Spiritual Teachers who Debate vs Spiritual Teachers who don't.

[Nak Khid]

Origins of Tibetan Monastic Debating

Debating has had a long and distinguished history in Buddhism and during the early days if his teachings, the texts tell that he was of the opinion that a true monk argues with no one and stays apart from any public debates. However, there are later texts that show Buddha as a vigorous and successful debater, which have given rise to the modern use of debates in Buddhism. Originally, the Buddha simply taught those who were interested in what he had to say, but in a multi-religious environment in which he taught, and due to the natural tendency to critical inquiry into the beliefs and assertions of oneself, the need to explain and clarify his teachings to other religious leaders and laymen became necessary.

Over the years, as can be found in the ancient Buddhist texts, he became a master of debate, and was so successful in converting his opponents that he was often accused of using magic to sway their beliefs. In the later centuries, debating became a part of the normal life of the Buddhist monks, and played an important part in winning intellectuals over to Buddhism. It has also become a formal mechanism for the resolution of sectarian and monastic disagreements, and a person’s own critical engagement with the standard Buddhist doctrines

Another form of debate is with one monk asking the questions to a group of monks sat in a circle around the questioner, and the questioner gives his question and chooses one monk from the circle to make his answer. The refuting of the answer is then directed to another monk to continue the debate in a form of round-robin.

Tibetan debates are very animated and impassioned, as the whole debate rages back and forth between the two debaters, exchanging questions and answers in logical progression. A debate is a special system of logic where the debaters learn to work with the concepts of what they have been taught, and is a good way to train their thoughts to be logical and to use exact expression.

The form of the debates has been adapted over the centuries from the original Indian style of debating, and debates generally hold true consequences, which are logical implications drawn from the defender’s statements. While the questioner has an unlimited number of ways to ask the questions, the defender is limited in how he can form the answer to the questions. These answers include responses like:
“The reason is not established,” which is the way to deny the minor premise
“There is no pervasion,” which is how to deny the major premise
“I accept it,” which means the defender has accepted the argument and the conclusion

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Look at these names of famous spiritual teachers

Eckhart Tolle
Shri Shri Ravi Shankar
Ram Dass
Adyashanti
Thich Nhat Hanh
Sam Harris
Mooji
Rupert Spira
Sadhguru
Swami Prabhupada ji (Iskcon)
Paulo Coelho
Don Miguel Ruiz

 

Some of them do debates others don't

What do you think of spiritual teachers who do debates?

 

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by Nak Khid

[Leo Gura]

I don't know any seriously awake person who does debates.

[Nak Khid]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't know any seriously awake person who does debates.

 

[Leo Gura]

These are publicity stunts.

[Nak Khid]

Do seriously awake people do publicity stunts  ?

Edited November 17, 2019 by Nak Khid

[Forestluv]

@Nak Khid If we wanted to teach math to children, would we explain things seriously with examples of actuarial science in health care? Of corse not. We would use games and toys to illustrate math to children. . . 

[Nak Khid]

And do you discount the value  of debating in Tibetan Buddhism ?

[Nak Khid]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Nak Khid If we wanted to teach math to children, would you have to explain things seriously with examples of actuarial science in health care? Of course not. We would use games and toys to illustrate math to children. . . 

I don't know what this has to do with the topic

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

And do you discount the value  of debating in Tibetan Buddhism ?

In terms of SD, debate is a hallmark of stage Orange. Debate can be effective up to stage Orange, yet then becomes an inefficient method of consciousness development - due to personality dynamics. By stage yellow, there is very little expansion via debate. Most expansion comes through exploration, observation, discovery and integration.

I used the child example to illustrate that a high conscious teacher could have a “debates” as games/toys to reach out to “children”. Sadhguru does not have a debtor mentality. He is just being playful with the kids.

If you want to see real debates, look at debates between blue level religious vs Orange level atheist.

[Nak Khid]

2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

In terms of SD, debate is a hallmark of stage Orange. Debate can be effective up to stage Orange, yet then becomes an inefficient method of consciousness development - due to personality dynamics. By stage yellow, there is very little expansion via debate. Most expansion comes through exploration, observation, discovery and integration.

I used the child example to illustrate that a high conscious teacher could have a “debates” as games/toys to reach out to “children”. Sadhguru does not have a debtor mentality. He is just being playful with the kids.

Sadhguru does debates, as has been shown

and debating is also a tradition in Tibetan Buddhism

[Nak Khid]

I am going to add two similar questions for this thread

1) Is there potential value in a spiritual teacher doing public debates?

2) Is there potential value in one spiritual teacher having a public discussion with another spiritual teacher?

