PractisingDebate_ILTK1998-2000

7/29/2019 PractisingDebate_ILTK1998-2000

1/76

FPMTBASIC PROGRAM

Practising Debate

An introduction to the structure of debatewith exercises and examples

Compiled by Jampa Gendunfor Masters Program review sessions

Istituto Lama Tzong Khapa1998-2000

ILTK and Jampa Gendun, 2000


2/76

Masters Program: Review Class - Debate - Syllogisms & Consequences

1

DEBATE

SYLLOGISMS

We have discussed the definition of a correct reason: that which is the three modes the three modes

being property of the subject, forward and reverse pervasion. A correct syllogism is necessarilyfactually correct. In debate we will present syllogisms in the following format only. The challengerstates the entire three-part syllogism as follows:

............(state a subject)..........as the subject;

...........(state a predicate)......., why; (and without pausing goes on:)Because ............(state a reason).................

Keep in mind that a syllogism is not necessarily a correct syllogism. For example:

Sound as the subject;

It is impermanent, why;Because it is an object of eye consciousness.

When presented with a syllogism as above, the defender first checks to see whether or not thereason is established, that is, is the reason the property of the subject, that is, is the reasonapplicable to the subject?

In the course of debate if the challenger were to present you (the defender) with the abovesyllogism in which you believe the reason is not the property of the subject, since object of eye

consciousness is not applicable to sound, then the appropriate reply would be reason notestablished. Nothing more is stated by you at this point in the debate. It is now up to the

challenger to proceed.

If the reason is established then go on to check the pervasion. We can assume that if the forwardpervasion is established than the reverse will also be established. Therefore, we only need to checkthe forward pervasion. Is whatever is the reason pervaded by being the predicate? For example:

Sound as the subject;It is impermanent, why;Because it is an existent.

In the course of debate if the challenger were to present you with the above syllogism in which you

believe the reason is not pervade by the predicate, since whatever is an existent is not pervadedby being impermanent, for example permanent, the appropriate reply isno pervasion. Nothingmore is stated by the defender at this point in the debate.

If both the reason and the pervasion are established then the presented reason is a factually correctreason. For example:

Sound as the subject;It is impermanent, why;Because it is momentary.

In the course of debate if you are presented with a syllogism which you believe to be factuallycorrect because both the reason and the pervasion are established, for example as in the above


3/76


2

syllogism, the appropriate reply isacceptbut first, state exactly what it is that you are accepting:sound is impermanent; accept.

CONSEQUENCES

By far the greatest part of debate makes use not of syllogism but of logical consequences. A correct

consequence unlike a correct syllogism need not be factually correct, that is, need not be a validstatement; rather, it is such that the defender, due to his own assertions, cannot effectively object tothe reason or the pervasion and also cannot accept the consequence.

A correct consequence must be such that there is a person for whom it is a correct consequence and,moreover, this person is not able to give a factually concordant response to it. Arguments do notexist in a void but are designed to address actual views held to be true. In order to defeat a wrongconception a correct consequence must be such that the defender cannot give an effective answer,thus forcing him to understand an implied thesis.

For example, suppose that in the course of debate the defender makes the assertion that whatever is

a color is pervaded by being blue. Given that position taken by the defender the challenger wouldthan proceed to state a consequence in the following manner:

The color of Chenrezig as the subject;It follows that it is blue;

The challenger first states the thesis the subject plus predicate. Notice that in stating a consequencethe predicate is presented in a way different than in a syllogism using the words it follows. What thechallenger is suggesting is that if the defender makes an assertion such as he has just done than the

present consequence follows on from that.

The challenger first presents the subject and predicate of the consequence. At this point thedefender must reply in either of two ways. Either he accepts or he does not accept the thesis that

the color of Chenrezig is blue. There are only two possible replies at this point. If he accepts thenhe replies accept, and nothing more. If he does not accept he replies why and nothing more. Theanswerwhy means exactly that the defender does not accept the thesis. That is all.

If the defender were to reply, why, that is, he does not accept that the color of Chenrezig is blue, thechallenger now proceeds by stating a complete three-part consequence restating the previous thesisand now presenting a reason to establish the thesis.

The color of Chenrezig as the subject;

It follows that it is blue;Because it is a color.

The thesis, of course, is not factually correct. The color of Chenrezig is not blue but is in fact white.And the defender has acknowledged that by replying why when this thesis was initially presented.But the defender cannot effectively object to the reason, color, since the color of Chenrezig is infact a color. In other words, it would be difficult for him to reply that the reason is not established.And he cannot effectively object to the pervasion, that is, that whatever is a color is pervaded by

being blue, because that was his initial assertion. If he were to object to the pervasion by replyingno pervasion then he has directly contradicted his earlier position. In effect, the defender is forcedreconsider his initial assertion and see the absurdity of it, that whatever is a color is pervaded by

being blue. Unless he wishes to debate that the color of Chenrezig is not a color, or change hisprevious position that the color of Chenrezig is not blue by accepting the thesis that the color ofChenrezig is blue, the only possible reply left to him is no pervasion. By this reply he is in effect


4/76


3

abandoning his earlier position and is now asserting that whatever is a color is not pervaded bybeing blue.

The challenger would then state the new assertion made by the defender:

It follows that whatever is a color is not pervaded by being blue.

The defender must now reaffirm his new position by answering, accept. If he were to reply, why,then he would be going around in circles and the above debate would have to be repeated. If heaccepts, the debate would then proceed on from there.

Syllogisms are used in presenting factually correct arguments. At the beginning of a debate thechallenger might simply state a thesis in regard to which he is asking the defender to take a

position. For example:

C: Sound as the subject;Because it is impermanent.

The challenger is simply stating the thesis sound is impermanent, and is asking the defender totake a position will regard to it. There are only two possible replies open to the defender at this

point:accept if he agrees that sound is impermanent orreason not establishedif he disagrees. If ,for example, he accepts then the challenger continues restating the thesis in the form of aconsequence, since the defender has now taken a position with regard to it.

C: Sound as the subject;C: It follows that it is impermanent.D: Sound is impermanent; accept.

Now, the challenger could proceed in several possible directions, for example:

C: Sound as the subject;C: It is impermanent, why;

In the present context, the why is an actual question asking the defender to present a reason whysound is impermanent.

D: Because it is momentary.

The defender has now presented his reason for previously agreeing with the original thesis that

sound is impermanent. The challenger would then proceed from there.

Another possible example:

C: Sound as the subject;C: It is impermanent, why;D: Because it is the object of eye consciousness.

A reason is simply that which is stated as a reason. Obviously it need not be a correct reason. Thereason presented here by the defender is factually incorrect since the reason is not established. But,still, it can be presented as a reason whether factually correct or not.

C: Sound as the subject;C: It follows that it is the object of eye consciousness;


5/76


4

D: Sound is the object of eye conscious; accept.

The challenger is clarifying the assertion of the defender in the form of the thesis of a consequence,that is, the present thesis follows on from the assertion just made by the defender.

NOTE: stated subjects end withas the subject; stated predicates of syllogisms end with why; stated

predicates of consequences begin with it follows; stated reasons begin withbecause.

