananda, for those venerable ones who have
such compassionate and benevolent brothers in the holy life to
admonish and instruct them. And now that I have heard this
Dhamma teaching of the Venerable Ananda, I have made the
breakthrough to the Dhamma.”

These are from the end of 2 suttas where somebody holding a prenicious view was admonished for it.

7

Also check MN 58. It is a about somebody sent to refute the Buddha by claiming he does not use speech that is disagreable to others. And Buddha responds that he does use speech that is disagreable to others if that will help them. That is why we see him so many times been extremely harsh by english standards.

Or maybe:

‘I will not attain final
Nibb›na, Evil One, until I have bhikkhu disciples who are wise,
disciplined, confident, secure from bondage, learned, upholders
of the Dhamma, practising in accordance with the Dhamma,
practising in the proper way, conducting themselves accordingly;
who have learned their own teacher’s doctrine and can
explain it, teach it, proclaim it, establish it, disclose it, analyse it,
and elucidate it; who can refute thoroughly with reasons the
prevalent tenets of others and can teach the efficacious
Dhamma.’

8

Check this one:

[The Blessed One said:] “Good, good, householder! It is in
such a way that those hollow men should from time to time
be thoroughly refuted with reasoned argument

93 (3) Views from AN

Or check this one:

[The Blessed One said:] “Well done, householder. Well done. That is how you should periodically refute those foolish men with the Dhamma.” Then he instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged Anathapindika the householder with a talk on Dhamma. When Anathapindika the householder had been instructed, urged, roused and encouraged by the Blessed One with a talk on Dhamma, he got up from his seat and, having bowed down to the Blessed One, left, keeping the Blessed One on his right side. Not long afterward, the Blessed One addressed the monks: “Monks, even a monk who has long penetrated the Dhamma in this Doctrine and Discipline would do well to refute the wanderers of other persuasions with the Dhamma periodically in just the way Anathapindika the householder has done.”

AN 10.93

I know this might look shocking to many people but really Theravada is not Zen

9

Selective quotes, huh?!

This is what Anathapindika is recorded in the AN10.93 to have said to the non-Buddhist wanderers and granted him the “well done” from the Buddha:

When this had been said, the wanderers said to Anathapindika the householder, “We have each & every one expounded to you in line with our own positions. Now tell us what views you have.”

“Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. This is the sort of view I have.”

“So, householder, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. You thus adhere to that very stress, submit yourself to that very stress.”

“Venerable sirs, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. Having seen this well with right discernment as it actually is present, I also discern the higher escape from it as it actually is present.”

When this had been said, the wanderers fell silent, abashed, sitting with their shoulders drooping, their heads down, brooding, at a loss for words. Anathapindika the householder, perceiving that the wanderers were silent, abashed… at a loss for words, got up & went to where the Blessed One was staying. On arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, he sat to one side. As he was seated there, he told the Blessed One the entirety of his conversation with the wanderers.

This does not sound like a debate to me!

To me Anathapindika just presented how views should be approached from the perspective of the Four Noble Truths and its respective enobbling tasks.

The non-Buddhists were left without what to say or dispute on. Why? Because the Four Noble Truths point to a Dhamma that is to be seen for/by oneself. :slight_smile:

By the way, note how Anathapindika makes a very clear point on how he had himself “seen this well with right discernment as it actually is present, I also discern the higher escape from it as it actually is present.”

This means to me that unless you are really sure to have achieved direct knowledge of things you are trying to point to (and not advocate for) you should rather invest your energy and effort in seeing things for yourself.

Later on, if opportunities arise, surely, you can share and inspire others in cultivating the path and tasting for themselves the Dhamma in a way aligned with what we find in MN21:

I will speak with gentleness, not with harshness;
I will speak about what is meaningful, not about what is not meaningful;
I will speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not with inner hatred.

1 Like
10

I’m going to highlight again 2 words from this passage:

[The Blessed One said:] “Well done, householder. Well done. That is how you should periodically refute those foolish men with the Dhamma.” Then he instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged Anathapindika the householder with a talk on Dhamma. When Anathapindika the householder had been instructed, urged, roused and encouraged by the Blessed One with a talk on Dhamma, he got up from his seat and, having bowed down to the Blessed One, left, keeping the Blessed One on his right side. Not long afterward, the Blessed One addressed the monks: “Monks, even a monk who has long penetrated the Dhamma in this Doctrine and Discipline would do well to refute the wanderers of other persuasions with the Dhamma periodically in just the way Anathapindika the householder has done.”

