The Art of Debate

[candid]

The Buddha declared ?Just like examining gold in order to know its quality, you should put my words to the test. Do not accept them merely out of respect.? The Tibetan Buddhist art of debate, tsod-pa, had been used through the ages to put Buddha?s words ?to the test? and train practitioners in logical reasoning and critical analysis. In ancient India, and later in Tibet, great religious debates provided a fresh perspective on the teachings and ensured that only the tenants that could survive profound and repeated scrutiny endured. Monostatic debate resembles a lively combination of a courtroom cross-examination and a martial art. However, its purpose is to hone skills in logical reasoning, memory, concentration, and inventiveness, and to ensure that subjects are not just learned by rote but are fully grasped and understood on many levels.

Once or twice a day, monks gather in the monastery courtyard to test their knowledge in debate. The sessions often break up into small informal groups that can continue late into the evening. The monks break up into pairs. One monk strikes an imposing stance before another who is seated and loudly challenges him to a philosophical duel. The seated monk then retorts with his own counterarguments to the statements his opponent has made. The debating arena is not for the faint-hearted. The scene is boisterous, creating a challenging environment for concentration. In employing the full attention of the debater in body, speech, and mind---through dramatic hand gestures and body movements, fast and prolific discussion, and logical analysis---the topic is learned on many levels. Each hand gesture has a specific meaning. The back of the right hand slapping into the palm of the left, for example, is akin to an exclamation mark, indicating when the questioner has made his point. The defender must be able to remain unflustered and respond succinctly and without hesitation, while the challenger tries his best to trump his opponent. Those defeated must then concede to the philosophical position of the victor. If other monks think they can do better, they may jump in and take over one of the positions. The art of debate is particularly stressed in the Gulug school, where it is also a method of student examination. Monks who excel in debate are sent to participate in Great Prayer Festival debates in Monlam. A Lharam Geshe Degree, the highest degree in Tibetan Buddhism, is conferred on those who win.

From Tibetan Buddhist Life, Don Farber, and the Tibetan Fund

[heylise]

I am not good at all at debating, but I would love to develop my skill. Always admire people who can, appreciate Lindsay a lot, and Candid, and Martin, and several others.
It seems like a very good idea: putting the example here, how it can be done, so when someone is talking very loud, there will be no war, because it is accepted as part of the game.
I would like a lot to actually see all those waving hands. But maybe they will be visible anyway.

There is a subject which always caused a lot of waving .. Not especially hands, but all weapons man has in stock: "does God exist?".
Madversity brought it up http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/48/2112.html
and it got brushed off. A shame, because I thought it was an excellent question. I postponed it back then, there was too much happening in my own life, but found it back a few days ago.
Especially interesting in relation to the Yi Jing.

I think he does. But not in the way he usually is described.

LiSe

[candid]

LiSe,

I find it interesting that in tsod-pa the opponents are not both standing toe to toe, eye to eye. There are rules to the game, and one rule is that one opponent sits to calmly defend while the other stands to aggressively confront. In western sports that's called offense/defense.

Another rule is that neither the offense or defense are offending or defending anything personal. That is key to any fruitful debate.

Madversity's point was out and out refuted, but Madversity may have taken the offense personally and retreated. Yet Peter made no comment regarding Mad's person, only the idea he put forth. Or, Mad simply may not have desired to defend his position. I too have started many a topic, just for interesting debate, that sort of died on the vine. I didn't take it personally.

What I liked about what I read and posted above is that it allows a creative use of hex 6. The horns of 40 don't have to be removed in the game, nor does the tusk of 26.5 need gelding. Well, in thinking more on it, one of the opponent's tusks are gelded and the other's is not. This at first appears as an unfair debate, but its the way real life usually is. In a society which is structured in rank and file, one is usually over the other, such as in an employer/employee scenario. In such a case as this the employer is the one standing, speaking loudly and smacking his fist. In legal disputes its the accused who is the sitting defendant in an inferior position, while the prosecutor stands with gestures of bravado and drama to convict the defense and convince the jury.

I also like very much the purpose of tsod-pa, which isn't to prove that one way or the other is right, but that an idea which stands the test of power and reason is worth standing for.

Candid

[lindsay]

Candid, this is a very interesting subject! Your Tibetan Buddhist example makes a lot of sense to me. I have heard some teachers say they never really mastered their subject until they had to teach it to their students. The same goes for debate ? it forces you to understand your own position thoroughly, and also to study the merits of your opponent?s arguments.

