i prefer it too. indo-tibetan logical debate (check out nalanda university) has a similar history to socratic debate. some smart people were fed up with "sophists" using rhetorical techniques, willful distractions and willful logical fallacies (spin-doctoring) to "influence" people. so they invented methods of conducting debates that forced debaters to stay on topic and proceed in a way that prevents logial fallacies. in fact, IF you commit a logical error, you lose. "winning" is when the defender is brought to contradict a premise that he/she (yes, nuns are also excellent debaters!) previously commited to. powers of memorization, the likes of which we westerners can only dream of, preclude that the challenger will overlook a contradicted premise and make it impossible for the defender to deny it having done it. sometimes the defender can be led through several seemingly unrelated debates that can last from minutes to hours only to be brought back to the beginning and served up with their contradictions to some or all statements made over the course of the whole debate. that is not to say these debates are sedate and unemotional. on the contrary, things can be heated and very energetic, and the final act of calling out those contradictions is loud, enthusiatic and even jeering (but never malicious) and always punctuated by a triplet of loud hand claps from the one or more challengers! (if the debate is particularly interesting, additional challengers will often jump into the debate mid-fray!)
@@theodorewinston3891 Interesting detailed insight, thank you. Without a doubt this came from India. India was once a powerhouse civilization with far reaching influence. The egyptians are known to have travelled to India to seek knowledge. The lost library of Alexandria is assumed to have been full of scrolls written by Egyptian scholars who travelled to India to collect knowledge. Tibetan culture too, major influence is Indian buddhism and local animalist supersitions. But the formal art of debating was first documented in Ancient India. And various rules and techniques for debating described as well as disqualifying rules were well known. i am not Indian, i learned this by by crossing different sources that points to India before Egypt as the source of all civilizations.
@@garychap8384it's headaching because in tibetan there are certain words that are for this purpose and for them to get used to it, even young monks spent yrs to practice those pattern
Thank you for doing this in English, it’s very interesting. I enjoy the structure, it’s more of a conversation than western debate structure. It doesn’t seem to have any opportunity for the debater to play to the audience. I feel like western debate has become two people speaking past each other directly to the audience. I also like how this goes point by point, rather than the deluge of points that the opponent can pick and choose the weakest one to attack. This stays on track, and is simpler.
Yea but very annoying for the defense because he can't say other than why and incorrect 😂 these basic things are taught in the Tibetan high school like one he is talking about colors...
I don't know what karma (or UA-cam algorithm) caused this video to get recommended to me right after I was watching a news clip about a hot dog vendor, but this made the way that Vasubandhu and even more so Dignaga wrote suddenly really click for me. Glad to discover this channel.
That was great, it reminded me of the grillings by Socrates in Plato's dialogues. I'm currently reading "The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate" by Danie Perdue, and this video helped visualize the concepts disclosed in the book, so thanks.
With gratitude to both Venerables for showcasing these enlightened format of debate tested for millennium as a methods for eradicating ignorance in the English language that is easily accessible ... to educate us on the possibilities of wisdom - of which more powerful than all methods is your very aspirations, aspirations and the path you both walk everyday. Thujeche. 🙏🙏🙏
Nomo Buddhaya! I can't say that I've realized emptiness, but I have definitely gone for refuge in the sublime Three Jewels. May the teachings of the Buddha be venerated and supported for a very long time!
@@pasanperera6460 "go through emptiness" is vague. I mean a direct realization of emptiness which occurs at the path of seeing, not lower, at the time of being an ordinary being. If you are an ordinary being, then emptiness is either a valid inference based on reasoning or a vague feeling or a type of meditation experience which is not the authentic realization that arises on the path of seeing. Therefore if you are an ordinary being, it is not authentic realization but a mere similitude. Sarwa Mangalam!
