PractisingDebate ILTK1998-2000

FPMT BASIC PROGRAM
Practising Debate
An introduction to the structure of debate with exercises and examples
Compiled by Jampa Gendun for Masters Program review sessions Istituto Lama Tzong Khapa 1998-2000
ILTK and Jampa Gendun, 2000
Masters Program: Review Class - Debate - Syllogisms & Consequences
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 necessarily factually correct. In debate we will present syllogisms in the following format only. The challenger states 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 the reason is established, that is, is the reason the property of the subject, that is, is the reason applicable to the subject? In the course of debate if the challenger were to present you (the defender) with the above syllogism 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 not established. 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 forward pervasion is established than the reverse will also be established. Therefore, we only need to check the 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 pervaded by being impermanent, for example permanent, the appropriate reply is no pervasion. Nothing more 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 correct reason. 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 factually correct because both the reason and the pervasion are established, for example as in the above
syllogism, the appropriate reply is accept but 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 valid statement; rather, it is such that the defender, due to his own assertions, cannot effectively object to the 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 not exist in a void but are designed to address actual views held to be true. In order to defeat a wrong conception 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 would than 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 consequence the predicate is presented in a way different than in a syllogism using the words it follows. What the challenger 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 the defender 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 then he replies accept, and nothing more. If he does not accept he replies why and nothing more. The answer why 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, the challenger now proceeds by stating a complete three-part consequence restating the previous thesis and 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 in fact 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 replying no pervasion then he has directly contradicted his earlier position. In effect, the defender is forced reconsider 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 his previous position that the color of Chenrezig is not blue by accepting the thesis that the color of Chenrezig is blue, the only possible reply left to him is no pervasion. By this reply he is in effect
2
abandoning his earlier position and is now asserting that whatever is a color is not pervaded by being 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 he accepts, the debate would then proceed on from there. Syllogisms are used in presenting factually correct arguments. At the beginning of a debate the challenger 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 to take 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 or reason not established if he disagrees. If , for example, he accepts then the challenger continues restating the thesis in the form of a consequence, since the defender has now taken a position with regard to it. C: C: D: Sound as the subject; It follows that it is impermanent. Sound is impermanent; accept.
Now, the challenger could proceed in several possible directions, for example: C: C: Sound as the subject; It is impermanent, why;
In the present context, the why is an actual question asking the defender to present a reason why sound 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: C: D: Sound as the subject; It is impermanent, why; 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. The reason 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: C: Sound as the subject; It follows that it is the object of eye consciousness;
3
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 with as the subject; stated predicates of syllogisms end with why; stated predicates of consequences begin with it follows; stated reasons begin with because. This particular debate might continue: C: C: D: C: Sound as the subject; It follows it is not the object of eye consciousness; Why; 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: C: D: C: C: D: C: D: C: C: D: C: D: C: D: And so forth. Sound as the subject; It follows that it is impermanent. Sound is impermanent; accept. Sound as the subject; It follows that it is not impermanent. Why. Because it is not monentary. Reason not established. Sound as the subject; It follows that it is not momentary. Why. Because some sounds continue for a long time. No pervasion. It follows that if some sounds continue for a long time, sound is not pervaded by being not momentary. Accept.
Masters Program: Syllogisms and Consequences, Homework
HOMEWORK - SYLLOGISMS AND CONSEQUENCES

For each of the following theses present 1) a correct reason, 2) a reason in respect to which the reason is not established and the pervasion is established, 3) a reason in respect to which the reason is established and the pervasion is not established, and 4) a reason in respect to which the reason is not established and the pervasion is not established. (A) Sound as the subject; It is impermanent, why; Because it is 1) 2) 3) 4) (C) Consciousness as the subject; It is not a permanent phenomenon, why: Because it is 1) 2) 3) 4) (E) Pot as the subject; It is an isolate of pot, why; Because it is 1) 2) 3) 4) (B) Pot as the subject; It is an existent, why; Because it is 1) 2) 3) 4) (D) Horns on a rabbits head as the subject; They are not an existent, why; Because they are 1) 2) 3) 4) (F) Bulbous flat-based container able to hold water as the subject; It is not an isolate of pot, why; Because it is 1) 2) 3) 4) (H) Sound as the subject; It is not an object of eye consciousness, why; Because it 1) 2) 3) 4)
(G) Permanent phenomenon as the subject; It is not able to perform a function, why; Because it 1) 2) 3) 4)
Masters Program: Syllogisms and Consequences, Homework
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 buddha ground.
The Masters Program is cool.
Masters Program: Procedures for Debating Pervasion
Procedures for Debating Pervasion

One important technique of debate is that of debating which of the four possible types of pervasion mutually inclusive, mutually exclusive, three possibilities and four possibilities exist between two phenomena. We have discussed the procedures for determining which one of these four pervasions exist. Here we will discussion the procedure of debating them. A debate on determining the pervasion between two phenomena would proceed as follows 1: 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 other restrictions, 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 four possibilities 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 the pervasion. 3 Challenger: Posit.
Debating Mutually Exclusive

The Defender must first consider whether or not there exists a common locus between the two phenomena mentioned. That is, is there a phenomenon which is both. If there is none then the relationship is necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, the relationship between form and consciousness. In which case: Defender: mutually exclusive. Challenger: With respect to the two, form and consciousness; it follows that the pervasion is mutually exclusive? Defender: Accept.
Please note: though we may have to make adjustments to the English wording of the debate format as we go along, for the present you must adhere to the current format and wordings. Both challengers and defenders must keep reminding each other to stick to the prescribed procedures of debate. Debate is a vehicle for exploring, clarifying and communicating ideas in an extremely clear and precise manner. To insure that this takes place we must adhere to the rules 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 clarifying doubts, and coming to correct understandings for yourself as well as to train your mind in procedures of reasoning. In debate there is no fault whatsoever in giving wrong answers, only in avoiding answering at all or answering in ways which sabotage the intended purposes of debate.
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 locus between form and consciousness: Challenger: With respect to the two, form and consciousness, the pervasion is not mutually exclusive; because there exists a common locus with respect to the two. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: With respect to the two, form and consciousness, it follows that there exists a common locus with respect to the two; because person is that common locus. 4 Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: Person as the subject: it follows that it is not a common locus with respect to form and consciousness? 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 it 5 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 form 6. Challenger: If it is not that which is suitable to form it follows it is pervaded by not being form? Defender: Accept.
Note that both the challenger and the defender may (as in this example) be proceeding in ways which are not factually concordant either on the basis of a misunderstanding, as a means of exploring 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 use the 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 and direct way of answering such a type of question. 8
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 not consciousness? Defender: Accept. On the other hand, if the defender were to posit the relationship between form and consciousness as something other than mutually exclusive the challenger would then use the consequences of the defenders 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 common locus between the two phenomena set out by the challenger. If there is such a phenomenon then the relationship of mutually exclusive is ruled out. The defender must now go on to consider, if it is A is it pervaded by being B and if it is B is it pervaded by being A. If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then the relationship is mutually inclusive. For example, the pervasion existing between cause and effect. In which case: Challenger: With respect to the two, cause and effect, you can not posit the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: Posit. Defender: Mutually inclusive. Challenger: With respect to the two, cause and effect, it follows the pervasion is mutually inclusive? 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 being an 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 by being 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. 9
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 by being 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 between form and functioning thing. In which case: Challenger: With respect to the two, form and functioning thing, you can not posit the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: Posit. Defender: Three possibilities. Challenger: With respect to the two, form and functioning thing, it follows that the pervasion is three possibilities? Defender: Accept. Challenger: With respect to the two, form and consciousness, it follows that the pervasion is not three possibilities, which pervades which. Defender: If it is form it is pervaded by being functioning thing, and if it is functioning thing it is not 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
The challenger is asking the defender to posit an example of that which is functioning thing and not form. Note the lack of the use of articles such as a, an and the as in which is functional thing rather than which is a functional thing. 10
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 being functioning 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 Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: Posit. Defender: Uncompounded space. And so on.
It may seem laborious and redundant to be repeating continually the subject and the pervasion but it 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 pervades which 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. 11
Debating Four Possibilities

