EBTs' take on debates

Discussion
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.,”

21

Yes, like this:

“And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven’t I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, ‘Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness’? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering.”

MN 38

22

Well, again, this is a quote from a very specific context, isn’t it?

In the MN38 we have the case of a fellow who after i) taking refuge in the Triple Gem, and ii) making the (huge) effort of abandoning the householder life to take on the robes somehow comes up with the very wrong idea that there could be something like a separate consciousness entity (viññana) which transmigrates from one life to the other.

This is not the only occurrence of such weird situations in which one who apparently takes refuge in the Buddha and his Teaching and Discipline (Dhamma Vinaya) ignores the fundamental axiom of not-self (anatta) and brings into a contemplative life the wrong assumption of there being something within experience which is not not-self.

And yes, whenever situations like this seem to have happened within the early Sangha the Buddha is definitely depicted in the EBTs as getting quite strong on his words. He is definitely doing so from a place of deep wisdom, direct knowledge and compassion - all in all he is a Buddha!

The problem is not with the quote but with how one perceives the quote and how one sees the quote as a basis for personifying himself the Buddha and assuming he/she does have the right to admonish others with harsh words or assuming that through winning others through debates he is doing anything similar to what the Buddha would advise or appraise.

Many things seem to be implied here and I think it is time to get some understandings clear. When I created this topic I did so with the intention of inquiring through skillful conversation whether the approach of teaching others through debate is 1) the right one for a forum like this, and 2) is what the Buddha really wanted his non-awakened disciples to invest their time in.

First of all, I think it is time to help ourselves polishing up our understanding and perception of the actual purpose of this forum, in which people from different backgrounds come to “discuss early Buddhist texts, their meaning and historical context, how these teachings evolve and relate to later traditions, and how they may be applied in the present day.”

As per the above, the proposal of this forum no way makes it a setting similar to the single-pavilion park of Queen Mallika where the Buddha and his awakened disciples would apparently go to meet to refute wanderers of other sects , of course with a sense of compassion and generosity in terms of opening their eyes to the good Dhamma.

Another important consideration is that, being a online forum, where people from all different backgrounds may come to anonymously read and take part of the discussions and conversations about EBTs, this “place” is far from being a community of contemplatives seeking guidance to straighten and deepen their insight and headed by a Samma-Sambuddha - the environment in which the events of MN38 seems to have taken place.

We are at best a bunch of human beings curious about what the EBTs have to teach us and truly interested in finding out what kind of nice and beautiful things we can take back from the EBTs to our lives and our individual cultivation/development (bhavana) of the path (magga).

I cannot speak for yourself, but I am a householder and am miles away from having put together the level of renunciation and true aspiration needed for a contemplative life to be kick started. And I assume this is the case of most of the people frequently coming here seeking to “discuss early Buddhist texts, their meaning and historical context, how these teachings evolve and relate to later traditions, and how they may be applied in the present day.”

Knowing myself, and where I am, I do, out of compassion for myself and others, try to take the words of advice from the Buddha as seen in MN20 on how powerful can be the cultivation of states of non-conflict.

I therefore try to use this forum as an aid to develop the path factors of right thought, right speech and right action, at the same time I explore and share my fascination with the EBTs and, maybe, do a little of what needs to be done in terms of shaping up the sort of right view that will allow for insight and vision to take place in my heart.

All that said, in my opinion, the problem with debates is that these are necessarily based on stirring up people. And I know myself well enough to say that I never learned anything while or after being stirred up. This may have been the way or approach of ancient Greek philosophers but can’t be found in EBTs.

As well, I don’t think anyone can find a quote in the EBTs in which the Buddha either teaches people through stirring up or says that it is through stirring up oneself and others that the insight and vision needed for the liberation born of dispassion and disenchantment to take place. Actually, suttas like the AN10.2 show us the very opposite:

(9)–(10) the knowledge and vision of liberation is the purpose and benefit of disenchantment and dispassion;
(8) disenchantment and dispassion are the purpose and benefit of the knowledge and vision of things as they really are;
(7) the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the purpose and benefit of concentration;
(6) concentration is the purpose and benefit of pleasure;
(5) pleasure is the purpose and benefit of tranquility;
(4) tranquility is the purpose and benefit of rapture;
(3) rapture is the purpose and benefit of joy;
(2) joy is the purpose and benefit of non-regret; and
(1) non-regret is the purpose and benefit of virtuous behavior.

