It is commonly claimed in Nyaya and Vedanta circles that Udayanacharya brought an end to the long-standing philosophical debate between Buddhist thinkers and Vaidika traditions. His works, such as Kusumanjali, Atmatattva Viveka, and Nyaya Vartika Tatparya Parishuddhi, are said to have decisively refuted core Buddhist doctrines like shunyavada, kshanikavada, and vigyanavada. A Traditionalist Vedantin author summarizes this viewpoint as follows: > **"Dharmkirti who is well known for his scholarly works, criticized > nyaya doctrines and Vartikam in his Work called “Praman -Vartika”. > After Dharmkirti Buddhism went into decline, last work which was a > considerable criticism was written by a Nalanda professor as > “TatvaSangraha”. In This tatvaSangraha the writer had also tried to > critize BhagvatPad Sankara’ views (verse 330-331). > > Vachaspati misra who was the knower of 12 darshanas, He wrote Nyaya > Vartika Tatparya tika and answered the claims that were made till now > in a very good manner. His refutations are Calm,deep and subtle.** > > **An unexpected refutation came from Kashmir and that was from Jayanta > Bhatt. He wrote an independant commentary on NyayA suTras called > “Nyaya Manjari” He established the authority of the Veda and refuted > the buddhist doctrines mercilessly.** He has quoted everyone be it > DharmaKirti, Dingnaga or Dharmottara. > > Bhasvarajna an other Kashmiri wrote ‘NyayaBhusana’. He criticized > everyone from Nagarjuna till Prajnakara Gupta(writer of > VartikaAlankara). > > Jayanta Has wrote a verse while refuting क्षणिकवाद which goes as > follows :- > > **नास्त्यात्मा फलभोगमात्रमथ च स्वर्गाय चैत्यार्चनं , संस्काराः क्षणिकाः > युगस्थितिभृतश्चैते विहाराः कृताः । सर्व शून्यमिदं वसूनि गुरवे देहीति > चादिश्यते, बौद्धानां चरितं किमन्यदियती दम्भस्य भूमिः परा ॥** > > **You Bauddhas, hold that there is no soul, yet you construct caityas > (towers) to enjoy pleasure in paradise after death; you say that > everything is momentary, yet you build monasteries with the hope that > they will last for centuries; and you say that the world is void, yet > you teach that wealth should be given to spiritual guides. What a > strange character the Bauddhas possess; they are verily a monument of > conceit.** > > **JnanaSariMitra and his disciple RatnaKirti wrote some works answering > Vachaspati and made last tries to save buddhist philosophy from the > attacks of logicians.** > > **UdayanaCharya ended this debate with very strong logics.** He composed > works as “Kusumanajali” “Atma Tatva Viveka” and “Nyaya Vartika > Tatparya Parishuddhi” and refuted ShunyaVada,KshanikVada,VigyanVada. > > There are other works as Bauddha Dhikkara tika(sankara misra) and > Bauddh dhikkar shiromani **but till then Buddhism became a history.**" Source - The Literary debates between Buddhists and Vaidikas Given this narrative, my question is the following: Did any later Buddhist philosophers, either in India, Tibet, Nepal, or elsewhere, directly or indirectly respond to Udayanacharya's arguments? Are there surviving texts or commentaries that attempt to refute or answer his critiques of the Buddhist doctrines of no-self, momentariness, and emptiness? Or did the Buddhist tradition leave Udayana's works unanswered, either due to historical decline or strategic neglect? Any textual, historical, or scholastic leads would be much appreciated.

In various sources belonging to non Buddhist traditions that have historically been rivals to Buddhism like Vedanta and Nyaya, one often finds claims that their philosophers defeated Buddhist thinkers in formal debates. These accounts are often cited to highlight the intellectual strength and argumentative success of their respective schools over buddhism. I am interested in knowing whether Buddhist sources such as texts or inscriptions contain similar records of Buddhist scholars successfully engaging and defeating prominent non-Buddhist philosophers from vedanta or nyaya backgrounds in philosophical debates. Are there any such documented instances from the Buddhist side, and if so, could you provide references or examples?