There are of course limits to debate. We see this in the courtroom, where a good lawyer can win the case by argument and persuasion, even though his client is guilty. ?Winning? a debate doesn?t necessarily mean the winner is right. In fact, I don?t think debate often settles any question. What debate can do is present all the arguments for and against a proposition, so that we can make up our own minds.

I think debate is healthy in a forum like this because here everyone believes more or less the same things. For every instance of disagreement in this forum, there are ten instances of agreement. This is a good thing, it builds community and reinforces faith in the Yi. But we live and work in a world where most people are skeptical, if not hostile, to the claims of divination. It is not possible to practice the Yi in a vacuum. Even when we are alone with our readings, there are voices inside ourselves accusing us of superstition, irrationality, and foolishness. How do you answer these criticisms?

The only way to counter criticism is to face it and find the answer. You can?t even begin to do this until you admit opposing viewpoints exist.

Remember that when the Church prepares to canonize a new saint, someone is appointed to the role of advocatus Diaboli or Devil?s Advocate. The Devil?s Advocate does his best to show the candidate does not deserve to be considered a saint. This is a very important role. It tests the candidate and the whole process of canonization by introducing legitimate doubt and making sure mistakes of judgment are not made. For example here is a Devil?s Advocate argument against Mother Teresa (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12495017&method=full&siteid=5014 3).

Every article of faith needs a Devil?s Advocate to keep it strong and shining. You guys may not realize it, but this entire forum is founded on faith ? faith in the efficacy of the Yi. You cannot prove it, you cannot test it, you cannot present conclusive evidence for it. All you can do is believe in it, and keep your faith strong by considering and answering to all viewpoints.

Lindsay

[candid]

Lindsay,

Ah Hah! Devil's Advocate! hmmm now I wonder who that might be here at this forum? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/mischief.gif

I agree on almost all counts. Perfect example with Mother Teresa. I was at first about to debate you on the faith issue, as you no doubt thought I might (heh heh), but I can't contest the fact that if we thought I-Ching was as credible as Mother Goose, we probably wouldn't be here on this forum discussing it. The only issue I take is that ?you can not test it.? We test it every time we ask a question of it, every time we process the answer and every time we discuss it here on this forum. That is the spirit of tsod-pa: ?Just like examining gold in order to know its quality, you should put my words to the test. Do not accept them merely out of respect.?

Tsod-pa is a tight and refined structure employing masterful teachers overseeing dedicated devotees. That's a far cry from secular courtrooms where whoever creates the biggest loophole gets away.

If nothing else, perhaps we can see it as a high form of debate, and something to aspire closer toward.

Candid

[rinda]

There are lots of ways to test things... In the past most scientific testing was limited to variables that were objective and measurable - quantitative.

This was inadequate for some of the testing that was needed in the social sciences, for concepts like quality of life, social competence, etc... These studies are based on qualitative measures.

I think it would be entirely possible to find or develop a variety of qualitative test designs that could be used to measure Yi's efficacy.

Hmmm - perhaps I should ask about that directly?

"How would it be to design a qualitative study to examine Yi's efficacy as a tool for divination?"

answer: 5, no changing lines!!

hm! how 'bout that!

Rinda

[lindsay]

Rinda, you are absolutely right that there are many ways to test things. In the case of qualitative issues (like the efficacy of the Yi), I think one would need to show the hypothesis is true ?beyond a reasonable doubt.? The tester would have to present a body of evidence strong enough to convince any reasonable person that the hypothesis (and only the hypothesis) correctly explains the test results. Otherwise, the results of the test are still in doubt.

That?s a tall order.

Of course, one can aim for a lower standard. As long as the results satisfy us that the hypothesis is true, then we can accept it. A reasonable person like Candid may doubt our results, but if they satisfy us, that is enough.

I call this faith. We believe our hypothesis is true, even though it is not evident to all reasonable people. Nearly everything we hold as an opinion falls into this realm. We can?t prove it, but we think the balance of evidence supports our hypothesis.

All I want to say about this mode of thinking is that it is provisional. We may be right, but we may be wrong. And it is very good idea, in my opinion, to keep that element of doubt in some corner of our minds. I think that is the only honest way to live.

Lindsay

[martin]

Ha, now I can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that God exists!