@@karmazopatarchin3704 Brother/Sister , I appreciate your ideas . I wonder what is the your path of seen according to your post. Buddha has clearly taught us what is the right path to attained nibbana. The Buddhism is soley for ordinary people. We just have simply to follow the 8 Eightfold path and do Vipassana Meditation ( 7 & 8 of the path ) Most of people think that an Arahath person( fully enlightened one) is some one like a god or who got shiny body with lights around his head. If you are also a such believer then emptiness is very far from you. To seen the emptiness, you just have to practice Vipassana meditation ( Sathara Sathipattana sutta ). Buddha had clearly stated in Sathara Sathipattana sutta that it is theone and only path to attained Nibbana. But I would like to say you this , to see the emptiness we dont need to attained nibbana but right journey (second stage ) starts after you have seen emptiness. Emptiness is the status we gain " Pagnaa ". To gain emptiness we must master SAMMA SAMADHI. I would like to know what you think as emptiness. And I'm curious to know the " path of seen " according to you. I would repeat " just seen emptiness is not the final target but it is the beginning of the path to nibbana ( 8 th step of the Eightfold path ). " Any ordinary person can see emptiness as long as he follows so called 8 path. ( in buddha's era there were so many people who saw emptiness . It can be a king or a poor begger. Buddhism is clearly for ordinary people and even nowadays there are so many people who successfully follow this path. Watch following vedios of students who are following vipassana meditation. ( I dont say all of them are seeing emptiness but if you are in the right path it gives you some sort of hints such as less stress, less carving , less anger , always a smily face & calm mind etc. ) ua-cam.com/video/yfbEJI-k7T8/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/Gia2585hs6s/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/jztTK3TNiPU/v-deo.html Meditation Center - dhamma.org If you type " 10 days vipassana course " in you tube you would get thousands of vedios of students from all over the world. This is a real thing , this is only for ordinary people and this can be gained before our death. With metta
When I debate in Tibetan, it sounds normal. But when I think or hear debating in english, it's like having Marvel's Vision interacting with another Vision
It is fascinating to hear Vajrayana debating in english. The introduction in the first five minutes was very instructive. As a lay person I immediately got tripped up when the debate started because of its deep references into Buddhist sutras and commentaries. Even if I did knew every text relevant to the topic, the conversation goes so far that I'd probably lose and fall for a contradiction. The monasteries of Tibet are definitely far more like ancient Greek philosophical universities than the modern Christian church. It was nice to see you guys laugh, it reminds me of when I watched Namdroling monks debate and they laugh at each other a lot.13:28 also you're in India.
Thank you for doing this demonstration! I'm still trying to understand the purpose of the different gestures and the high level of activity from the inquisitor. The stepping around and seemingly random arm movements have a distracting effect on me, reminiscent of the speech patterns common among Autistic people. Also it sometimes seems like the speech is too structured and unnatural. I wonder how this tradition could be adapted to maximize the intent. Again, thank you! བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས
I humbly request everyone to chant Chenrezig mantras ( om mani pedme hum ×3 times)at least if possible more which i am sure many of you do....for current on going war in world especially in Israel and Ukraine to stop.
Could you please upload the lectures on meditation and practices given by Ven. Olivier Rossi in Moscow beginning of this month June 2017 during the visit of Lama Sopa Rinpoche? Thank you very much in advance! 🙏😊😇
We are sorry, but we only keep recordings of Lama Zopa Rinpoche. Please turn to the Ganden Tendar Ling center for these recordings. You should be able to find them here fpmt.ru
Super fascinating and the debates depicted to are very helpful for new learners! But what is the significance of the movement of the mala in the debate?
This is very interesting. Valid cognition, or I'd say cognition, will not establish some things that nevertheless exist. No amount of cognition could reveal the existence, for example, of what we term gamma rays, or the process of planet accretion as it occurred at a certain point in time.
think more inferential logic with predicates. that way it can be well-defined, but flexible because it evolves over time. maybe it IS comparable with programming with recursive logic gates drawing on a complete-world data-set like that of general AI. but with one caveat: indo-tibetan logic is not binary. instead, it is based on a "tetralemma" of truth values: true / false / both-true-and-false / neither-true-nor-false. how much that comes into play in actual debates is another matter -- certainly not in simpler and shorter debates and more in madyamaka philosophy. more relevant in debates are set-theory-like features like the 4 forward pervasions (not perversions, kids!) and the four reverse pervasions (see the "eight doors of pervasion")
@@hellboundtruck123 Because he said that the instructions the Buddha gave about establishing the existence of the three jewels with the analogy burning, cutting, and rubbing to establish the existence of gold prior to going to refuge applies to people of excellent faculties.