This particular debate might continue:

C: Sound as the subject;C: It follows it is not the object of eye consciousness;D: Why;C: Because it is neither shape nor color.

The defender would now reply with either of three possible answers: accept, reason not established,or no pervasion. The challenger would then proceed from there.

A debate can proceed in a variety of directions. For example:

C: Sound as the subject;C: It follows that it is impermanent.D: Sound is impermanent; accept.C: Sound as the subject;C: It follows that it is not impermanent.D: Why.C: Because it is not monentary.D: Reason not established.

C: Sound as the subject;C: It follows that it is not momentary.D: Why.C: Because some sounds continue for a long time.D: No pervasion.C: It follows that if some sounds continue for a long time, sound is

not pervaded by being not momentary.D: Accept.

And so forth.


6/76

Masters Program: Syllogisms and Consequences, Homework

5

HOMEWORK - SYLLOGISMS AND CONSEQUENCES

For each of the following theses present 1) a correct reason, 2) a reason in respect to which thereason is not established and the pervasion is established, 3) a reason in respect to which the reason

is established and the pervasion isnot established, and 4) a reason in respect to which the reason isnot establishedand the pervasion is not established.

(A)Sound as the subject;It is impermanent, why;Because it is1)2)3)4)

(C)Consciousness as the subject;It is not a permanent phenomenon, why:Because it is1)2)3)4)

(E)

Pot as the subject;It is an isolate of pot, why;Because it is1)2)3)4)

(G)

Permanent phenomenon as the subject;It is not able to perform a function, why;Because it1)2)3)4)

(B)Pot as the subject;It is an existent, why;Because it is1)2)3)4)

(D)Horns on a rabbits head as the subject;They are not an existent, why;Because they are1)2)3)4)

(F)

Bulbous flat-based container able to holdwater as the subject;

It is not an isolate of pot, why;Because it is1)2)3)4)

(H)

Sound as the subject;It is not an object of eye consciousness,

why;Because it1)2)3)4)


7/76

Masters Program: Syllogisms and Consequences, Homework

6

Present a correct consequence for each of the following assertions:

All Americans are women.

All vehicles used for transportation have four wheels.

Whatever is a phenomena is pervaded by being permanent.

Functioning thing and permanent phenomenon are mutually inclusive.

Cause and effect are mutually exclusive.

There exists no method which abandons the knowledge obstructions.

The path of meditation is attained prior to the path of seeing.

The afflictive emotions are intrinsic to the mind.

The boundaries of mind generation are from the mahayana path of preparation through the buddhaground.

The Masters Program is cool.


8/76

Masters Program: Procedures for Debating Pervasion

7

Procedures for Debating Pervasion

One important technique of debate is that of debating which of the four possible types ofpervasion mutually inclusive, mutually exclusive, three possibilities and four possibilities existbetween two phenomena. We have discussed the procedures for determining which one of thesefour pervasions exist. Here we will discussion the procedure of debating them.

A debate on determining the pervasion between two phenomena would proceed as follows1:

Challenger: With respect to the two, A and B, you can not posit the pervasion.2

A and B must necessarily be phenomena and different, other than this there are no otherrestrictions, for example: dog and functional thing; color and horse, buddha and sentient being;generality of pot and form; the isolate of cause and existent; that which is three possibilities with

pillar and impermanent phenomenon, and so on.

In the above opening statement the challenger is asking for the pervasion, that is, which of the

four possible relationships mutually inclusive, mutually exclusive, three possibilities or fourpossibilities exist between the two phenomena, A and B, just mentioned.

Defender:Reason not established.

In replying reason not established, the defender is in effect saying that he can posit thepervasion.3

Challenger: Posit.

Debating Mutually Exclusive

The Defender must first consider whether or not there exists a common locus between the twophenomena mentioned. That is, is there a phenomenon which is both. If there is none then therelationship is necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, the relationship between form andconsciousness. In which case:

Defender: mutually exclusive.

Challenger: With respect to the two, form and consciousness; it follows that the pervasion ismutually exclusive?

Defender:Accept.

1 Please note: though we may have to make adjustments to the English wording of the debate format as we go along, forthe present you must adhere to the current format and wordings. Both challengers and defenders must keep remindingeach other to stick to the prescribed procedures of debate. Debate is a vehicle for exploring, clarifying andcommunicating ideas in an extremely clear and precise manner. To insure that this takes place we must adhere to therules of debate even though, initially, at least, you may feel that they are restrictive and cumbersome.2

Throughout, the italizied portions are actually spoken in the course of debate.3 You do neither help your own understanding nor that of your debating partner by avoiding putting forth an answer.With a commitment to reason and in terms of your best present understanding of the subject give an answer. The point

is not to be always supplying right answers, but to explore the subject at hand with your partner, creating and clarifyingdoubts, and coming to correct understandings for yourself as well as to train your mind in procedures of reasoning. Indebate there is no fault whatsoever in giving wrong answers, only in avoiding answering at all or answering in wayswhich sabotage the intended purposes of debate.


9/76


8

Challenger: With respect to the two, form and consciousness; the pervasion mutually exclusive,why?

Defender:Because with respect to the two, form and consciousness, there exists no common locus.

Challenger: If there exist no common locus between form and conscious, it follows that the

pervasion between the two is mutually exclusive?

Defender:Accept.

If the Challenger were to challenge the defenders assertion that there exists no common locusbetween form and consciousness:

Challenger: With respect to the two, form and consciousness, the pervasion is not mutuallyexclusive; because there exists a common locus with respect to the two.


Challenger: With respect to the two, form and consciousness, it follows thatthere exists a commonlocus with respect to the two; because person is that common locus.

4


Challenger: Person as the subject: it follows that it is not a common locus with respect to form andconsciousness?

Defender:Accept.

Challenger: Person as the subject: which one of the two, form and consciousness, is it not?

Defender: Person is not form and is not consciousness.

Challenger: Person as the subject; it follow that it5 is not form and it is not consciousness?

Defender:Accept.

Challenger: Person as the subject; why is it not form?

Defender:Because it is not that which is suitable to be form6.

Challenger:If it is not that which is suitable to form it follows it is pervaded by not being form?

Defender:Accept.

4 Note that both the challenger and the defender may (as in this example) be proceeding in wayswhich are not factually concordant either on the basis of a misunderstanding, as a means ofexploring the subject from a different perspective, or simply as a means of stimulating debate.5 It simply refers to the subject no matter what it may be. Though in this case it is a person and it

does indeed sound strange to refer to persons as it, still, it will simplify matters a great deal to usethe word it and will eventually go unnoticed in the course of debate. 6 Note that the defender has given the definition of form as a reason. This is always a clear anddirect way of answering such a type of question.


10/76


9

Challenger: Person as the subject: it follow that it not consciousness?

Defender:Accept.

Challenger: Person as the subject; it not consciousness, why?

Defender:Because it is not that which is clear and knowing.7

Challenger: If it is not that which is clear and knowing it follows it is pervaded by being notconsciousness?

Defender:Accept.

On the other hand, if the defender were to posit the relationship between form and consciousnessas something other than mutually exclusive the challenger would then use the consequences of thedefenders position against them in order to demonstrate the absurdity of their position.. This has

been previously discussed.