As per the ‘big picture sutta’ quoted above, the foundation of the dependent origination of knowledge and vision of liberation - the aim of anyone truly invested in the path (right?! :relaxed:) - is the strengthening of virtuous behavior - through right thought, speech, action and livelihood - and the mental state of non-regret if allows for to arise.

Again, this is beautifully aligned with the MN20, another big picture sutta in which the Buddha teaches us that the path he is pointing us to develop is all about cultivating states of non-conflict.

Now, addressing the elephant in the room - the usual occurences of people coming to space like this and one way or the other proposing or pushing for pernicious views like the one which has arisen in the Bhikkhu Sāti of the MN38 - my personal ‘weapon of choice’ would be to limit myself to point to suttas like the one aforementioned and say:

"Hey friend, look at this/these interesting EBTs in which the Buddha gets very explicit with disciples saying stuff not aligned with the Four Noble Truths and its respective enobbling tasks.

Friend, it seems the Buddha was not very found of people misquoting him (or saying that it is aligned with the Dhamma he brought us back) suggesting things completely incompatible with dependent origination such as that consciousness (viññana), one of the khandas, can be said to transmigrate through births. This is not what he said and not what his Dhamma should be making visible to you as you understand and practice it!

Friend, maybe it is better you take some steps back, give another read to things more fundamental and essential to the practice - like the Four Noble Truths and its respective tasks - and then seek to see and understand for yourself what the Buddha pointed us to see and understand for ourselves."

Although after being told the above the fellow may still insist with his pernicious views, it is his/her choice - we can bring horses to the well but not force them to drink right?! - at least this is done in a way of non-conflict.

Hence, by not stirring up him/her and in a friendly way bring to her attention the fact the Buddha was not found of such distortions to his teaching, there might be a chance that he will have an interested look at the quotes presented and something may click, towards the north of right view. Thus, the horse is brought to the well, not thrown at it, and may eventually get thirsty and drink himself the pure water it now has in front of it. :wink:

P.S.: Sorry for the long reply. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
23

Beside the quotes so far shared, it is worth as well calling our attention to the ten topics of conversation found in the EBTs (e.g. AN5.97) as having been encouraged by the Buddha:

  • modesty
  • contentment
  • seclusion
  • non-entanglement
  • arousing persistence
  • virtue
  • concentration
  • discernment
  • release
  • knowledge & vision of release

Note that the topics come in a certain order.

That is not by chance. It instead suggests the expected gradual evolution of a contemplative disciple and how as these things happen in the hearts of a group of Bhikkhus or Bhikkhunis the conversations will naturally change to reflect the stage at which most of the individuals are along the path.

4 Likes
24

I love the debating about debates. What fun!

2 Likes
25

Another issue that arises with debates is the polarized advocacy situation it usually involves or results into. And advocacy on topics of Dhamma does somehow put one in the position of teaching it.

It is therefore paramount that we quote here - for the sake of reminder - what are the five qualities the Buddha stressed should all be present in oneself who teaches the Dhamma:

“It’s not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when five qualities are established within the person teaching. Which five?

“[1] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak step-by-step.’

“[2] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].’

“[3] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak out of compassion.’

“[4] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak not for the purpose of material reward.’

“[5] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak without hurting myself or others.’

“It’s not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when these five qualities are established within the person teaching.”

Source: SuttaCentral

4 Likes
26

Thanks @DKervick for point us to Snp4.12 :

Convinced of their own theories,
Comparing others to oneself,
They get into more disputes with the world.
But by leaving behind all theories,
They don’t have any problems with the world.

1 Like
27

Another nice passage confirming how one should understand debate and wrangling argumentation in the context of development of virtue is found in DN2:

“Whereas some recluses and brahmins, while living on the food offered by the faithful, engage in wrangling argumentation, (saying to one another):

‘You don’t understand this doctrine and discipline. It is I who understand this doctrine and discipline.’

‘How can you understand this doctrine and discipline?’

‘You’re practising the wrong way. I’m practicing the right way.’

‘I’m being consistent. You’re inconsistent.’

‘What should have been said first you said last, what should have been said last you said first.’

‘What you took so long to think out has been confuted.’

‘Your doctrine has been refuted. You’re defeated. Go, try to save your doctrine, or disentangle yourself now if you can’—

he abstains from such wrangling argumentation. This too pertains to his moral discipline.

2 Likes
28

Just for the record, @Pasanna, could you kindly provide us a with link to the Chinese text you referred to as t1670b2.2 in this topic?

1 Like
29

Oh! I thought it would link.
Here you go!
https://suttacentral.net/en/t1670b2.2

1 Like