The Defender considers, if it is A is it pervaded by being B and if it is B is it pervaded by being A. If the answer is no to both, then the relationship is four possibilities. That is, not all As 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 the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established. 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 is not four possibilities; because you can not posit that which is both. 11 Defender: Reason not established. 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 is both phenomena, then (2) posit an example of that which is not both, then (3) posit an example of that which is one phenomenon and not the other, and then (4) posit an example of that which is the other phenomenon and not the one. 12
Defender: Because it is phenomena which is diverse. Challenger: If it is phenomena which is diverse, it follows it is pervaded by being different phenomena? Defender: Accept. Challenger: With respect to the two, color and different phenomena; it follows that you can not posit that which is not both. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: Posit. Defender: Consciousness. And so on.
Challenger: With respect to the two, color and different phenomena; it follows that you can not posit that which is color and is not different phenomena. Defender: Reason not established. 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 not posit that which is different phenomena and is not color. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: Posit. Defender: Functioning thing and permanent phenomena. Challenger: Functioning thing and permanent phenomena as the subject; it follows it is different phenomena? Defender: Accept. And so on.
Challenger: Functioning thing and permanent phenomena as the subject; it follows it is not color? Defender: Accept. And so on.
13
Masters Program: Procedures for Actual Debate
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, that is, 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 of the class. In this regard, though there are differences in natural abilities, a great part of a successful debate session depends on preparation memorizing definitions, divisions, boundaries, and appropriate quotations from texts, thinking through the current study material and how to put it into debate 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 session worthwhile and stimulating. You, also, need to take part of the responsibility for it and one way of doing this is in adequate preparation. It is often said that of the understandings that we gain through our studies, twenty-five percent comes from class lectures, twenty-five percent from self-study, and fifty percent from debate. To insure that this does happen you must take debate seriously and adequately prepare for it. Spread yourself out evenly around the debate area whether in the gom-ba or outside so as not to interfere with others. The challenger stands while the defender sits. The challenger begins the debate 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 an auspicious portent, at the beginning of every session of debate the challenger declares that like Manjushri he will state subjects and consequences in order to defeat the wrong views and doubts of his 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 not necessarily. For example, our current topic of study is Four Limbs of Definite Discrimination and this could be introduced as the subject matter for debate as follows by asking for the meaning of a textural quotation: C: With respect to the textural quotation: For beginners to attain the instructions accordingly, 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 and Limbs of Definite Discrimination. Of course, if the defender were to answer wrongly, this passage itself would then become the basis for debate rather than merely serving to introduce a subject for debate or the passage itself could 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 be easier for us to use. For example, the challenger might ask for the divisions of a particular subject such as that of functioning thing. C: When functioning thing is divided there are not three divisions. D: Reason not established.
14
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 not posit 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 the subject; 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 arises concomitant with the accompanying aspiration observing complete enlightenment for the welfare of others. C: 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 arises concomitant with the accompanying aspiration observing complete enlightenment for 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 need to 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 seeing whether it would still function as a suitable defintion: C: If the defintition of concsciousness were posited as that which is knowing, it would be satisfactory. D: Reason not established. C: If the defintition of concsciousness were posited as that which is knowing, it follows that it would not be satisfactory? D: Accept: C: If the defintition of concsciousness were posited as that which is knowing, it would 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.
15
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 the pevasion 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 of syllogisms and consequences are made use of by the challenger and the method to be used by the defender 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, and is limited to three responses to a three-part syllogism or consequence: either accept, reason not established, or no pervasion. That is all unless the defender is asked a why question or is asked to posit something by the challenger. Formally, it is not appropriate for the defender to ask questions of the challenger. Having said this, we must be flexible when necessary. A few minutes of informal discussion may, at least in the beginning stages, be of greater benefit than adhering strictly to the debate format and simply prolonging some confusion. If, during the course of debate, the defender takes a position that the challenger believes he will not 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 not be able to accept the his thesis. We have discussed this in terms of the use of consequences. The use of gor-sum is optional. It is considered highly embarrassing for the challenger if he were to shout gor-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 that he has taken or an assertion that he has made, then the challenger shouts tshar up to three times depending on the importance of the contradiction with an accompanying physical gesture. Some scholars take tshar to mean finished (tshar) meaning that your original position or assertion is finished. Others take it to mean amazing (mtshar) which is to say that its amazing that you would at first say one thing and now later on you contradict your own assertion by saying something else. In general, however long the debate session, unless there is an over-riding reason, half way through 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. In successfully doing so, it is necessary temporarily to give up our preoccupation with always having to be right. As long as we are bound by such a conception we will never know what it is that we really dont understand and in such a a mind-set little learning can take place. Also, it is important to have as our motivation that of helping one another through our debating together. In helping the other person to come to new understandings you will be helping yourself as well. Debate is not a contest. It might seem to an observer that the monks debating are perhaps angry with each other, for they speak loudly with confidence, clap their hands with fervor, and occasionally (when a wrong answer is given) scold and mock the opponent. However,
16
this is normal procedure in debate and does not necessarily suggest anger. Since the generation of final wisdom is not easy and one must be strong, the debaters assert firmly their learning, seeking to become solid in their knowledge. Indeed, even when the Defender gives consistent answers in accordance with accepted interpretation, the Challenger 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 be firm and sure. If a Defender can be coerced away from a correct position by a clever Challenger, then his understanding is not solid. Assertiveness as well as the procedure and tradition of debate are all aimed at increasing the disputants capacities, better enabling them to make progress toward the goal of liberation. The defilements that stain the mind have been accumulated over countless eons, and if they are to be removed it must be by the most intense and definite knowledge. 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 to destroy the enemy, ignorance. 12 But as well, most all of us have seen on one occasion or another when discussing a topic of debate, an old geshes eyes light up and he again becomes animated with the same enthusiasm and joy that he once brought to the debating courtyard. That is to say, not only is debate a profound technique for learning and training of the mind, but its a lot of fun as well. But, like most things in life, what your get out of it will be directly dependent on what you put into it. O tshar!
12
Daniel E. Perdue, Debate in Tibetan Buddhism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Pub., 1992) pp. 30, 32.
17
Masters Program: Practice Debate A - Correct position, 4 possibilities
Practice Debate A - Correct position, 4 possibilities

Debating 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. Defender: Four possibilities.
Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and object of intent, it follows that the pervasion is four possibilities? 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 four possibilities because you can not posit that which is both. Defender: Reason not established.
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 because you cannot posit that function that it performs. Defender: Reason not established.
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 by being an object of intent? Defender: Accept.
18
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 which is not both. Defender: Reason not established.
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 pervaded by 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 which is 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 object of 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. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Posit.
19
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.
20
Masters Program: Practice Debate B - Correct position, 3 possibilities
Practice Debate B - Correct position, 3 possibilities

Debating 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: Dhih! ji dar ch jn. Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and mahayana achieving, you cannot posit the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and mahayana achieving, you can posit the pervasion? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Posit. Defender: Three possibilities.
Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and mahayana achieving, it follows that the pervasion is three possibilities? Defender: Accept.
1) Posit which pervades which

Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and mahayana achieving, it follows that the pervasion is not three possibilities, which pervades which? Defender: If it is mahayana achieving, it is pervaded by being consciousness, and if it is consciousness it is not pervaded by being mahayana achieving.
Challenger: If it is mahayana achieving, it is pervaded by being consciousness, and if it is consciousness it is not pervaded 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?
21
Masters Program: Practice Debate B - Correct position, 3 possibilities
Defender:
Because it is not a bodhisattvas yoga possessing the six greatnesses that is an activity of achieving the two 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 two complete aims in dependence upon a mahayana mind generation, it is pervaded by not being an mahayana achieving? 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. Defender: Reason not established.
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 a consciousness? 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 the two 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 two complete aims in dependence upon a mahayana mind generation, it is pervaded by not being an mahayana achieving? Defender: Accept.
22
Masters Program: Practice Debate C - Incorrect position, Challenger: 4 possibilities Defender: 3 possibilities Debating the pervasion between consciousness and developmental lineage
Practice Debate C - Incorrect position

Challenger: 4 possibilities Defender: 3 possibilities
Debating 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: Dhih! ji dar ch jn. Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and developmental lineage, you cannot posit the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and developmental lineage, you can posit the pervasion? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and developmental lineage, it follows that the pervasion is three possibilities? Defender: Accept.
Establish which pervades which

Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and developmental lineage, it follows that the pervasion is not three possibilities, which pervades which? Defender: If it is developmental lineage, it is pervaded by being consciousness, and if it is consciousness it is not pervaded 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. Defender: Reason not established.
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 is suitable to be transformed into a compounded body of a buddha. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is not a buddha lineage that is suitable to be transformed into a compounded 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 body of a buddha, why? Defender: Because person is not buddha lineage.
Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is not buddha lineage?
23
Masters Program: Practice Debate C - Incorrect position, Challenger: 4 possibilities Defender: 3 possibilities Debating the pervasion between consciousness and developmental lineage Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is buddha lineage because it is a phenomena that is suitable to be transformed into a body of a buddha. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Person as the subject; it follows that it is not a phenomena that is suitable to be transformed into a body of a 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 a buddha 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 a buddha? 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. Defender: No pervasion.
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 being consciousness, and if it is consciousness it is not pervaded by being developmental lineage. Defender: Reason not established.
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. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: With respect to the two, consciousness and developmental lineage, it follows that the pervasion is four possibilities? Defender: Accept.
24
Masters Program: Practice Debate C - Incorrect position, Challenger: 4 possibilities Defender: 3 possibilities Debating the pervasion between consciousness and developmental lineage
Posit the common locus

Challenger: With respect to the two, developmental lineage and consciousness, it follows that the pervasion is not four possibilities because you can not posit that which is both. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Posit. Defender: Mahayana path of meditation
Challenger: 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 follows that 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 that which 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 that which is developmental lineage and not consciousness. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Posit. Defender: Person.
25
Masters Program: Practice Debate C - Incorrect position, Challenger: 4 possibilities Defender: 3 possibilities Debating the pervasion between consciousness and developmental lineage 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 follows that 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 pervaded by 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 which is 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, it follows it is pervaded by not being developmental lineage? Defender: Accept. *** END OF DEBATE ***
26
Masters Program: Practice Debate D - Incorrect position, Challenger: 4 possibilities Defender: 3 possibilities Debating the pervasion between product and generality of pot
Practice Debate D - Incorrect position

Challenger: 4 possibilities Defender: 3 possibilities
Debating 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: Dhih! ji dar ch jn. Challenger: With respect to the two, product and generality of pot, you cannot posit the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: With respect to the two, product and generality of pot, it follows that you can posit the pervasion? Defender: Accept.
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 three possibilities, 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 being generality 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 a product? 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. Defender: Reason not established.
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.
Defender:
Reason not established.
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. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it does not fulfill the three necessary qualities of being an instance of existent? Defender: Accept.
27
Masters Program: Practice Debate D - Incorrect position, Challenger: 4 possibilities Defender: 3 possibilities Debating the pervasion between product and generality of pot Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it fulfills the three necessary qualities of being an instance of existent because: 1) pot is an existent, 2) pot is related with existent as the same essence, and 3) there are many common 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. Defender: Reason not established.
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 valid eye 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. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it does not fulfill the three necessary qualities of being an instance of existent? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pot as the subject; it follows that it fulfills the three necessary qualities of being an instance of existent because: 1) pot is an existent, 2) pot is related with existent as the same essence, and 3) there are many common 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 because pillar 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!!
28
Masters Program: Practice Debate D - Incorrect position, Challenger: 4 possibilities Defender: 3 possibilities Debating the pervasion between product and generality of pot 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. Defender: No pervasion.
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 three possibilities? 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. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: With respect to the two, product and generality of pot, it follows that you can posit the pervasion? Defender: Accept.
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 possibilities because you can not posit that which is both. Defender: Reason not established.
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 a generality of pot? Defender: Accept.
29
Masters Program: Practice Debate D - Incorrect position, Challenger: 4 possibilities Defender: 3 possibilities Debating the pervasion between product and generality of pot 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 a generality of pot and not a product. Defender: Reason not established.
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 is product and not a generality of pot. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: With respect to the two, generality of pot and product, it follows that you can posit that which is a product and not a generality of pot? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Posit.
30
Masters Program: Practice Debate D - Incorrect position, Challenger: 4 possibilities Defender: 3 possibilities Debating the pervasion between product and generality of pot 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 ***
31
Masters Program: Practice Debate E - Incorrect position, Debating the pervasion between isolate of pillar and product
Practice Debate E Incorrect position