Debating Mutually Inclusive

As was mentioned above, the defender first considers whether or not there exists a commonlocus between the two phenomena set out by the challenger. If there is such a phenomenon then therelationship of mutually exclusive is ruled out. The defender must now go on to consider, if it isA is it pervaded by being B and if it is B is it pervaded by being A. If the answer to both ofthese questions is yes, then the relationship is mutually inclusive. For example, the pervasionexisting between cause and effect. In which case:

Challenger: With respect to the two, cause and effect, you can not posit the pervasion.


Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Mutually inclusive.

Challenger: With respect to the two, cause and effect, it follows the pervasion is mutuallyinclusive?

Defender:Accept.

Challenger: With respect to the two, cause and effect, the pervasion mutually inclusive, why?

Defender:Because with respect to the two, cause and effect, if it is a cause it is pervaded by beingan effect and if it is an effect it is pervaded by being a cause.

Challenger: With respect to the two, cause and effect, it follows if it is a cause it is pervaded bybeing an effect and if it is an effect it is pervaded by being a cause?

Defender:Accept.

Challenger: Cause of fire as the subject; it follows that it is an effect?

7 Again note that the defender has simply presented the definition of consciousness as a reason.


11/76


10

Defender:Accept.

Challenger: Cause of fire as the subject;it is an effect, why?

Defender:Because it is produced.

Challenger:If it is produced, it follows it is pervaded by being an effect?

Defender:Accept.

And so on.

Debating Three Possibilities

The Defender considers, if it is A is it pervaded by being B and if it is B is it pervaded bybeing A. If the answer is one yes and one no, then the relationship is three possibilities. That is,

for example, all As are B but not all Bs are A. For example, the relationship betweenform and functioning thing. In which case:

Challenger: With respect to the two, form and functioning thing, you can not posit the pervasion.


Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Three possibilities.

Challenger: With respect to the two, form and functioning thing, it follows that the pervasion isthree possibilities?

Defender:Accept.

Challenger: With respect to the two, form and consciousness, it follows that the pervasion is notthree possibilities, which pervades which.

Defender:If it is form it is pervaded by being functioning thing, and if it is functioning thing it isnot pervaded by being form.

Challenger:If it is form it follow that it is pervaded by being functioning thing?

Defender:Accept.

Challenger:If it is functioning thing it follows that it is not pervaded by being form?

Defender:Accept.

Challenger: Posit.8

8 The challenger is asking the defender to posit an example of that which is functioning thing andnot form. Note the lack of the use of articles such as a, an and the as in which is functionalthing rather than which is a functional thing.


12/76


11

Defender: Consciousness.

Challenger: Consciousness as the subject; it follows that it is functioning thing?

Defender:Accept.

Challenger: Consciousness as the subject; it is functioning thing, why?

Defender:Because it is that which is able to perform a function.

Challenger: If it is that which is able to perform a function it follows it is pervaded by beingfunctioning thing?9

Defender:Accept.

Challenger: Consciousness as the subject; it follows that it is not form?

Defender:Accept.

Challenger: Consciousness as the subject; it is not form, why?

Defender:Because it is not that which is suitable as form.

Challenger:If it is not that which is suitable as form it follows it is pervaded by not being form?

Defender:Accept.

Challenger: With respect to the two, form and functioning thing, you can not posit that which is not

both.10


Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Uncompounded space.

And so on.

9 It may seem laborious and redundant to be repeating continually the subject and the pervasion butit is a necessary part of training in the format of debate. Later, steps can and will be left out but for

now they should be rigorously followed.10 The sequence for debating three possibilities is as follows: (1) posit which phenomenon pervadeswhich phenomenon, then (2) posit which does not pervade which and an example of that, and then(3) posit an example of that which is not both phenomena.


13/76


12

Debating Four Possibilities

The Defender considers, if it is A is it pervaded by being B and if it is B is it pervaded bybeing A. If the answer is no to both, then the relationship is four possibilities. That is, not allAs are B and not all Bs are A. For example, the relationship between color and different

phenomena. In which case:

Challenger: With respect to the two, color and different phenomena, you can not posit thepervasion.


Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Four possibilities.

Challenger: With respect to the two, color and different phenomena, it follows that the pervasion is

four possibilities?

Defender:Accept.

Challenger: With respect to the two, color and different phenomena; it follows that the pervasion isnot four possibilities; because you can not posit that which is both.

11


Challenger: Posit.

Defender:Blue and yellow color.

Challenger:Blue and yellow color as the subject; it follows it is color?

Defender:Accept.

Challenger:Blue and yellow color as the subject; it is color, why?

Defender:Because it is that which is suitable to be shown as a hue.

Challenger: If it is that which is suitable to be shown as a hue it follows it is pervaded by being

color?

Defender:Accept.

Challenger:Blue and yellow color as the subject; it follows that it is a different phenomena?

Defender:Accept.

Challenger:Blue and yellow color as the subject; it is different phenomena, why?

11

The sequence for debating four possibilities is as follows: (1) posit an example of that which isboth phenomena, then (2) posit an example of that which is not both, then (3) posit an example ofthat which is one phenomenon and not the other, and then (4) posit an example of that which is theother phenomenon and not the one.


14/76


13

Defender:Because it is phenomena which is diverse.

Challenger: If it is phenomena which is diverse, it follows it is pervaded by being differentphenomena?

Defender:Accept.

Challenger: With respect to the two, color and different phenomena; it follows that you can notposit that which is not both.


Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Consciousness. And so on.

Challenger: With respect to the two, color and different phenomena; it follows that you can notposit that which is color and is not different phenomena.


Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Yellow color.

Challenger: Yellow color as the subject; it follows it is a color?

Defender:Accept. And so on.

Challenger: With respect to the two, color and different phenomena; it follows that you can notposit that which is different phenomena and is not color.


Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Functioning thing and permanent phenomena.

Challenger: Functioning thing and permanent phenomena as the subject; it follows it is differentphenomena?


Challenger: Functioning thing and permanent phenomena as the subject; it follows it is not color?



15/76

Masters Program: Procedures for Actual Debate

14

Procedures for Actual Debate

What is presented here is a brief explanation of some of the procedures for actual spoken debate.Others will be presented orally.

Though from time to we will have groups debates normally debate will be one-on-one, thatis, one person who is the challenger and one person who is the defender. There is no set procedure

for choosing a debate partner but it is suggested that over time you pair-up with every member ofthe class. In this regard, though there are differences in natural abilities, a great part of a successfuldebate session depends on preparation memorizing definitions, divisions, boundaries, andappropriate quotations from texts, thinking through the current study material and how to put it intodebate format, coming up with interesting and stimulating ideas and doubts, and so forth.

Debating in a team effort. Dont alway leave it to your partner to make the debate sessionworthwhile and stimulating. You, also, need to take part of the responsibility for it and one way ofdoing this is in adequate preparation. It is often said that of the understandings that we gain throughour studies, twenty-five percent comes from class lectures, twenty-five percent from self-study, andfifty percent from debate. To insure that this does happen you must take debate seriously andadequately prepare for it.