The dialectics between Buddhism and the philosophy of Sāṅkhya are profoundly recorded especially in Chinese and Tibetan Vāda Grantha-s — this is to the point that most major Sāṅkhya texts extant today are reconstructed from their Chinese and Tibetan translations. Other Buddhist texts are also vast sources about the school of thought and its preceptors; the information regarding the early preceptors on the other hand is scarce in Sāṅkhya texts themselves (the outlier being Yuktidīpikā) or in other Hindu works. One example of this is K'uei Chi's commentary on Vasubandhu's Vijnaptimātratasiddhi where he elucidates about Kapilā, his school of Sāṅkhya, and his successors. He also states about debates between the schools and about Vasubandhu's refutation of Sāṅkhya philosophy. He records this as his master Hiuen-Tsang narrates to him. The *debatable* thing though is he mentions Sāṅkhyakārikābhāṣya on the Sāṅkhya text of Sāṅkhyakārikā as a work of Vasubandhu. As far as I know, he is not alone here - Yuen Ts'eh in his commentary on Nyāyānusāraśāstra, Tsing Liang (Ching Kuan) in his discourse on the Avataṃsaka and Ju Li too in his commentary on Vasubandhu's Vijnaptimātratasiddhi mentions the same. The point to note here is that though debatable, traditional Indology doesn't hold any connection between Vasubandu and Sāṅkhyakārikābhāṣya. J. Takakusu mentioning the same states "There is, however, no reason whatever why a Buddhist should write a commentary on the work of his opponent...", he continues to posit that the mention of Sāṅkhyakārikābhāṣya in the aforementioned texts is due to confusion - "...and this point too, I think, must be dismissed as a confusion arising from a resemblance of the names, Sāṅkhya saptati, and Paramārthasaptati." Personally, I don't think these two points hold much merit — (i) We have a plethora of instances against the reasoning. Thousands of works and commentaries are written on rival texts including major works of opposing schools of thought. (ii) There is an intelligible difference between the titles even if the saptati is common. To have confusion between these by multiple people doesn't hold any practical value of reasoning. Also in my opinion the text of Sāṅkhya saptati was pretty well known in the Chinese-Buddhist realm of philosophy, evident from Yuktidīpikā's mention of multiple discussions and debates between the Buddhists and the followers of Sāṅkhya. I am curious to know anything against this. Supplementing my limited research, **I'd like to know** if Vasubandhu really wrote Sāṅkhyakārikābhāṣya and if you know any other resources (*primary sources like texts of preceptors or scholarship of modern scholars*) that either sustain the link of Vasubandhu and Sāṅkhyakārikābhāṣya or go against it. And please let me know if I'm misunderstanding something or am in ignorance of some critical information here.

Was he trying to convince or persuade people? Did he go towards them or did he let them come to spread the Dhamma? How did he react when he was not understood or listened? I have noticed that I often tend to get carried away in debates where I try to convince my interlocutor of the truth of Buddhism and I get angry when he doesn't listen to me or disagree with me and then I blame myself for having debated in the first place. Then I often find myself with the feeling that I should have kept quiet, and I remember this quote: > He detested objective truths, the burden of argument, sustained > reasoning. He disliked demonstrating, he wanted to convince no one. > *Others* are a dialectician’s invention. > > - Cioran, The Trouble with Being Born Should we keep quiet in a "save yourself before saving others" logic?

I just wondered, is it bad karma at all to disagree with an arhat? I'm not saying I would, I just wondered, because killing one is phenomenally bad ! What about disagreeing with a Buddha?

When we have several people with different understanding of Buddhism, how should we decide who is right? Debate is very tempting in Buddhism, but on the other hand, we must respect other people's views and not create conflicts in the Sangha, so what should we do? Sometimes Buddhists cannot agree with each other, especially if these Buddhists come from different schools or traditions. An idea that is considered correct in one linage may be considered wrong in another. Did the Buddha teach how to handle these situations? How were these disagreements handled in the past? (See also: [famous debates in canonical Buddhist texts](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/8182/what-are-the-famous-debates-in-canonical-buddhist-texts)) ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS by @Yeshe Tenley: Under what conditions is it proper? Under what conditions is it improper? Is it a bad thing? Can it be a good thing? What is the proper motivation to do so? What are improper motivations? What is skillful? What is unskillful? Assuming it is desirable to show respect while debating, how should this respect be manifested? What are examples of disrespectful debate and how can the line be drawn? What's the difference between debate and proselytizing? ... and references to dharma teachings, historical events, or opinions/literature of noted teachers also welcome and encouraged!

The No true Scotsman fallacy is a rhetorical trick to avert criticism of a generalization by appealing to the impurity of counterexamples i.e., "no *true* Scotsman would do such a thing!" My question is whether or not a true Buddhist would ever appeal to such a juvenile rhetorical trick? I'm thinking that no true Buddhist would ever do this as I'm sure the Buddha would not have approved of such illogical argumentation. What's the community think?

Under what conditions is it proper for Buddhists of one tradition to try and proselytize Buddhists from another tradition? Under what conditions is it improper? What harm can be done? What fruits can be gained? Can cross-tradition debate be a good thing? Is it ever a bad thing? What is the proper motivation to do so? What are improper motivations? What is skillful? What is unskillful? Is it desirable to grant a modicum of respect for all traditions? How should this respect be manifested? What are examples of disrespectful dialogue and how can/should the line be drawn? Note: I'd prefer if these questions are not used to proselytize or engage in debate about Buddhist doctrine... but rather to answer the questions above. ... and references to dharma teachings, historical events, or opinions/literature of noted teachers also welcome and encouraged!

