Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists.

[adikarmika]

I put it to you that cultivation of the bodhisattva path contradicts the teachings of Buddhism because it contradicts certain Buddhist scriptures.

Ma khyap. (No pervasion.)

(Again, I have taken the liberty of assuming certain responses from you in order to quickly get to the point where you can formally state your reason.)


Then I put it to you that a practice that contradicts certain Buddhist scriptures does not necessarily contradict the teachings of Buddhism

[I accept, you say.]

In that case, I put it to you that highest yoga tantra does not contradict the teachings of Buddhism.

[Why? you say.]

Because there does not exist any valid reason for saying that highest yoga tantra does contradict the teachings of Buddhism.

[This is not established, you say.]

There does not exist any valid reason for saying that highest yoga tantra does contradict the teachings of Buddhism because
1) the fact that highest yoga tantra is a practice that contradicts certain Buddhist scriptures is not a valid reason, and
2) there is no other reason

[The second part of the reason is not established, you say.]

In that case, I put it to you that there exists a valid reason other than "because it contradicts certain Buddhist scriptures" for saying that highest yoga tantra contradicts the teachings of Buddhism

[I accept, you say.]

Shog! (State such a reason.) [I say.]

[adikarmika]

PS. Oh God. Not Adharmika. Adikarmika. I swear, I have been misreading your name all this time! (Really.)

I thought it was something you just came up with, as Tibetans sometimes do, as a mocking reference to one's opponent in debate.

[Zla'od]

Highest yoga tantra contradicts the teachings of Buddhism, because it contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha, according to the best historical evidence.

Note: I am going to argue that highest yoga tantra violates several of the Five Precepts, and that the Five Precepts are numbered among the core teachings of the historical Buddha. While some skeptical historians may doubt even this, this would not help Adikarmika. (And yes, "Adharmika" would have been a good joke, had I been clever enough to think of it on purpose!) I am also going to argue, if asked, that such Mahayana flourishes as bodhicitta and sunyata (permissibly)expand upon, rather than contradict, the historical Buddha's teachings.

[Homey]

You guys really don't need to go through this charade. We all know how it's going to end.

[sandman]

Interrupters, please bear with us.
Regardless of how it may appear to you, there is is nothing sectarian or "Us vs. Them" at all about this debate.
It is simply an intellectual exercise that seeks to determine, through a traditional dialectical procedure, whether a certain point of view is self-contradictory or not.
In this case, the point of view in question is that espoused by buddhism (the person) and defended by Zla'od, who has been brave enough to take up the challenge (unlike buddhism, who was not, despite being the initiator of the debate.)

I apologise. You're right. I'm sorry for painting you all with the "Buddhism" brush (buddhism the poster, not Buddhism the tenet). The squeaky wheel gets the oil and all that. The rational kind of gets pushed back in the face of the strident wailings. Again, sorry.

[adikarmika]

Highest yoga tantra contradicts the teachings of Buddhism, because it contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha, according to the best historical evidence.

(I aim to show that you can only say something "contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni, according to the best historical evidence" by arguing that it is contrary to scripture. There can be no other reason. Once again, I've supplied your expected responses in brackets. However, if you disagree with any of them, we can always backtrack.)


I put it to you that whatever contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni, according to the best historical evidence, contradicts the teachings of Buddhism.

[I accept this statement.]

I therefore put it to you that the practice of killing contradicts the teachings of Buddhism since, according to the best historical evidence, it contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni. (You accepted the pervasion.)

[I accept this statement.]

I put it to you that this cannot be.

[Why?]

Because, based on the best historical evidence, it is not established that, killing contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni.

[Your reason is not established.] (i.e., the claim that "based on historical evidence, it is not established that killing contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni" is itself not established)

It is not established that killing contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni because there exists no valid reason, based on historical evidence, for saying that killing contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni.

[Your reason is not established.]

There exists no valid reason, based on historical evidence, for saying killing contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni because
(1) the fact that it is contrary to the teachings of Shakyamuni as recorded in the sutras is not a valid reason, and
(2) there is no other reason.

I apologise. You're right. I'm sorry for painting you all with the "Buddhism" brush...

mei guanxi

[Zla'od]

There exists no valid reason, based on historical evidence, for saying killing contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni because
(1) the fact that it is contrary to the teachings of Shakyamuni as recorded in the sutras is not a valid reason, and
(2) there is no other reason.

Dak nyiba ma drup. (Reason # 2 not established)

[Shog!]

Killing is contrary to the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha, because according to scholarly consensus among historians of early Buddhism (who approach the sutras critically, as historical sources), Shakyamuni Buddha taught the precept against killing (and the rest of the Five Precepts).

Note: Adikarmika is trying to reduce "best historical evidence" to a mere reading of the sutras, treating them all equally, while I intend to introduce a role for scholarly interpretation of them, in order to distinguish between more or less reliable portions. This is because, as we both know, scholarly consensus is more favorable to the proposition that "Shakyamuni taught the Four Noble Truths and Five Precepts" than the proposition that he taught highest yoga tantra.

Homey:

You guys really don't need to go through this charade. We all know how it's going to end.

I honestly don't. Probably in my humiliation (as punishment, perhaps I should be made to engage in highest yoga tantra!), but I will try my best to make Zhengjue proud! Although I have already departed from their probable views on several points. (For example, they would probably not distinguish among sutras the way I have.) Anyway, I look forward to seeing a write-up of this in their newsletter!

[adikarmika]

Killing is contrary to the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha, because according to scholarly consensus among historians of early Buddhism (who approach the sutras critically, as historical sources), Shakyamuni Buddha taught the precept against killing (and the rest of the Five Precepts).

I therefore put it to you that if a practice is (1) contrary to a certain teaching attributed in the scriptures to Shakyamuni, and (2) scholarly concensus among historians of Buddhism holds that the teaching in question was indeed what Shakyamuni taught, then that practice is necessarily contrary to the core teachings of Shakyamuni.

[Zla'od]

Ma khyap. (No pervasion.)

Note: Not every teaching of Shakyamuni (as judged by scholarly consensus) is necessarily a core teaching of Shakyamuni (as judged by scholarly consensus), like the Four Noble Truths and the Five Precepts. I am worried about elevating incidental teachings of Shakyamuni (like the time he predicted the downfall of Buddhism in 500 years if he ordained nuns) to the status of dogma.

[adikarmika]

Ma khyap. (No pervasion.)

Note: Not every teaching of Shakyamuni (as judged by scholarly consensus) is necessarily a core teaching of Shakyamuni (as judged by scholarly consensus), like the Four Noble Truths and the Five Precepts. I am worried about elevating incidental teachings of Shakyamuni (like the time he predicted the downfall of Buddhism in 500 years if he ordained nuns) to the status of dogma.

Well then, if you're going to insist on a distinction between core and non-core teachings of Shakyamuni, I'm going to have to ask you to restate your response (preferably in terms of pervasion) to my earlier statement:

There exists no valid reason, based on historical evidence, for saying killing contradicts the core teachings of Shakyamuni because
(1) the fact that it is contrary to the teachings of Shakyamuni as recorded in the sutras is not a valid reason, and
(2) there is no other reason.

Dak nyiba ma drup. (Reason # 2 not established)

[Shog!]

...

(Your initial response did not mention why killing contradicts the "core teachings" of Shakyamuni, though strictly speaking, it should have.)