Debating the pervasion between isolate of pillar and product
Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger:
Dihih! Ji dar ch jn. Reason not established. With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that you can posit the pervasion? Accept. Posit. Mutually exclusive. Gor sum!
Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, you cannot posit the pervasion.
Refuting the defenders position of mutually exclusive Challenger: With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that the pervasion is mutually exclusive? Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender Challenger: Accept. With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, the pervasion is mutually exclusive, why? Because with respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, there does not exist a common locus. With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that there does not exist a common locus? Accept. With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that there does not exist a common locus, why? Because isolate of pillar is a permanent phenomenon and product is an impermanent phenomenon. 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? Accept. With respect to the two, object of knowledge and product, it follows that there does not exist a common locus between the two? Why? With respect to the two, object of knowledge and product, it follows that there does not exist a common locus between the two, because object of knowledge is a permanent phenomenon and product is an impermanent phenomenon. Defender: Challenger: No pervasion. 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.
32
Defender: Challenger:
Reason not established. 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: Challenger: Defender: Challenger:
Accept. Tshar! With respect to the two, object of knowledge and product, it follows that there does not exist a common locus between the two? Why? With respect to the two, object of knowledge and product, it follows that there does not exist a common locus between the two, because object of knowledge is a permanent phenomenon and product is an impermanent phenomenon.
Defender: Challenger:
No pervasion. 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: Challenger: Defender: Challenger:
Accept. With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that there does exist a common locus between the two? Accept. 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 product is an impermanent phenomenon.
Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger:
No pervasion. Tshar! With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that there does exist a common locus between the two? Accept. 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. Reason not established. Tshar! With respect to the two, object of pillar and product, it follows that the two are not mutually exclusive? Accept. 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.
Defender: Challenger: Defender: Reason not established. With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that you can posit the pervasion? Accept.
33
Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender:
Posit. Three possibilities. With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, the pervasion is three possibilities? Accept. With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, the pervasion is not three possibilities, which pervades which? 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. 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? Accept. Posit. Book. Book as the subject, it follow that it is a product? Accept. Book as the subject, it follow that it is a product, why? Because it is a created phenomenon. If it is a created phenomenon, it follows that it is pervaded by being a product? Accept. Book as the subject, it follows that it is not an isolate of pillar? Accept. Book as the subject, if follows that it is not an isolate of pillar, why? Because it is not one-with-pillar. If it is not one-with-pillar, it follows that it is pervaded by being not an isolate of pillar? Accept. Book as the subject, it is not one-with-pillar, why? Because it is different-from-pillar. If it is different-from-pillar, it follows that it is pervaded by being not one-with-pillar? Accept. With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, if follows that you can not posit that which is both. Reason not established. With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, if follows that you can posit that which is both? Accept. Posit Pillar. Pillar as the subject, if follows that it is an isolate of pillar? Accept.
Establishing which pervades which.
34
Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger: Defender: Challenger:
Pillar as the subject, if follows that it is an isolate of pillar, why? Because it is one-with-pillar. If it is one-with-pillar, if follows that it is pervaded by being an isolate of pillar? Accept. Pillar as the subject, it follows that it is a product? Accept. Pillar as the subject, it follows that it is a product, why? Because it is a created phenomenon. With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, you cannot posit that which is not both. Reason not established. With respect to the two, isolate of pillar and product, it follows that you can posit that which is not both? Accept. Posit. Unconditioned space Unconditioned space as the subject, if follows that it is not an isolate of pillar?
Defender:
Accept.(and so forth). **END OF DEBATE**
35
Masters Program: Practice Debate F - Incorrect Position Debating the pervasion between functioning thing and one-with-pot
Practice Debate F Incorrect position

Debating 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 the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and one-with-pot, it follows that you can posit the pervasion? Defender: Defender: Accept. Four possibilities. 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: Defender: Accept. Accept. you cannot posit that which is one-with-pot and is not functioning thing.
Defender: Defender: Defender: Defender: Defender: Defender: Reason not established. Isolate of pot. Accept. Because isolate of pot and one-with-pot are mutually inclusive. Accept. Accept. Challenger: Posit. Challenger: Gor sum! Isolate of pot as the subject, it follows that it is one-with-pot? Challenger: Isolate of pot as the subject, it follows that it is one-with-pot, why? Challenger: If A and B are mutually inclusive, than A is pervaded by being B? Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, it follows that it is permanent phenomenon? Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, if follows that it is not permanent, because it does not exist. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, if follows that it does not exist, because impermanent phenomenon exists. Defender: Defender: Accept. Accept. Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, it follows it does not exist?
Challenger: If it is one-with-pot, it is not pervaded by being functioning thing? Challenger: If it is one-with-pot, it follows that it is pervaded by being functioning thing, because
36
Masters Program: Practice Debate F - Incorrect Position Debating the pervasion between functioning thing and one-with-pot Challenger: Tshar! Only-permanent as the subject, it follows that it does exist, because it is a permanent phenomenon. Defender: Reason not established. inclusive with permanent phenomenon. Defender: Defender: Reason not established. Accept. 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: Defender: Defender: Defender: Defender: Accept. Accept. Why? Reason not established. Accept. with permanent phenomenon. Defender: No pervasion. being B. Defender: Defender: Defender: Defender: Defender: Defender: Reason not established. Accept. Why? Accept. Accept. Accept. 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 the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: If A and B are mutually inclusive, it follows that A is not pervaded by being B? Challenger: Tshar! Isolate of pot as the subject, it follows that it is not one-with-pot? Challenger: Isolate of pot as the subject, if follows that it is not one-with-pot, because it is different-from-pot. Challenger: Tshar! Isolate of pot as the subject, if follows that it is not one-with-pot? Challenger: Tshar! If it is one-with-pot it is pervaded by being functioning thing? Challenger: Tshar! With respect to the two, functioning thing and one-with-pot, it follows that the pervasion is not four Challenger: Tshar! It follows that there is pervasion, because if A and B are mutually inclusive, than A is pervaded by Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, it follows that it is mutually inclusive with permanent phenomenon? Challenger: Tshar! Only-permanent as the subject, it follows that it exists? 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? Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, it follows that it is permanent phenomenon, because it is mutually inclusive Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, it follows that it is not mutually inclusive with permanent phenomenon? Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, it follows that it is mutually inclusive with permanent phenomenon, Challenger: Only-permanent as the subject, if follows that it is a permanent phenomenon, because it is mutually
37
Masters Program: Practice Debate F - Incorrect Position Debating the pervasion between functioning thing and one-with-pot Challenger: Posit. Defender: Three possibilities. 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. 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: Defender: Defender: Defender: Defender: Accept. Pillar. Accept. Because it is different-from-pot. Accept. Challenger: Posit. Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it follows that it is not one-with-pot? Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it is not one-with-pot, why? Challenger: If it is different-from-pot it is pervaded by being not one-with-pot? Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and one-with-pot, you cannot posit that which is both. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and one-with-pot, it follows that you can posit that which is both? Defender: Defender: Defender: Defender: Defender: Defender: Accept. Pot. Accept. Because it is that which is able to perform a function. Accept. Accept. Challenger: Posit. Challenger: Pot as the subject, if follows that it is both functioning thing and one-with-pot? Challenger: Pot as the subject, it is functioning thing, why? Challenger: If it is that which is able to perform a function, it follows that it is pervaded by being a functioning thing? Challenger: Pot as the subject, it follows that it is one-with-pot? Challenger: Pot as the subject, it follows that it is one-with-pot, why? (And so forth) Challenger: With respect to the two, functioning thing and one-with-pot, it follows that the pervasion is not three
38
Masters Program: Debates Modules and Checklist
Debate Modules
In order to provide more structure around debate, the practice debates have been put into modules, beginning with the easiest debates and progressing to the more difficult ones. It is recommended that you proceed through the debates in this order, and when you have mastered a particular module (or group of debates) then you should proceed to the next module. The criteria for mastering a debate module is detailed on the handout entitled Debate Checklist. The important thing to emphasize initially is to learn the proper debate method, familiarizing yourselves with it until it becomes natural. Once the debate method is mastered, then you can move on to more complex debates and topics. Please dont be lazy or sloppy; it will only hinder you later.
Module 1 Elementary debates for colors

These debates focus on learning the basic method of debate.
Handout Practice Debates for Colors 1 Practice Debates for Colors 2 Debates Debate C1 Debates C2 & C3
Module 2 Intermediate debates on colors

These are more debates on pervasions, definitions, and divisions.
Handout Practice Debates for Colors 3 Practice Debates for Colors 4 Practice Debates for Colors 5 Debates Debates C4 & C5 Debates C6 & C7 Debate C8
Module 3 Advanced debates on colors

These debates introduce more complexities to the debate process.
Handout *Practice Debates for Colors 6 Debates Debates C9 & C10
Module 4 Intermediate debates on established bases

The concluding portions of these debates are missing. Therefore, you are expected to conclude these debates without the scripts.
Handout Practice Debates for Established Bases 1 Practice Debates for Established Bases 2 Debates Debates E1, E2, and E3 Debates E4 & E5
- 39-
Source: Debate in Tibetan Buddhism, Perdue
Masters Program: Debates Modules and Checklist
Debate Checklist
For each of the debates, it will be beneficial to use this checklist as a guideline. When you have gone through the debate a number of times and you feel comfortable with each of the below line items, then it is appropriate to proceed to the next debate or group of debates. If you spend an appropriate amount of time in understanding each debate, then this will prepare you for the more advanced debates.

