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.
Is Modern Western Philosophy and Buddhist Philosophy Really Just Facets of the Same Wisdom
anataman
Who needs a title?Where am I? Veteran
in Philosophy
I used to think that what I perceived was an 'outside' world. And those perceptions did not fool me. However, over time through reading I have come to conclude that we can only go so far with any knowledge and no amount of thinking is going to liberate us from the human condition. We just have to BE.
I was in my early twenties when I became interested in the mind, and the 'TRUE' reality of the world and started reading western philosophy. First I discovered Descartes and his 'discourse on the meditation', Doubt and Universal Skepticism, were introduced to me. But Descarte had to posit God's existence to be free of doubt. Doubt can only take you so far!
Then came Sartre with 'being and nothingness', and the idea of the phenomenological existent, and the concept of nihilism arose wow, Western Philosophy was really drilling down into reality and the mind, what was left if there was ultimately nothing and we were just phenomenological arisings, then Heidegger, and his 'Introduction to metaphysics', where he begins by asking the question: Why are there beings at all instead of nothing? And drills a hole into everything with a broad brush and in a universal way.
The Greek Philosopher Parminedes was writing about the middle path we tread as humans between something and nothing, that we find ourselves on: the path of 'it is' and 'it is not', and also positing 'For to be aware and to be are the same'.
http://www.literature.org/authors/descartes-rene/reason-discourse/
http://archive.org/stream/MartinHeidegger-IntroductionToMetaphysics/Heidegger-Introduction_to_metaphysics_djvu.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides
My point is this. The buddha worked with his mind and came up with a philosophic interpretation of the world, which is useful to end suffering, but it also points to various universal truths that are difficult to deny, and in their own way, many other eastern and western philosophers also have come up with similar concepts and 'visions of reality', that are not overtly distinct from or far from the views posited in Buddhism. Even modern physics, theoretical and experimental, demonstrate the interdependence and emptiness of our reality. That is not saying Western Philosophy has not been influenced by buddhism, but all these spirtual explorers interpretations of themselves, and their reality, all help to achieve the same goal.
I am saying that for some people reading a good western philosophical text can be just as rewarding and insightful, and dare I say it enlightening as reading the sutra's. Does anyone have any experience of this, or is the consensus that we have to read the Sutra's and that is the only way to develop insight and wisdom. Period. Or do you have an opinion that you may like to offer here.
I was in my early twenties when I became interested in the mind, and the 'TRUE' reality of the world and started reading western philosophy. First I discovered Descartes and his 'discourse on the meditation', Doubt and Universal Skepticism, were introduced to me. But Descarte had to posit God's existence to be free of doubt. Doubt can only take you so far!
Then came Sartre with 'being and nothingness', and the idea of the phenomenological existent, and the concept of nihilism arose wow, Western Philosophy was really drilling down into reality and the mind, what was left if there was ultimately nothing and we were just phenomenological arisings, then Heidegger, and his 'Introduction to metaphysics', where he begins by asking the question: Why are there beings at all instead of nothing? And drills a hole into everything with a broad brush and in a universal way.
The Greek Philosopher Parminedes was writing about the middle path we tread as humans between something and nothing, that we find ourselves on: the path of 'it is' and 'it is not', and also positing 'For to be aware and to be are the same'.
http://www.literature.org/authors/descartes-rene/reason-discourse/
http://archive.org/stream/MartinHeidegger-IntroductionToMetaphysics/Heidegger-Introduction_to_metaphysics_djvu.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides
My point is this. The buddha worked with his mind and came up with a philosophic interpretation of the world, which is useful to end suffering, but it also points to various universal truths that are difficult to deny, and in their own way, many other eastern and western philosophers also have come up with similar concepts and 'visions of reality', that are not overtly distinct from or far from the views posited in Buddhism. Even modern physics, theoretical and experimental, demonstrate the interdependence and emptiness of our reality. That is not saying Western Philosophy has not been influenced by buddhism, but all these spirtual explorers interpretations of themselves, and their reality, all help to achieve the same goal.
I am saying that for some people reading a good western philosophical text can be just as rewarding and insightful, and dare I say it enlightening as reading the sutra's. Does anyone have any experience of this, or is the consensus that we have to read the Sutra's and that is the only way to develop insight and wisdom. Period. Or do you have an opinion that you may like to offer here.
0
Comments
But Buddhism I find is all about letting go, renouncing our ideas and stances on the world and ultimately ourselves.
This isn't something we can just think away, because thinking itself is what structures the whole perception of duality and inherency, which is the cause of pretty much all afflictive patterning and what we call human suffering.
Insight/wisdom arises for people who face their lives in their direct immediacy. Facing their loneliness, fear of death, all the masks one wears, facing it all. Bare and just waiting. Insight has to cut deep beyond mind into the body, into the subtle channels, into every single belief we have.
