How should be a debate?

[sridatta]

In the debates, none should be worried about his or her personal success or defeat since the main aim of the debate is only to find out the truth. Truth is not relative of any person. Truth is independent and cannot be linked to any person. At the end of the debate, when you find out the truth, it is useful to both the debating scholars irrespective of the scholar, who found out the truth. Two thirsty persons discussed about the probable direction to reach the river so that both can pacify their thirst by drinking water from the river. One is arguing about the probability of the river to be on the east side and the other is arguing about the probability of the river existing in the opposite west side. At the end of the discussion, suppose it is proved that the river is on the east side.

In such case, both the persons shall go towards east side and pacify their thirst. The person arguing about the west side should not be rigid opposing the east direction and walk to the west side only to die with thirst. Here, there is no meaning of victory and defeat. Crown is not put on the head of the person going to east and crown does not fall from the head of the person going to west. Both are investigating the truth and the truth may be achieved by any one of the two debating persons. Hence, the victory and defeat should be immaterial and what matters is that the truth investigated will help anybody irrespective of victory and defeat in the argument. Both runner and winner are congratulated for playing well in the game.

Congratulations are not limited to winner only. If any side is absent, the game itself disappears. Both are like positive and negative electrodes participating in the circuit of transmission of knowledge–current. Both are of equal status only. Lord Krishna said that He is Arjuna also (Paandavaanaam Dhanamjayah- Gita). This means that the question from Arjuna has equal status with the answer from Krishna. Due to the questions and answers coming out from both these divine personalities only, the Gita is formulated, which helped the entire humanity forever. Shankara and Mandana debated for several days and finally the arguments of Shankara exposed the truth. Shankara is Lord Shiva and Mandana is Lord Brahma. Both are the forms of the same unimaginable God. Brahma took the wrong side because somebody has to take that side. Brahma represented the wrong scholars and debate answered all the wrong scholars. Brahma took that wrong side only to help the debate so that the wrong scholars get rectified. Even before the debate, both Shankara and Mandana know the truth. Both have acted in the two opposite roles for the sake of welfare of the world.

Logic is to be used in debates

Logic is to be used to arrive at correct conclusion in issues of world or spirituality. You are logically discussing the merits and defects of all the schools present in the city before admitting your son or grandson into school. The entire scripture need not have different meanings in every statement. Only important concepts were interpreted in different ways. Example: Shankara told that this entire world is God in the sense that God is absolute truth and world is relative reality. This is the angle of God to say that anything other than God is unreal (means relatively real). Ramanuja said that all this world is under the control of God and this is the angle of soul for which world is equally real. The same statement that all this is God (sarvam khalvidam…) is interpreted in different ways and correlation is to be done taking different angles. If you take only one angle for both interpretations, they contradict each other.

Anybody can criticize any other person in this creation. You can even criticize God who is beyond this creation. But you must know what real criticism is. Before criticizing the other person, you must first understand the person’s thoughts and position, as clearly as possible. You must even seek the clarification of your doubts regarding the other person’s position. After doing this, if you are not still satisfied, you can condemn the opponent’s concepts without attacking the opponent personally. If the opponent’s wrong concept has been criticized in a perfectly logical manner, the opponent should not take the criticism personally. Your concepts are not your property registered in your name. So, the criticism of those concepts should not be misunderstood to be an attempt to take away your registered property from you! If your concept is defeated, you must thank the opponent for pointing out your mistaken concept and for replacing it with the correct concept. It is the defeated side that always benefits by learning the truth, whereas the winning side does not benefit in any way since the true concept was already known to the winner. The God of any religion should never be criticized by the followers of any other religion. They must realize that in doing so, they are criticizing the God of their own religion because the same God exists in all religions. Only the external cultures and languages vary.


Debating with others


: Jesus told “hate the sin but not the sinner”. You can criticize the point presented by anybody including God in human form. God will not mistake you for criticizing His point and He will make it more clear to you by further answer. Arjuna told Krishna that He is confusing him by mixing the two opposite points (Vyaamishrenaiva...). Arjuna is criticizing the lack of clarity in the answer of Krishna.

