adikarmika wrote:Buddhism wrote:Dear Adikarmika, for your reference, the proposed debate was meant for "doctrinal debate"法義, and the terms of "Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism" is entirely irrelevant to this case. Besides, it was called an "open" debate which meant everyone, including non-Buddhists, is allowed to participate to debate over the Buddha dharma.
All right then. State your thesis, and if I disagree, I'll debate with you.
BTW, I don't think the issue of whether Tibetan Buddhists are Buddhists or not is, as you say, "entirely irrelevant to this case".
I mean, if you start citing scripture to support your thesis (as I imagine you would), you may be implying that your opponent in the debate is a Buddhist.
After all, you can't expect a non-Buddhist to accept scriptural authority as valid reason for anything.
(It's not even a valid reason for some Buddhists (e.g., Dharmakīrti and his school.))
You are cute and full of energy; you do love challenge!
We have discussed so many different points over lots of pages already on both threads, you had better exercise something truly useful to facilitate your Buddhist cultivation if I were you. Time and energy are very important for all of us.
Why don't you try to challenge the exercise of "Entering the Dharma-door of Buddha-remembrance without appearance"?
(I am going to reply to Confuzis)