You have gone through each debate as the challenger and the defender. You understand each debate to the extent that you are able to go through each debate without looking at the paper. As the defender, you are able to explain each of your responses reason not established, no pervasion, and accept. Be able to restate the position that you are taking when you respond in these ways. For example: y When you say reason not established to the consequence The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is red because it is a color, then explain that your response means: I do not accept that the color of a white religious conch is a color. y When you say no pervasion to the consequence The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is not red because it is white, then explain that your response means: If it is white, it is not pervaded by being not red. When you say accept to the consequence The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is white? then explain that your response means: The color of a white religious conch is white.
As the challenger, you feel comfortable with the process of directing the debate and presenting consequences in response to the defenders assertions. Be able to explain why each consequence follows from the previous statement. As the challenger, if the defender contradicts himself/herself: y Be familiar with the process of working back through the sequence of assertions until the defender is forced to contradict his/her original or secondary thesis. y Know how to use the appropriate response tshar!
Once you feel comfortable with the debate method, feel free to make moderate deviations from the script. However, try not to introduce too much complexity that causes you to forget the proper method. Dont forget to use the appropriate gestures!
- 40-
Masters Program: Practice Debates for Colors 1
Practice Debates for Colors 1

Definitions from Collected Topics to memorize for these debates: color Debate C1
This debate is primarily based on a translation from a monastic debating textbook. The translation is of the first subject in Collected Topics of Valid Cognition, the presentation of colors and so forth. In this debate, the Defender takes the position that whatever is a color is necessarily red.
Challenger: If it is a color, it is pervaded by being red? [Whatever is a color is necessarily red.] Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is red. Defender: Why?
Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is red because of being a color. [You asserted the pervasion]. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is not a color? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is a color because of being white. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is not white? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is white because of being one with the color of a white religious conch. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is white? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is a color. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is red. Defender: Why?
Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is not red? Defender: Accept
Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is red because of being a color. [You asserted the pervasion] Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is red. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is not red because of being white. Defender: No pervasion.
- 41-
Challenger: If it is white, it follows that it is not pervaded by being not red? [Whatever is white is not necessarily not red] Defender: Accept.
Challenger: If it is white, it follows that it is pervaded by being not red because with respect to those two (white and red), there does not exist a common locus. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: It follows that there does not exist a common locus of those two, white and red, because those two are mutually exclusive. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: With respect to the two, white and red, it follows that there does not exist a common locus? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Challenger: If it is white, it follows that it is pervaded by being not red. [Whatever is white is necessarily not red] Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is not red. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is red because of being a color. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: Tshar! If it is a color, it follows that it is not pervaded by being red? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar tshar tshar!
Challenger: With respect to the two, color and red, you cannot posit the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: With respect to the two, color and red, you can posit the pervasion? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Posit. Defender: 3 possibilities.
Challenger: With respect to the two, color and red, it follows that the pervasion is three possibilities? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: With respect to the two, color and red, it follows that the pervasion is not three possibilities because you cannot posit that which is both. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Posit. Defender: The color of a ruby.
Challenger: The color of a ruby as the subject, it follows that it is a color? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of a ruby as the subject, it is a color, why? Defender: Because of being suitable to be shown as a hue.
Challenger: If it is suitable to be shown as a hue, it follows that it is pervaded by being a color? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of a ruby as the subject, it follows that it is red.
- 42-
Defender:
Accept.
Challenger: The color of a ruby as the subject, it is red, why? Defender: Because of being suitable to be shown as a red hue.
Challenger: If it is suitable to be shown as a red hue, it follows that it is pervaded by being red? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: With respect to the two, color and red, which pervades which? Defender: If it is red, it is pervaded by being a color. If it is a color, it is not pervaded by being red.
Challenger: If it is red, it follows that it is pervaded by being a color? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: If it is a color, it follows that it is not pervaded by being red? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Posit [that which is a color and not red]. Defender: The color of a white religious conch.
Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is a color? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is a color, why? Defender: Because of being white.
Challenger: If it is white, it follows that it is pervaded by being a color? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is not red. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is not red, why? Defender: Because of being white.
Challenger: If it is white, it follows that it is pervaded by being not red? [Whatever is white is necessarily not red]. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: With respect to the two, color and red, you cannot posit that which is not both. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: With respect to the two, color and red, you can posit that which is not both? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Posit. Defender: Pillar.
Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it follows that it is not a color? Defender: Accept
Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it is not a color, why? Defender: Because of not being suitable to be shown as a hue.
Challenger: If it is not suitable to be shown as a hue, it follows that it is pervaded by not being a color? [Whatever is not suitable to be shown as a hue is necessarily not a color.] Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it follows that it is not red. Defender: Accept.
- 43-
Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it is not red, why? Defender: Because of not being a color.
Challenger: If it is not a color, it follows that it is pervaded by not being red? [Whatever is a color is necessarily not red.] Defender: Accept.
- 44-

Definitions from Collected Topics to memorize for these debates: color Debate C2 The Defender takes the position that whatever is a color is necessarily white.
Challenger: If it is a color, it is pervaded by being white? [Whatever is a color is necessarily white.] Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is white. Defender: Why? Challenger: The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is white because it is a color. [You asserted the pervasion]. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is not a color? Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is a color because it is that which is suitable to be shown as a hue. Defender: No pervasion. Challenger: If it is that which is suitable to be shown as a hue, it follows that it is not pervaded by being a color? Defender: Accept. Challenger: If it is that which is suitable to be shown as a hue, it follows that it is pervaded by being a color because that is the definition of color. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is a color. Defender: Why? Challenger: The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is a color because it is that which is suitable to be shown as a hue. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is a color. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is white. Defender: Why? Challenger: The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is not white? Defender: Accept Challenger: The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is white because it is a color. [You asserted the pervasion] Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is white. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is not white because it is red.
- 45-
Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is red because it is the isolate of the color of Buddha Amitayus. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is its own isolate of the color of Buddha Amitayus because it is an established base. Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is the isolate of the color of Buddha Amitayus. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is red. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is not white. Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is white because it is a color. Defender: No pervasion Challenger: Tshar! If it is a color, it follows that it is not pervaded by being white? Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar tshar tshar! Challenger: With respect to the two, color and white, you cannot posit the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: With respect to the two, color and white, you can posit the pervasion? Defender: Accept. Challenger: Posit. Defender: 3 possibilities. Challenger: With respect to the two, color and white, it follows that the pervasion is three possibilities? Defender: Accept. Challenger: With respect to the two, color and white, it follows that the pervasion is not three possibilities because you cannot posit that which is both. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: Posit. Defender: The color of a white religious conch. Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is a color? Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it is a color, why? Defender: Because it is white. Challenger: If it is white, it follows that it is pervaded by being a color? Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is white. Defender: Accept.
- 46-
Challenger: The color of a white religious conch as the subject, it is white, why? Defender: Because it is that which is suitable to be shown as a white hue. Challenger: If it is that which is suitable to be shown as a white hue, it follows that it is pervaded by being white? Defender: Accept. Challenger: With respect to the two, color and white, which pervades which? Defender: If it is white, it is pervaded by being a color. If it is a color, it is not pervaded by being white. Challenger: If it is white, it follows that it is pervaded by being a color? Defender: Accept. Challenger: If it is a color, it follows that it is not pervaded by being white? Defender: Accept. Challenger: Posit [that which is a color and not white]. Defender: The color of the Buddha Amitayus. Challenger: The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is a color? Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is a 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 that it is pervaded by being a color? Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is not white. Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of the Buddha Amitayus as the subject, it follows that it is not white, why? Defender: Because it is red. Challenger: If it is red, it follows that it is pervaded by being not white? Defender: Accept. Challenger: With respect to the two, color and white, you cannot posit that which is not both. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: With respect to the two, color and white, you can posit that which is not both? Defender: Accept. Challenger: Posit. Defender: Pot. Challenger: Pot as the subject, it follows that it is not a color? Defender: Accept Challenger: Pot as the subject, it is not a color, why? Defender: Because it is not that which is suitable to be shown as a hue. Challenger: If it is not that which is suitable to be shown as a hue, it follows that it is pervaded by not being a color? [Whatever is not suitable to be shown as a hue is necessarily not a color.] Defender: Accept.
- 47-
Challenger: Pot as the subject, it follows that it is not white. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Pot as the subject, it is not white, why? Defender: Because it is not a color. Challenger: If it is not a color, it follows that it is pervaded by not being white? [Whatever is a color is necessarily not white.] Defender: Accept.
Debate C3 The Defender takes the position that whatever is a color is necessarily yellow.
Challenger: If it is a color, it is pervaded by being yellow? [Whatever is a color is necessarily yellow.] Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of a sapphire as the subject, it follows that it is yellow. Defender: Why? Challenger: The color of a sapphire as the subject, it follows that it is yellow because it is a color. [You asserted the pervasion]. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: The color of a sapphire as the subject, it follows that it is not a color? Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of a sapphire as the subject, it follows that it is a color because it is a primary color. Defender: Reason not established Challenger: The color of a sapphire as the subject, it follows that it is a primary color because it is one of the fourblue, yellow, white, and red. Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of a sapphire as the subject, it follows that it is a primary color. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of a sapphire as the subject, it follows that it is a color. Defender: Why? Challenger: The color of a sapphire as the subject, it follows that it is a color because it is a primary color. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of a sapphire as the subject, it follows that it is a color. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of a sapphire as the subject, it follows that it is yellow. Defender: Why? Challenger: The color of a sapphire as the subject, it follows that it is not yellow? Defender: Accept Challenger: The color of a sapphire as the subject, it follows that it is yellow because it is a color. [You asserted the pervasion] Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of a sapphire as the subject, it follows that it is yellow. Defender: Accept.
- 48-
Challenger: Tshar! The color of a sapphire as the subject, it follows that it is not yellow because it is blue. Defender: No pervasion. Challenger: If it is blue, it follows that it is not pervaded by being not yellow? Defender: Accept. Challenger: If it is blue, it follows that it is pervaded by being not yellow because the two, blue and yellow, are mutually exclusive. Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of a sapphire as the subject, it follows that it is not yellow. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of a sapphire as the subject, it follows that it is yellow because it is a color. Defender: No pervasion Challenger: Tshar! If it is a color, it follows that it is not pervaded by being yellow? Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar tshar tshar! Challenger: With respect to the two, color and yellow, you cannot posit the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: With respect to the two, color and yellow, you can posit the pervasion? Now proceed to finish this debate on your own.
- 49-

