Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Descartes the Buddhist?
thickpaper
Veteran
I read the Discourse decades ago and have read it again recently.
I was strick by this passage from Discourse 3.
Does it seem like Buddhism to thee?
I was strick by this passage from Discourse 3.
Does it seem like Buddhism to thee?
My third maxim was to endeavor always to conquer myself rather than fortune, and change my desires rather than the order of the world, and in general, accustom myself to the persuasion that, except our own thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power; so that when we have done our best in things external to us, all wherein we fail of success is to be held, as regards us, absolutely impossible: and this single principle seemed to me sufficient to prevent me from desiring for the future anything which I could not obtain, and thus render me contented; for since our will naturally seeks those objects alone which the understanding represents as in some way possible of attainment, it is plain, that if we consider all external goods as equally beyond our power, we shall no more regret the absence of such goods as seem due to our birth, when deprived of them without any fault of ours, than our not possessing the kingdoms of China or Mexico, and thus making, so to speak, a virtue of necessity, we shall no more desire health in disease, or freedom in imprisonment, than we now do bodies incorruptible as diamonds, or the wings of birds to fly with.
But I confess there is need of prolonged discipline and frequently repeated meditation to accustom the mind to view all objects in this light; and I believe that in this chiefly consisted the secret of the power of such philosophers as in former times were enabled to rise superior to the influence of fortune, and, amid suffering and poverty, enjoy a happiness which their gods might have envied. For, occupied incessantly with the consideration of the limits prescribed to their power by nature, they became so entirely convinced that nothing was at their disposal except their own thoughts, that this conviction was of itself sufficient to prevent their entertaining any desire of other objects; and over their thoughts they acquired a sway so absolute, that they had some ground on this account for esteeming themselves more rich and more powerful, more free and more happy, than other men who, whatever be the favors heaped on them by nature and fortune, if destitute of this philosophy, can never command the realization of all their desires.
4
Comments
The ego is self verifying, as is the cogito.
It may be illusionary, but that illusion is real.
The cogitto is a subtle dharmic principle.... unlike Descartes reasonings that flow from it.
Interesting.
Buddha: just thinking
Your statement isn't self-verifying; the Cogito is.
Your statement would seem to rely on a hidden premise that all thinks that exist must think?
Unless I get it wrong:)
We don't think before we exist, so it only makes sense that the reason I think is because I exist, not the other way around.
Not all things that exist will bother making a distinction... Only those of us that are aware of the self (even as it doesn't exist on its own) can make a statement either way.
The key is the "I".
In fact, I'd say I'm more here when not thinking so it still seems like a case of putting Descartes before the horse.
Do you see that I am not being patronising?:)
A child can understand the cogito. No child has, to the best of my knowledge, managed to refute the cogito, nor have any Buddhists, including myself, and I have tried.
I think the closest who has come to it was the Buddha in the concept "There is no thinker, only thought/s," but this is not a refutation, I think it is closer to the opposite, how about you?
I can see that you haven't read and interpreted the process it came from in The Meditations and elsewhere. If you understood this you would know exactly what there is to think about. I hope you can go and read around the cogito and come back and go, "Oh yea, that's neat." as this is what rightly should happen.
Most probably, what with this being the internet... and all that...
That is a pun which I can find no reasonable meaning to connect with what we are discussing!
namaste!
namaste!
Cogito itself is incorrect. You do not exist simply because you think. Trees don't think, yet, here they are. Cogito is simply an intellectual process and is not equated with being. You ARE, regardless of the fact that you think.
Just because I think he was making things harder than they need to be for himself doesn't mean I don't understand his reasoning or read his stuff. It's insightful and often times on the money but that doesn't mean I will accept everything he had to say without holding it up to scrutiny. The horse would be reality... To me, it makes little to no difference at all if existence is illusion. We have to avoid obstacles anyways so it makes it real by default.
The Cogito is an excercise in redundancy to me. And yes, that's exactly how I should view it, thank you very much, lol.
Namaste right back at ya.
You have criticized the cogito and I have criticised your criticise, no egos need be involved.:) Then I would say that I hope you have arrived at that conclusion from a long and searching path of self-discovery and truth seeking quest, rather than just because it is the kind of controversy that our egos love to get involved in. Just to clarify, I absolutely have not been telling you how to think. I have been being purely Cartesian in my criticism of you and am happy for you to be the same:)
Always keep learning! This is a key tennent of the eightfold path, especially right effort and right intention, as I understand them:)
Laters!:)
You have criticized the cogito and I have criticised your criticise, no egos need be involved.:) Then I would say that I hope you have arrived at that conclusion from a long and searching path of self-discovery and truth seeking quest, rather than just because it is the kind of controversy that our egos love to get involved in. Just to clarify, I absolutely have not been telling you how to think. I have been being purely Cartesian in my criticism of you and am happy for you to be the same:)
Always keep learning! This is a key tennent of the eightfold path, especially right effort and right intention, as I understand them:)
Laters!:)
See, I can only go by your actual words. If you aren't telling me how I should feel about the Cogito then I caution against using phrases such as " I hope you can go and read around the cogito and come back and go, "Oh yea, that's neat." as this is what rightly should happen".
Yeah, I agree that learning is a good thing.
Have fun.
The biggest problem I have with the cogito is the assumption that I am thinking my thoughts. I am aware of thoughts and there is some sense of "control", but then there are those thoughts that just "pop" into my head. He could have easily said I see, hear, taste, smell, feel, therefore I am. Thoughts act no different in this respect than any other sense we have.
From a buddhist perspective yes... was that what Descarte was driving at when he formulated the cognito?
I'm not sure. But it strikes me that "I think therefore I am" is reminiscent of the first 2 verses of the Dhammapada.
I'm not sure. But it strikes me that "I think therefore I am" is reminiscent of the first 2 verses of the Dhammapada.
It certainly could be interpreted in that manner. However, I feel that even if Descartes was aiming at that (which I personally don't think he was: see below)... he was only just knocking at the door so to speak. He hadn't penetrated thinking deeply enough.
From wikipedia
His "cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) resembles the "tat tvam asmi" (thou art that) of the atman doctrine. The Buddha expressly denied that either statement is true with the repeated verse "neso ham asmi" - I am not this. Descartes was attached to an enduring self, an immortal personhood, an eternal soul. In What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula, the notion of "cogito ergo sum" is explicitly mentioned in stark contrast to the Buddha's teachings.
Descartes' Meditations are of an entirely different species than the various types of bhavana and jhana as taught by the Buddha.
But yes I have long thought that selflessness is a counter to the cogito. The entire interpretation may be mistaken.
Understanding is past knowing.
I dont think there is anything delusional about the line of the enquiry he takes, or his explanation of it. I think if you have read it you have read it only once, which isn't enough to understand it for even most able minds.
It is not arrogant to unemotionally speak our thoughts.
I would hope if someone came here with a profound misunderstanding of the four noble truths then some would inform them of their misdirection. Why should it not be true of a similar calliber of great thought as Descartes is to Buddha?
If you have at best skimread the meditations then you do not understand it, in the same way as if you have just skim read the wonderful "What The Buddha Taught" would unlikely get you closer to The Dharma.
Also, of you understood the attitude of mind that Descartes describes in Discourse One then you would not jump at any plane statement that someone made without really thinking through your objection first.
I don't understand Quantum Mechanics, it doesn't make me stupid, you know.
In particular, he recognised that a dualism of mind and matter is not enough for a metaphysical theory and that we need another term, for which, like Berkeley later, he chose God. This is not a million miles from Buddhism, just still groping towards it.