10:43 in here the debator ( one standing) has closed all the three options that the (sitting one) has because in the beginning one person have to hold one opinion and the sitting debator can only have 3 options that are: 1) why 2) its impossible: for instance: john is miachel because john is human 3) it's valid/invalid or unacceptable/acceptable: john is human because he is able to talk, listen , understand and part of human society. In this situation, we can its acceptable but other time we can say its unacceptable if only the one standing debator says that the reason john is human is he is like you or me. Yea in here that resson don't make sense, right? In here in the video the debator sitting can't have those three options because the one standing has block all of it ... Sorry for my bad English
It’s just reductio ad absurdum. All meaningful thought/debate boils down to this [Axioms/propositions and their logical implications]. Either the chain of reasoning is meaningful [valid] or it reduces itself to absurdity/contradiction. IOW either “it follows then” meaningfully or “it follows then” to contradiction/absurdity. There is no other possibility via propositional logic. The first premise in a chain of reasoning is always accepted and given as a matter of fact. Otherwise one would reason into infinity, never actually beginning/starting. Thus the need to simply accept something [“I accept”..] as so to even begin the chain.
Without each participant following these basic rules of logic it would be likened to a chess game where one side just makes up rules as they go or both sides clueless of the rules. Rendering a meaningless/useless chess game. The same goes with debate/philosophy - the exchange of thoughts/concepts/ideas. Which is unfortunately typically the case with people especially here in the west. And therefore they don’t know the tools to even scrutinize their own thoughts/beliefs.
It’s interesting because I’m just getting to know eastern thought. The west always teaches philosophy portraying western philosophy “as opposed to the irrationalism of the east”. But here I see the east is more proper logically and the west has completely lost touch with their own principles of propositional logic they spout on about. Now I recognize the east portrays a much more accurate and tenable form of rationalism.
It's meant to be fun and recreational. But at the same time, it is a form of learning, as the debates focuses you to contradict the defender's first sentence. Sometimes, it takes a very big circle to contradict the person because he is trying very hard not to contradict his original sentence.
Understanding. To "win" such a debate (doesn't even need to be Buddhist, any debate like this), one needs to both understand the material very, very well, and also be correct in the initial statement. By debating like this, flaws in understanding are exposed and laid bare, which is useful to then go back and study whatever you might have missed or misunderstood. Either person's misunderstandings may get exposed, so both parties benefit.
I find this very interesting. It sort of codifies how my schoolfriends and I would argue about a question. Only, we would shout over each other a lot more and make fun of the one who lost haha
@@DTTaTa An understanding which is beyond the rational mind and transcends discourse. There's good reason why we don't take Aristotle or Kant to be enlightened masters. Contrast that to Ramana Maharshi.
@@adrct one of the beautifull and efective ways of transending intelect is to develop it to its peak. There is a reason why right view is part of the buddhas 8fold path
@@adrct In simpler terms it's a rebranding of religion into making people fool again where the element "god" Is replaced by "cosmic energy" And "miracle" is replace by "hubla dubla transcedence" Lol 😂😂
i am not a buddhist but i approve this method of debating. The format is very civilized unlike what you see in the medias or the political scene.
i prefer it too. indo-tibetan logical debate (check out nalanda university) has a similar history to socratic debate. some smart people were fed up with "sophists" using rhetorical techniques, willful distractions and willful logical fallacies (spin-doctoring) to "influence" people. so they invented methods of conducting debates that forced debaters to stay on topic and proceed in a way that prevents logial fallacies. in fact, IF you commit a logical error, you lose. "winning" is when the defender is brought to contradict a premise that he/she (yes, nuns are also excellent debaters!) previously commited to. powers of memorization, the likes of which we westerners can only dream of, preclude that the challenger will overlook a contradicted premise and make it impossible for the defender to deny it having done it. sometimes the defender can be led through several seemingly unrelated debates that can last from minutes to hours only to be brought back to the beginning and served up with their contradictions to some or all statements made over the course of the whole debate. that is not to say these debates are sedate and unemotional. on the contrary, things can be heated and very energetic, and the final act of calling out those contradictions is loud, enthusiatic and even jeering (but never malicious) and always punctuated by a triplet of loud hand claps from the one or more challengers! (if the debate is particularly interesting, additional challengers will often jump into the debate mid-fray!)
@@theodorewinston3891 Interesting detailed insight, thank you. Without a doubt this came from India. India was once a powerhouse civilization with far reaching influence. The egyptians are known to have travelled to India to seek knowledge. The lost library of Alexandria is assumed to have been full of scrolls written by Egyptian scholars who travelled to India to collect knowledge.
Tibetan culture too, major influence is Indian buddhism and local animalist supersitions. But the formal art of debating was first documented in Ancient India. And various rules and techniques for debating described as well as disqualifying rules were well known. i am not Indian, i learned this by by crossing different sources that points to India before Egypt as the source of all civilizations.
I do not find it a particularly efficient way to establish anything other than a headache.