Spread yourself out evenly around the debate area whether in the gom-ba or outside so as notto interfere with others. The challenger stands while the defender sits. The challenger begins thedebate session with the statement:

C: Dhih! The subject, in just the way (Manjushri debated) (dhih ji ltar chos can).

Dhih is the seed syllable of Manjushri who is the embodiment of the wisdom of the Buddhas.It is usually uttered in a high-pitched voice and the rest of the statement at a normal pitch. As anauspicious portent, at the beginning of every session of debate the challenger declares that likeManjushri he will state subjects and consequences in order to defeat the wrong views and doubts ofhis opponent. The accompanying physical jesters as well as others used during debate will be

demonstrated.The actual debate can begin in various ways. Seasoned debater would introduce the subject for

debate by means of a relevant textural quotation asking the defender to explain its meaning.Generally the subject matter would relate to the current or a near past topic of study, but notnecessarily. For example, our current topic of study is Four Limbs of Definite Discrimination andthis could be introduced as the subject matter for debate as follows by asking for the meaning of atextural quotation:

C: With respect to the textural quotation: For beginners to attain the instructionsaccordingly, the limbs of definite discrimination, arise, hence the limbs of definite

discrimination; you can not posit the meaning.

D: Reason not established.C Posit.

D: The quoted passage makes a connection between the previous topic, Precepts andLimbs of Definite Discrimination.

Of course, if the defender were to answer wrongly, this passage itself would then become thebasis for debate rather than merely serving to introduce a subject for debate or the passage itselfcould be analysed, taking each part or word and examining their individual meanings.

As was mentioned, there are various ways to begin a debate, many of them, initially, will beeasier for us to use. For example, the challenger might ask for the divisions of a particular subjectsuch as that of functioning thing.

C: When functioning thing is divided there are not three divisions.

D: Reason not established.


16/76


15

C: When functioning thing is divided there are three divisions?

D: Accept.

C: When functioning thing is divided there are not three divisions; because you can notposit those three divisions.D: Reason not established.

C: Posit.

D: The three: form, consciousness, and non-associated compositional factors.C: The three: form, consciousness, and non-associated compositional factors as thesubject; it follows that they are the divisions of functioning thing?D: Accept.

Another possible opener for debate is to ask for a definition:

C: With respect to mahayana mind generation, you can not posit the definition.

D: Reason non established.C: Posit.

D: A mahayana special main mental knower particularly distinguished by abiding in the

type of a path that serves as the door of entry to the mahayana, and arisesconcomitant with the accompanying aspiration observing complete enlightenmentfor the welfare of others.

C: A mahayana special main mental knower particularly distinguished by abiding in thetype of a path that serves as the door of entry to the mahayana, and arises

concomitant with the accompanying aspiration observing complete enlightenmentfor the welfare of others as the subject; it follows that it is the definition of

mahayana mind generation?D: Accept.

The challenger could then go on to analysis the definition as follows:

C: Within the context of that definition of mahayana mind generation, there is no needto say, main mental knower.

D: Reason not establidhed.C: Posit.

Or, the challenger could leave off a part or a single word of the definition examining to seeingwhether it would still function as a suitable defintion:

C: If the defintition of concsciousness were posited as that which is knowing, itwould be satisfactory.

D: Reason not established.C: If the defintition of concsciousness were posited as that which is knowing, itfollows that it would not be satisfactory?

D: Accept:C: If the defintition of concsciousness were posited as that which is knowing, itwould not be satisfactory, why?D: Becasue whatever is that definition is not pervaded by being that definiendum.

C: Whatever is that definition is not pervaded by being that definiendum?

D: Accept.C: You can not posit that which is that definition and not that definiendum.

D: Reason not establidhed.

C: Posit.D: Person.


17/76


16

And so forth.Still, another possible way to open debate is to ask for the pervaion that exists between two

phennomena. We have already discussed this exstentively. For example:

C: With respect to the two, pot and different phenomena, you can not posit thepevasion mutually inclusive, mutually exclusive, three possibilities, four

possibilities.D: Reason not established.C: With respect to the two, pot and different phenomena: it follows you can not posit

the pevasion, posit.D: Four possibilities.

And so forth.Questions are put to the defender by the challenger accompained by physical gestures which will

be demonstrated. We have discussed that throughout the course of debate a combination ofsyllogisms and consequences are made use of by the challenger and the method to be used by thedefender in analysing their correctness. Remember, the challenger is running the debate. The

defender is limited to only two responses to a two-part consequence: either accept or why, andis limited to three responses to a three-part syllogism or consequence: either accept, reason notestablished, or no pervasion. That is all unless the defender is asked a why question or isasked to posit something by the challenger. Formally, it is not appropriate for the defender to askquestions of the challenger. Having said this, we must be flexible when necessary. A few minutes ofinformal discussion may, at least in the beginning stages, be of greater benefit than adhering strictlyto the debate format and simply prolonging some confusion.

If, during the course of debate, the defender takes a position that the challenger believes he willnot be able to defend successfully, the challenger shouts gor-sum (kor gsum, the three spheres)along with an appropriate physical gesture. These three spheres are the three factors of reason,

pervasion and thesis (rtags bsal khyab gsum). The challenger is stating that at some point in the

course of debate the defender will not be able to deny the reason and the pervasion, yet he will notbe able to accept the his thesis. We have discussed this in terms of the use of consequences. The useof gor-sum is optional. It is considered highly embarrassing for the challenger if he were to shoutgor-sum and later be unable to establish the absurdity of the defenders thesis

Also, during the course of debate if the defender does, in fact, contradict a previous position thathe has taken or an assertion that he has made, then the challenger shouts tshar up to three timesdepending on the importance of the contradiction with an accompanying physical gesture. Somescholars take tshar to mean finished (tshar) meaning that your original position or assertion isfinished. Others take it to mean amazing (mtshar) which is to say that its amazing that youwould at first say one thing and now later on you contradict your own assertion by sayingsomething else.

In general, however long the debate session, unless there is an over-riding reason, half waythrough the session time the challenger and defender swap places and the debate continues on.A few words about our general attitude towards debate is important. As I have tried to emphasise

debate is a working together of minds using a rigorous format of reasoning to explore ideas. Insuccessfully doing so, it is necessary temporarily to give up our preoccupation with always havingto be right. As long as we are bound by such a conception we will never know what it is that wereally dont understand and in such a a mind-set little learning can take place. Also, it is importantto have as our motivation that of helping one another through our debating together. In helping theother person to come to new understandings you will be helping yourself as well. Debate is not acontest.

It might seem to an observer that the monks debating are perhaps angry with eachother, for they speak loudly with confidence, clap their hands with fervor, andoccasionally (when a wrong answer is given) scold and mock the opponent. However,


18/76


17

this is normal procedure in debate and does not necessarily suggest anger. Since thegeneration of final wisdom is not easy and one must be strong, the debaters assert firmlytheir learning, seeking to become solid in their knowledge. Indeed, even when theDefender gives consistent answers in accordance with accepted interpretation, theChallenger will draw on his powers of persuasion and skill in debate to trick, test, and

befuddle his opponent. This sort of procedure may seem devious, but if the purpose for

debate is to generate knowledge in ones own continuum, then that knowledge must befirm and sure. If a Defender can be coerced away from a correct position by a cleverChallenger, then his understanding is not solid.

