This has been a well established training technique used by some Tibetan sects. It is not to defeat or embarrass the other person. It is never to gain some kind of victory for yourself. The purpose is to make sure we hold the right view. We can use what we have learned from the Buddha on what are evil or erroneous views from the SAUMOL and from other teachings like the two sets of seven branches on bodhichitta. We use what we have learned from the Buddha to evaluate what is true and what is false. Our job as a debater is to help the other person to see what is correct and to correct what is mistaken. We must use the Buddha’s teachings on right speech to do so in a compassionate way and to help us clarify things for ourselves in the process. If done correctly we can eliminate the dangerous and evil and all too human need to be right at the expense of another. One must debate with full use of bodhichitta–always with bodhichitta. We cannot violate our vows in the process. Always remember that!
In this way, the most important point, the primary purpose for debate, is to overcome fallacies and misunderstandings and thus establish the validity of the law of cause and effect. The forming of good questions is every bit as important as having the right answer.
What little I know about the Tibetan system of debate is based on a book by Daniel Perdue on the logic of Dharmakirti that uses a Tibetan debate manual to explain the technique used in their education system to sharpen analytical capacities and convey certain philosophical concepts. Don’t worry, we are not going there, but let us try to see what we can learn from these techniques to enable us to better understand the dharma. Remember that logic is one of the Five Vidyas. Dharmakirti’s commentaries have been recommended by the Buddha Master, but they are not so readily available in English.
Thank you, Master, for all this information!
One thought occurred: perhaps the word “deliberate”, which actually holds every single letter from the word debate, should that be deemed useful, yet does not appear to raise the sense of argument, opposing positions, win or lose; rather it raises more the sense of in depth discussion that culminates, hopefully, in consensus, correct view, and deeper understanding.
Very good point. That may well be a more accurate term as we do not really debate in any classic use of that term in English. I will continue to use “Debate” as that is the term the Buddha Master has used to explain why the Tibetan style of Buddhist education had in times past at least been so effective. We are not anywhere near doing what they did in the great learning monasteries in Tibet, but we do try to engage the students in asking each other questions to help deepen their understanding of the material being studied and to enable all of us to benefit from this interaction. The Buddha Master has also told us that great questions, great understanding; small questions, small understanding; and no questions, no understanding at all. You do need to introspect on what you are learning AND you need to be able to explain it to your peers to be sure you understand it and can share it with others.
In “What Is Cultivation?” the Buddha Master tells us that, “With respect to bodhicitta, those who are not yet enlightened vow out of great compassion that living beings and oneself shall together attain accomplishment in the dharma and liberation. They help other people enter the path of the true dharma of the Buddha, vowing that they will become Bodhisattvas and Buddhas. To such persons, bodhicitta dharma is the virtue of aiding others to become accomplished in the dharma. Because they benefit others, they receive merit. They thereby increase the causes leading to their becoming Bodhisattvas.” We need to be able to explain what we are learning to do this and I believe this questioning and answering exercise–whatever you call it–helps. Thanks for your input.