Definitions from Collected Topics to memorize for these debates: color primary color secondary color Debate C4 The Defender takes the position that whatever is a color is necessarily a primary color.
Challenger: If it is a color, it is pervaded by being a primary color? [Whatever is a color is necessarily a primary color.] Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is a primary color. Defender: Why? Challenger: The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is a primary color because it is a color. [You asserted the pervasion]. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is not a color? Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is a color because it is the color of green Amoghasiddhi. Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is a color. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is a primary color. Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is not a primary color. Defender: Why? Challenger: The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is not a primary color because it is a secondary color. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is not a secondary color? Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is a secondary color because it is the secondary color composed of the two, blue and yellow. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is not the secondary color composed of the two, blue and yellow? Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is the secondary color composed of the two, blue and yellow because it is green. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is not green?
- 50-
Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is green because it is the color that is a mixture of blue and yellow. Defender: No pervasion. Challenger: If it is the color that is a mixture of blue and yellow, it follows that it is not pervaded by being green? Defender: Accept. Challenger: If it is the color that is a mixture of blue and yellow, it follows that it is pervaded by being green because 1) a mixture of blue and yellow is posited as green, 2) a mixture of red and yellow is posited as orange, and 3) a mixture of red and blue is posited as purple. Defender: Accept. Challenger: If it is the color that is a mixture of blue and yellow, it follows that it is pervaded by being green? Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is green. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is the secondary color composed of the two, blue and yellow. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is a secondary color. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is not a primary color. Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of green Amoghasiddhi as the subject, it follows that it is a primary color because it is a color. [You asserted the pervasion] Defender: No pervasion. Challenger: Tshar! If it is a color, it follows that it is not pervaded by being a primary color? Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar tshar tshar! Challenger: With respect to the two, color and primary color, you cannot posit the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: With respect to the two, color and primary color, you can posit the pervasion? Defender: Accept. Now proceed to complete this debate on your own ....
Debate C5 The Defender takes the position that whatever is a secondary color is necessarily one of the eight secondary colors.
Challenger: If it is a secondary color, it is pervaded by being one of the eight secondary colors? Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is one of the eight secondary colors.
- 51-
Defender: Why? Challenger: The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is one of the eight secondary colors because it is a secondary color. [You asserted the pervasion]. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is not a secondary color? Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is a secondary color because it is the secondary color composed of the two, red and yellow. Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is a secondary color. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is one of the eight secondary colors. Defender: Why? Challenger: The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is one of the eight secondary colors because it is a secondary color.
Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is one of the eight secondary colors. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is not one of the eight secondary colors because 1) it is not any of the four secondary colorscloud, smoke, dust, and mistand 2) it is also not any of the four secondary colorsillumination, darkness, shadow, and sunlight. Defender: First reason not established. Challenger: The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is one of the four secondary colorscloud, smoke, dust, and mist? Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is not any of the four secondary colorscloud, smoke, dust, and mist because it is one with the color of orange Manjughosha. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is not any of the four secondary colorscloud, smoke, dust, and mist. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is not one of the eight secondary colors because 1) it is not any of the four secondary colorscloud, smoke, dust, and mistand 2) it is also not any of the four secondary colorsillumination, darkness, shadow, and sunlight. Defender: Second reason not established. Challenger: The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is one of the four secondary colors illumination, darkness, shadow, and sunlight? Defender: Accept. Challenger: The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is not any of the four secondary colors illumination, darkness, shadow, and sunlight because it is one with the color of orange Manjughosha.
- 52-
Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is not any of the four secondary colors illumination, darkness, shadow, and sunlight. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is not one of the eight secondary colors because 1) it is not any of the four secondary colorscloud, smoke, dust, and mistand 2) it is also not any of the four secondary colorsillumination, darkness, shadow, and sunlight. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is not one of the eight secondary colors. Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar! The color of orange Manjughosha as the subject, it follows that it is one of the eight secondary colors because it is a secondary color. [You asserted the pervasion] Defender: No pervasion. Challenger: If it is a secondary color, it is not pervaded by being one of the eight secondary colors? Defender: Accept. Challenger: Tshar tshar tshar! Challenger: With respect to the two, secondary color and the eight secondary colors, you cannot posit the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established. Challenger: With respect to the two, secondary color and the eight secondary colors, you can posit the pervasion? Defender: Accept. Challenger: Posit.
- 53-

Definitions from Collected Topics to memorize for these debates: color shape form source Debate C6 The Defender takes the position that whatever is form (gzugs) is necessarily form which is shape (dbyibs kyi gzugs). Shape and form which is shape are mutually inclusive.
Challenger: If it is form, it is pervaded by being form which is shape? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Form which is color as the subject, it follows that it is form which is shape. Defender: Why?
Challenger: Form which is color as the subject, it follows that it is not form which is shape. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Form which is color as the subject, it follows that it is form which is shape because it is form. [You asserted the pervasion]. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Form which is color as the subject, it follows that it is not form? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Form which is color as the subject, it follows that it is form because it is matter. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Form which is color as the subject, it follows that it is not matter? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Form which is color as the subject, it follows that it is matter because it is atomically established. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Form which is color as the subject, it follows that it is matter. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Form which is color as the subject, it follows that it is form. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Form which is color as the subject, it follows that it is form which is shape. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Form which is color as the subject, it follows that it is not form which is shape because it is one with form which is color. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Form which is color as the subject, it follows that it is not one with form which is color? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Form which is color as the subject, it follows that it is one with itself because it is an existent. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Form which is color as the subject, it follows that it is one with form which is color? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Form which is color as the subject, it follows that it is not form which is shape. Defender: Accept.
- 54-
Challenger: Tshar! Form which is color as the subject, it follows that it is form which is shape because it is form. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: Tshar! If it is form, it follows that it is not pervaded by being form which is shape? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: With respect to the two, form and form which is shape, you cannot posit the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: With respect to the two, form and form which is shape, it follows that you can posit the pervasion? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Posit.
Now proceed to complete this debate on your own ....
Debate C7 The Defender takes the position that whatever is form is necessarily form which is color (kha dog kyi gzugs). Color and form which is color are mutually inclusive
Challenger: If it is form, it is pervaded by being form which is color? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: A round form as the subject, it follows that it is form which is color. Defender: Why?
Challenger: A round form as the subject, it follows that it is form which is color because it is form. [You asserted the pervasion]. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: A round form as the subject, it follows that it is not form? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: A round form as the subject, it follows that it is form because it is a form source. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: A round form as the subject, it follows that it is not a form source? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: A round form as the subject, it follows that it is a form source because it is an object apprehended by an eye consciousness. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: A round form as the subject, it follows that it is a form source. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! A round form as the subject, it follows that it is form. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! A round form as the subject, it follows that it is form which is color because it is form. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: A round form as the subject, it follows that it is form which is color. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! A round form as the subject, it follows that it is not form which is color because it is not a color.
- 55-
Defender:
No pervasion.
Challenger: If it is not a color, it follows that it is not pervaded by not being form which is color? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: If it is not a color, it follows that it is pervaded by not being form which is color because form which is color and color are mutually inclusive and form which is shape and shape are mutually inclusive. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! A round form as the subject, it follows that it is not form which is color. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! A round form as the subject, it follows that it is form which is color because it is form. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: Tshar! If it is form, it follows that it is not pervaded by being form which is color? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: With respect to the two, form and form which is color, you cannot posit the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: With respect to the two, form and form which is color, it follows that you can posit the pervasion? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Posit.
- 56-

These are advanced debates on colors. Debate C9
Background of actual debate: Challenger: White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is a color because it is white. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is not white? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is white because it is a white religious conch. Defender: The pervasion is opposite.
(Note: The answer that the pervasion is opposite (gal khyab) is a stronger, more specific answer for some cases in which there is no pervasion. That is, here it is true that there is no pervasion because whatever is a white religious conch is not necessarily white; but beyond that, whatever is a white religious conch is necessarily not white. Thus, the answer that the pervasion is opposite is more decisive and informative.
Challenger: Spell out the pervasion. Defender: If it is a white religious conch, it is pervaded by not being white. [Whatever is a white religious conch is necessarily not white].
Now the Defender becomes the Challenger, flinging the following consequence at the opponent. Note that this switching of roles is done only for teaching purposes. It is not done in the course of actual debate. Begin actual debate from here: Challenger: White horse as the subject, it follows that it is white because it is white horse. The pervasion is parallel. Defender: The reason, the pervasion is parallel, is not established.
Challenger: It follows that the pervasion is parallel because when you say that if it is a white religious conch it is pervaded by being white, it is parallel to saying that if it is a white horse it is pervaded by being white. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: White horse as the subject, it follows that it is white. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: White horse as the subject, it follows that it is not white because it is not matter. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: White horse as the subject, it follows that it is not not matter? [It follows that it is matter?] Defender: Accept.
Challenger: White horse as the subject, it follows that it is not matter because it is a being. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: White horse as the subject, it follows that it is not a being. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: White horse as the subject, it follows that it is a being because it is a horse. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: White horse as the subject, it follows that it is a being? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! White horse as the subject, it follows that it is not matter? Defender: Accept.
- 57-
Challenger: Tshar! White horse as the subject, it follows that it is not white? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! White horse as the subject, it follows that it is white because it is a white horse. Defender: The pervasion is opposite.
Challenger: If it is a white horse, it follows that it is pervaded by being not white? Defender: Challenger: Accept. Tshar!
Challenger: With respect to the two, white horse and white, you cannot posit the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: With respect to the two, white horse and white, it follows that you can posit the pervasion? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Posit. Defender: Mutually exclusive.
Challenger: With respect to the two, white horse and white, it follows that the pervasion is mutually exclusive? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: With respect to the two, white horse and white, they are mutually exclusive, why? Defender: Because (1) they are different and (2) there is no common locus.
Challenger: If (1) they are different and (2) there is no common locus, it follows that they are mutually exclusive? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: With respect to the two, white horse and white, it follows that there is no common locus? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: With respect to the two, white horse and white, there is no common locus, why? Defender: Because (1) if it is a white horse it is pervaded by being a being and (2) if it is white it is pervaded by being matter.
Challenger: With respect to the two, white horse and white, (1) if it is a white horse it is pervaded by being a being and (2) if it is white it is pervaded by being matter, it follows that with respect to them there is no common locus? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is a color because it is white. [You asserted the reason]. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is not a color because it is not a form source. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is not a form source because it is a tangible object source. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is a tangible object source because it is an element. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is an element because it is an earth element. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is an earth element because it is that which is hard and obstructive.
- 58-
Defender:
Accept.
Challenger: White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is an earth element? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is an element? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is a tangible object source? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is not a form source? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is not a color? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is a color because it is white. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is not white? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: White religious conch as the subject, it follows that it is white because it is a white religious conch. Defender: The pervasion is opposite.
Challenger: If it is a white religious conch, it follows that it is pervaded by not being white? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: With respect to the two, white religious conch and white, you cannot posit the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: With respect to the two, white religious conch and white, you can posit the pervasion? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Posit. Complete this debate on your own.
Debate C10
Challenger: Object of knowledge as the subject, it follows that it is a shape because it is either of the two, level or nonlevel. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Object of knowledge as the subject, it follows that it is not either of the two, level or non-level? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Object of knowledge as the subject, it follows that it is either of the two, level or non-level because it is non-level. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Object of knowledge as the subject, it follows that it is non-level because it is not level. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Object of knowledge as the subject, it follows that it is non-level? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Object of knowledge as the subject, it follows that it is either of the two, level or non-level.
- 59-
Defender:
Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Object of knowledge as the subject, it follows that it is a shape. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Object of knowledge as the subject, it follows that it is not a shape because it is a permanent phenomenon. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Object of knowledge as the subject, it follows that it is not a shape? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Object of knowledge as the subject, it follows that it is a shape because it is either of the two, level or non-level. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: Tshar! If it is either of the two, level or non-level, it is not pervaded by being a shape? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! With respect to the two, (1) either of the two, level or non-level, and (2) shape, you cannot posit the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: With respect to the two, (1) either of the two, level or non-level, and (2) shape, you can posit the pervasion? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: With respect to the two, (1) either of the two, level or non-level, and (2) shape, it follows that the pervasion is three possibilities? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: With respect to the two, (1) either of the two, level or non-level, and (2) shape, it follows that the pervasion is not three possibilities because you cannot posit that which is both. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: It follows that you can posit that which is both? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Posit. Defender: The shape that is an even surface.
Challenger: The shape that is an even surface as the subject, it follows that it is either of the two, level or non-level? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The shape that is an even surface as the subject, it follows that it is either of the two, level or non-level, why? Defender: Because it is level.
Challenger: If it is level, it follows that it is pervaded by being either of the two, level or non-level? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The shape that is an even surface as the subject, it follows that it is shape? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The shape that is an even surface as the subject, it follows that it is shape, why? Defender: Because it is that which is suitable to be shown as a shape.
Challenger: If it is that which is suitable to be shown as a shape, it follows that it is pervaded by being shape? Defender: Accept.
- 60-
Challenger: With respect to the two, (1) either of the two, level or non-level, and (2) shape, which pervades which? Defender: If it is shape, it is pervaded by being either of the two, level or non-level and if it is either of the two, level or non-level, it is not pervaded by being shape.
Challenger: If it is shape, it follows that it is pervaded by being either of the two, level or non-level? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: If it is either of the two, level or non-level, it follows that is not pervaded by being shape? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Posit (that which is either of the two, level or non-level but is not shape). Defender: Object of knowledge.
Challenger: Object of knowledge as the subject, it follows that it is either of the two, level or non-level? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Object of knowledge as the subject, it follows that it is either of the two, level or non-level, why? Defender: Because it is non-level.
Challenger: If it if non-level, it follows that it is pervaded by being either of the two, level or non-level? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Object of knowledge as the subject, it follows that it is not shape? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Object of knowledge as the subject, it follows that it is not shape, why? Defender: Because it is a permanent phenomenon.
Challenger: If it is a permanent phenomenon, it follows that it is pervaded by not being shape? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: With respect to the two, (1) either of the two, level or non-level, and (2) shape, you can not posit that which is not both. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: With respect to the two, (1) either of the two, level or non-level, and (2) shape, it follows that you can posit that which is not both? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Posit. Defender: Consciousness.
Challenger: Consciousness as the subject, it follows that it is not both, (1) either of the two, level or non-level, and (2) shape? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Consciousness as the subject, it follows that it is not both, (1) either of the two, level or non-level, and (2) shape, why? Defender: Because it is not shape.
Challenger: Consciousness as the subject, it follows that it is not shape? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Consciousness as the subject, it follows that it is not shape, 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 not being shape? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: If it is not shape if follows that it is not both, (1) either of the two, level or non-level, and (2) shape? Defender: Accept. END
- 61-
Masters Program: Practice Debates for Established Bases 1
Practice Debates for Established Bases 1