Assertiveness as well as the procedure and tradition of debate are all aimed atincreasing the disputants capacities, better enabling them to make progress toward thegoal of liberation. The defilements that stain the mind have been accumulated overcountless eons, and if they are to be removed it must be by the most intense and definiteknowledge. The technique of debate, complete with its trappings of verbal combat,are aimed at the development of this intense and definite knowledge which is able todestroy the enemy, ignorance.12

But as well, most all of us have seen on one occasion or another when discussing a topic ofdebate, an old geshes eyes light up and he again becomes animated with the same enthusiasm andjoy that he once brought to the debating courtyard. That is to say, not only is debate a profoundtechnique for learning and training of the mind, but its a lot of fun as well. But, like most things inlife, what your get out of it will be directly dependent on what you put into it.

O tshar!

12Daniel E. Perdue,Debate in Tibetan Buddhism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Pub., 1992) pp. 30, 32.


19/76

Masters Program: Practice Debate A - Correct position, 4 possibilities

18

Practice Debate A - Correct position, 4 possibilitiesDebating the pervasion between functioning thing and object of intent

Break up into groups of two. Each person should take a role ( either the challenger or the defender)and read through the entire debate out loud. Repeat this a few times until you feel comfortable.

Then try to act out the debate without looking at this script. Then switch roles and do the same.

Challenger: Dhih! ji dar ch jn.

Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and object of intent, you cannot posit the pervasion.

Defender: Reason not established.

Challenger: Posit.


Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and object of intent, it follows that the pervasion is fourpossibilities?

Defender: Accept.

1) Posit the common locus

Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and object of intent, it follows that the pervasion is not fourpossibilities because you can not posit that which is both.


Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Great heroic mind.

Challenger: Great heroic mind as the subject; it follows that it is a functioning thing?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Great heroic mind as the subject; it is a functioning thing, why?

Defender: Because it is that which is able to perform a function.

Challenger: If it is that which is able to perform a function, it follows that it is pervaded by being a functioning thing?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Great heroic mind as the subject; it follows that it is not that which is able to perform a function becauseyou cannot posit that function that it performs.


Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Great heroic mind performs the function of generating the next moment of consciousness of a buddha.

Challenger: Great heroic mind as the subject; it follows that it is an object of intent?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Great heroic mind as the subject; it is an object of intent, why?

Defender: Because it is the final result, the intended object for which a bodhisattva engages in practice.

Challenger: If it is the final result, the intended object for which a bodhisattva engages in practice, it is pervaded bybeing an object of intent?

Defender: Accept.


20/76


19

2) Posit that which is not both.

Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and object of intent; it follows that you can not posit that whichis not both.


Challenger: Posit

Defender: Emptiness.Challenger: Emptiness as the subject; it follows that it is not a functioning thing?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Emptiness as the subject; it is not a functioning thing, why?

Defender: Because it is a permanent phenomenon.

Challenger: If it is a permanent phenomenon, it follows that it is pervaded by not being a functioning thing?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Emptiness as the subject; it follows that it is not an object of intent?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Emptiness as the subject; it is not an object of intent, why?

Defender: Because it is not the final result, the intended object for which a bodhisattva engages in practice.

Challenger: If it is not the final result, the intended object for which a bodhisattva engages in practice, it is pervadedby not being an object of intent?

Defender: Accept.

3) Posit that which is A and not B

Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and object of intent, it follows that you can not posit that whichis functioning thing and not object of intent.

Defender: Reason not established.Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Pen.

Challenger: Pen as the subject; it follows that it is a functioning thing?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Pen as the subject; it is a functioning thing, why?

Defender: Because it is that which is able to perform a function.

Challenger: Pen as the subject; it follows that it is not an object of intent?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Pen as the subject; it is not an object of intent, why?

Defender: Because it is included within cyclic existence.

Challenger: If it is that which is included within cyclic existence, it follows that it is pervaded by not being an objectof intent?

Defender: Accept.

4) Posit that which is B and not A

Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and object of intent, it follows that you can not posit that which

is an object of intent and not functioning thing.


Challenger: Posit.


21/76


20

Defender: Great abandonment.

Challenger: Great abandonment as the subject; it follows that it is an object of intent?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Great abandonment as the subject; it is an object of intent, why?

Defender: Because it is one of the three divisions of object of intent.

Challenger: If it is one of the three divisions of object of intent, it follows it is pervaded by being an object of intent?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Great abandonment as the subject; it follows that it is not a functioning thing?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Great abandonment as the subject; it is not a functioning thing, why?

Defender: Because it is a true cessation.

Challenger: If it is that which is a true cessation it follows it is pervaded by not being a functioning thing?

Defender: Accept.


22/76

Masters Program: Practice Debate B - Correct position, 3 possibilities

21

Practice Debate B - Correct position, 3 possibilitiesDebating the pervasion between consciousness and mahayana achieving

Break up into groups of two. Each person should take a role ( either the challenger or the defender)and read through the entire debate out loud. Repeat this a few times until you feel comfortable.

Then try to act out the debate without looking at this script. Then switch roles and do the same.


Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and mahayana achieving, you cannot posit the pervasion.


Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and mahayana achieving, you can posit the pervasion?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Posit.


Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and mahayana achieving, it follows that the pervasion is threepossibilities?

Defender: Accept.

1) Posit which pervades which

Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and mahayana achieving, it follows that the pervasion is not threepossibilities, which pervades which?

Defender: If it is mahayana achieving, it is pervaded by being consciousness, and if it is consciousness it is notpervaded by being mahayana achieving.

Challenger: If it is mahayana achieving, it is pervaded by being consciousness, and if it is consciousness it is notpervaded by being mahayana achieving?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: If it is mahayana achieving, it is pervaded by being consciousness?

Defender: Accept.

2) Posit that which is A and not B (or vice-versa)

Challenger: If it is consciousness it is not pervaded by being mahayana achieving?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Anger.

Challenger: Anger as the subject; it follows that it is not pervaded by being mahayana achieving?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Anger as the subject; it is a consciousness?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Anger as the subject; it is a consciousness, why?

Defender: Because it is that which is clear and knowing.

Challenger: Anger as the subject; it follows that it is not a mahayana achieving?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Anger as the subject; it follows that it is not a mahayana achieving, why?


23/76

Masters Program: Practice Debate B - Correct position, 3 possibilities

22

Defender: Because it is not a bodhisattvas yoga possessing the six greatnesses that is an activity of achieving thetwo complete aims in dependence upon a mahayana mind generation.

Challenger: If it is not a bodhisattvas yoga possessing the six greatnesses that is an activity of achieving the twocomplete aims in dependence upon a mahayana mind generation, it is pervaded by not being an mahayanaachieving?

Defender: Accept.

3) Posit that which is not both

Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and mahayana achieving, you cannot posit that which is not both.


Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Flower.

Challenger: Flower as the subject; it follows that it is not consciousness?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Flower as the subject; it follows that it is a consciousness because the eye consciousness perceiving the

flower is a consciousness.

Defender: No pervasion.

