Why Buddhism " master" avoiding debate ?

[running]

Originally Posted by CSEe

Dear Running , indeed I had learn alot from our disccusion . I hope we could discuss on our differences so do share the differences . I am a Chinese so please write simple languange for better understanding .
Thks CSEe

No problem I will keep the words simple.

[CSEe]

Originally Posted by running

Discuss would be better word. But since the thread refers to debate I'm using that word

Yes agreed . But base on my experiences in so many Buddhism website , it seems not workable , is better let others prepare that I will question them and hoping they do the same to me .
Thks CSEe

To teach is to be on the path of the bohdisattva

[CSEe]

Originally Posted by boyd8

To teach is to be on the path of the bohdisattva

Perhaps Buddhism is all about discover / realization on the desire / emotion ' to teach " or " To be" and the rest is just knowledge ..................

If a "master" debates duality is involved. Therefore the individual is not a master but a poser. A master has no duality so can not debate.

[passnthru2]

CSEe... debate in Buddhism is only found in Tibetan Buddhism, and only used as a tool between student monks as a learning tool.

it is obvious you missed the point of a very old traditional teaching..

Buddhism is based on a Logical Posit, the 4 Noble Truths, all teachings about Buddhism after that Posit is Commentary on that Posit.

Buddhism is something you try and if it works for you, you become a Student not the teacher. I attended 3 three hour sessions a week for 6 years with a Tibetan Lama, who was Chant Master for the Dalia Lama's Monastery. I listened to taped teachings and audio books 8 hours a day on tape at work, I acquired a huge book case of audio books , books, Buddhist periodical magazines. I meditated an hour a day and even standing in line at the store. it took 6 years of dedicated study before I felt I knew enough about Buddhism to consider myself a Buddhist. in that time I never even thought of arguing or disagreeing with my teacher. what you are describing is Arguing. not only is that unproductive it is horrifically boring, and in the situation you described it would be considered disrespectful.

[CSEe]

Originally Posted by passnthru2

CSEe... debate in Buddhism is only found in Tibetan Buddhism, and only used as a tool between student monks as a learning tool.

it is obvious you missed the point of a very old traditional teaching..

Buddhism is based on a Logical Posit, the 4 Noble Truths, all teachings about Buddhism after that Posit is Commentary on that Posit.

Buddhism is something you try and if it works for you, you become a Student not the teacher. I attended 3 three hour sessions a week for 6 years with a Tibetan Lama, who was Chant Master for the Dalia Lama's Monastery. I listened to taped teachings and audio books 8 hours a day on tape at work, I acquired a huge book case of audio books , books, Buddhist periodical magazines. I meditated an hour a day and even standing in line at the store. it took 6 years of dedicated study before I felt I knew enough about Buddhism to consider myself a Buddhist. in that time I never even thought of arguing or disagreeing with my teacher. what you are describing is Arguing. not only is that unproductive it is horrifically boring, and in the situation you described it would be considered disrespectful.

Dear friend , seems to me you are seeking to know Buddhism , perhaps even taking Buddhism as knowledge ...well is Buddhism a knowledge ? If so than that will be something you will know and you will confused of what you have known and what you will know .............to me currently , Buddhism is not what you will find in books , or any teacher but is what you will discover , realize with your own will , your own journey by being awake to aware , aware to realize , realize to accept and accept to further aware ......Buddhism is beyond knowledge........my understanding of Buddhism is seems too different from yours and this is great learning lesson for me , care to debate ?
Thks
CSEe

[CSEe]

Dear Passnthru2 , further to my reply , correct me if I am wrong , you seems have learn Buddhism from "common" source and many even became a "teacher" in Buddhism from this source ................so dear sir , I currently really could never find any reason to agree that Buddhism is something we must learn from meditation or must learn from a teacher or must learn solely from text.............to me all action / re-action from any existence , living or non-living regardless is Dalai Lama or Siddharta himself or any human , or any animal or plant or any micro-orsgm or leaf , dirt , metal , rock is SAME and EQUAL great source of learning process .......so you learn from the source you choose , the path that you accepted as the " right" or " true" path ....but in my current realization of Buddhism there is no right or wrong , no true or false , no good or bad as I could learn from any action regardless their nature .......
I currently really do not have any reason to agree that Buddhism is something that one could teach others .......simply because Buddhism in my current understanding is beyond knowledge , is not something that one knows , is not something that one wish or seek to know and is not something that one must know ...but is something that one will realize , journey into emptiness back into nothingness naturally .....so by learning from Siddharta's finding , introduction into concept of Buddhism , being awake to aware ...one will travel in "less suffering" , "less confusion" journey ........
So dear friend , to me no one , nothing including Siddharta himself could have any reason to teach others Buddhism but only could learn from others regardless their nature .....so in short Buddhism is impossible to be taught just learning from others or from ownselve.....
So dear master , if I given a chance , I really hope to ask your teacher what is his reason to teach you Buddhism even hope to debate with him .......
Sincerely I am here to learn allowing myself for change ......
My realization of Buddhism perhaps is far different from yours but I have no intention to influence you or seek agreement from you .....I really hope to learn from our differences and move on ............
Thks
CSEe

[passnthru2]

Originally Posted by missrachel300

I really don't know about Buddhism... but I'm sure there are many interpretations and off-shoots of how the religion is practiced, taught and learned.

