Yes it is the greatest fantasy by rationalists that a discussion among rationalists is the way to reach truth. They create the fantasy that things have ''definitions'' and that a ''thesis'' is defended by ''arguments''.
When they see the sterility of their ''debate'', they try to salvage their fruitless method with the claim that, instead of having the goal as the opponent switching side, the goal is that the audience of the debate will choose the side presenting the truth.
The usual problem for these people is that they still have zero method to distinguish between an ''argument'' and not an argument. Plus of course, the audience is supposedly drawn towards the side which speaks the truth, but the audience is just drawn towards pleasing ideas.
This is what rationalists do not understand: for them, the intellect is not like the 5 usual senses and they fail to see that what they call truth, validity, argument is just ''pleasing ideas''. And falsehood, fallacy are just displeasing ideas. They claim that when a few humans agree on something, something deep, transcendental and meaningful is happening, like truth is established, consensus is reached and peace is achieved.
Then those people try to talk about what they experience, trying to be down to earth, instead of speculating about their dreams and metaphysics, and they create even more appalling statements. Those people range from the old greeks, like the stoics, with their ''epokhē'', to the modern humanist rationalists trying to pass for professionals in phenomenology, who fall in love with dry vipassana because they see that as compatible with their ''intellectual minds'', to the philosophers who invented mahayana and vajrayana,
They go like :
''I am miserable because I judge, because I choose, because I think.
Therefore, the way to be happy is to stop judging, to stop choosing,
to stop thinking. The reality naked of judgement, of choice, of agency is
nice and not harmful. it cannot be otherwise''.
this is a few of the meaningless words they invented to talk about their toxic fantasy that they try to pass as nibanna:
aperception, choiceless awareness, present moment awareness, non
conceptual awreness, non judgemental awareness, centerless awareness,
bare awareness, lack of doer, lack of witness, lack of agency, pure
awareness (or knowingness)
And when they try to detail their dream they say;
''It means that sensations are just sensations, simply that, with no
knower, doer, be-er (not beer, as that is a beverage), or self in them
to be found at all.''
THis what the intellectual puthujjanas will never understand: the dhamma has nothing to do with judging or stopping the thoughts, or lack of choice.
The point of the dhamma is that people are unhappy:
- not because they judge, but because they have the wrong notion of what is right and wrong
- people do not know how to go from bad to right
- people already think they are nice people
- reality nude of judgement is indeed harmful, dukkha, not worth any consideration, craving, interest, passion. (for puthujjanas, reality is always one of the toxic aggregates or some conditioned stuff stemming from them)
When the philosophers babble about the dhamma to cram their toxic view about lack of doer, lack of agency and how nice reality is when people stop thinking with concepts, they always rely on the Bāhiya Sutta. they really really love that sutta, because it is the only sutta they can use to create their view.
Fortunately, there is another sutta which explains for puthujjanas what that means
"Then, Malunkyaputta, with regard to phenomena to be seen, heard,
sensed, or cognized: In reference to the seen, there will be only the
seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the
sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the
cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there
will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in
reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed,
only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Malunkyaputta,
there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in
connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you
there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just
this, is the end of stress."[2]
"I understand in detail, lord, the meaning of what the Blessed One has
said in brief:
Seeing a form — mindfulness lapsed — attending to the theme of
'endearing,' impassioned in mind, one feels and remains fastened
there. One's feelings, born of the form, grow numerous, Greed &
annoyance injure one's mind. Thus amassing stress, one is said to be
far from Unbinding.
Hearing a sound... Smelling an aroma... Tasting a flavor... Touching a
tactile sensation...
Knowing an idea — mindfulness lapsed — attending to the theme of
'endearing,' impassioned in mind, one feels and remains fastened
there. One's feelings, born of the idea, grow numerous, Greed &
annoyance injure one's mind. Thus amassing stress, one is said to be
far from Unbinding.
Not impassioned with forms — seeing a form with mindfulness firm —
dispassioned in mind, one knows and doesn't remain fastened there.
While one is seeing a form — and even experiencing feeling — it falls
away and doesn't accumulate. Thus one fares mindfully. Thus not
amassing stress, one is said to be in the presence of Unbinding.
Not impassioned with sounds... Not impassioned with aromas... Not
impassioned with flavors... Not impassioned with tactile sensations...
Not impassioned with ideas — knowing an idea with mindfulness firm —
dispassioned in mind, one knows and doesn't remain fastened there. While one is knowing an idea — and even experiencing feeling — it falls away and doesn't accumulate. Thus one fares mindfully. Thus not amassing stress, one is said to be in the presence of Unbinding.
"It's in this way, lord, that I understand in detail the meaning of what the Blessed One said in brief."
"Good, Malunkyaputta. Very good. It's good that you understand in
detail this way the meaning of what I said in brief."
[The Buddha then repeats the verses.]
"It's in this way, Malunkyaputta, that the meaning of what I said in
brief should be regarded in detail."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.095.than.html
The philosophers despise this sutta because they cling to their view that they are already arahants with respect to the doctrine they invented, but when they compare what they experience with the other sutta, they see that they are not even at stream entry.