Challenger: If the eye consciousness perceiving a flower is a consciousness, there is no pervasion that a flower is aconsciousness?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Flower as the subject; it follows that it is not mahayana achieving?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Flower as the subject; it is not mahayana achieving, why?

Defender: Because it is not a bodhisattvas yoga possessing the six greatnesses that is an activity of achieving thetwo complete aims in dependence upon a mahayana mind generation.

Challenger: If it is not a bodhisattvas yoga possessing the six greatnesses that is an activity of achieving the twocomplete aims in dependence upon a mahayana mind generation, it is pervaded by not being an mahayanaachieving?

Defender: Accept.


24/76

Masters Program: Practice Debate C - Incorrect position, Challenger: 4 possibilities Defender: 3 possibilitiesDebating the pervasion between consciousness and developmental lineage

23

Practice Debate C - Incorrect positionChallenger: 4 possibilities

Defender: 3 possibilitiesDebating the pervasion between consciousness and developmental lineage

Break up into groups of two. Each person should take a role ( either the challenger or the defender)

and read through the entire debate out loud. Repeat this a few times until you feel comfortable.Then try to act out the debate without looking at this script. Then switch roles and do the same.


Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and developmental lineage, you cannot posit the pervasion.


Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and developmental lineage, you can posit the pervasion?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Posit.


Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and developmental lineage, it follows that the pervasion is threepossibilities?

Defender: Accept.

Establish which pervades which

Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and developmental lineage, it follows that the pervasion is notthree possibilities, which pervades which?

Defender: If it is developmental lineage, it is pervaded by being consciousness, and if it is consciousness it is notpervaded by being developmental lineage.

Challenger: (shouting loudly): Gor-sum!

Challenger: If it is developmental lineage, it is pervaded by being consciousness?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is consciousness?

Defender: Why?

Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is consciousness because it is developmental lineage.


Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is not developmental lineage?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is developmental lineage because it is a buddha lineage that issuitable to be transformed into a compounded body of a buddha.


Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is not a buddha lineage that is suitable to be transformed into acompounded body of a buddha?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Person as the subject; it is not a buddha lineage that is suitable to be transformed into a compounded bodyof a buddha, why?

Defender: Because person is not buddha lineage.

Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is not buddha lineage?


25/76


24

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is buddha lineage because it is a phenomena that is suitable to betransformed into a body of a buddha.


Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is not a phenomena that is suitable to be transformed into a body ofa buddha?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is a phenomena that is suitable to be transformed into a body of abuddha because it is suitable to be transformed into an arya buddha.

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is a phenomena that is suitable to be transformed into a body of abuddha?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Tshar!

Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is buddha lineage?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Tshar!

Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is developmental lineage?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Tshar!

Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is consciousness?

Defender: Why?

Challenger: Because it is developmental lineage.


Challenger: Oh tshar! Oh tshar! Oh tshar!

Challenger: If it is developmental lineage, it is not pervaded by being consciousness?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Oh tshar!

Challenger: If it is developmental lineage, it is pervaded by being consciousness because with respect to the two,consciousness and developmental lineage - if it is developmental lineage, it is pervaded by beingconsciousness, and if it is consciousness it is not pervaded by being developmental lineage.


Challenger: Oh tshar! Your fundamental premise is finished!!

Posit a new pervasion

Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and developmental lineage, you cannot posit the pervasion.


Challenger: Posit.


Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and developmental lineage, it follows that the pervasion is fourpossibilities?

Defender: Accept.


26/76


25

Posit the common locus

Challenger: With respect to the two, developmental lineage and consciousness, it follows that the pervasion is not fourpossibilities because you can not posit that which is both.


Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Mahayana path of meditationChallenger: Mahayana path of meditation as the subject; it follows that it is a developmental lineage?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Mahayana path of meditation as the subject; it is a developmental lineage, why?

Defender: Because it is a buddha lineage that is suitable to be transformed into a compounded body of a buddha.

Challenger: If it is a buddha lineage that is suitable to be transformed into a compounded body of a buddha, it followsthat it is pervaded by being a developmental lineage?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Mahayana path of meditation as the subject; it follows that it is consciousness?

Defender: Accept.Challenger: Mahayana path of meditation as the subject; it is consciousness, why?

Defender: Because it is that which is clear and knowing.

Challenger: If it is that which is clear and knowing, it is pervaded by being consciousness?

Defender: Accept.

Posit that which is not both.

Challenger: With respect to the two, developmental lineage and consciousness; it follows that you can not posit thatwhich is not both.

Defender: Reason not established.Challenger: Posit

Defender: Space.

Challenger: Space as the subject; it follows that it is not developmental lineage?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Space as the subject; it is not developmental lineage, why?

Defender: Because it is a permanent phenomenon.

Challenger: If it is a permanent phenomenon, it follows that it is pervaded by not being developmental lineage?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Space as the subject; it follows that it is not consciousness?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Space as the subject; it is not consciousness, why?

Defender: Because it is not that which is clear and knowing.

Posit that which is A and not B

Challenger: With respect to the two, developmental lineage and consciousness, it follows that you can not posit thatwhich is developmental lineage and not consciousness.


Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Person.


27/76


26

Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is developmental lineage?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Person as the subject; it is developmental lineage, why?

Defender: Because it is a buddha lineage that is suitable to be transformed into a compounded body of a buddha.

Challenger: If it is a buddha lineage that is suitable to be transformed into a compounded body of a buddha, it followsthat it is pervaded by being developmental lineage?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is not consciousness?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Person as the subject; it is not consciousness, why?

Defender: Because it is a non-associated compositional factor.

Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is a non-associated compositional factor?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Person as the subject; it is a non-associated compositional factor, why?

Defender: Because it is a composed phenomenon which is neither matter nor consciousness.

Challenger: If it is a composed phenomenon which is neither matter nor consciousness, it follows that it is pervadedby being a non-associated compositional factor?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: If it is a non-associated compositional factor, it follows that it is pervaded by not being consciousness?

Defender: Accept.

Posit that which is B and not A

Challenger: With respect to the two, developmental lineage and consciousness, it follows that you can not posit that

which is consciousness and not developmental lineage.Defender: Reason not established.

Challenger: With respect to the two, developmental lineage and consciousness, it follows that you can posit that whichis consciousness and not developmental lineage.

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Anger in the continuum of a hell being.

Challenger: Anger in the continuum of a hell being as the subject; it follows that it is consciousness?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Anger in the continuum of a hell being as the subject; it is consciousness, why?Defender: Because it is one of the six root non-virtuous mental factors.

Challenger: If it is one of the six root non-virtuous mental factors, it follows it is pervaded by being consciousness?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Anger in the continuum of a hell being as the subject; it follows that it is not developmental lineage?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Anger in the continuum of a hell being as the subject; it is not developmental lineage, why?

Defender: Because it is not a buddha lineage that is suitable to be transformed into a compounded body of a buddha.

Challenger: If it is not a buddha lineage that is suitable to be transformed into a compounded body of a buddha, itfollows it is pervaded by not being developmental lineage?