And its a painful process.
And if one has enough patience and willingness. Then one can read any philosophical tradition and come to the simple conclusion that it is merely thought thinking about thoughts.
For there to be serious insight one has to sit and bear the terror of all the masks and facades we fabricate moment to moment.
Wisdom sucks as it destroys everything.
My retort is that:
- Is that a club you can join?
- Can I get someone to officiate a Proustian wedding or funeral?
- What practices are entailed by living a Proustian lifestyle? (when the rubber hits the road, is Proustian, or Platonic thinking just a thought, or does it actually involve doing anything visible different?)
- What does the lifestyle look like?
Some modern thinkers, especially in the field of Psychology do meet some of the criteria I mentioned- Cognitive Therapy comes to mind.
When people think that X or Y can replace religion, and there isn't a "club", nor a system of social interations, nor a practice... then I think people have missed the point of religion. An amusing story about the beginning of the world is just that. Replacing it with the big bang doesn't actually solve the problems that people are trying to solve when they sign up for a religion.
It may be worded differently elsewhere but Wiki seems about right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
Buddha did address these problems and he was surely systematic and rational in his approach so while I agree he didn't have much use for the philosophy of those before him, he ended up being a philosopher. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.019.than.html
So wisdom is not a bad thing and I don't think Buddhism is strictly about renunciation for Buddha would never renounce compassion.
Some say there is a time to let go of the teachings but then what good are we? Buddha never let go of the teachings because there was no border between him and the teachings.
I think Buddha signaled a time to let go of letting go. This is why he got up from his tree and set the wheel in motion instead of giving into decay.
Sorry for joining in and not addressing the o/p first...
I think it is probably possible.
OK, Buddhism as a philosophy or religion is pretty nifty. But Buddhism as a practice is more patient and determined. There are a lot of potholes to fall into and climb back out of. The advantage of practice is that it provides experience and in experience, wisdom finds a grounding that is as peaceful as it is practical. Wisdom is not what you know. It's who you are. And who you are, while capable of playing intellectual games, is no longer required to do so.
Much of what we think of as Buddhism was invented by Buddhaghosa and his school.
OK, Buddhism as a philosophy or religion is pretty nifty. But Buddhism as a practice is more patient and determined. There are a lot of potholes to fall into and climb back out of. The advantage of practice is that it provides experience and in experience, wisdom finds a grounding that is as peaceful as it is practical. Wisdom is not what you know. It's who you are. And who you are, while capable of playing intellectual games, is no longer required to do so.
Yeah yeah yeah
I have heard and understood that Wisdom is what you are and knowledge is what you know - there's a great track on one of the megatripolis albums that expounds that. however, back to my point. Wisdom is Wisdom. Knowledge is fundamental to understanding. Where does the understanding that we have become wise come from?
Knowledge? Or Wisdom? Or both? Or neither?
If it is the first, then whose knowledge benefits who?
If it is the second, then Wisdom is just there so this thread doesn't matter!
If it is the Third everything is complimentary!
If it is the fourth, nothing matters.
These are just thoughts by the way
:wave:
I suppose that in the game of religions, Buddhism might qualify as "eastern." Anyway, it sure isn't Christianity, which is the religion most prevalent in Brooklyn and my environs.
Yup, I am a westerner and can learn a great deal from my own background and culture and ambient philosophies. No need to travel far and wide, wear other clothes or take up traditions that are not my own.
Yup, I'm a westerner ....
And a chicken is still a chicken.
:nyah:
The Buddha I think laid out some pretty hard facts of our existence but his insight also detailed a path with which to understand and ultimately overcome our suffering.
http://truecenterpublishing.com/zenstory/emptycup.html
Both the Zenith, the intellectual and all of us are expressions of what we know . . . as far as I know.
Personally I prefer pragmatism to anything learned from Western Philosophy, which has never offered me much practical wisdom.
Maybe its a two cup solution . . .
one has to calm one's mind
and then
THINK about things one has read from sutras
this is the only way to develop Insight and Wisdom
so
SIT and THINK
A western view of Tibetan buddhism? Or a western approach to buddhism, or Tibetan buddhism from a philosophical viewpoint. Whatever - the Chinese and the aspect of Tibetan cultural destruction is something to consider for what it is.
What is unfortunate is that when he was writing, the translations he read muddled up a lot of Eastern thought, and what he believed was Buddhist was something else - I think more Hindu.
What I find interesting is that he extends Western philosophy, as to where it had come up to before him (Kant), one step forward, in a way that it in some ways meets Eastern ideas.
Of course no thought developed from his school, and given that it would seem that most of his ideas aren't thoroughly accepted, or not possibly providing foundations for further development. He did influence many artists though.
This might have gone a bit off topic, apologies mods. Though to bring it back, I did garner an interest in Buddhism though Schopenhauer
If you read his 'critique of pure reason' and 'metaphysics of morals' they seem to point quite clearly to what I believe the buddhist ideal of morality is, and that if you practice freedom you become morally right.