Kinda sounds to me like they have resigned to a life of a 'brain dead' vegetable.

==================================
considering something that has been around for 2600 years and it's followers have never started a war or taught intolerance or bigotry.. I doubt it's teaching make one "brain dead ..." or a vegetable.

Buddhism is not a religion, it is closest to being a Psychology.

it is based on a simple logical Posit, "the 4 Noble Truths.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/8foldpath.htm
The Eight-Fold Path

The Eight-Fold Path is the fourth of the Four Noble Truths - the first of the Buddha's teachings. All the teachings flow from this foundation.

The Four Noble Truths are

1. The Noble Truth of the reality of Dukkha as part of conditioned existence. Dukkha is a multi-faceted word. Its literal meaning is "that which is difficult to bear". It can mean suffering, stress, pain, anguish, affliction or unsatisfactoriness. Each of the English words is either too strong or too weak in their meaning to be a universally successful translation. Dukkha can be gross or very subtle. From extreme physical and mental pain and torment to subtle inner conflicts and existential malaise.

2. The Noble Truth that Dukkha has a causal arising. This cause is defined as grasping and clinging or aversion. On one hand it is trying to control anything and everything by grabbing onto or trying to pin them down, On the other hand it is control by pushing away or pushing down and running away or flinching away from things. It is the process of identification through which we try to make internal and external things and experiences into "me and mine" or wholly '"other" than Me. This flies in the face of the three signs of existence - Anicca, Dukkha. Anatta - Impermanence. Stress or Suffering and No-Self. Because all conditioned existence is impermanent it gives rise to Dukkha, and this means that in conditioned existence there is no unchanging and permanent Self. There is nothing to grasp onto and also in reality, nothing or no 'one' to do the grasping! We grab onto or try to push away ever changing dynamic processes. These attempts to control, limit us to little definitions of who we are.

3. The Noble Truth of the end of Dukkha, which is Nirvana or Nibbana. Beyond grasping and control and conditional existence is Nirvana. "The mind like fire unbound." The realisation of Nirvana is supreme Bodhi or Awakening. It is waking up to the true nature of reality. It is waking up to our true nature. Buddha Nature. The Pali Canon of Theravada, the foundational Buddhist teachings, says little about Nirvana, using terms like the Unconditioned the Deathless, and the Unborn. Mahayana teachings speak more about the qualities of Nirvana and use terms like, True Nature, Original Mind, Infinite light and Infinite life. Beyond space and time. Nirvana defies definition.

Nirvana literally means "unbound' as in "Mind like fire unbound". This beautiful image is of a flame burning by itself. Just the flame, not something burning and giving off a flame. Picture a flame burning on a wick or stick, it seems to hover around or just above the thing burning. The flame seems to be independent of the thing burning but it clings to the stick and is bound to it. This sense of the flame being unbound has often been misunderstood to mean the flame is extinguished or blown out. This is completely opposite to the meaning of the symbol. The flame "burns" and gives light but is no longer bound to any combustible material. The flame is not blown out - the clinging and the clung to is extinguished. The flame of our true nature, which is awakening, burns independently. Ultimately Nirvana is beyond conception and intellectual understanding. Full understanding only comes through direct experience of this "state' which is beyond the limitations and definitions of space and time.

4. The Noble Truth of the Path that leads to Awakening. The path is a paradox. It is a conditioned thing that is said to help you to the unconditioned. Awakening is not "made" by anything: it is not a product of anything including the Buddha's teachings. Awakening, your true nature is already always present. We are just not awake to this reality. Clinging to limitation, and attempts to control the ceaseless flow of phenomena and process obscures our true nature.

The path is a process to help you remove or move beyond the conditioned responses that obscure your true nature. In this sense the Path is ultimately about unlearning rather than learning - another paradox. We learn so we can unlearn and uncover. The Buddha called his teaching a Raft. To cross a turbulent river we may need to build a raft. When built, we single-mindedly and with great energy make our way across. Once across we don't need to cart the raft around with us. In other words don't cling to anything including the teachings. However, make sure you use them before you let them go. It's no use knowing everything about the raft and not getting on. The teachings are tools not dogma. The teachings are Upaya, which means skillful means or expedient method. It is fingers pointing at the moon - don't confuse the finger for the moon.

The Path

1. * Samma-Ditthi — Complete or Perfect Vision, also translated as right view or understanding. Vision of the nature of reality and the path of transformation.

2. Samma-Sankappa — Perfected Emotion or Aspiration, also translated as right thought or attitude. Liberating emotional intelligence in your life and acting from love and compassion. An informed heart and feeling mind that are free to practice letting go.