Definitions from Collected Topics to memorize for these debates: established base (p. 3) permanent phenomenon (p. 4) impermanent phenomenon (p. 4) composed phenomenon (p. 4) functioning thing (p. 4) product (p. 4) object of knowledge of which being (them) is possible (p. 5) object of knowledge of which being (them) is not possible (p. 5) Debate E1
This debate serves to introduce students to the basic division of established bases into permanent and impermanent phenomena. Moreover, the main intent of this debate is to illustrate the distinction that even though established base itself is a permanent phenomenon, whatever is an established base is not necessarily a permanent phenomenon. As an existent which includes both permanent and impermanent phenomena, established base itself is a permanent phenomenon because in order to apprehend the singular collective established base, it is necessary to do so by a thought consciousness. Furthermore, established base, by its nature, is a permanent phenomenon... (it) is an appearing object of a thought consciousness. Also, whatever has a common locus with permanent phenomenon is itself a permanent phenomenon. Defender: Whatever is an established base is mutually inclusive with permanent phenomenon
(Sautrantika) Challenger: Pot as the subject, it follows that it is a permanent phenomenon because of being an established base. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Pot as the subject, it follows that it is an established base because of being established by a valid cognizer. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: It follows that there is pervasion (i.e., whatever is established by a valid cognizer is necessarily an established base) because that which is established by a valid cognizer is the definition of an established base. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pot as the subject, it follows that it is a permanent phenomenon because of being an established base. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pot as the subject, it follows that it is not a permanent phenomenon because of being an impermanent phenomenon. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Pot as the subject, it follows that it is an impermanent phenomenon because of being a momentary phenomenon. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: It follows that there is pervasion (i.e., whatever is a momentary phenomenon is necessarily an impermanent phenomenon) because momentary phenomenon is the definition of an impermanent phenomenon.
... Now proceed to conclude this debate on your own.
Debate E2 Debate E2 is similar to debate E1 except that here the Defender is asserting that whatever exists is necessarily a functioning thing. Taking a stance opposite to that in debate E1, the Defender is now implicitly denying the existence of all permanent phenomena. Some Western interpreters have - 62Source: Debate in Tibetan Buddhism, Perdue
taken this to be an accurate assertion of the Buddhist position. However, according to all Gelukba interpretations, all Buddhist systems assert the existence of both permanent and impermanent phenomena and thereby deny that all phenomena are impermanent. Indeed, according to the Gelukba interpretations, the Sautrantikas Following Reasoning do assert impermanent phenomena as ultimately existent and permanent phenomena as conventionally existent, and this may be the source of some interpreters misunderstanding. Permanent phenomena verifiably exist, and are established by valid cognizers, accurate consciousnesses certifying the existence of phenomena.
Defender: Whatever is an existent is mutually inclusive with functioning thing.
(Sautrantika) Challenger: Uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that it is a functioning thing because of being an existent. (You asserted the pervasion.) Defender: Reason not established
Challenger: Uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that it is an existent because of being observed by a valid cognizer. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: It follows that there is pervasion in that (i.e., whatever is observed by a valid cognizer is pervaded by being an existent) because that observed by a valid cognizer is the definition of an existent. Defender: Accept
Challenger: Uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that it is an existent because of being observed by a valid cognizer. Defender: Accept
Challenger: Uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that it is a functioning thing because of being an existent. Defender: Accept
Challenger: Uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that it is a non-functioning thing because of not being able to perform a function. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: It follows that there is pervasion (i.e., whatever is not able to perform a function is pervaded by being a non-functioning thing) because that which is not able to perform a function is the definition of a nonfunctioning thing, that which is non-disintegrating phenomenon is the definition of uncomposed phenomenon, and that which is non-created phenomenon is the definition of a non-product.
Debate E3
In debate E3, the Tutor Jamba Gyatso introduces the interesting new topic of objects of knowledge of which being (them) is possible and objects of knowledge of which being (them) is not possible. The completely exhaustive division of objects of knowledge into these two types develops out of the consideration of phenomena in pairs and groups and, within that, out of the differences between the individuals within those pairs and groups.
Object(s) of knowledge of which being [it/them] is possible - those observed as a common locus which is (1) an object of which being it exists and (2) also is suitable as an object of awareness. In the definition, observed means observed by a valid cognizer, the definition of an existent, and serves to specify the definiendum as an existent. An example of an object of knowledge of which being (it) is possible is a pot, for a pot is observed as a common locus which is (1) an object of which being it exists and (2) also is suitable as an object of awareness. Other examples include a person, a consciousness, and a permanent phenomenon.
The definition above is specified for the singularan object of knowledge of which being it is possible. However, this concept also applies to the pluralobjects of knowledge of which being them is possible. An example is the two a product and an impermanent phenomenon. Somethings being the two is possible because, for instance, a pot is the
- 63-
two in the sense that it is both a product and an impermanent phenomenon. Also, both a product and an impermanent phenomenon are suitable as objects of awareness.
Objects of knowledge of which being [them] is not possible - those observed as a common locus which is (1) an object of which being them does not exist and (2) also is suitable as objects of awarenesses An example is the twoa form and a consciousness, for they are observed as a common locus of being (1) phenomena of which being them does not exist and (2) also being suitable as objects of awarenesses. All objects of knowledge of which being them is not possible must be either (a) a pair or group of different phenomena or (b) a pair or group of one or more existents and one or more non-existents. No singular phenomena can be such.
Defender: Whatever are objects of knowledge are pervaded by being objects of knowledge of which being [them] is possible.
Challenger: Pillar and pot as the subject, it follows that those are objects of knowledge of which being them is possible because of being objects of knowledge. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Pillar and pot as the subject, it follows that those are objects of knowledge because of being existents. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: It follows that there is pervasion because object of knowledge, existent, object of comprehension, and established base are mutually inclusive. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pillar and pot as the subject, it follows that those are objects of knowledge because of being existents. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pillar and pot as the subject, it follows that those are objects of knowledge of which being them is possible because of being objects of knowledge. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pillar and pot as the subject, it follows that those are not objects of knowledge of which being [them] is possible because of being objects of knowledge of which being [them] is not possible. Defender: Reason not established
Challenger: Pillar and pot as the subject, it follows that those are objects of knowledge of which being [them] is not possible because of (1) being objects of knowledge and (2) being them does not exist.
- 64-
Practice Debates for Established Bases 2

