Is there a point?

[dyanaprajna2011]

From the Haliddakani Sutta (SN 22.3):

'Having abandoned home,
living free from society,
the sage
in villages
creates no intimacies.
Rid of sensual passions, free
from yearning,
he wouldn't engage with people
in quarrelsome debate.'

"And how does one engage with people in quarrelsome debate? There is the case where a certain person is a fomenter of this kind of debate: 'You understand this doctrine & discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine & discipline. How could you understand this doctrine & discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. I'm being consistent. You're not. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine, or extricate yourself if you can!' This is how one engages with people in quarrelsome debate.

"And how does one not engage with people in quarrelsome debate? There is the case where a certain person is not a fomenter of this kind of debate: 'You understand this doctrine & discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine & discipline. How could you understand this doctrine & discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. I'm being consistent. You're not. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine, or extricate yourself if you can!' This is how one does not engage with people in quarrelsome debate.

And from the Dhammapada:

Unlike those who don't realize
that we're here on the verge
of perishing,
those who do:
their quarrels are stilled.

So my question is, what is the point of religious debate? Can it serve a good a purpose, or does it only lead to pointlessness?

 

[Sees]

Chime in with my non-Buddhist view of what may be a Buddhist viewpoint?

Maybe religious debate helps to let go of certain ideologies in opposition to even trying to win or be right. Even the most basic, obvious facts and observances can be seen differently - so what do we really know aside from impermanence, constant flux, and causality? We know what we do and be is what matters. Being fully alive and witnessing with innocence over being right with our fallible language, fallible thought-constructs, born from fallible perception.

 

[crossfire]

From the Haliddakani Sutta (SN 22.3):





And from the Dhammapada:



So my question is, what is the point of religious debate? Can it serve a good a purpose, or does it only lead to pointlessness?

It can depend on whether your goal is Truth or Victory. Methinks the Suttas are pointing to debate where Victory is the goal as being unproductive.

 

[DreadFish]

It can depend on whether your goal is Truth or Victory. Methinks the Suttas are pointing to debate where Victory is the goal as being unproductive.

Me also thinks.

The point seems to be the "quarrelsome" part. It also says "this kind of debate" so, it doesn't seem to be talking about debate in general.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

If one can remain in an equanimous state during a debate, there is no harm in debating.

Also, if one enters a debate not seeking to 'win' it, but seeking to exchange knowledge and ideas, there is no harm in debating.

It is when one's passions become inflamed...when a disagreement raises ire...when we think and feel that other people are stupid just because they have different ideas that the problems all begin.

Debating (Jalpa) produces very discordant mental patterns that are anathema to meditation, 'turning inwards' and being compassionate.

Is it pointless to debate/discuss religious philosophy? Yes and no.

When it comes to trying to explain Shunya or Brahman - that is totally pointless.
When it comes to trying to change another's beliefs - that is totally pointless (unless they are willing to change).
When it comes to correcting somebody who may be misinformed or doesn't know all that much about the subject matter to begin with, it has limited merit.

Usually those who learn from debating are not those actually involved in the debate, but the readers/onlookers of that debate - observing whose argument has more 'merit' after hearing both sides of the story.

Then, there are those like me, who get headaches and mental confusion from debating, so we try to avoid/limit it wherever possible.

Even though I was/used to be intelligent, trying to actually think now, just doesn't happen for me. I mean, I know the answers are in my head somewhere, but as soon as I try and access any thoughts pertaining to a certain debate/discussion, it feels like I am constantly bashing my head against a brick wall (the pain is that bad) and all I can see when I search for those thoughts lost in my memory somewhere is absolute nothingness - a void of dark, emptiness. This may be a good thing. lol

It's like that feeling when something is on the 'tip of your tongue' and you know the answer, but it's not forthcoming - until the time comes when you aren't thinking about it at all and actually thinking/doing something else completely different at the time, then the true answer seems to just 'pop into your head out of nowhere'.

From whence do these kinds of thoughts arise if one isn't even thinking about them?

I live in a constant state of this, and it's worse some days than others...I have it really bad today.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think debate can be pointless in light it has no effect on what is being debated. It would simply be indifference. Quarreling atypically obscures and blinds aspects of debate, and our own impermenance negates any protracted need to continue past a certain point.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Ajivaka Sutta: To the Fatalists' Student

I think this sutta explains what everyone here has been saying.