Jump to content
MrBahumbug

Can Anyone Who Understands Buddhism Check My Explanation For Accuracy?

Recommended Posts

·        Let’s learn about suffering:

Suffering is inevitable. Why is this? Let’s do a thought experiment for this kritik. You have one world of terrorist threats, starvation, and filth. There is clear suffering here. Suffering is attached to these lifestyle factors. But if someone were to live in a totally separate world where there was boredom, pollution, and 24/7 reality tv shows playing in every room- suffering becomes just that. There is no basis on “lesser†or “greater†suffering- there just is suffering. There is suffering comparable with the former and the latter world. Even something that gives us enjoyment ends up giving us suffering in the anxiety we feel with the understanding that this enjoyment will never be permanent. There is a void in all of us telling us that even while something is supposed to give us enjoyment, we worry if this enjoyment is as much as we ought to get from it. Anxiety, depression, and emptiness- that is what the Buddhist believe to be omnipresent, but they do not believe this to be bad. The key is changing within.

 

·        Let’s learn about desire:

      Desire won’t necessarily eliminate suffering from the external world around us, but

from the inside it translates these sources of suffering elsewise. We have a negative conception of “pain†and “suffering†right now, but in key to the enlightenment-liberation scenario, “suffering†loses its terrible, “must avoid at all cost!†scenario and becomes something we co-exist with, don’t avoid, and do not allow to plague us with negativity. We embrace suffering as we embrace the world around us as something we are all interconnected with. The world’s burden is something we all share.

 

·        Let’s learn about the self/is ego:

It’s a lie. There is no “selfâ€, we are all one. People fear this idea, because the self, the ego, is what gives us the individuality we claim to this life. Without acknowledging the self, we just become nothing; a part of the a huge collective soul- or oversoul. Being nothing sounds terrifying, but it is actually the most liberating feeling any of us could hope to feel. The ego has us down the path of war, of defense, of the constant climb to feel “okâ€. This, of course, applies to an entire nation as it does to the individual.

 

 

 

I'd appreciate it very much if anyone can give me some directions I've gone off with. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand Buddhism well, but "let's learn about" seems to conflict with my limited understanding of their epistemology. They'd probably argue for meditation or something similar as opposed to the model where we can objectively understand Buddhism's true meaning with Buddhism treated as an external object.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a fairly decent explanation of the a version of the kritik, but I hope that isn't your overview or in any blocks, because most of the things stated above can be more concisely stated. (also, "lets learn" sounds very demeaning)

 

You would be well served to examine the relationships between the ego and the impact level of the kritik, as it is basis for setting up impacts

 

 

Also, if you need more help there is a round on youtube titled something like IHFL finals from 2012 where marcel roman went for the bhuddhism K against GBN BS, and he did a good job explaining it.

 

EDIT: mld's post reminded me of something - David Loy writes a bunch of great articles pertaining to this K.

Also, reading Siddartha may help you understand bhuddhism, even thought it overlaps into other religions and is also fiction.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me preface this by stating that I find the entire idea suspect.
 

Suffering is inevitable. Why is this? Let’s do a thought experiment for this kritik. You have one world of terrorist threats, starvation, and filth. There is clear suffering here. Suffering is attached to these lifestyle factors. But if someone were to live in a totally separate world where there was boredom, pollution, and 24/7 reality tv shows playing in every room- suffering becomes just that. There is no basis on “lesser†or “greater†suffering- there just is suffering. There is suffering comparable with the former and the latter world. Even something that gives us enjoyment ends up giving us suffering in the anxiety we feel with the understanding that this enjoyment will never be permanent. There is a void in all of us telling us that even while something is supposed to give us enjoyment, we worry if this enjoyment is as much as we ought to get from it.


The word for "suffering" in the Pali canon is duḥkha, a term much closer to "unease" or "anguish" in its most literal sense. Duḥkha is categorized into pain (self-explanatory), change (the fact that all pleasure is transitory, creating uncertainty and unease even within the experience of pleasure), and conditions (that pleasure and pain are intimately bound together).
 

Anxiety, depression, and emptiness- that is what the Buddhist believe to be omnipresent, but they do not believe this to be bad. The key is changing within.


You group emptiness with anxiety and depression, but emptiness is the opposite of both, since anxiety and depression stem from attachment. Emptiness implies a cessation (Pali: nirodha) of desire, which is obviously the goal (at least in Theravada traditions), as the key to cessation of duḥkha is the non-occurrence of that which engenders duḥkha (taṇhÄ, or “desireâ€).

If you mean, instead, “A sad feeling one gets when you don’t get what you want, feeling the lack of the thing you desire,†then use a term that is more precise.
 

Desire won’t necessarily eliminate suffering from the external world around us, but from the inside it translates these sources of suffering elsewise. We have a negative conception of “pain†and “suffering†right now, but in key to the enlightenment-liberation scenario, “suffering†loses its terrible, “must avoid at all cost!†scenario and becomes something we co-exist with, don’t avoid, and do not allow to plague us with negativity. We embrace suffering as we embrace the world around us as something we are all interconnected with. The world’s burden is something we all share.