If you read through MN, the majority of suttas are containing debates where people get refuted. Not all debates went as smoothly as the one above. Many required counter points, similes given to refute a point, cases where somebody is shown to be contradicting himself, etc. You know, normal debates not circle-talking

Buddha was not Zen. He never told people to go home, shut up and sit

11

No one here is saying he said so. No need to invoke straw mans. :disappointed:

12

It is interesting how what is seen depends on who is looking!

In the MN I find many instances of the Buddha and/or awakened or advanced disciples finding very skillful ways to bring people’s understanding closer to the Four Noble Truths and its respective Enobbling tasks:

  • Understand suffering
  • Abandon its causes
  • Verify the possibility of its end
  • Develop yourself the path towards that goal

I truly don’t see how debates or going about seeking who or what to refute precede or contribute in any way to those beautifully simple yet enormously challenging tasks left by the Buddha to us un-awakened things.

As per MN139, the heartwood of the path is to cultivate states of non-conflict. For me, at least, any sort of raw debate, where one takes a position of having to advocate for a point of view - even if that point of view has some truth in it - is a state of conflict. This is what I saw confirmed in the SN 22.3 and triggered the creation of this very topic.

A beautiful alternative to the raw debate is the friendly engagement in skillful discussions, the development of dialogues.

In such modes of conversation, or discourse, both parties invest their time and energy in exploring what is of mutual interest to be inquired, what is to be investigated further by each party, as well what each party has to offer and contribute. Also important is acknowledging the possibility that each party may leave the conversation with different conclusions or action items from the experience. Again, this is different to what usually a debate is understood to be.

3 Likes
13

some people fall into the fallacy of copying or spoiling for copying the Buddha’s worldly activities after the sambodhi, forgetting to take into account the factor of his realization and draw a realistic comparison between him and themselves

being who he was he, if he so wanted, could debate until cows come home without being in any way adversely affected or disturbed by the process, doing it skillfully, but to replicate that one first need to become his equal

and his own Right View didn’t come about by way of debates

4 Likes
14

Equal to Anathapindika ?

and his own Right View didn’t come about by way of debates

Not his, but that of others did.

Biggest problem in western buddhist is in my opinion clinging to views. Buddha himself said that the thing keeping one from attaining stream entry is clinging to views. Clinging to views will never change if one stands in his own little bubble, never engaging with people with a different opinion. And we can see this process happening in politics and everywhere else. Today, we have all kinds of buddhism. Mahasi interpretation, ajhan chan interpretation, existentialist interpretation, abbhidhabamic interpretation, etc. If a person never debates, he will never change his views. During the 7 years in witch I have been a buddhist, I have changed my main main views 2 times. What I have noticed is that few people do that. Most just stay in the same views they first got into when they became a buddhist. Most die in the same views they first got when becoming a buddhist. Whatever clinging one removes in regards to sense pleasures, he compensates that with increased clinging to views. And the person just remains stuck in the same views forever and ever, simply ignoring those who have a different opinion than them, not taking their time to think about it too much. After all, all you need to do is “just sit” and everything will unfold by itself without using your brain or, god forbid, change you’re views.

Zen used to be the main popular interpretation in the west. But Mahasi witch is very similar to Zen but Theravada affiliated managed to take it’s place over time. But people still maintain the same Zen attitude, not understanding Theravada is not Zen.

15

Anathapindika is said to have attained to stream entry as soon as he came in touch with the Dhamma (http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/ay/anaathapindika.htm)

Also, it is important to reiterate that what is depicted in AN10.93 is far from indicating he engaged in a debate. Despite this being what the non-buddhist wanderers wanted all he had to do - and is beautifully recorded there - was to talk about the four noble truths and its respective tasks. The debate seekers were simply left speechless.

This is how the Dhamma teaches people through non-conflict. You present others a set of inquiry points which is logic in terms of proposal but requires practice, development and fruition to be verified by oneself. :wink:

16

God forbid. We don’t wana see blood all over the place. By the way, what happened to the "stick and stones might break my bones but words ? - Never " :smiley:

As I’ve said, for those of a more sensible nature, I suggest wearing helmet and protection equipment when having debates or reading the newspaper, watching TV etc.

17

The MN20 presents a beautiful example of how the Buddha would have approached a disciple who would get stuck with wrong views. He would remind him of all the different skilful ways he pointed to the four noble truths and its enobbling tasks:

Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways how obstructive things are obstructions, and how they are able to obstruct one who engages in them? I have stated that sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering and despair, and that the danger in them is still more. With the simile of the skeleton…with the simile of the piece of meat…with the simile of the grass torch…with the simile of the pit of coals…with the simile of the dream…with the simile of the borrowed goods…with the simile of fruits on a tree…with the simile of the butcher’s knife and block…with the simile of the sword stake…with the simile of the snake’s head, I have stated that sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering and despair, and that the danger in them is still more.
But you, misguided man, by your wrong grasp have misrepresented us, injured yourself, and stored up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time.”