Proof:
Google "advocatus Dei".
You will find a few hundred pages (I found 362).
This proves beyond reasonable doubt that God has a lawyer.
But if God has a lawyer God must exist.

QED http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[lindsay]

Martin, very persuasive! Let there be no doubt. Here are 300 more proofs of God (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm).

Lindsay

[candid]

Martin, ah, but God's lawyers must believe in God in order to defend God, but that doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists to an impartial jury.

Lindsay, I believe that element of doubt is called sanity. But too much sanity renders faith impotent.

Blind studies anyone?

[candid]

LOL GREAT link! There we have it. Case closed. Therefore God exists.

[jte]

One can also just accept that some things are unfalsifiable - they may or may not exist, but you ain't gonna prove them either way.

I think it's important to be able to live with ambiguity - as you say Lindsay, if you're honest with yourself.

I think the Yi gives you good practice at it, too. :-)

- Jeff

[pedro]

The question is not whether god exists, but if she can not exist

Actually if god is all there is, it is also all that there is not. And so, god both exists, and not exists, and thats how we know that it is god

[martin]

Thanks for the funny link, Lindsay. I always liked the ontological argument (number four on the list). God is perfect. What doesn't exist isn't perfect, hence God must exist. Wow, sooo elegant!
If I remember correctly it was the argument of Anselmus and philosophers tried to shoot a hole in it with the bullet "existence is not a property".
Hole or not, it remains a beauty. It deserves its place in history, together with the paradoxes of Zeno, the jokes of Zen and - last but not least - that picture of Einstein (see below) that was taken when a cop arrested him because he had exceeded the light speed limit in his Rolls Royce.

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/786/2298.gif

As you know, our beloved Albert insisted for the rest of his life that traveling faster than light is simply impossible. "Even for a genius like me in such a tremendous car as a Rolls!", as he is reported to have said.
But although he won the Nobel prize he didn't get his drivers license back. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[lindsay]

Very good, Martin! I would also like to add one more gem to your list: Pascal's Wager.

The French philosopher Blaise Pascal said that even if you think the existence of God is unlikely, the potential benefits of believing in God are so huge that betting on God's existence is the only rational thing to do.

Believe or not, Pascal's Wager has had a long history of serious consideration by theologians, philosophers, and atheists.

(1) I am a rational betting man.
(2) Therefore God exists.

Lindsay

[candid]

1. I am God.
2. You piss me off.
3. Therefore, God exists.

[lindsay]

Argument from Outcome of Blasphemy

(1) Candid says he is God.
(2) God says he is God.
(3) Someone is redundant.
(4) Whoever wins is God.
(5) Therefore God exists.

Lindsay

[candid]

1. Being one with God isn't blasphemy.
2. I am that I am.
3. Therefore, God exists.

(just kidding about the pissing off part)

[dij]

those who can - do

those who can't...

thmile! you're on candid camera!!!


kaching

[candid]

Thought this relevant:

?For churches teach of a God whom you are told you can not know, and whom you would not choose as a friend. For what friend would you have who would punish you for your every misdeed? And what kind of friend considers it a misdeed to simply be called by the wrong name?? Walsch

[candid]

Dij, so what's your point?

[heylise]

There is something inside and outside me, which has no name. It does not really need one, but for exchange, no-name is awkward. For talking with myself, I usually called it life, but life can mean too many different things for different people.
So for exchange with others, I searched for a name which would be recognized by as many people as possible. Which is the purpose of names anyway.
"God" seemed most of all names to work. For some people not at all, but for the time being, it is the best I could find.
If I find a better one, I will switch to that one.

Does God exist? He does, until I give him another name. Then that one exists.

LiSe

[candid]

LiSe,

So are you saying God exists regardless what name we assign him/her/something?

[heylise]

If you experience something, then it exists. Whatever name you give it.

The problem is of course, that many people give the name God to something THEY experience (or have heard, or believe or whatever). So if they say, God does not exist, then I cannot deny it. They are probably right.

And if half of them says, he exists, and the other half he does not, then I think they are all right.

And hopefully allright too.

LiSe

[dij]

eh Candid, I was being facetious... you know what Im like..
;)

[sparhawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

that many people give the name God to something THEY experience<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ergo, NON EXPERIENCE equals God's non existence for those without it. This is an empty premise and emptiness should not be used to argue the non existence for God. A more rational approach is to argue if in fact, what was experienced by those who argue for God's existence, was something akin to the archetypical concept of God.