Actually, Arjuna understood the point of Krishna clearly since Krishna gave the answer to the level of Arjuna. But, he is saying like this to mean only that ordinary people of lower level get confused if further clarity is not given. Arjuna is standing on behalf of ordinary people and is placing this question. This only means requesting Krishna to tell the same point with more clarity for the sake of ordinary people, who get confused easily due to lack of capability of deep logic in understanding. I often tell My devotees to criticize My knowledge from the point of the view of ordinary people so that I can answer to their level also. I know that as a learned person, you have understood My point. But, still you are criticizing My point from the level of common people to get answer for their level. When you criticize the point of somebody, your anger is only on the wrong point but not on the speaker of that point. If you are jealous of the speaker with your ego getting hurt, since your point is not standing before the analysis of other side, one should not take the criticism of the point as the criticism of speaker. Similarly the criticism of speaker can’t be criticism of his point. Suppose you say a speaker 1) “don’t speak now anymore since your fever is very high” and also say to another speaker 2) “don’t speak now anymore since your point is already established as wrong”. Is there no difference between these two statements? In (1) the speaker is criticized for his illness and there is no criticism of his point and in (2) the point of the speaker is criticized and not the speaker at all.

Generally, in the debates, people feel that they are personally criticized if their points are criticized. The speaker identifies with his point and feels that he and his point are one and the same like God and human being merged becomes the one human incarnation only. In the case of human incarnation, suppose, you praise the God component while beating the human being component, both praise and beating go to one component only, which is called as God in the form of human being since both are homogeneously merged with each other. In the same way, did the speaker and point spoken by him get merged with each other, so that if the point is criticized, the speaker is criticized? In fact, I should be very thankful to the other side person, who corrected My point and I get benefited by the correct point. Discussion is only for searching the right point so that both get benefited by the right point.

The conclusion may prove that 1) My point is right by which both of us are benefited or 2) the point of the opponent is right by which both of us are benefited or 3) points of both of us are wrong and during discussion a third new point, which is right appeared by which both of us are benefited or 4) Both points of us are right without contradiction if understood in different angles of receivers and both of us are benefited by both these points since we both are in different angles only. Hence, there is no point of personal success and personal defeat in the debate since the point of a person is not a registered property like house in his name so that if the house damaged, the house owner is much hurt. Unless this background develops in the world, the preaching of God through even thousand human forms becomes futile since due to ego and jealousy, we always try to criticize the points of others and we feel that we are defeated if our points are proved wrong by the criticism from the opponent.

In pravrutti, criticism is very essential especially on some occasions and in some contexts. Sometimes, your friend or your disciple may rectified by your criticism, if expressed in a polite and sweet manner without anger and loud voice (which is called as shouting). You must project the truth by your argument in a palatable way and condemning the opposite point should be done in sweet manner. Hence, both truth and pleasant presentation are recommended (Satyam bruuyaat, priyam bruuyaat...).

Criticism of human incarnation is different from criticism of the spiritual knowledge spoken by It. You may not accept Krishna as God but still accept whatever was spoken by Krishna and develop spiritually continuing your worship to Rama only. Unfortunately, Rama did not speak any Gita. Hence, you can assume that the Gita spoken by Krishna is actually the Gita spoken by Rama. You may also develop a story that since Krishna was a thief, Krishna stole the Gita of Rama and claimed Himself to be its author! The saying came that we must do what Rama did and what Krishna preached us. Your liking for Rama is due to your strict adherence to Pravrutti only.

You have no idea of Nivrutti to understand Krishna as God testing sages born as Gopikas in their three worldly bonds, which are with money (butter), issues and life partner. You must also know that Krishna did this test only for sages in Nivrutti and didn’t perform this test in the case of any human being following Pravrutti strictly, for which alone Rama came as incarnation. Krishna came for Pravrutti as in the case of Pandavas and also for Nivrutti as in the case of Gopikas.

You need not criticise the Gita because you don’t like Krishna. Personal liking and disliking should not influence your mind while reading the spiritual knowledge spoken by a person. Your liking and disliking is personal but your criticism of spiritual knowledge of a disliked person is not personal since the knowledge is for the welfare of entire humanity. Based on your disliking, if you criticise the Gita and find unreal faults, you are harming the entire humanity for which you will be punished severely.

[Tcg]

Moderator Action



This topic consists of preaching with no coherent question for debate. Moved to Random Ramblings.
______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.
[Replying to sridatta in post #1]