@@garychap8384it's headaching because in tibetan there are certain words that are for this purpose and for them to get used to it, even young monks spent yrs to practice those pattern
And they don't hit eat other.
Thank you for doing this in English, it’s very interesting. I enjoy the structure, it’s more of a conversation than western debate structure. It doesn’t seem to have any opportunity for the debater to play to the audience. I feel like western debate has become two people speaking past each other directly to the audience. I also like how this goes point by point, rather than the deluge of points that the opponent can pick and choose the weakest one to attack. This stays on track, and is simpler.
Yea but very annoying for the defense because he can't say other than why and incorrect 😂 these basic things are taught in the Tibetan high school like one he is talking about colors...
I don't know what karma (or UA-cam algorithm) caused this video to get recommended to me right after I was watching a news clip about a hot dog vendor, but this made the way that Vasubandhu and even more so Dignaga wrote suddenly really click for me. Glad to discover this channel.
That was great, it reminded me of the grillings by Socrates in Plato's dialogues. I'm currently reading "The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate" by Danie Perdue, and this video helped visualize the concepts disclosed in the book, so thanks.
With gratitude to both Venerables for showcasing these enlightened format of debate tested for millennium as a methods for eradicating ignorance in the English language that is easily accessible ... to educate us on the possibilities of wisdom - of which more powerful than all methods is your very aspirations, aspirations and the path you both walk everyday. Thujeche. 🙏🙏🙏
Nomo Buddhaya! I can't say that I've realized emptiness, but I have definitely gone for refuge in the sublime Three Jewels. May the teachings of the Buddha be venerated and supported for a very long time!
If you do meditation then you can go through emptiness. It is not very far from you.....
@@pasanperera6460 "go through emptiness" is vague. I mean a direct realization of emptiness which occurs at the path of seeing, not lower, at the time of being an ordinary being. If you are an ordinary being, then emptiness is either a valid inference based on reasoning or a vague feeling or a type of meditation experience which is not the authentic realization that arises on the path of seeing. Therefore if you are an ordinary being, it is not authentic realization but a mere similitude. Sarwa Mangalam!
@@karmazopatarchin3704 Brother/Sister , I appreciate your ideas . I wonder what is the your path of seen according to your post. Buddha has clearly taught us what is the right path to attained nibbana. The Buddhism is soley for ordinary people.
We just have simply to follow the 8 Eightfold path and do Vipassana Meditation ( 7 & 8 of the path )
Most of people think that an Arahath person( fully enlightened one) is some one like a god or who got shiny body with lights around his head. If you are also a such believer then emptiness is very far from you. To seen the emptiness, you just have to practice Vipassana meditation ( Sathara Sathipattana sutta ). Buddha had clearly stated in Sathara Sathipattana sutta that it is theone and only path to attained Nibbana. But I would like to say you this , to see the emptiness we dont need to attained nibbana but right journey (second stage ) starts after you have seen emptiness. Emptiness is the status we gain " Pagnaa ". To gain emptiness we must master SAMMA SAMADHI.
I would like to know what you think as emptiness. And I'm curious to know the " path of seen " according to you.
I would repeat " just seen emptiness is not the final target but it is the beginning of the path to nibbana ( 8 th step of the Eightfold path ). " Any ordinary person can see emptiness as long as he follows so called 8 path. ( in buddha's era there were so many people who saw emptiness . It can be a king or a poor begger. Buddhism is clearly for ordinary people and even nowadays there are so many people who successfully follow this path.
Watch following vedios of students who are following vipassana meditation. ( I dont say all of them are seeing emptiness but if you are in the right path it gives you some sort of hints such as less stress, less carving , less anger , always a smily face & calm mind etc. )
ua-cam.com/video/yfbEJI-k7T8/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Gia2585hs6s/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/jztTK3TNiPU/v-deo.html
Meditation Center - dhamma.org
If you type " 10 days vipassana course " in you tube you would get thousands of vedios of students from all over the world. This is a real thing , this is only for ordinary people and this can be gained before our death.