The context for this question is contemporary Tibetan Buddhist Monastic debate and associated definitions as practiced at Sera Je Monastic University. I'm looking for answers according to the specific definitions and system of jargon used in that context. In Tibetan Buddhist monastic debate according to The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate an *existent* is defined as, "that which is realized by a valid cognizer." I'm asking whether under such a definition a dream object - such as a snake - is considered an existent or a non-existent such as the son of a barren woman. I believe that it must be considered an *existent* as it is known by a directly perceiving mental consciousness given the above context. The same can be said of a face in the mirror although in this case it is directly perceived by the eye consciousness. Is this true from viewpoint of above context? Is it true from the Prasangika viewpoint? I posit that a dream snake and a snake I perceive in waking life are both conventionally existent. Further, that neither are ultimately existent. And that neither are real except from the perspective of a worldly consciousness. That is, they are both equally unreal. Is this true from the Prasangika viewpoint? If not, please give reasons according to the context mentioned above.

There is a sutta where the Buddha discusses four ways a debate can go between two people: a person could be hard to convince, causing either torment to the speaker but not the listener, torment to the listener but not the speaker etc.. the Buddha makes the final point that it is always worth undertaking the discussion so long as there is a possibility of coming to an understanding, if not, heed mindfulness. What is the reference please?

I've read in many places in the Pali canon that the Buddha will answer a question if asked three times even if the Buddha is extremely reluctant to give the answer. For instance in the Talaputa Sutta the Buddha is asked by Talaputa ,the leader of a troupe of actors, about what will happen to actors when they are reborn. The Buddha clearly doesn't want to say (it's not good news) but Talaputa really pushes it and asks him three times > "Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that." > > A second time... A third time Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, > said: "Lord, I have heard that [...] What does the Blessed One have > to say about that?" The Buddha gives in and delivers the bad news. But what is the origin of this questioning technique? Why does he always give an answer if pushed like that? Was it a traditional thing in Indian society at that time or was it just a thing with the Buddha? I've only read this in the Pali canon. Does it crop up in other texts and traditions too?

I am a huge proponent of scientific skepticism, rationalism and critical thinking. As a former Christian, I enjoy watching debates and more recently, discussions on YouTube. I like the debate format because it allows for the use of cross-examination, which is a real art in my opinion; especially as demonstrated in the masterful use of rhetoric by say, the late Christopher Hitchens. Likewise, I enjoy a format geared more toward discussion as it allows me to truly "step inside the head" as it were, of people who I disagree with on a fundamental level and if the conversation is good, to grasp the concepts from angles that may never have occurred to me. As an example of the difference between the two, let me recommend that you watch two videos. The first one being the debate between Sam Harris and noted Christian apologist, William Lane Craig that took place at Notre Dame. https://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg Contrast that one with Craig's performance in any of the three videos that were filmed in Australia, mainly in the discussion format with physicist Lawrence Krauss. https://youtu.be/-b8t70_c8eE https://youtu.be/V82uGzgoajI https://youtu.be/7xcgjtps5ks Now, honesty dictates that I admit my bias going into these. It is that I suspect that the natural world is all there is and that my experience after I die will probably be much like it was before I was born. However, the aforementioned should in no way be taken as a discounting or criticism of personal experience, i.e. of the numinous or transcendent. I think that people have a basic right to believe whatever they want. What they don't get to have though is automatic immunity from criticism about things they tell others as matters of fact, and **this is where my question begins...** Where are the **Buddhists engaging in either debate or discussion** wherein they are asked simple and direct questions about their epistemology? Debates with the form > "So you believe in and espouse **the doctrine of rebirth**? That's great, but **how do you know it's true**?" or > "By what method of inquiry did you come to this knowledge?" and, "Why is that method of determining what is true equally as or more valid than traditional western methodology?" The only person I know about who has been willing to attempt this, to his credit, has been Ven. Brahmali in both [debate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuHi9Zpx7zo) and discussion with Stephen Batchelor. I just wish that more people for whom I have a lot of respect due to their accessible teaching, like Ajahn Brahm and Mattieu Ricard, would follow suit. **Recommendations to videos and books are most welcome**.

Debate plays an important part of Buddhism. What are famous debate encounters by the Buddha and also by other Buddhist masters like Dharmakīrti, especially with Hindus(exponents of Brahmavāda-Ātmavāda) and Jains?

It appears in ancient India there was a style of debate that became associated with Buddhism and is still a part of at least Gulugpa Tibetan Buddhism. What is it and how would I get started?