Buddhism as Taught by the Buddha

==THREE MARKS OF EXISTENCE== [Non-Self] Con makes assertions that the mind is "self" and says the philosophical definition of self is the essential qualities that make a person distinct. However, none of her assertions or definitions of self provide a reason for the existence of a self. Basically, just unjustified claims. On the other hand, I have confirmation from PhD neuroscientist, Sam Harris with a degree in philosophy, to back up this concept of non-self. Sam Harris: "Our conventional sense of "self" is, in fact, nothing more than a cognitive illusion, and dispelling this illusion opens the mind to extraordinary experiences of happiness. This is not a proposition based on faith; it is an empirical observation." [1] Con then tries to make a mockery of my argument by saying that I merely provided quotes saying a self doesn't exist. However, the quote from Buddha was actually an argument explaining why there is no self. She even tries to refute it, so obviously she acknowledges that the quote was an argument. However, she strawmanned the quote and said "Just because a chariot is composed of various parts does not mean that the chariot does not exist." That's not what Buddha said. He said: "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." The point that needs to be understood is that any concept of a "self" is merely an arbitrary distinction. 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. "No independent 'I' is here, but many gathered mobile forces." - Buddha Take for example, a sandy beach with a sand castle. The sand castle is merely a clump of sand in a vast beach of sand. But we arbitrarily name this clump of sand, "sand castle," and thus, the same can be said of man. Philosopher David Hume held that "the self is nothing but a bundle of interconnected perceptions linked by relations of similarity and causality and that our idea of the self is just the idea of such a bundle." [2] ==THE 4 NOBLE TRUTHS== 1. My opponent seems to have a gripe with the first noble truth because it puts too much emphasis that life is suffering. However, the purpose of the noble truths is to cease the suffering, so first, it has to acknowledge that there is suffering in life to get rid of it. I find the 4NT to be a method used to live life happily while avoiding suffering. 2. It appears she concedes this point by saying "Pro: 'We suffer because of desire, attachment, and ignorance.' Pro says that this is nearly self-evident and I somewhat agree." That being said, she had contentions that we don't suffer because of desire, but because the desires aren't met. However, the Buddhist attitude is a bit different in that it 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. She also didn't refute my contention that Buddhism acknowledges that we have needs to be met, but that doesn't validate desire. 3. Con contends that "Just saying that it's attainable isn't an explanation on how to attain it," however, the explanation on how to attain it resides in the 4th Noble Truth which is the 8-Fold Path. 4. Con says that you can't "follow a noble truth like 'life is suffering,'" yet she forgets that the 4th Noble Truth IS the 8-Fold Path which surely is something to follow. The first three truths are the inductive reasoning that leads to the path to cease suffering. She continues to say "If one wants to eliminate their wants, then they want SOMETHING meaning not *ALL* wants are eliminated. Their one want (to eliminate other wants) is still being fulfilled." Notice that she denies it's semantics, yet she hinges her whole argument on the word "ALL." She can't accept that the desire to end desires is the one exception. And there is no contradiction because you have desires, including the desire to end desires, BEFORE you follow the path that ceases all desires! Also, there seems to be a misunderstanding concerning the full list of cause of desires. Desire is NOT the only contributor to suffering. As noted in the first round, it is desire, attachment, and ignorance. ==8-FOLD PATH== Con didn't take note of my assertion that Right View is the primary aspect of the 8-Fold Path. Buddhism is a psychological religion and tries to help people live without hindrances. All problems with humans are essentially psychological because the brain is what perceives physical pain and emotional stress. The 4NTs formula is a logically sure way to do it. If one is able to master the mind and learn to stop desiring for things to be what they are not, so stop being attached to what is impermanent, and believing illusions to be real, one will be able to escape the suffering. Though, no one says that it's easy to stop desiring for loved ones not to die, etc. ==KARMA== Con says "Suppose one killed a serial killer in self-defense. Was the action/result bad? Bad deeds can have good results and vice versa." In this case, killing a murderer in self-defense isn't a bad deed. In fact, if you look at it the other way around, the murderer is committing a bad deed and the bad result is that his victim killed him. 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. ==PHILOSOPHY== [Nondualism] 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. [Skepticism/Nirvana] Con simply criticizes the idea that the Universe was created with us in mind because beings seek enlightenment, however, this notion is not a Buddhist precept. Seeking enlightenment is a sound Buddhist idea because it's just an attempt to understand reality around you. (No disagreements on Nirvana.) ==CONCLUSION== Notice that my opponent has dropped many arguments and left them unrefuted or notes an agreement. She also failed to contend the central Buddhist tenet of emptiness which is concerning the very nature of the Universe, In conclusion, I have defended Buddhism and shown its philosophy to be true and can withstand philosophical attacks. Sources: [1] http://www.secularhumanism.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...