With metta
Wow, first time i see tibetan debate in other language, i really aprecciate it
When I debate in Tibetan, it sounds normal. But when I think or hear debating in english, it's like having Marvel's Vision interacting with another Vision
Two sorcerer supremes from other dimensions going at it 😆
Reductio ad absurdem. The only logically valid way to debate. Some of us in the west understand these basics of debate. Love it!
its not, this is a far superior structure to syllogisms, but it's really not explained clearly here
It is fascinating to hear Vajrayana debating in english. The introduction in the first five minutes was very instructive. As a lay person I immediately got tripped up when the debate started because of its deep references into Buddhist sutras and commentaries. Even if I did knew every text relevant to the topic, the conversation goes so far that I'd probably lose and fall for a contradiction. The monasteries of Tibet are definitely far more like ancient Greek philosophical universities than the modern Christian church. It was nice to see you guys laugh, it reminds me of when I watched Namdroling monks debate and they laugh at each other a lot.13:28 also you're in India.
Thank you for this demonstration, brothers! Nice to see you :)
Is there a link to the full debate? I've given my comment, now I want to practice taking in the full movement. 😊🙏🤩
Wow.. m so glad i found this video.. thank you so much for uploading... Om Muni Muni Maha Munaye Svaha
Thank you Venerables, I learned so much during course of the debates
Thank you for doing this demonstration! I'm still trying to understand the purpose of the different gestures and the high level of activity from the inquisitor. The stepping around and seemingly random arm movements have a distracting effect on me, reminiscent of the speech patterns common among Autistic people. Also it sometimes seems like the speech is too structured and unnatural. I wonder how this tradition could be adapted to maximize the intent.
Again, thank you!
བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས
I humbly request everyone to chant Chenrezig mantras ( om mani pedme hum ×3 times)at least if possible more which i am sure many of you do....for current on going war in world especially in Israel and Ukraine to stop.
"We are all one humble teacher. We just express it differently, still flawed as a human." - Harra (Buddahic Christian) The Budda with Jeremiah 10 23
This is fascinating!!
Really interesting, thank you for showing us this!
Thanks, Venerables!! Very good example of how debate works....
great meaning debate. thank you kushok la.
Could you please upload the lectures on meditation and practices given by Ven. Olivier Rossi in Moscow beginning of this month June 2017 during the visit of Lama Sopa Rinpoche? Thank you very much in advance! 🙏😊😇
We are sorry, but we only keep recordings of Lama Zopa Rinpoche. Please turn to the Ganden Tendar Ling center for these recordings. You should be able to find them here fpmt.ru
Super fascinating and the debates depicted to are very helpful for new learners! But what is the significance of the movement of the mala in the debate?
WOW!! Thank you Geshe la
Well done Venerables Legtsok & Gache - rejoicing in all your virtuous merit!🙏🏽
Thank you so much 🙏🏼
You can tell its hard for these monks to debate in english as they are translating in their heads from the normal tibetan they would use day to day.
I'm pretty sure they are native English speakers.
@@Zenju__ even if they are native English speaker it is not easy to translate since Buddhist debate system is very hard to translate.
@@user-Void-Star Do you mean to say these monks learn to speak Tibetan as part of their practice?
@@Zenju__ yes they learn Tibetan.
@@Zenju__ that's not even question. Lots of meaning gets lost in translation from one culture to other is the universal fact.
So the claps signal that the point is over and it's the turn of the defendant?
The clap signifies an end of a statement or question.
I wanted to see the whole debate. But this was good. ❤
Thank you 🙏
This is very interesting. Valid cognition, or I'd say cognition, will not establish some things that nevertheless exist. No amount of cognition could reveal the existence, for example, of what we term gamma rays, or the process of planet accretion as it occurred at a certain point in time.
There’s a difference between ‘valid cognition’ and cognition as understood by western philosophy or science
I really appreciated this debate, but was anyone else bothered by the monk swinging his mala around? Haha I almost thought it would burst apart.
Great jo guys
Sounds like computer programming.
Binary
think more inferential logic with predicates. that way it can be well-defined, but flexible because it evolves over time. maybe it IS comparable with programming with recursive logic gates drawing on a complete-world data-set like that of general AI. but with one caveat: indo-tibetan logic is not binary. instead, it is based on a "tetralemma" of truth values: true / false / both-true-and-false / neither-true-nor-false. how much that comes into play in actual debates is another matter -- certainly not in simpler and shorter debates and more in madyamaka philosophy. more relevant in debates are set-theory-like features like the 4 forward pervasions (not perversions, kids!) and the four reverse pervasions (see the "eight doors of pervasion")
if......else..........
@@theodorewinston3891 brilliantly understood, you should look at advanced Buddhism. Tantrayana or vajrayana schools would be perfect.
This May Sound like a silly question but do Buddhists take a Vow of Silence like the Christian Monks in Europe?
No.