From these I think it is worth reminding ourselves of the simile of the snake in which the Blessed One teaches us how the correct grasping to the teachings should occur:

"Here, bhikkhus, some clansmen learn the Dhamma—discourses…answers to questions—and having learned the Dhamma, they examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom.
Examining the meaning of those teachings with wisdom, they gain a reflective acceptance of them.
They do not learn the Dhamma for the sake of criticising others and for winning in debates, and they experience the good for the sake of which they learned the Dhamma.

Those teachings, being rightly grasped by them, conduce to their welfare and happiness for a long time.

Why is that? Because of the right grasp of those teachings."

1 Like
18

“So it is, friend Ananda, for those venerable ones who have
such compassionate and benevolent brothers in the holy life to
admonish and instruct them. And now that I have heard this
Dhamma teaching of the Venerable Ananda, I have made the
breakthrough to the Dhamma.”

–

‘I will not attain final
Nibb›na, Evil One, until I have bhikkhu disciples who are wise,
disciplined, confident, secure from bondage, learned, upholders
of the Dhamma, practising in accordance with the Dhamma,
practising in the proper way, conducting themselves accordingly;
who have learned their own teacher’s doctrine and can
explain it, teach it, proclaim it, establish it, disclose it, analyse it,
and elucidate it; who can refute thoroughly with reasons the
prevalent tenets of others and can teach the efficacious
Dhamma.’

–

[The Blessed One said:] “Good, good, householder! It is in
such a way that those hollow men should from time to time
be thoroughly refuted with reasoned argument

–

“Monks, even a monk who has long penetrated the Dhamma in this Doctrine and Discipline would do well to refute the wanderers of other persuasions with the Dhamma periodically in just the way Anathapindika the householder has done.”

Of course it is recommended to wear full military protection equipment while engaging in such activities. If possible, it’s best to do it through radio station while each person is standing in his own separate nuclear shelter. Or maybe each person in a submarine at opposing ends of the globe.

…what ever happened to that saying about “Sticks and stones might break my bones but words? Never !!!” :smiley:

19

I don’t know about you but I see a pattern here.

When dealing with wanderers of other sects the Buddha and his attained disciples are indeed depicted to make an effort to refute their crazy views to present them the beautiful possibility of awakening the four noble truths and its respective enobbling tasks point to.

When it comes to bhikkhus - i.e. individuals who not only took refuge in the triple gem but as well adopted the holy life - who were still stuck at wrong views such as the one depicted in the MN20, the Buddha and the bhikkhu Sangha as a whole seems to have made use of a set of similes and friendly reminders about what the dhamma is all about:

“Examining the meaning of those teachings with wisdom, they gain a reflective acceptance of them.
They do not learn the Dhamma for the sake of criticising others and for winning in debates, and they experience the good for the sake of which they learned the Dhamma.
Those teachings, being rightly grasped by them, conduce to their welfare and happiness for a long time.”

Thus, I learn from the EBTs that unless I have attained anything myself and I find me face to face with a “wanderer of another sect” willing to debate on his crazy views I better keep myself to what the Buddha is depicted teaching the lost monk Arittha in the MN20.

In line with this I remember that there is a sutta which points to a similar direction: in order to avoid misrepresenting the Buddha one should only advocate for things he has seen as true himself. I cannot find that right now, anyone knows which sutta is this?

20

I haven’t yet found the quote I was after but I came across this other inspiring outlining of how one employs a right speech found in MN41 :

“Abandoning malicious speech, he abstains from malicious speech; he does not repeat elsewhere what he has heard here in order to divide those people from these, nor does he repeat to these people what he has heard elsewhere in order to divide these people from those; thus he is one who reunites those who are divided, a promoter of friendships, who enjoys concord, rejoices in concord, delights in concord, a speaker of words that promote concord.
Abandoning harsh speech, he abstains from harsh speech; he speaks such words as are gentle, pleasing to the ear, and loveable, as go to the heart, are courteous, desired by many, and agreeable to many.
Abandoning gossip, he abstains from gossip; he speaks at the right time, speaks what is fact, speaks on what is good, speaks on the Dhamma and the Discipline; at the right time he speaks such words as are worth recording, reasonable, moderate, and beneficial.
That is how there are four kinds of verbal conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, righteous conduct.,”