Buddhism as Taught by the Buddha

== Re: THREE AGGREGATES == [Non-Self] Pro writes, "Con makes assertions that the mind is self, and says the philosophical definition of self is the essential qualities that make a person distinct." Yes. I used the philosophical definition of 'self' which I cited and sourced. Pro continues, "However, none of her assertions or definitions of self provide a reason for the existence of a self. Basically, just unjustified claims." Here you see Pro say that just because I don't explain WHY there is a self, that a self must not exist. This is obviously fallacious. Just because we cannot explain why something happens does not mean that there is not a reason; it just means that reason is unknown. There are many philosophies about the 'self' but I don't claim to know all the answers about why it exists. I just know that one does (for the reasons I've given throughout the debate). Additionally, his appeal to authority is irrelevant regarding Harris' quote, and I still refute Buddha's notion of the non-self. Pro explains, "The word 'chariot' is merely an arbitrary distinction between the parts that make it up, and the parts around it. Same with man. To identify yourself as a separate and distinct self is merely an arbitrary distinction." Notice how Pro's conclusion does not follow his argument. First he says that the word chariot describes the parts that make it up, to which I agree with. He then says that the 'self' is made up of parts - to which I would also agree. He concludes that just as the chariot is not separate from the parts but rather composed of parts, that the same logic applies to the 'self.' Again, I agree. I never said that the self was separate from the parts that make it up; instead I merely said that THE SELF EXISTS. As you recall (and see from the subject header), what Pro has been trying to argue is that the self does not exist. His conclusion again goes back to interconnectedness which I've accepted from the beginning. In my R1 argument, I said, "Yes everything is interconnected, but that does not prove that there is no such thing as the self." I've explained that the 'self' doesn't mean independent; it just means the individual consciousness of each being observing and living in the interconnectedness of the world which they live in and help make up (and are made from). The self exists because of individual consciousness; Pro never combated that. Additionally, claiming that there is no self because the parts that make up the self are essentially other things (made up of everything) is applying the Division Fallacy. Just because a cloud is made of water molecules does not make it identical to the water molecules that make it up. The Identity Theory has been long disposed of by philosophers, and is a weak argument based on bad reasoning. == re: FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS == 1. While I understand that acknowledging that suffering is relevant, what I have been arguing is that suffering is a part of being human just as pleasure is a part of being human. Pro has given us absolutely no reason to accept that ending suffering is the goal of life on earth. Christians, for instance, have other goals and philosophers and scientists have their own (i.e. understanding the universe). The 4NTs state that ending suffering (through eliminating desire) is of the utmost importance and focus of Buddhism. I disagree and have been saying that they are both necessary and inevitable. 2. Pro writes, "the Buddhist attitude explains that our desire causes suffering because we desire for things to be what they are not. Reality is what it is, and when we desire for it to be something it's not, we suffer." Again, having desires = having goals, and having goals is one of the most pleasurable things in life! I've cited and sourced this back in earlier rounds. Not to mention that having wants does not necessarily make one suffer. I want a million dollars but I am not suffering because of that want, and Pro never proves that desire and suffering are synonymous. Pro continues, "She also didn't refute my contention that Buddhism acknowledges that we have needs to be met, but that doesn't validate desire." Needs are nothing more than more imminent desires. Living has to be the goal in order to warrant something a "need" therefore his argument is negated. 3 and 4. Pro maintains that following the 8-fold path is the way to end suffering. I have argued against this and will continue to... == re: 8 FOLD-PATH == Again, the 8FP is a set of ethics and way of living that supposedly contains the answer to eliminating desire (even though Pro concedes that people have needs, and needs are nothing more than desires with the goal of living). Pro says, "If one is able to master the mind and learn to stop desiring for things to be what they are not, stop being attached to what is impermanent, and believing illusions to be real, one will be able to escape the suffering." I will remind the audience of my 2 contentions. First, while in *theory* this might be a nice way to end desire, Pro never actually proves that all of these things are POSSIBLE for everyone or anyone. We are psychological creatures; our biology and environment make up our state of mind. In order for this point to be legit, Pro would have had to prove that all people have the capability (psychological will) to follow the 4NTs which we know is biologically impossible due to things like mental illness, other problems (upbringing, etc.). Additionally, I said that not only are humans probably incapable of achieving this (from a scientific perspective) but philosophically speaking we should not accept that eliminating desire should even be our goal, or that this method is universal. == re: KARMA == Pro says, "killing a murderer in self-defense isn't a bad deed." In other words, he concedes that the act of killing ITSELF wasn't bad, but rather the motives behind it were what determined its goodness or badness. So, if a deed itself cannot be good or bad - and only the intentions behind the deeds make something good or bad - then how can Buddha confirm that good deeds will = good results? For instance, if I see Pro choking and give him mouth to mouth and try to save him (good intentions), but in the process I accidentally suffocate and kill him (bad result), then this completely negates the entire argument. I've disproven karma and Pro would just like to gloss over that very important aspect of Buddhism. He writes, "Remember, not to get all caught up in this though. Buddha explicitly stated that there's deeds and effects of deeds. This is a rather reasonable claim, nothing extraordinary about it." Yes, there are deeds and effects of deeds. However to state that the effect of deeds EFFECT FUTURE DEEDS (or results) as Buddhism does - and Pro admits - is to accept determinism and the law of causation, which in the last round Pro explicitly denied. == re: PHILOSOPHY == [Non-Dualism] In the last round Pro promised to respond to my argument against nondualism; however, all he said was "My opponent opposes Buddha's statement that there is no hearer and nothing heard, just hearing. However, it's simply a denial of the subject-object dualistic paradigm." That is hardly a rebuttal; I pointed out how the entire concept of that statement was fallacious. To be seen requires existence, meaning there is in fact something to be seen and one to do the seeing. Pro doesn't combat this at all. He also ignores that Buddhism seemingly preaches dualism and nondualism at the same time. [Nirvana] Pro agrees that nirvana simply = death; hardly a noble goal. That's what I said 2x and Pro agreed. == re: CONCLUSION == Pro says that I ignored the tenet of emptiness, but I already argued it. If emptiness includes the negation of the five aggregates, and I argued against the 5 aggregates, then by extension I argued emptiness. In short, Buddhism sounds good in theory but is not logical.