Definitions from Collected Topics to memorize for these debates:

existent (p. 3) phenomenon (p. 3) hidden phenomenon (p. 4) permanent phenomenon (p. 4) generally characterized phenomenon (p. 4) functioning thing (p. 4) specifically characterized phenomenon (p. 4) manifest phenomenon (p. 4) matter (p. 4) consciousness (p. 5) non-associated compositional factor (p. 5) existent [object of knowledge] of which being (them) is possible (p. 5) existent [object of knowledge] of which being (them) is not possible (p. 5)
Debate E4 Debate E4 is similar to debate E3 except that here the Defender is taking a stand opposite to that taken in Debate E3. The Defender now posits that if it is an existent, it is pervaded by being an existent of which being it is not possible.
Challenger: If it is an existent, it is pervaded by being an existent of which being [it] is not possible. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Functioning thing as the subject, it follows that it is an existent of which being it is not possible because of being an existent. [You asserted the pervasion] Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Functioning thing as the subject, it follows that it is an existent because of being either a permanent phenomenon or a functioning thing; because of being a functioning thing. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Functioning thing as the subject, it follows that it is an existent of which being it is not possible because of being an existent. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Functioning thing as the subject, it follows that it is not an existent of which being it is not possible because of being an existent of which being it is possible. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Functioning thing as the subject, it follows that it is an existent of which being it is possible because (1) it is an existent and (2) the threematter, consciousness, and non-associated compositional factors are it. Defender: Second reason not established.
Challenger: The threematter, consciousness, and non-associated compositional factors as the subject, it follows that they are functioning things because of (1) being existents and (2) not being permanent phenomena. ... Now proceed to conclude this debate on your own.
- 65-
Source: Debate in Tibetan Buddhist Education, Perdue
Debate E5 In Debate E5 the hypothetical Defender believes that whatever is a specifically characterized phenomenon is pervaded by being a consciousness. The Challenger posits the counterexample of the twoa material phenomenon and a consciousnesswhich is a functioning thing of which being them is not possible. The Challenger could posit, just as effectively, matter alone or a pot.
Challenger: If it is a specifically characterized phenomenon it is pervaded by being a consciousness. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The twoa material phenomenon and a consciousnessas the subject, it follows that they are a consciousness because of being a specifically characterized phenomenon. (You asserted the pervasion.) Defender: Reason not established
Challenger: The twoa material phenomenon and a consciousnessas the subject, it follows that they are a specifically characterized phenomenon because of being established for the appearance factor of a direct perceiver. [That which is established for the appearance factor of a direct perceiver is another phenomenon mutually inclusive with functioning thing. Functioning things are established for the appearance factor of direct perceivers in that they exist as that which is suitable to appear to a direct perceiver, and permanent phenomena do not.] Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: The twoa material phenomenon and a consciousnessas the subject, it follows that they are established for the appearance factor of a direct perceiver because of being an appearing object of a direct perceiver. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: The twoa material phenomenon and a consciousnessas the subject, it follows that they are an appearing object of a direct perceiver because of being a functioning thing. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: It follows that there is pervasion because appearing object of a direct perceiver and functioning thing are mutually inclusive and appearing object of a thought consciousness and permanent phenomenon are mutually inclusive. [In the Sutra School presentation, only impermanent phenomena can be appearing objects of direct perceivers and only permanent phenomena can be appearing objects of thought consciousness. Functioning thing, appearing object of a direct perceiver, that which is established for the appearance factor of a direct perceiver, and specifically characterized phenomenon are all mutually inclusive.] Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The twoa material phenomenon and a consciousnessas the subject, it follows that they are an appearing object of a direct perceiver because of being a functioning thing Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The twoa material phenomenon and a consciousnessas the subject, it follows that they are established for the appearance factor of a direct perceiver because of being an appearing object of a direct perceiver. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The twoa material phenomenon and a consciousnessas the subject, it follows that they are a specifically characterized phenomenon because of being established for the appearance factor of a direct perceiver. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The twoa material phenomenon and a consciousnessas the subject, it follows that they are a consciousness because of being a specifically characterized phenomenon. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The twoa material phenomenon and a consciousnessas the subject, it follows that they are not a consciousness because of being a non-associated compositional factor. Defender: No pervasion.
- 66-
Debate E6 In Debate E6, the Defender accepts that whatever is a hidden phenomenon is necessarily a generally characterized phenomenon. The debate is instructive, for one might think that since a hidden phenomenon is defined as an object realized in a hidden manner by the thought consciousness apprehending it, and since a generally characterized phenomenon must be an appearing object of a thought consciousness, then probably all hidden phenomena are generally characterized phenomena. This is not correct. Indeed, they are hidden phenomena because of being known by thought consciousnesses in an indirect or hidden manner, but this means that all phenomena are hidden to thought, not that all phenomena are hidden to all consciousnesses, for specifically characterized phenomena can appear directly to direct perceivers. Generally characterized phenomena are objects that must appear to thought consciousnesses, though this is not the case for all hidden phenomena. Still, all phenomena, permanent phenomena and functioning things alike, are hidden phenomena. Thought can know functioning things even though they do not appear to thought as functioning things, for they must be represented by a meaning-generalitya mentally appearing object which must be a generally characterized phenomenon. Thought can know impermanent phenomena, but only permanent phenomena are appearing objects of thought.
Defender: If it is a hidden phenomenon it is pervaded by being a generally characterized phenomenon.
Challenger: A gold pot as the subject, it follows that it is a generally characterized phenomenon because of being a hidden phenomenon. [You asserted the pervasion] Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: A gold pot as the subject, it follows that it is a hidden phenomenon because of being an object realized in a hidden manner by the thought consciousness apprehending it. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: A gold pot as the subject, it follows that it is an object realized in a hidden manner by the thought consciousness apprehending it because of being an object of comprehension by the thought consciousness apprehending it. Defender: Reason not established
Challenger: A gold pot as the subject, it follows that it is an object of comprehension by the thought consciousness apprehending it because of being an established base. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: A gold pot as the subject, it follows that it is an object realized in a hidden manner by the thought consciousness apprehending it. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: A gold pot as the subject, it follows that it is a hidden phenomenon. Defender: Why?
Challenger: A gold pot as the subject, it follows that it is a hidden phenomenon because of being an object realized in a hidden manner by the thought consciousness apprehending it. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: It follows that there is pervasion because that which is an object realized in a hidden manner by the thought consciousness apprehending it is the definition of hidden phenomenon. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: A gold pot as the subject, it follows that it is a hidden phenomenon. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: A gold pot as the subject, it follows that it is a generally characterized phenomenon because of being a hidden phenomenon. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: A gold pot as the subject, it follows that it is not a generally characterized phenomenon because of being a specifically characterized phenomenon.
- 67-
Defender:
Reason not established.
Challenger: A gold pot as the subject, it follows that it is a specifically characterized phenomenon because it is a functioning thing. Defender: No pervasion.
Debate E7 In Debate E7, the Defender posits that whatever is a manifest phenomenon is necessarily not a hidden phenomenon. At first glance, this seems a reasonable assertion; one would think that manifest phenomena and hidden phenomena are mutually exclusive. However, such is not the case.
Challenger: Manifest phenomenon and hidden phenomenon are mutually exclusive. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it follows that it is not a hidden phenomenon because of being a manifest phenomenon. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it follows that it is a manifest phenomenon because of being an object explicitly realized by a direct valid cognizer. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: It follows that there is pervasion because being an object explicitly realized by a direct valid cognizer is the definition of manifest phenomenon. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it follows that it is a manifest phenomenon because of being an object explicitly realized by a direct valid cognizer. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it follows that it is an object explicitly realized by a direct valid cognizer because of being a functioning thing. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it follows that it is a manifest phenomenon. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it follows that it is not a hidden phenomenon because of being a manifest phenomenon. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pillar as the subject, it follows that it is a hidden phenomenon because of being an object realized in a hidden manner by the thought consciousness apprehending it.
- 68-
Masters Program: Practice Debates for Causes & Effects 1
Practice Debate for Causes & Effects 1

The definition of phenomena which are the same substantial entity is: phenomena which (1) appear to a direct perceiver and (2) do not appear as distinct. (mgon sum la snang ba gang zhig so so bar mi snang ba). 13 Debate CE1 In this debate, the defender posits that the definition of phenomena which are the same substantial entity is phenomena which do not appear as distinct to a direct perceiver. It is not suitable to posit this as the definition, as the following debate demonstrates.
Challenger: If phenomena which do not appear as distinct to a direct perceiver is posited as the definition of phenomena which are the same substantial entity, it is acceptable. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that they are the same substantial entity. Defender: Why?
Challenger: Pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that they are not the same substantial entity? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that they are the same substantial entity because they are phenomena which do not appear as distinct to a direct perceiver. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that they are not phenomena which do not appear as distinct to a direct perceiver? [Pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that they are phenomena which appear as distinct to a direct perceiver?] Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that they are phenomena which do not appear as distinct to a direct perceiver because you can not posit that direct perceiver. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: It follows you can posit that direct perceiver? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Posit. Defender: Mental direct perceiver apprehending pot and uncomposed space.
Challenger: Mental direct perceiver apprehending pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that pot and uncomposed space appear as distinct to that direct perceiver? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Mental direct perceiver apprehending pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that pot and uncomposed space do not appear as distinct to that direct perceiver because they do not appear to that direct perceiver. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Mental direct perceiver apprehending pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that pot and uncomposed space do not appear to that direct perceiver because uncomposed space does not appear to that direct perceiver. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Mental direct perceiver apprehending pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that uncomposed space does not not appear to that direct perceiver? Defender: Accept.
13
According to oral commentary by Lati Rinpoche
- 69-
Challenger: Mental direct perceiver apprehending pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that uncomposed space does appear to that direct perceiver? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Mental direct perceiver apprehending pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that uncomposed space does not appear to that direct perceiver because uncomposed space is a permanent phenomenon and if it appears to a direct perceiver, it is pervaded by being a specifically characterized phenomenon. 14 Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Mental direct perceiver apprehending pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that uncomposed space does not appear to that direct perceiver? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Mental direct perceiver apprehending pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that they do not appear to that direct perceiver? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Mental direct perceiver apprehending pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that pot and uncomposed space do not appear as distinct to that direct perceiver? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that they do not appear as distinct to the direct perceiver apprehending them? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that they do not appear as distinct to a direct perceiver? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! Pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that they do appear as distinct to a direct perceiver because they are the same substantial entity. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Pot and uncomposed space as the subject, it follows that they are the same substantial entity because they are phenomena which do not appear as distinct to a direct perceiver. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: If they are phenomena which do not appear as distinct to a direct perceiver, they are not pervaded by being the same substantial entity? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: If they are phenomena which do not appear as distinct to a direct perceiver, it follows that they are pervaded by being the same substantial entity because that is the definition of phenomena which are the same substantial entity. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: With respect to phenomena which are the same substantial entity, you cannot posit the definition. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: With respect to phenomena which are the same substantial entity, you can posit the definition? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Posit. Defender: Phenomena which appear to a direct perceiver and do not appear as distinct.
Challenger: Phenomena which appear to a direct perceiver and do not appear as distinct as the subject, it follows that This is the assertion by Sautrantika. However, Prasangika would not agree with this position. Prasangikas say that a permanent phenomenon such as emptiness can appear to a direct perceiver.
14
- 70-
that is the definition of phenomena which are the same substantial entity. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: It follows that you can not posit that which is phenomena which appear to a direct perceiver and do not appear as distinct. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: It follows that you can posit that which is phenomena which appear to a direct perceiver and do not appear as distinct? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Posit. Defender: The color and shape of a table.
Challenger: The color and shape of a table as the subject, it follows that they are phenomena which appear to a direct perceiver and do not appear as distinct? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color and shape of a table as the subject, it follows that they are not phenomena which appear to a direct perceiver and do not appear as distinct because they do not appear to a direct perceiver. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: The color and shape of a table as the subject, it follows that they do appear to a direct perceiver? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color and shape of a table as the subject, it follows that they do not appear to a direct perceiver because you cannot posit that direct perceiver. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: It follows that you can posit that direct perceiver? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Posit. Defender: The eye consciousness apprehending the color and shape of a table.
Challenger: The color and shape of a table as the subject, it follows that they appear to the eye consciousness apprehending them? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color and shape of a table as the subject, it follows that they do not appear as distinct to the eye consciousness apprehending them? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color and shape of a table as the subject, it follows that they do appear as distinct to the eye consciousness apprehending them because they are distinct. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: Spell out the pervasion. Defender: If the color and shape of a table are distinct, they are not pervaded by appearing as distinct to the eye consciousness apprehending them.
Challenger: If the color and shape of a table are distinct, it follows that they are not pervaded by appearing as distinct to the consciousness apprehending them? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: If phenomena are distinct, it follows that they are not pervaded by appearing as distinct to the consciousness apprehending them? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: If phenomena do not appear as distinct to the consciousness apprehending them, it follows that they are not pervaded by not being distinct?
- 71-
Defender:
Accept.
Challenger: The color and shape of a table as the subject, it follows they are not distinct. Defender: Why?
Challenger: The color and shape of a table as the subject, it follows they are distinct? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color and shape of a table as the subject, it follows they are not distinct because you cannot posit the valid cognizer that establishes them as distinct. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: Posit. Defender: The inferential cognizer realizing that the color of a table and the shape of a table are apprehended separately by conception.
Challenger: If phenomena are apprehended separately by conception they are pervaded by being distinct? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: If phenomena are not apprehended separately by conception they are pervaded by not being distinct? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pot and pot are not distinct? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Pot and pot as the subject, they are not distinct why? Defender: Because they are not apprehended separately by conception.
END
- 72-
Masters Program: Debate, January 2000
Practice Debates for Causes & Effects 2