Buddhism for me is a practical foundation and formulation for moral insight and living, whereas a lot of Western philosophy has provided me with a logical foundation for understanding and having faith in Buddhist teachings. Stimulating the thought-secretary organ can enable insight and understanding as well, but that is my mind's perspective for you.
Just some thoughts!
I want to keep this short, but no. There are certain overlapping concepts but not the same wisdom. Sartre for example believed the Soi was an impossible ideal and Hume didn't see any value in understanding the non-ego model of self, such as the bundle self. These are in complete contradiction, and so not the same wisdom. They do not all help to achieve the same goal, I find none of these others actually speaking about the practical application of emptiness, how it can lead to liberation etc. Their wisdom amounts to merely theoretical elaboration, nothing more. It can be appreciated though, for example Capriles uses Sartre to make certain points, but we can diminish the great differences between these styles, one being theoretical and one being primarily soteriologically applied.
I am not sure if I have read what you say as correct @atiyana but are you saying buddhism is a doctrine of salvation?
So let's screw 'Mind' up even further....
Your memory is illusory in more ways than you think....
It contains a doctrine of salvation absolutely, what you think liberation/nirvana is?! It has a soteriological emphasis absolutely, it IS a soteriologicaly based religion. It isn't about some philosophical elaboration or theoretical exercise, it is about reaching nirvana/becoming enlightened. In the study of religions and Buddhist philosophy, this is pretty standard speak.
Salvation is taught to be available in this lifetime, and to be self-enacted. My guess is you are projecting more cultured meaning to the word, as in academic circles this doesn't carry connotation of a Christian salvation or reference or anything like that.
What is to be salvaged? When everything has already been accomplished?
I am not saying this to start an argument or debate that spins into god and hell realms.
We are enlightened mind already (albeit dirtied and in need of a good scrub to shine brightly again); or is that new to you?
If you want to salvage your idea of your self, it's not going to happen, because it is an idea. It might arise again, but then it doesn't need salvation does it?
Who is this directed to?
you of course... you brought up salvation.
Exactly so. Thinking about thinking. A bit like armchair discussions of Nirvana. There is wind, hot air and the wisdom that fills the sails of our raft to the far shore . . .
Western philosophy can be left going around in circles in its own little pond . . . :nyah:
It is really straightforward, instead of the semantic oscillation you seen intent on. Does Buddhism focus on soteriology or not? I have not met a single Buddhalogist who claims that there is no soteriological component to Buddhism, nor that such a soteriological component is not absolutely central. "Everything having already been accomplished" is referring to the rejection of causality in regards to producing or creating enlightenment, or growing it from a seed, as Tantrayana and Dzogchen teach Buddhahood is already fully the case. The issue is that, they carefully teach that it is not intrinsic, nor intrinsically existing, rather it is a manifestation of propensities insofar as the true condition of the Base. Therefore there are still methods that bring out first a sampling of the primordial gnosis and then the eventual total realization of the all-good Buddhahood. To say though that everything has been accomplished in terms of realization and attainment though, is highly misleading, as it would entail the idea that everyone has already achieved the phowa chenpo or one of the other unique modes, such as the light body, which is simply untrue and asserted by no one. Furthermore, are you already fully realized Buddha? Do you claim anuttara samyak sambodhi or the bodhisattva levels which transcend this?
The point is, your statement is misleading because it is trying to conflate contexts. Though causally, the primordial gnosis, the all-good samantabhadra, and the true condition of the Base, are indeed already accomplished. There is an unawareness of this fact, an unawareness of the true condition of the Base (called the first marigpa), which then sunders beings into a spiral of pretenses that usually result in the second and third marigpas emerging. Therefore salvation lies in the awareness of the true condition of the Base (nirvana), unawareness is non-salvation as it continues the trans-migratory process.
I am kind of surprised you find the word salvation so troubling, the Buddha taught that beings/selves have absolutely no svabhava and he also taught liberation. What is there to be liberated if there is no property-less bare particular, no substantial self or essential self, or absolute self?
It is really simple, liberation = salvation. Buddhism is a soteriological tradition, everything else is tertiary. As one buddhologist put it during debate on reddit, "the soteriological aspect is the only thing that matters, it is the whole point".
The self isn't what is salvaged. You seem to think that there must be a thing or substance that is salvaged. The Buddha taught liberation and rejected svabhava of self. There just is liberation just as there just is salvation. You are presupposing an "I", that isn't needed for such a thing to be the case.
Just like the classic quote "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am". This is actually circular reasoning, as it presupposed an I to begin with without any real justification. Instead, just like there is lightning, there is doubt, there is thought. No need for an I. Likewise, there is salvation, there is liberation.
I get what you are saying. I also get the softening attitude.