[ファブリス]

This cracks me up... Tibetan monks use some kind of physical protocol to debate topics otherwise rather unexciting (I imagine topics about Buddhist philosophy and such).

Quote:If the questioner has been able to draw the defender into making errors and contradicting himself, the questioner wraps his upper robe around his waist, as a sign of his understanding and control. No longer bending forward, he stands tall and makes forceful sweeping gestures, clapping his hands loudly to stress the power and decisiveness of his arguments.

http://www.snow-crest-inn-dharamsala.com...ebate.html

Youtube: Tibetan Monks Debate in Dharamsala

I once watched a documentary with footage of the young teenage Dalai Lama debating in this style before he left tibet. He seemed pretty good at it, judging by the reactions of the monks around him.

I don't know if that video is a poor representation or if I'm not looking close enough, but it doesn't look any different from people haggling over the price of melons in a market.

Jarvik7 Wrote:I don't know if that video is a poor representation or if I'm not looking close enough, but it doesn't look any different from people haggling over the price of melons in a market.

How dare you? It's nothing of the sort! This is a group of venerable monks debating the intrinsic value of a melon in a free market system.

[ファブリス]

OMG!! This guy has no chance, combo attack!!

More seriously I can see how that makes them more peaceful. It must be quite unnerving to see people gesturing like that at your face, even if you know it's a codified exchange. Perhaps they become less reactive in people conflicts as a result.

PS: the more I look at it the more it seems a good idea. If we learned to argument like that in school, we may learn to have a more balanced response to conflicts with family and various figures of authority. Which is often a challenge through childhood and passage into adulthood.

The tradition of debate among the Tibetans is one of my favorite aspects of their religion. The purpose is not to win the argument but to bring to light anything one believes that is unreasonable. Blind faith is considered foolish. Just quoting ancient texts without being able to explain the purpose behind the teachings make one look no different than a mimicking monkey.

interesting! it reminds a bit of rap battles...

Fabrice's quote Wrote:If the questioner has been able to draw the defender into making errors and contradicting himself, the questioner wraps his upper robe around his waist, as a sign of his understanding and control. No longer bending forward, he stands tall and makes forceful sweeping gestures, clapping his hands loudly to stress the power and decisiveness of his arguments.

Now imagine if this forum were to use video posts. hehe

Wow, it actually was really interesting watching them debate. All those hand motions, showing the sort of "give and take" of the debate. It was almost martial arts like...

Jarvik7 Wrote:I don't know if that video is a poor representation or if I'm not looking close enough, but it doesn't look any different from people haggling over the price of melons in a market.

+1

[ファブリス]

I'm in Mcleodganj right now. One evening close to my homestay I heard a bunch of women yelling and clapping hands. I kinda guessed after posting this and my homestay family confirmed there was a nunnery closeby

I can also confirm from their son (teenager) that they DO learn debating at the local "TCV" (Tibetan Children Village) school. He said they take turns sitting and answering, or standing and asking questions.

bodhisamaya Wrote:The tradition of debate among the Tibetans is one of my favorite aspects of their religion. The purpose is not to win the argument but to bring to light anything one believes that is unreasonable. Blind faith is considered foolish. Just quoting ancient texts without being able to explain the purpose behind the teachings make one look no different than a mimicking monkey.

And yet they believe in reincarnation, karma and transcendence without a shred of evidence. It is the same compartmentalization of the mind that allows Christians to completely destroy the Islamic belief-system using critical thinking and reasoning, and yet never actually apply it to their own silly religion.

Debate and religions don't mix.

“Those who become bored by conventional “Bible” religions, and seek “enlightenment” by way of the dissolution of their own critical faculties into nirvana in any form, had better take a warning. They may think they are leaving the realm of despised materialism, but they are still being asked to put their reason to sleep, and to discard their minds along with their sandals.” -- Hitchens, God is not Great

"makes them more peaceful"?
People gesturing while talking == people becoming peaceful? Then Italians must be VERY peaceful, they wouldn't engage in a world war or anything.

"people haggling over the price of melons in a market" == Gold.

Semi-related: http://harmonist.us/2010/01/review-buddhist-warfare/

"... In an effort to combat this view and to humanize Buddhists, then, Mark Juergensmeyer and I put together a collection of critical essays that illustrate the violent history of Buddhism across Mongolia, Tibet, Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and India.

Our intention is not to argue that Buddhists are angry, violent people—but rather that Buddhists are people, and thus share the same human spectrum of emotions, which includes the penchant for violence.

Although the book only arrived at bookstores last month, it apparently touched some nerves in the academic community before its release. Some have objected to the cover [image right], which they feel is not an appropriate subject for Buddhism. Ironically, that is the very reason this collection of essays is so important: to address the apparent and widespread inability to acknowledge the violent side to religious traditions. It is this inability that robs its adherents of their humanity.

In a way, I wish I could return to that dream of Buddhist traditions as a purely peaceful, benevolent religion that lacks mortal failures and shortcomings. But I cannot. It is, ultimately, a selfish dream and it hurts other people in the process... "

@nonpoint

The Hitchens quote is worthy of notice, but there's two things that should be kept in mind. First, the quote sets up the goal of nirvana as a straw man. It's possible that "the dissolution of their own critical faculties" is the consequence of reason itself. If that's the case, it would be unreasonable to adhere to their own critical faculties. Second, the passage doesn't mention the articles of faith held by proponents of Reason. See here, here, and here for some well-known discussions on this point.

On a separate note, Hitchens seems to be epistemically aligned with positivism; however, there are other epistemological standpoints (many of which Buddhists believe in) that are commensurable with reason. Just google "Buddhist epistemology" and you'll probably find something. I'll let you arrive at your own conclusions.

Anyway, I share the sentiment that others in this thread have hinted at: romanticizing of Buddhism by Westerners is a problem. However, romanticizing of positivism (which many scientists are aligned with) is a problem in some ways too, but that is another discussion.