Debate CE2 15 re: Same substantial entity In this debate, the defender posits that Whatever phenomena are the same in terms of establishment and abiding are necessarily the same substantial entity in terms of establishment and abiding.
Challenger: If phenomena are the same in terms of establishment and abiding, they are pervaded by being the same substantial entity in terms of establishment and abiding? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of sandalwood and the odor of sandalwood as the subject, it follows that they are the same substantial entity in terms of establishment and abiding? Defender: Why?
Challenger: The color of sandalwood and the odor of sandalwood as the subject, it follows that they are the same substantial entity in terms of establishment and abiding because they are the same in terms of establishment and abiding. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: The color of sandalwood and the odor of sandalwood as the subject, it follows that they are not the same in terms of establishment and abiding? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of sandalwood and the odor of sandalwood as the subject, it follows that they are the same in terms of establishment and abiding because those two are established simultaneously, abide simultaneously, and disintegrate simultaneously. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: If those two are established simultaneously, abide simultaneously, and disintegrate simultaneously, it follows that they are not pervaded by being the same in terms of establishment and abiding? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: If those two are established simultaneously, abide simultaneously, and disintegrate simultaneously, it follows that they are pervaded by being the same in terms of establishment and abiding because that is the meaning of being the same in terms of establishment and abiding. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! The color of sandalwood and the odor of sandalwood as the subject, it follows that they are the same in terms of establishment and abiding? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! The color of sandalwood and the odor of sandalwood as the subject, it follows that they are the same substantial entity in terms of establishment and abiding? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of sandalwood and the odor of sandalwood as the subject, it follows that they are not the same substantial entity in terms of establishment and abiding because they are not the same substantial entity. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: The color of sandalwood and the odor of sandalwood as the subject, it follows that they are the same substantial entity? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of sandalwood and the odor of sandalwood as the subject, it follows that they are not the same substantial entity because they are not different composed phenomena which are produced from their own same direct substantial cause. Defender: Reason not established.
15
This debate has been slightly modified from debate E.10 from Perdue, Debate in Tibetan Buddhism, pp. 585-589.
- 73-
Challenger: Which is it not 1) not different composed phenomena or 2) not produced from their own same direct substantial cause? Defender: Second reason not established.
Challenger: The color of sandalwood and the odor of sandalwood as the subject, it follows that they are not not produced from their own same direct substantial cause? [It follows that they are produced from their own same direct substantial cause?] Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of sandalwood and the odor of sandalwood as the subject; it follows that they are not produced from their own same direct substantial cause because the direct substantial cause of the color of sandalwood is the prior arising of the color of sandalwood, and the direct substantial cause of the odor of sandalwood is the prior arising of the odor of sandalwood. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of sandalwood and the odor of sandalwood as the subject, it follows that they are not different composed phenomena which are produced from their own same direct substantial cause? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! The color of sandalwood and the odor of sandalwood as the subject, it follows that they are not the same substantial entity? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! The color of sandalwood and the odor of sandalwood as the subject, it follows that they are not the same substantial entity in terms of establishment and abiding? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The color of sandalwood and the odor of sandalwood as the subject, it follows that they are the same substantial entity in terms of establishment and abiding because they are the same in terms of establishment and abiding. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: If phenomena are the same in terms of establishment and abiding, it follows that they are not pervaded by being the same substantial entity in terms of establishment and abiding? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar tshar tshar! Your fundamental premise is finished! Challenger: With respect to the two, phenomena that are the same in terms of establishment and abiding and phenomena that are the same substantial entity in terms of establishment and abiding, you cannot posit the pervasion.
Debate CE3 16 re: Causes, substantial causes, and cooperative conditions In this debate, the defender posits that Whatever is a pots cause is necessarily a pots substantial cause.
Challenger: If it is a cause of a pot, it is pervaded by being a pots substantial cause. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The being who serves as a cause of a pot as the subject, it follows that it is a substantial cause of a pot. Defender: Why?
Challenger: The being who serves as a cause of a pot as the subject, it follows that it is a substantial cause of a pot because it is a cause of a pot. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: The being who serves as a cause of a pot as the subject, it follows that it is not a cause of a pot? Defender:
16
Accept.
Based on debate E.7, Perdue, Debate in Tibetan Buddhism, pp. 562-564.
- 74-
Challenger: The being who serves as a cause of a pot as the subject, it follows that it is a cause of a pot because it is a cooperative condition of a pot. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: The being who serves as a cause of a pot as the subject, it follows that it is not a cooperative condition of a pot? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The being who serves as a cause of a pot as the subject, it follows that it is a cooperative condition of a pot because it is a main producer of a pot, its cooperative effect, which is not a continuation of its own substantial entity. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! The being who serves as a cause of a pot as the subject, it follows that it is a cause of a pot? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! The being who serves as a cause of a pot as the subject, it follows that it is a substantial cause of a pot? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! The being who serves as a cause of a pot as the subject, it follows that it is not a substantial cause of a pot because it is not a main producer of a pot as a continuation of its own substantial entity. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: The being who serves as a cause of a pot as the subject, it follows that it is not a main producer of a pot as a continuation of its own substantial entity? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The being who serves as a cause of a pot as the subject, it follows that it is not a main producer of a pot as a continuation of its own substantial entity because there is no pot which is a subsequent continuation of its (the beings) substantial entity. Defender: Reason not established.
Challenger: The being who serves as a cause of a pot as the subject, it follows that there is a pot which is a subsequent continuation of its substantial entity? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: The being who serves as a cause of a pot as the subject, it follows that there is not a pot which is a subsequent continuation of its substantial entity because it is a person. Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! The being who serves as a cause of a pot as the subject, it follows that it is not a main producer of a pot as a continuation of its own substantial entity? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! The being who serves as a cause of a pot as the subject, it follows that it is not a substantial cause of a pot? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar! The being who serves as a cause of a pot as the subject, it follows that it is a substantial cause of a pot because it is a cause of a pot. Defender: No pervasion.
Challenger: If it is a cause of a pot, it is not pervaded by being a substantial cause of a pot? Defender: Accept.
Challenger: Tshar tshar tshar! Your fundamental premise is finished! Challenger: With respect to the two, cause of a pot and substantial cause of a pot, you cannot posit the pervasion. Defender: Reason not established.
- 75-

PractisingDebate ILTK1998-2000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PractisingDebate ILTK1998-2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FPMT BASIC PROGRAM

ILTK and Jampa Gendun, 2000

Masters Program: Review Class - Debate - Syllogisms & Consequences

Masters Program: Review Class - Debate - Syllogisms & Consequences

Masters Program: Review Class - Debate - Syllogisms & Consequences

Masters Program: Review Class - Debate - Syllogisms & Consequences

Sound is the object of eye conscious; accept.

Masters Program: Syllogisms and Consequences, Homework

HOMEWORK - SYLLOGISMS AND CONSEQUENCES

Masters Program: Syllogisms and Consequences, Homework

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 Masters Program is cool.

Masters Program: Procedures for Debating Pervasion

Procedures for Debating Pervasion

Debating Mutually Exclusive

Masters Program: Procedures for Debating Pervasion

Masters Program: Procedures for Debating Pervasion

Debating Mutually Inclusive

Masters Program: Procedures for Debating Pervasion

Debating Three Possibilities

Masters Program: Procedures for Debating Pervasion

Masters Program: Procedures for Debating Pervasion

Debating Four Possibilities

Masters Program: Procedures for Debating Pervasion

Masters Program: Procedures for Actual Debate

Procedures for Actual Debate

Masters Program: Procedures for Actual Debate

Masters Program: Procedures for Actual Debate

Masters Program: Procedures for Actual Debate

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

Practice Debate A - Correct position, 4 possibilities

Challenger: Posit. Defender: Four possibilities.

1) Posit the common locus

Challenger: Posit. Defender: Great heroic mind.

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

2) Posit that which is not both.

Challenger: Posit Defender: Emptiness.

3) Posit that which is A and not B

Challenger: Posit. Defender: Pen.

4) Posit that which is B and not A

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

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

Practice Debate B - Correct position, 3 possibilities

Challenger: Posit. Defender: Three possibilities.

1) Posit which pervades which

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: Posit. Defender: Anger.

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

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

3) Posit that which is not both

Challenger: Posit. Defender: Flower.

Practice Debate C - Incorrect position

Challenger: Posit. Defender: Three possibilities.

Establish which pervades which

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

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

* END OF DEBATE *

Accept.(and so forth). END OF DEBATE