3) Is there potential value in a spiritual teacher doing public interviews?

 

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by Nak Khid

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

Sadhguru does debates, as has been shown

and debating is also a tradition in Tibetan Buddhism

That’s not my point. The point is the energetics and intentions of the debate? Compare a Sadhguru “debate” with a real debate between Blue/Orange people like William Craig, Shermer, D’Souza and Hitchens. The energetics is completely different. Sadguru is dropping down and having a publicity stunt “debate” to reach out to upper Orange / lower green.

And there are plenty of blue level Buddhists, sI ts no surprise to see debates there.

Higher conscious beings aren’t into debates because attachment/identification has dissolved. There is no ownership of ideas/perspectives. There is no “my perspective” vs “your perspective”. At tier2, debating is like chewing on tin foil.

[Nak Khid]

2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Sadguru is dropping down and having a publicity stunt “debate” to reach out to upper Orange / lower green....

 

Higher conscious beings aren’t into debates

This is contradictory unless Sadhguru is not a higher conscious being

[silene]

I think debating is also part of the Jewish religion, I've seen films of Jewish students debating the scriptures formally. I agree it has a place up to a certain level of development (where the intellectual mind is engaged) but can't take us all the way. Mind you, we can say that about all 'techniques' can't we? They have their place but don't carry the raft on your back after you've reached the other shore. Perhaps some of the gurus quoted above are debating for the benefit of the audience rather than themselves. 

[Forestluv]

22 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

This is contradictory unless Sadhguru is not a higher conscious being

You are missing the point. Sadhguru is Turquoise trying to reach out to an upper Orange / lower green audience. The “debate” is an act for the audience. It is like giving children cand or having a game show.  Sadhguru is playing a character in an effort to connect with an Orange/green audience. Orange/low green resonates with debates and finds it entertaining. It is an act of love by sadghguru. . . . If it was a yellow/turquoise level audience they would not have a “debating” act, because it doesn’t resonate with yellow/turquoise. . . . . 

[Nak Khid]

A 2013 conversation between A. H. Almaas and Rupert Spira

They have their differences beginning at the 20 minute mark.  They debate on some things >
Although the format is conversation rather than a debate format where people would speak about only differences in a more competitive manner.
The thing that is good about debate is that it tests you.  People may bring up weaknesses in your concepts that you may have not realized.
It can also have a negative as anything can

___________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

A.H. Almaas (/ˈɑːlməs/ AHL-məss) is the pen name of A. Hameed Ali (born 1944), a Kuwaiti American author and spiritual teacher who writes about and teaches an approach to spiritual development informed by modern psychology and therapy which he calls the Diamond Approach.

Almaas is originally from Kuwait. He is the spiritual head of the Ridhwan School. He may be described, among other things, as an Integral theorist, mystic, spiritual teacher or an exponent of the perennial philosophy.

Almaas' books were originally published by the Ridhwan School, under the Diamond Books publishing title, but are now published by Shambhala.

The Diamond Approach is a contemporary spiritual path integrating the teachings and practices of the ancient wisdom traditions with modern depth psychology. The Diamond Approach is derived from the experiences of Almaas, along with Karen Johnson and Faisal Muqaddam (who split off early on to develop his own approach). They were among the first students of Claudio Naranjo, an early pioneer of the integration of spiritual and therapeutic work.

The curriculum of the work draws upon the founders' backgrounds in Sufism, Platonism, Buddhism and the Fourth Way. Teachers of the Diamond Approach focus on the students' specific perception of their own immediate work issues.[1] Presentation of a canonical body of knowledge and practice is introduced over time as required.

 

 

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

The thing that is good about debate is that it tests you.  People may bring up weaknesses in your concepts that you may have not realized. 

I would draw a distinction between exploration and debate.. The definition of debate is:

A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

The keys of debate are opposition and argumentation. As well, there is generally attachment/identification to one’s own argument. And each side wants to “win” the debate. . . These energetics are very different than exploring ideas and perspectives that have no personal attachment/identification. 

[Harikrishnan]

It is said that Adi Shankara went from south to north debating budhist monk and converting them to advaitha vedantha. In india from my readings there used to be debate in old times. Brahmnas even debated with Budha before becoming his follower. 

But i think these are all stories created by stage blue people. There is a sense of pride in hindu when he hears adi shankara beat all budhist in debate. See Zakir naik videos for example, and all those hyde park debates b/w Relegious people on beliefs. Its all funny, childish and stupid and i dont think concious people does it.

[Nak Khid]

A brief introduction to debate in Tibetan Buddhism

Edited November 18, 2019 by Nak Khid

[Nahm]

@Nak Khid Solid post. Nicely done.