“Desire†in the Pali Canon is taṇhÄ, a word that literally means “thirst,†as one thirsts after pleasure. It is the root of duḥkha because it can never be finally satisfied. One can, after all, long for non-existence as much as long for existence. All beliefs, desires, and feelings stem from taṇhÄ, but in a world in constant flux (Pali: anicca), one can never hold onto the things one craves. Cessation of desire means losing the urge to hold onto things.

The second part of your formulation, to “embrace suffering as we embrace the world around us as something we are all interconnected with†is wrong to the core, as one should be renouncing attachment, not embracing it, removing oneself from the cycle of rebirth (samsara) rather than accepting it (much less embracing it). Even in the Mahayana tradition, where the emphasis is not upon the personal realization of nirvÄṇa /nibbana, the great compassion one feels is not for the world as it is, but for the beings that inhabit it-- moving all to understand the truth (dhárma /dhamma), moving all to find enlightenment.

You also imply that truth and value concepts are subjectively experienced, and therefore how we experience them depends upon how we view them. This is inaccurate. While the Buddha sees these ideas as relatively experienced (at least in the Sutta Nipata), they are still part of the causal pattern of the world (as the world consists not only of physical objects but volitions and desires). If one can pacify dispositions, however, along with the attainment of freedom (nirvÄṇa /nibbana), one can understand truth and falsehood as they really are. Truth, in other words, is experienced relatively only because we are limited by our own attachments. Dharma/dhamma, on the other hand, is eternal.

 

It’s a lie. There is no “selfâ€, we are all one. People fear this idea, because the self, the ego, is what gives us the individuality we claim to this life. Without acknowledging the self, we just become nothing; a part of the a huge collective soul- or oversoul. Being nothing sounds terrifying, but it is actually the most liberating feeling any of us could hope to feel. The ego has us down the path of war, of defense, of the constant climb to feel “okâ€.


You need to drop all mention of souls, over or otherwise, as Buddhism denies the existence of souls altogether. An oversoul is a concept much more in alignment with Jaina or Hindu beliefs.

Ä€tman (Pali: Atta) is sometimes translated as “soul,†and perhaps that’s what you mean, though it really means “self†or “ego.†Most Buddhist traditions stress non-Ätman, certainly, but you equating it’s renunciation to achieving a collective and undifferentiated Ätman is simply erroneous, unless what you meant to say is that we are all united by our own potential to achieve Buddhahood (usually called "Buddha nature" in English)-- a positive theorization of Ätman (equated with true self) in some Mahayana traditions (especially Zen). Even then, however, awakening to one’s “true self†means a rejection of one’s “ego self.†A unity of Buddha nature/the world (a key concept in Zen-- a doctrine derived, in part, from the Lotus SÅ«tra), does not imply, in other words, a unity of identity (as identity is itself a manifestation of desire).
 

This, of course, applies to an entire nation as it does to the individual.


Are you trying to make policy implications? Wouldn’t it make more sense to re-conceptualize the role of the ballot as an intellectual/individual advocacy on the part of the judge, abandoning altogether the fiction of policy making? It would certainly be more consistent with Buddhist ideas.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if this is an overview, it is a little too long and doesn't contextualize it well in terms of the debate. You have the raw basics of Buddhism down, I would probably work more on flowery-kritik type overview analysis, word economy, and extending the explanation to make it more in depth.

 

A lot of the above post is true - watch out for pseudo-religious interps of Buddhism. You can narrow down a lot of your points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Way to butcher Buddhism. Chunkry's good buddy and Call of Duty team-mate Siddhartha Gautama would be appalled. You should be ashamed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you trying to make policy implications? Wouldn’t it make more sense to re-conceptualize the role of the ballot as an intellectual/individual advocacy on the part of the judge, abandoning altogether the fiction of policy making? It would certainly be more consistent with Buddhist ideas.

 

First off, thank you so much for your interpretation it got me right on focus with what I want out of the kritik. I got a lot of literature down in the past few days. On that note, how should I make the role of the ballot out to be? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if you need more help there is a round on youtube titled something like IHFL finals from 2012 where marcel roman went for the bhuddhism K against GBN BS, and he did a good job explaining it.

I can't find this video. Can you link it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, thank you so much for your interpretation it got me right on focus with what I want out of the kritik. I got a lot of literature down in the past few days. On that note, how should I make the role of the ballot out to be? 

 

You would most generally attempt to fixate around the rejection of either A. Policy Making, B. Binaries/Dualism, based on how my buddhism debates tend to go. I also would recommend a module fixated off of rejecting dualism-- the Khema card most likely would be good, talk about the external versus the internal harms in your "conception of the self", and if you choose to cut that shell, it could be applied to normative "war! china threat! extinction!" on policy oriented plans or in terms of a race debate, colored versus white dualism or separations in our discourse foster racism in the internal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaron,

 

Emory IW ran this argument at the NDT.  Not sure which rounds they used it:

 

http://debatevision.com/search.php?keyword=emory+IW&type=videos

They went for it in the 2NR during quarters of the NDT 2011 vs Harvard (which is not on debatevision) and had it alive in the 2NC during semis of that same tournament (which is on debatevision).  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They went for it in the 2NR during quarters of the NDT 2011 vs Harvard (which is not on debatevision) and had it alive in the 2NC during semis of that same tournament (which is on debatevision).  

 

Ahhh, that's frustrating. I really want to see how they would handle it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...