Buddhism as Taught by the Buddha

== Re: Three Marks of Existence == Pro writes, "My opponent got the impression that Buddhism teaches life is only suffering, but this is not the case." This impression was implied by Pro as I responded directly to his quote from R1 specifically stating "Life is suffering." As I said, life is suffering but it is also non-suffering. Buddhists seem to focus specifically on the suffering aspect as I will detail further... Regarding the self, Pro says mind =/= self. I disagree. The philosophical definition of self is the essential qualities that make a person distinct from all others; a unified being which is the source of consciousness. One's mind is the source for all of these qualities and conscious sense of awareness as it pertains to the sole individual. Even solipsism acknowledges the existence of a self. Only one's mind or concept of self is sure to exist. Pro's Alan Watts quote is irrelevant (AW is barely a credible source to begin with), and Buddha's comment about the chariot is also nonsensical. Just because a chariot is composed of various parts does not mean that the chariot does not exist. Similarly, one's concept of self exists because of the brain and our body's ability to sustain it. The self is connected with others and with its environment but it still exists. Pro hasn't proven that it doesn't -- he just provided 2 quotes from Buddhists saying that it doesn't. == Re: The 4 Noble Truths == The first truth states that life is suffering, which again is true, but the focus on suffering without mention of non-suffering seems sort of manipulative through omission. Additionally, as I've stated earlier, Buddhists are seemingly obsessed with the concept of desire and relate it to being negative. The second truth states, "We suffer because of desire, attachment, and ignorance." Pro says that this is nearly self-evident and I somewhat agree. When our desires aren't met, we suffer... but we do not suffer BECAUSE of our desire. We suffer because our desires aren't met, not because the feeling of desire ITSELF is inherently negative. I've explained how desires can be imperative, vital and fulfilling. However, as you can see from Pro's rounds, Buddhists depict desire to seemingly be the root of all evil as they only mention the word in a negative light. It could just as easily be said that one can suffer from a LACK of desire. Yet that reality is not depicted or represented as one of the "four noble truths." The noble truths and the marks of existence make sure to take note that people suffer in life. The third noble truth states that the cessation of suffering is attainable. As explained, if we suffer because of desire, and eliminating desire would eliminate suffering, then clearly Pro (and Buddha) advocate eliminating desire. This again ignores the reality that desire can be a positive thing. Buddha wants us to abandon the very thing that makes us human. Moreover the defense of this contention is inadequate. Pro writes, "Those who follow the 4NT will learn how to deal with the reality of death and death of others without suffering." So far the 4NT have explained that life is suffering (obvious), we suffer because of desire (obvious) and that cessation of suffering is attainable (is it?). Just saying that it's attainable isn't an explanation on how to attain it, so how exactly have the 4NT's helped at all, exactly? The 4th NT states that following the 8-fold path will end suffering... but I've already explained how following the 8-fold path can do no such thing in the last round, considering it's just a set of ethics and doesn't guarantee that one will abandon desire, suffering, etc. Ergo Pro's assertion that 'following' the 4NT will teach you how to not suffer does not follow. How can you 'follow' a noble truth like "life is suffering" anyway? This is a whole bunch of bullspit. Pro also writes, "If you cease your desire for non-death, and cease attachment to those who are impermanent, you will not suffer." In other words, if you accept death and accept that others will die, you will not suffer. Once again this makes absolutely no sense. I accept that I will die and that my loved ones will die, but that does not necessarily mean that I won't be sad when they die. It also doesn't help get rid of all suffering: it just helps to cope with death. Finally, I noted that one cannot cease to end desire and not desire anything at the same time. My opponent call this semantic sophistry which is disgraceful. What I am saying makes perfect sense; it is not fallacious - Pro's reasoning is fallacious. Desire is synonymous with want. 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. Once again this is called the law of non-contradiction which my opponent is familiar with. Moreover, Pro saying "once a person desires to follow the 4NT, they are already on the path to eliminate desires" is humorous. How can one accepting that bad things happen eliminating desire? The 4NTs: life is suffering, desire makes us suffer, we can stop suffering and we should follow the 8-fold path (and treat people with respect). I can agree to all of those things - but guess what - I still want a million dollars. Therefore just accepting the 4NTs just fails completely in terms of its ultimate goal. As I said in the last round, Buddhism is nothing but a bunch of catchy phrases that are meant to sound deep and profound but that do actually not make any sense. == Re: 8-Fold Path == Pro writes, "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." Yes, the 2nd point is discernment; it notes having good intentions (free from ill-will). I'm sorry -- I must have confused good intentions with ethical behavior lol. As far as I'm concerned, that's an ethical position to take. Additionally 6, 7 and 8 state making an effort to improve and concentrate, etc. While that may not relate to ethics, per se, it regards personal development which I also discussed in the last round as being something which other religions espouse as well. Regardless, seeking personal development is not a sure way to eliminate desire. Pro quotes Buddha saying the world is an illusion; however, notice that he does not provide one shred of evidence that the world [reality] is an illusion. Buddha basically says a wise person acts as if the world is fake and therefore escapes suffering. Once again, there is NO PROOF of this being even remotely true. A wise person should not act as if the world is an illusion when it is in fact very real and tangible. == Re: Karma == Pro clarifies that good deeds = good results. He says that if one does the bad deed of killing, for instance, something bad happens (the man dies). However suppose one killed a serial killer in self-defense. Was the action/result bad? Bad deeds can have good results and vice versa. Additionally, this ignores Buddha's word that planting a good seed will allow you to gather good fruit. Clearly the notion is that one doing good deeds garners good results for THEMSELVES (which we know is untrue/unproven). Pro also furthers his own contradiction when he says that Buddhists reject direct causation, but that "Buddhisms form of causation posits the arising of events under certain conditions which are inextricable." This is laughable to me as those 'certain conditions' only exist specifically as the result of other DIRECT CAUSES. The laws of nature and one's decisions are what determine current states and conditions. Pro's stance on what is karma is entirely hypocritical and self-defeating. == Re: Character Limits == Pro and I have both run out of characters, so R3 will contain our final conclusions on non-dualism, the 5 aggregates and nirvana.