3. Samma-Vaca — Perfected or whole Speech. Also called right speech. Clear, truthful, uplifting and non-harmful communication.

4. Samma-Kammanta — Integral Action. Also called right action. An ethical foundation for life based on the principle of non-exploitation of oneself and others. The five precepts.

5. Samma-Ajiva — Proper Livelihood. Also called right livelihood. This is a livelihood based on correct action the ethical principal of non-exploitation. The basis of an Ideal society.

6. Samma-Vayama — Complete or Full Effort, Energy or Vitality. Also called right effort or diligence. Consciously directing our life energy to the transformative path of creative and healing action that fosters wholeness. Conscious evolution.

7. Samma-Sati — Complete or Thorough Awareness. Also called "right mindfulness". Developing awareness, "if you hold yourself dear watch yourself well". Levels of Awareness and mindfulness - of things, oneself, feelings, thought, people and Reality.

8. Samma-Samadhi — Full, Integral or Holistic Samadhi. This is often translated as concentration, meditation, absorption or one-pointedness of mind. None of these translations is adequate. Samadhi literally means to be fixed, absorbed in or established at one point, thus the first level of meaning is concentration when the mind is fixed on a single object. The second level of meaning goes further and represents the establishment, not just of the mind, but also of the whole being in various levels or modes of consciousness and awareness. This is Samadhi in the sense of enlightenment or Buddhahood.

* The word Samma means 'proper', 'whole', 'thorough', 'integral', 'complete', and 'perfect' - related to English 'summit' - It does not necessarily mean 'right', as opposed to 'wrong'. However it is often translated as "right" which can send a less than accurate message. For instance the opposite of 'Right Awareness' is not necessarily 'Wrong Awareness'. It may simply be incomplete. Use of the word 'right' may make for a neat or consistent list of qualities in translations. The down side is that it can give the impression that the Path is a narrow and moralistic approach to the spiritual life. I use variant interpretations so you consider the depth of meanings. What do these things mean in your life right now?

- John Allan

[passnthru2]

Originally Posted by CSEe

Dear Passnthru2 , further to my reply , correct me if I am wrong , you seems have learn Buddhism from "common" source and many even became a "teacher" in Buddhism from this source ................so dear sir , I currently really could never find any reason to agree that Buddhism is something we must learn from meditation or must learn from a teacher or must learn solely from text.............to me all action / re-action from any existence , living or non-living regardless is Dalai Lama or Siddharta himself or any human , or any animal or plant or any micro-orsgm or leaf , dirt , metal , rock is SAME and EQUAL great source of learning process .......so you learn from the source you choose , the path that you accepted as the " right" or " true" path ....but in my current realization of Buddhism there is no right or wrong , no true or false , no good or bad as I could learn from any action regardless their nature .......
I currently really do not have any reason to agree that Buddhism is something that one could teach others .......simply because Buddhism in my current understanding is beyond knowledge , is not something that one knows , is not something that one wish or seek to know and is not something that one must know ...but is something that one will realize , journey into emptiness back into nothingness naturally .....so by learning from Siddharta's finding , introduction into concept of Buddhism , being awake to aware ...one will travel in "less suffering" , "less confusion" journey ........
So dear friend , to me no one , nothing including Siddharta himself could have any reason to teach others Buddhism but only could learn from others regardless their nature .....so in short Buddhism is impossible to be taught just learning from others or from ownselve.....
So dear master , if I given a chance , I really hope to ask your teacher what is his reason to teach you Buddhism even hope to debate with him .......
Sincerely I am here to learn allowing myself for change ......
My realization of Buddhism perhaps is far different from yours but I have no intention to influence you or seek agreement from you .....I really hope to learn from our differences and move on ............
Thks
CSEe

============================================

first I wish to share some observations with you...

you asked me to correct you if you were wrong. you are wrong..

I have not seen any indication in anything you have said about Buddhism that would indicate you know anything at all about it or have the least interest in understanding anything about it.

you stated..
"in my current understanding [it] is beyond knowledge"
" I have no intention to influence you or seek agreement from you"

I must 'Believe' from your own words that you are completely insincere, if not totally devious about your reasons to "Debate".

what I really think is going on here is that you are lost in an 'A Priori' Loop.

A Priori being defined as "being without examination or analysis". the loop part means that wherever someone makes a statement in a conversation you immediately come the same conclusion and say the same thing again.. this is most probably because you really don't know the first thing about the subject matter.

you stated.."...I really hope to ask your teacher what is his reason to teach you Buddhism..." I will tell you why.. he lives a life in total compassion for others, he has devoted his entire life to helping end the suffering of others.. he is totally "selfless". he would not debate you, he has a purpose in life, he wouldn't waste his precious time on your nonsense when he could be helping others who are actually seeking the "Truth".

knowing you have a problem is the first step in resolving that problem

good journey... I hope you get there