Yes they do, even they go for retret in caves for months or even for years, where they kept silence and eat one time only
Thank you
Very nice 👍
He should have said that it is possible for a person with mediocre faculties to go for refuge in the three jewels without realizing emptiness.
What is your reason?
@@hellboundtruck123 Because he said that the instructions the Buddha gave about establishing the existence of the three jewels with the analogy burning, cutting, and rubbing to establish the existence of gold prior to going to refuge applies to people of excellent faculties.
very great , thanks
Is this pramana?
ཡག་པོ་འདུག་very nice
10:43 in here the debator ( one standing) has closed all the three options that the (sitting one) has because in the beginning one person have to hold one opinion and the sitting debator can only have 3 options that are: 1) why 2) its impossible: for instance: john is miachel because john is human 3) it's valid/invalid or unacceptable/acceptable: john is human because he is able to talk, listen , understand and part of human society. In this situation, we can its acceptable but other time we can say its unacceptable if only the one standing debator says that the reason john is human is he is like you or me. Yea in here that resson don't make sense, right?
In here in the video the debator sitting can't have those three options because the one standing has block all of it ...
Sorry for my bad English
Seems quite ritualised, requires a lot of preparation & rehearsal - would be disastrous to go into such a debate unprepared.
It’s just reductio ad absurdum. All meaningful thought/debate boils down to this [Axioms/propositions and their logical implications]. Either the chain of reasoning is meaningful [valid] or it reduces itself to absurdity/contradiction. IOW either “it follows then” meaningfully or “it follows then” to contradiction/absurdity. There is no other possibility via propositional logic. The first premise in a chain of reasoning is always accepted and given as a matter of fact. Otherwise one would reason into infinity, never actually beginning/starting. Thus the need to simply accept something [“I accept”..] as so to even begin the chain.
Without each participant following these basic rules of logic it would be likened to a chess game where one side just makes up rules as they go or both sides clueless of the rules. Rendering a meaningless/useless chess game. The same goes with debate/philosophy - the exchange of thoughts/concepts/ideas. Which is unfortunately typically the case with people especially here in the west. And therefore they don’t know the tools to even scrutinize their own thoughts/beliefs.
It’s interesting because I’m just getting to know eastern thought. The west always teaches philosophy portraying western philosophy “as opposed to the irrationalism of the east”. But here I see the east is more proper logically and the west has completely lost touch with their own principles of propositional logic they spout on about. Now I recognize the east portrays a much more accurate and tenable form of rationalism.
Great...!
The debate itself makes me confused. What is to be gained with the debate, what is its goal?
It's meant to be fun and recreational. But at the same time, it is a form of learning, as the debates focuses you to contradict the defender's first sentence. Sometimes, it takes a very big circle to contradict the person because he is trying very hard not to contradict his original sentence.
The point is to find the truth intuitively, another word, wisdom the analysis
Understanding. To "win" such a debate (doesn't even need to be Buddhist, any debate like this), one needs to both understand the material very, very well, and also be correct in the initial statement.
By debating like this, flaws in understanding are exposed and laid bare, which is useful to then go back and study whatever you might have missed or misunderstood. Either person's misunderstandings may get exposed, so both parties benefit.
Wonderful!
Incredibly interesting
awesome
Beautiful
wow... thats d smooth debate in english too...
What is the clapping for?
it is a symbolic way of making a point
@@FPMT Thank you :)
Could be to remove obstacles as is done in other practices
This makes me very confused.
very nice, watched to the end
I find this very interesting. It sort of codifies how my schoolfriends and I would argue about a question. Only, we would shout over each other a lot more and make fun of the one who lost haha
very good
That is an interesting intellectual practice. Not all that "spiritual".
Spiritual is all.about understanding the nature of phenomena
@@DTTaTa An understanding which is beyond the rational mind and transcends discourse. There's good reason why we don't take Aristotle or Kant to be enlightened masters.
Contrast that to Ramana Maharshi.
@@adrct one of the beautifull and efective ways of transending intelect is to develop it to its peak.
There is a reason why right view is part of the buddhas 8fold path
Define spiritual
@@adrct In simpler terms it's a rebranding of religion into making people fool again where the element "god" Is replaced by "cosmic energy" And "miracle" is replace by "hubla dubla transcedence" Lol 😂😂
i always come back
👍👍👍
Cool!
great!
There is a short tutorial on Medium for the basics: link.medium.com/MIIca3fM0T
He should have taught someone what to say
I love Buddhism. I would like to correct here that Buddha was born in Nepal not in India.
Kama