Buddhism as Taught by the Buddha

==THREE MARKS OF EXISTENCE== [Impermanence] No disagreements. [Dissatisfaction/Suffering] My opponent got the impression that Buddhism teaches life is only suffering, but this is not the case. Buddha acknowledges that there is also non-suffering and happiness. "There is happiness in life, happiness in friendship, happiness of a family, happiness in a healthy body and mind, ...but when one loses them, there is suffering." -- Buddha (Dhammapada) [1] It appears that this is another tenet, albeit upon further clarification, that my opponent has no disagreement with. [Non-Self] My opponent denies the tenet of non-self but has not given a good reason to. She brings up that the mind is an emergent phenomenon that is difficult to explain in terms of its parts. I don't see how this is relevant because no one defined the mind as "self" nor does this prove that a self exists. The philosopher Alan Watts explained that we can peel away at ourselves like an onion, searching for a true self, only to find that there is nothing in the center. There is no core in us that can be called our true being. Buddha provides sound reasoning to support non-self: Buddha: "There is not a self residing in name and form, but the cooperation of the conformations produces what people call a man. Just as the word 'chariot' is but a mode of expression for axle, wheels, the chariot-body and other constituents in their proper combination, so a living being is the appearance of the groups ... as they are joined in a unit. There is no self in the carriage and there is no self in man. O bhikkhus, this doctrine is sure and an eternal truth, that there is no self outside of its parts. This self of ours which constitutes Name and Form is a combination of the groups ..., but there is no ego entity, no self in itself." [2] ==FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS== 1. Life is Suffering This has been covered earlier. 2. We suffer because of desire, attachment, and ignorance. This is nearly self-evident. We have desires. Some will be met, most will not. Even when some desires are met, one may still be unsatisfied. Usually, all suffering occurs because we desire for things to be what they are not. If we feel pain, we suffer because we desire not to feel pain. If we suffer from a lost family member, it's because we desire that they be alive (as well as being attached to that person). 3. The Cessation of Suffering is Attainable My opponent states: "death is unavoidable so suffering is unavoidable, meaning this truth is also negated." This is not the purpose of the Four Noble Truths. It is not there to eliminate things that cause suffering. Those who follow the 4NT will learn how to deal with the reality of death and death of others without suffering. If you cease your desire for non-death and cease attachment to those who are impermanent, you will not suffer. My opponent then uses semantic sophistry and says that one cannot desire to cease desiring. This is not contradictory, because once a person desires to follow the 4NT, they are already on the path to eliminate desires. My opponent states "one cannot desire non-desire and not desire anything at the same time." This is a strawman. No one says that one is in a state of non-desire when choosing to follow the 4NT. Obviously a person has desire before they follow the path that leads to the cessation of desire. Non-desire comes after eliminating desires. My opponent must show that it is impossible to desire to follow the 4NT and that it is indeed contradictory. Con then raises a point that we must desire to live, however, this is merely semantic confusion. Buddhism does not deny that one must fulfill their needs. What it means by desire is "unnecessary want." There's a difference between "want" and "need" and thus we don't face a problem. [4] In Pali and Sanskrit, the word for "greed" is actually what is meant by "desire" in English. [4] 4. The 8-Fold Path Will Cease Suffering See below. ==8-FOLD PATH== Con: "[The 8-Fold Path can't] be proven to free one from desire; instead they just instruct on what is the proper way to treat other people and achieve happiness." My opponent is forgetting that only 3, 4, and 5 fall under the category of Ethics. The first two are Discernment, and the last three concern one's own Concentration. This fact alone refutes her contention. Further, "Right View is the forerunner of the entire path, the guide for all the other factors." [5] Buddha explains: "A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion [Right View], does not act as if it is real, so he escapes the suffering." ==KARMA== Con misunderstands Karma and contends that there is no proof that if one does good deeds, then good things will happen to them. This is not the case. Buddha says that those who do good will reap good RESULTS. This does not necessitate that this pertains only to the deed-doer. If one does the good deed of giving money to a homeless man, the good result will be that the homeless man has money for food. If one does the bad deed of killing, the bad result will be that a man died. Furthermore, this can have a bad effect on the evil-doer because he may feel guilt or fear all his life for committing the atrocity. Karma does not mean that if you murder someone, you get murdered back. This is simply a misunderstanding of what Karma truly is. Buddha: "Therefore, O bhikkhus, as there is no self, there is no transmigration of a self; but there are deeds and the continued effect of deeds. There is a rebirth of karma; ... this reappearance of the conformations is continuous and depends on the law of cause and effect." [2] As described by Buddha, it is simply deeds and effects of deeds. There is nothing supernatural or mystical about it. It does not need to be proved if one accepts the law of causality as my opponent clearly does. My opponent wrongly asserts that this affirms determinism because it posits the law of causality. However, I have already clarified this in the opening round by saying: "Notions of direct causation are rejected. Buddhisms form of causation posits the arising of events under certain conditions which are inextricable." ==5 AGGREGATES== Con contends that the mind aspect of the 6 Senses contradicts the non-dualism tenet. This is false. It does not posit a dual divide between mind and matter. It simply asserts the relationship between nose and aroma, and likewise, the relationship between the brain and mind. Mind in this sense is still materialistic. It simply refers to thoughts, the electrical impulses and brain waves. Surely my opponent acknowledges thoughts as electrical impulses and brainwaves. There is no assertion of a supernatural divide between mind and matter. ==EMPTINESS== No disagreements. ==PHILOSOPHY== [Atheism/Rebirth/Afterlife] Con strays from the resolution of the debate by using the irrational beliefs of offshoot Buddhist sects to attack what I posit, which is "Buddhism as taught by the Buddha." Buddha didn't teach reincarnation (he actually reprimanded a disciple for believing it [3]), he didn't teach anything mystical, and explicitly stated that he's not a god. She also asserts that it teaches an afterlife, which is blatantly false. Buddha: "Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existent entities. ...This body will be dissolved and no amount of sacrifice will save it. ...Since, then, O bhikkhus, there is no self, there cannot be any afterlife of a self. Therefore abandon all thought of self." [6] It seemed that she tried to contend that he's an Atheist, but I provided evidence in the first round that he "frequently mentioned and rejected [a creator God]" in early scripture. [7] [Non-Dualism] [Skepticism] Character limit. Will contend later. ==NIRVANA== No disagreements. Sources: See Comments.