Defender: Accept. *** END OF DEBATE ***


28/76

Masters Program: Practice Debate D - Incorrect position, Challenger: 4 possibilities Defender: 3 possibilitiesDebating the pervasion between product and generality of pot

27

Practice Debate D - Incorrect positionChallenger: 4 possibilities

Defender: 3 possibilitiesDebating the pervasion between product and generality of pot

Break up into groups of two. Each person should take a role ( either the challenger or the defender)

and read through the entire debate out loud. Repeat this a few times until you feel comfortable.Then try to act out the debate without looking at this script. Then switch roles and do the same.


Challenger: With respect to the two, product and generality of pot, you cannot posit the pervasion.


Challenger: With respect to the two, product and generality of pot, it follows that you can posit the pervasion?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Posit.


Challenger: With respect to the two, product and generality of pot, it follows that the pervasion is three possibilities?

Defender: Accept.

Establish which pervades which

Challenger: With respect to the two, product and generality of pot, it follows that the pervasion is not threepossibilities, which pervades which?

Defender: If it is generality of pot, it is pervaded by being product, and if it is product it is not pervaded by beinggenerality of pot.

Challenger: (shouting loudly): Gor-sum!

Challenger: With respect to the two, product and generality of pot, if it is generality of pot, it is pervaded by being aproduct?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Existent as the subject; it follows that it is a product?

Defender: Why?

Challenger: Existent as the subject; it follows that it is a product because it is a generality of pot.


Challenger: Existent as the subject; it follows that it is not a generality of pot?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Existent as the subject; it follows that it is a generality of pot because pot is an instance of existent.


Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it is an instance of existent because pot fulfills the three necessaryqualities of being an instance of existent.


Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it does not fulfill the three necessary qualities of being an instance of

existent?

Defender: Accept.


29/76


28

Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it fulfills the three necessary qualities of being an instance of existentbecause: 1) pot is an existent, 2) pot is related with existent as the same essence, and 3) there are manycommon loci of not being pot and being existent.

Defender: First reason not established.

Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it is not an existent?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it is an existent because it is that observed by a valid cognizer.


Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it not that observed by a valid cognizer?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it is that observed by a valid cognizer because it is observed by a valideye sense direct perceiver.

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it is observed by a valid eye sense direct perceiver?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it is observed by a valid cognizer?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Tsar!!

Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it is an existent?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Tsar!!

Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it is an instance of existent?

Defender: Why?Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it is an instance of existent because pot fulfills the three necessary

qualities of being an instance of existent.


Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it does not fulfill the three necessary qualities of being an instance ofexistent?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it fulfills the three necessary qualities of being an instance of existentbecause: 1) pot is an existent, 2) pot is related with existent as the same essence, and 3) there are manycommon loci of not being pot and being existent.

Defender: Third reason not established.Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that there are not many common loci of not being pot and being existent?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that there are many common loci of not being pot and being existent becausepillar and book are those common loci.

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that there are many common loci of not being pot and being existent?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Tsar!!

Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it is an instance of existent?Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Tsar!!


30/76


29

Challenger: Existent as the subject; it follows that it is generality of pot?

Defender: Why?

Challenger: Existent as the subject; it follows that it is generality of pot because pot is an instance of existent.

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Existent as the subject; it follows that it is generality of pot?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Tsar!!

Challenger: Existent as the subject; it follows that it is a product?

Defender: Why?

Challenger: Existent as the subject; it follows that it is a product because it is a generality of pot.


Challenger: It follows that if it is a generality of pot, it is not pervaded by being a product?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Tsar!!

Challenger: With respect to the two, generality of pot and product, it follows that the pervasion is not threepossibilities?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Oh tshar tshar tshar! Your fundamental premise is finished!!

Posit a new pervasion

Challenger: With respect to the two, product and generality of pot, you cannot posit the pervasion.


Challenger: With respect to the two, product and generality of pot, it follows that you can posit the pervasion?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Posit.


Challenger: With respect to the two, product and generality of pot, it follows that the pervasion is four possibilities?

Defender: Accept.

Posit the common locus

Challenger: With respect to the two, generality of pot and product, it follows that the pervasion is not four possibilitiesbecause you can not posit that which is both.


Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Functioning thing.

Challenger: Functioning thing as the subject; it follows that it is a generality of pot?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Functioning thing as the subject; it is a generality of pot, why?

Defender: Because pot is an instance of functioning thing.

Challenger: If pot is an instance of functioning thing, it follows that functioning thing is pervaded by being agenerality of pot?

Defender: Accept.


31/76


30

Challenger: Functioning thing as the subject; it follows that it is a product?

Defender: Accept.

Posit that which is not both.

Challenger: With respect to the two, generality of pot and product; it follows that you can not posit that which is not

both.Defender: Reason not established.

Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Horns on rabbits head.

Challenger: Horns on rabbits head as the subject; it follows that it is not a generality of pot?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Horns on rabbits head as the subject; it follows that it is not a product?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Horns on rabbits head as the subject; it is not a product, why?

Defender: Because it is not a created phenomenon.

Challenger: If it is not a created phenomenon, it follows that it is pervaded by being not a product?

Defender: Accept.

Posit that which is A and not B

Challenger: With respect to the two, generality of pot and product, it follows that you can not posit that which is agenerality of pot and not a product.


Challenger: If it is a generality of pot, it follows that it is not pervaded by being a product?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Existent.

Challenger: Existent as the subject; it follows that it is a generality of pot?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Existent as the subject; it follows that it is not a product?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Existent as the subject; it is not a product, why?

Defender: Because it is non-produced phenomenon.

Challenger: If it is non-produced phenomenon, it follows that it is pervaded by being not a product?

Defender: Accept.

Posit that which is B and not A

Challenger: With respect to the two, generality of pot and product, it follows that you can not posit that which isproduct and not a generality of pot.


Challenger: With respect to the two, generality of pot and product, it follows that you can posit that which is a productand not a generality of pot?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Posit.


32/76


31

Defender: Pillar.

Challenger: Pillar as the subject; it follows that it is a product?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Pillar as the subject; it follows that it is not a generality of pot?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Pillar as the subject; it follows that it is not a generality of pot, why?

Defender: Because pot is not an instance of pillar.

Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it is not an instance of pillar?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Pot as the subject; it is not an instance of pillar, why?

Defender: Because pot does not fulfill the three necessary qualities of being an instance of pillar.

*** END OF DEBATE ***


33/76

Masters Program: Practice Debate E - Incorrect position,Debating the pervasion between isolate of pillar and product

32

Practice Debate E Incorrect positionDebating the pervasion between isolate of pillar and product

Challenger: Dihih! Ji dar ch jn.

Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, you cannot posit the pervasion.


Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that you can posit the

pervasion?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Mutually exclusive.

Challenger: Gor sum!

Refuting the defenders position of mutually exclusiveChallenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that the pervasion is mutually

exclusive?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, the pervasion is mutually exclusive,

why?

Defender: Because with respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, there does not exist a common

locus.

Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that there does not exist acommon locus?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that there does not exist a

common locus, why?

Defender: Because isolate of pillar is a permanent phenomenon and product is an impermanent

phenomenon.

Challenger: If object A is a permanent phenomenon and object B is an impermanent phenomenon, it

follows that there exists no common locus between the two?Defender: Accept.