The philosopher in me,

L

[dij]

I propose that God doesn't give a fig whether it exists or not.

[candid]

LiSe,

So, you are saying that 'exists' means only existing in the mind of a given person?

If I say: the sun in the sky exists, if I can point to it and you see it too, then it exists. But what if I imagine there to be a second sun in the sky, one I can't point to or help you to see; does it exist the same way that the one we both see does?

[sparhawk]

This is not for God's consumption... This is for us, children, to exercise our neurons... http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[candid]

Luis,

"Ergo, NON EXPERIENCE equals God's non existence for those without it."

If God exists, who can be without it?

[candid]

Luis, I think we are for God's consumption, and God is for our consumption. I think that's called Communion with God. (50)

[sparhawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

So, you are saying that 'exists' means only existing in the mind of a given person? <!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

At a certain level, yes. The concept of God, as archetypical as it may be, is something very personal and as different to each as fingerprints. On a grander scale, those who believe in it, know and feel that is something both inside and outside of them.

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

But what if I imagine there to be a second sun in the sky, one I can't point to or help you to see; does it exist the same way that the one we both see does?<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

The key word here is "imagine". Imagination is not experience. If you do "experience" it, the second sun, and share your experience, people will strive to mimic it and/or argue about what your experience really was. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

Candid,

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

If God exists, who can be without it?<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nobody, ergo, those who haven't experienced the presence of God, and if in fact the argument that, what was experienced by those who call it God is in fact demonstrated as something akin the archetypical concept of God, is proven correct, then those without the experience of God should be demonstrated as wrong.

I'm just playing with words. I hope you all realize that... http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

Luis

[sparhawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

I think we are for God's consumption, and God is for our consumption. I think that's called Communion with God.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but there is that little clause in God's plan that calls for his children to have free will. Therefore, children will always play and imagine that he does not exist or will go their way arguing amongst themselves about what he may want to consume or not. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

L

[candid]

Luis, much more than playing with words. You're playing with ideas. Really good ideas.

I disagree though that imagination and experience are necessarily two different things. Its said that imagination is the mother of invention, and this seems true. Tell a Pentecostal Christian that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit they experienced was just their imagination. Tell the Pope that the Holy Eucharist is not really the body of the Lord, that he just imagines it to be so.

So my question is: Does experience validate the existence of God?

[candid]

Luis, who designated God as the father and we as children?

[heylise]

Oh no, many posts. Going to post this anyway, although it may be redundant.

I experience God as existing, so he exists.
If someone else does not have this experience, and says God does not exist, I cannot deny that. He is right.
But if I can see God in that person, then God exists there too (not sure if you can say it that way. Has God a here and there? No probably not, it is all the same one *I* see). Not for that person, but for me.
God exists in me, you, animals, things, anything. Because my experience is, that he does.
From someone else's point of view, he may not exist.

I don't think it is an empty premise. A mind is needed for "the archetypical concept of God". Without a mind (or soul, whatever), there is no archetype. I don't think archetypes come in fixed quantities. They are images, one sees it or not. Something is blue, but there is no limit to blue, and not one blue everywhere. And where I see blue, you may see green. Maybe we give different names to the same image, and almost certainly same names to different images. Everyone's God is a bit different. And yet it is all one God, differences don't matter that much. One wave, everyone chooses his own particle.

There is an ability to experience God, or whatever one calls it/him/her. Some use it, others don't. Free choice.

LiSe

(agree with imagination being very close to experience. Other part of the mind, doing more or less the same thing)

[rinda]

__________

LiSe writes:

(agree with imagination being very close to experience. Other part of the mind, doing more or less the same thing)
___________

In support of that, one of the tools frequently used in therapy is imagination - the minds ability to form a image or picture of something that may or may not exist "in reality".

This ability to make a mental image (whether it be visual, auditory or kinesthetic) is central to memory and perception and use of language. Without that ability the vibrations of the molecules in the ear that start with my use of my vocal cords would be meaningless when they hit your eardrum, and the light waves/particles that hit your retina from this screen would likewise be meaningless. (...and then we could discuss abstract and concrete thinking...)

I have often wondered that if we were not truly connected in some interior/invisible/immaterial way, how we could _ever_ in any way communicate?

'Tis a mystery to me, I'm sure, as is God.... and right now I'm ok with that.

