Dude, you don’t speak for Buddhism. You’ve presupposed that you know everything there is to know about Buddhism and that I know nothing about it, and that you have nothing to learn about it from anyone else. You’ve presupposed that you’re the teacher and I’m the student.

Yet most of what you told me about Buddhism I already knew. You’ve told me the basic teachings and you’ve explained them using some nifty stories.

Then something called a dialogue happened. I gave you an alternative reading of Buddhism, raising some criticisms that depend on my understanding of the matter. You disagree with those criticisms, and you attribute them to a misunderstanding that’s based on my lack of experience with Buddhist practice. As you like to say, “it’s that simple.”

What interests me is the philosophical interpretation of Buddhist teachings. What are the full implications? I don’t think you’ve shown how my criticisms are misguided, which is to say you haven’t convinced me that Buddhism is free of the problems I raise. Meanwhile, I clearly haven’t convinced you that Buddhism is subject to those criticisms. That’s what’s called a disagreement.

I hope at least we’ve each given the other something to think about.