Challenger: With respect to the two, object of knowledge and product, it follows that there does not exist a

common locus between the two?

Defender Why?


common locus between the two, because object of knowledge is a permanent phenomenon and

product is an impermanent phenomenon.


Challenger: It follows that there is pervasion, because if object A is a permanent phenomenon and object

B is an impermanent phenomenon, there exists no common locus between the two.


34/76


33


Challenger: Tshar! If object A is a permanent phenomenon and object B is an impermanent

phenomenon, it follows that there is no pervasion that there does not exist a common locus

between the two?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Tshar! With respect to the two, object of knowledge and product, it follows that there does not

exist a common locus between the two?

Defender: Why?


common locus between the two, because object of knowledge is a permanent phenomenon and



Challenger: Tshar! If object of knowledge is a permanent phenomenon and product is an impermanent

phenomenon, it follows that there is no pervasion that there does not exist a common locus

between the two?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that there does exist a common

locus between the two?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Tshar! With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that there does not exist

a common locus between the two, because isolate of pillar is a permanent phenomenon and



Challenger: Tshar! With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that there does exist a

common locus between the two?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that there does not exist a

common locus between the two, because the two are mutually exclusive.


Challenger: Tshar! With respect to the two, object of pillar and product, it follows that the two are not

mutually exclusive?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Oh tshar, tshar, your fundamental premise is finished, tshar!

Positing a new pervasion.

Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, you cannot posit the pervasion.


Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that you can posit the

pervasion?

Defender: Accept.


35/76


34

Challenger: Posit.


Establishing which pervades which.

Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, the pervasion is three possibilities?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, the pervasion is not three possibilities,

which pervades which?

Defender: If it is an isolate of pillar it is pervaded by being product, and if it is product it is not pervaded

by being an isolate of pillar.

Challenger: If it is an isolate of pillar it is pervaded by being product, and if it is product it is not pervaded

by being an isolate of pillar?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Book.

Challenger: Book as the subject, it follow that it is a product?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Book as the subject, it follow that it is a product, why?

Defender: Because it is a created phenomenon.

Challenger: If it is a created phenomenon, it follows that it is pervaded by being a product?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Book as the subject, it follows that it is not an isolate of pillar?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Book as the subject, if follows that it is not an isolate of pillar, why?

Defender: Because it is not one-with-pillar.

Challenger: If it is not one-with-pillar, it follows that it is pervaded by being not an isolate of pillar?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Book as the subject, it is not one-with-pillar, why?

Defender: Because it is different-from-pillar.

Challenger: If it is different-from-pillar, it follows that it is pervaded by being not one-with-pillar?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, if follows that you can not posit that

which is both.


Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, if follows that you can posit that which is

both?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Posit

Defender: Pillar.

Challenger: Pillar as the subject, if follows that it is an isolate of pillar?

Defender: Accept.


36/76


35

Challenger: Pillar as the subject, if follows that it is an isolate of pillar, why?

Defender: Because it is one-with-pillar.

Challenger: If it is one-with-pillar, if follows that it is pervaded by being an isolate of pillar?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it follows that it is a product?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it follows that it is a product, why?

Defender: Because it is a created phenomenon.

Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, you cannot posit that which is not both.


Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that you can posit that which is

not both?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Unconditioned space

Challenger: Unconditioned space as the subject, if follows that it is not an isolate of pillar?

Defender: Accept.(and so forth).

**END OF DEBATE**


37/76

Masters Program: Practice Debate F - Incorrect Position -Debating the pervasion between functioning thing and one-with-pot

36

Practice Debate F Incorrect positionDebating the pervasion between functioning thing and one-with-pot.

Challenger: Dhih! Ji dar ch jn.

Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and one-with-pot, you cannot posit thepervasion.


Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and one-with-pot, it follows that you can

posit the pervasion?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Posit.


Challenger: Dhih! Gor sum!

Refuting the defenders position of four possibilities

Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and one-with-pot, it follows that the

pervasion is four possibilities?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: If it is one-with-pot, it is not pervaded by being functioning thing?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: If it is one-with-pot, it follows that it is pervaded by being functioning thing, because

you cannot posit that which is one-with-pot and is not functioning thing.


Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Isolate of pot.

Challenger: Gor sum! Isolate of pot as the subject, it follows that it is one-with-pot?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Isolate of pot as the subject, it follows that it is one-with-pot, why?

Defender: Because isolate of pot and one-with-pot are mutually inclusive.

Challenger: If A and B are mutually inclusive, than A is pervaded by being B?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, it follows that it is permanent phenomenon?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, if follows that it is not permanent, because it does not exist.


Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, if follows that it does not exist, because impermanent phenomenon exists.

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, it follows it does not exist?

Defender: Accept.


38/76


37

Challenger: Tshar! Only-permanent as the subject, it follows that it does exist, because it is a permanent phenomenon.


Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, if follows that it is a permanent phenomenon, because it is mutually

inclusive with permanent phenomenon.


Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, it follows that it is not mutually inclusive with permanent phenomenon?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, it follows that it is mutually inclusive with permanent phenomenon,

because if it is only-permanent it is pervaded by being permanent phenomenon and if it is permanent

phenomenon it is pervaded by being only-permanent.

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, it follows that it is mutually inclusive with permanent phenomenon?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Tshar! Only-permanent as the subject, it follows that it exists?

Defender: Why?

Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, it follows that it does exist, because it is permanent phenomenon.


Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, it follows that it is not permanent phenomenon?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, it follows that it is permanent phenomenon, because it is mutually inclusive

with permanent phenomenon.


Challenger: Tshar! It follows that there is pervasion, because if A and B are mutually inclusive, than A is pervaded by

being B.


Challenger: If A and B are mutually inclusive, it follows that A is not pervaded by being B?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Tshar! Isolate of pot as the subject, it follows that it is not one-with-pot?

Defender: Why?

Challenger: Isolate of pot as the subject, if follows that it is not one-with-pot, because it is different-from-pot.

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Tshar! Isolate of pot as the subject, if follows that it is not one-with-pot?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Tshar! If it is one-with-pot it is pervaded by being functioning thing?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Tshar! With respect to the two, functioning thing and one-with-pot, it follows that the pervasion is not four

possibilities?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Oh tshar, tshar, your fundamental premise is finished, tshar!

Positing a new pervasion

Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and one-with-pot, it follows that the you cannot posit thepervasion.



39/76


38

Challenger: Posit.


Establishing which pervades which

Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and one-with-pot, it follows that the pervasion is three

possibilities?

Defender: Accept.Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and one-with-pot, it follows that the pervasion is not three

possibilities, which pervades which?

Defender: If it is one-with-pot it is pervaded by being functioning thing, and if it is functioning thing it is not

pervaded by being one-with-pot.

Challenger: If it is one-with-pot it is pervaded by being functioning thing, and if it is functioning thing it is not

pervaded by being one-with-pot.?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Posit.

Defender: Pillar.

Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it follows that it is not one-with-pot?

Defender: Accept.

Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it is not one-with-pot, why?

Defender: Because it is different-from-pot.

Challenger: If it is different-from-pot it is pervaded by being not one-with-pot?

Defende

PractisingDebate_ILTK1998-2000

Documents