[candid]

LiSe,

Here's what I'm getting, or maybe just imagining from what you've said:

God is a potential. If someone recognizes that potential, then they can experience God. You can recognize God in a rock and still experience God. So even if another has no belief in God, you seeing God in that person awakens that potential in you. But maybe in them too.

Therefore, God exists?

[sparhawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Tell a Pentecostal Christian that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit they experienced was just their imagination. Tell the Pope that the Holy Eucharist is not really the body of the Lord, that he just imagines it to be so.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aha! Well, we do have our senses. Good old Merriam-Webster has this to say about "experience"

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

1 a : direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge b : the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation
2 a : practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity b : the length of such participation <has 10 years experience in the job>
3 a : the conscious events that make up an individual life b : the events that make up the conscious past of a community or nation or mankind generally
4 : something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through
5 : the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

And then this for "imagination"

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

1 : the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality
2 a : creative ability b : ability to confront and deal with a problem : RESOURCEFULNESS c : the thinking or active mind : INTEREST <stories that fired the imagination>
3 a : a creation of the mind; especially : an idealized or poetic creation b : fanciful or empty assumption<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Experience is something attached to our senses. Senses, by definition, respond to external stimulus. Imagination, on the other hand, lives and thrives inside our mind. If you touch a flame, you experience the heat and learn not to do it again consciously. Until such a time as you touch the flame and still are afraid of it, you are relying on second hand experiences and teachings that the heat is what you'll experience if you touch it. In that case, you are imagining the consecuences of such an action.

On the other hand, you can abstract with your mind and imagination, concepts such as those that can be brought to be experienced. This is the fundament of Science. The big struggle of humanity is that we have this great concept and abstraction inside our minds, which is the concept of God, that has proven mighty difficult to bring to the light of experience.

As for the Pentecostals, the Pope, Mohamed, the Dalai Lama and the Guru Maharaji of the world, I would never dare to dispute that what what they experience is not God. Read above my statement that the concept of God is as personal as your eye pupils. Who am I to dispute a belief? Dispute derives in conflict. I rather reach a point where, after sharing some ideas and the concepts are irreconciliable, that we all part in peace. But that's me...

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Luis, who designated God as the father and we as children?<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the light that shine on me, it wasn't me, Candid. I'm just relying on second hand "experiences"... http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

L

[candid]

Rinda http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif yes. Here's the line that springs to mind:

Things that accord in tone vibrate together. Things that have affinity in their inmost natures seek one another. Water flows to what is wet, fire turns to what is dry. Clouds (the breath of heaven) follow the dragon, wind (the breath of earth) follows the tiger. Thus the sage arises, and all creatures follow him with their eyes. What is born of heaven feels related to what is above. What is born of earth feels related to what is below. Each follows its kind. ~ Confucius

[candid]

Luis http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/zen2.gif I concede the point.

[candid]

Far out, God!

[sparhawk]

Now I have a headache... Philosophy is a hazard to your health... No wonder I hated it in school. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[candid]

Luis, yeah but its good excerise, ya gots to admit. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/mischief.gif

[sparhawk]

Yeah, Candid, what are aspirins for, anyway?

[candid]

LOL Luis, I don't know why everyone's got a headache. I feel great!

Seriously, in honor of one another we're too afraid to go toe-to-toe, lest they get stepped on. But there's something to be said about honoring one another through a worthy match, an honest fight, or a strong debate. That was the topic of this thread after all.

Anyway, Ibuprofen works best for me.

With respect all.

Candid

[candid]

Anon, when I get there? I'm already here! sheesh!

[martin]

Credo (I believe):

Life is a tree. I am a leaf, you are another leaf. The One is the root.
When I go deep inside, through the branches, through the stem, I reach the root. I discover the root as my origin, my center, my core, my deepest identity. I am the root. I am the One.
When you go deep inside you also discover the root as your deepest self, as your core, as what you really are. You are the One.
I am the One, you are the One, we are the One. I am you, you are me. There is only one Being.

And yet we are different, I am not you, you are not me. We are unique leaves on the tree that has the One as its root. Although you and I are eternally One we are forever Two.
How much Two? It depends. Leaves on the same branch are alike and will easily understand each other. Leaves on different branches are less alike and might have some communication problems.
But Two is no less true or holy or inspiring than One. Life is both and longs for both, life embraces the paradox. Without paradox there is no life.
I believe .. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif