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.
Sharing in the 'Form of Dhamma.'
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
I recently picked up a copy of Plato's Republic (OK, two actually), and at first glance, Plato's just and unjust is not unlike the Buddha's ... Continue reading
0
Comments
I think I will disagree with your optimism with Plato. His philosophy is just extremely dualistic! Forms, for example, not only are the svabhava of things, but they need of some kind of supra-mundane epistemic mechanism in us that connects us with divinity,i.e, soul, rationalism, etc., to apprehend this metaphysical relations.
In the past I was more optimistic when making connections with the ancients, but I've came to the conclusion that in reality there are not so much as a young philosophy student would like; it is truth, the most "socratic" part of Plato's dialogues are more buddhist-like than the more eidetic ones, and it is truth that the Diogenes tradition of cynics resemble a lots some kind of "yogic's way of living", and even extending this up to the Stoics' ethics, but in the end, they are just to eternalist to make a final and concluding link.
Although, when I was reading the Symposium this part was the one that impressed me the most: 207d-208c (I'm sorry, but I have the Symposium in a Spanish translation, that's why I'm not quoting)
Regarding ethics, I would say that it is not with Plato or Kant that Buddhadharma resembles, but with Hume!
Wow, I can't believe somebody actually read this and left a comment.
Well, it can be argued that there's a fair amount of dualism in Buddhism, as well; although it's far more subtle than Plato's rational dualism. But don't get me wrong, I don't think that their philosophies are identical, or even entirely compatible.
Overall, I can't help thinking Plato makes an unnecessary, and ultimately artificial, distinction between opinion/becoming and intellect/being, which is another result of his reliance on rationalism to the exclusion of empiricism. While I agree that sense perceptions can be misleading, I think it's a mistake to deny them altogether, especially if, like the Buddha, we include mind itself as a sense-base. If what our eyes see is always a shadow, an illusion, how can we be sure that the same isn't true of the mind's intellections? I don't think Plato sufficiently deals with this problem as he seems to hold the mind and its intellection of intelligible things sacrosanct.
For Plato, to truly know a thing, you must know its essence or being, which is something intelligible but not perceptible via the senses. For example, in 596e-597a, he treats the form or idea of 'bed' (being/essence) as something more real and true than an actual bed made by hand (appearance). In other words, the many things we experience and consider to be true are in reality imperfect representations of 'that which is' (forms). And when Plato does attempt to address this issue, his arguments often extend, ironically enough, from more or less empirical observations. Or even worse, from abstract assumptions that are seemingly taken for granted and rarely accounted for, such as the very existence of forms.
But despite all of that, I found so many ideas that were similar to what's found in the Pali Canon that I felt compelled to list the more striking ones as I encountered them. I honestly didn't expect to find any, let alone as many as I did.
I know what you mean.
To be honest, I simply mentioned Kant and Bentham because I also happened to be reading about them while reading the Republic (I have a bad habit of reading more than one thing at a time). I haven't gotten to Hume yet.
Hahaha, I never thought either that I'd find someone interested in writing and thinking this kind of connections with Dharma apart from me in this way
Maybe I can concede the following: the treatment of reality is far from being realistic as it is in Saint Thomas (I hated De Veritate, it is just so contrived), but still deposits its trust in some kind of transcendent reality that donates being to particular objects; maybe I'm being unfair with Plato, also I have to remember that the first dialogues were written by him... but still, I don't know... also there is another kind of lecture of Plato (which I'm starting to like) is that the "world of ideas" is not metaphysically speaking a "world-beyond", but a kind of "aspect" of reality, maybe the nomological aspect. Still, when one reads Timaeus it is like: oh no, this guy is just trying to resurrect some kind of ancient astral religion trough politics, trough philosophy.
I feel that one can make connections with the sophists, not reading them in the way Plato would like to, of course. For example, I find Gorgias' work on the non existence pretty awesome.
About Hume, I strongly recommend you on reading the following articles if you are interested (at least it is what I've read):
HUME, HUMAN NATURE, AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF MORALITY, David Fate Norton, en The Cambridge Companion to Hume, pp. 148-181.
OF THE STANDARD OF TASTE, David Hume, en Essays. Moral, Political, and Literary, pp. 226-249.
REASON, DESIRE, AND ACTION, en Knowledge, Reason, and Taste. Kant's Response to Hume, Paul Guyer, pp.160-197
And of course Hume's A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE, Of Morals, Part 3, Section I: Moral distinctions are not derived from reason.
Of Passions, Part 3, Section I: Freedom and necessity.
Essay XXIII OF THE STANDARD OF TASTE.
Imho, this is a pretty essential Hume's bibliography regarding ethics, also, imho, one needs to now his theory of knowledge to comprehend more about his ethics.
P.S.: I read the first 2 novels of Dune Saga and I just freaking loved them! I just couldn't find the others in my country and now that I'm in the University I don't have time to continue
Well, there are certainly things I disagree with Plato about, and I think your critique of his theory of forms is spot on, so I don't think that you're being unfair at all. However, I do think that, in some regards, Plato and the Buddha are ultimately saying something very similar; although to me, the Buddha seems more confident, like he's pointing you towards the experience instead of trying to stumble upon it through reason alone. Plato, on the other hand, seems like he's coming at it from a more theoretical, less experiential point of view, almost like he's unsure if it's completely possible.
As for Plato's forms, I know exactly what you mean. I started to think the same thing off and on while reading the Republic until Book 10, where he uses the example of the bed and I can't help but think that he holds forms to be something more than that, something with inherent existence.
Thanks for the recommendations. Not sure if I'll ever get around to reading them, though.
Don't worry about that, if you are studying philosophy in the university, they I think they'll make you read some of that :P
Well, the Forms are inherent existence's epitome! Hahaha, as he said, he is trying to find a thing that with all property we can say it is and that it is not subject to change; that explicitly contradicts the second mark of existence. The similarities maybe are about virtue... but I'm not pretty sure either, I'd say that with the idea of "universals" yes, but forms... I doubt it. Sorry, I'm not a very big fan of Plato; maybe the works of the Stoics are more in touch, or, Aristotle's ethics... and how can I forget about Epicurus! He is just awesome.
We should make essays on this and send them to publications :P hahaha
No university, unfortunately. Just reading for fun.
I find much in common between the Stoicism and Buddhism, as well. For example, Seneca, quoting Epicurus, wrote, "I read to-day, in his works, the following sentence: 'If you would enjoy real freedom, you must be the slave of Philosophy.' The man who submits and surrenders himself to her is not kept waiting; he is emancipated on the spot. For the very service of Philosophy is freedom" (Epistles 1.8). Moreover, I find it interesting that in the same letter, Seneca's warning regarding the "snares" of sensuality closely parallels that of the Buddha in MN 26, and his admonishment regarding food, clothing and shelter closely parallels that of the Buddha in MN 2.
Sounds like a lot of work to me.
Sounds like lot of fun to me. :P
I thought you were studying philosophy or something like that :O Though, that is not an impediment to read and understand philosophers, imo, the occidental-european-greek tradition is way overrated. And what should be considered with a more highly respect, that is underrated, for example, Diogenes (the dog).
Thanks for the link to the Epistle, I didn't know that site
May I ask if you are a practitioner from the Theravada tradition?
I am, just not academically.
I always get a kick out of reading anecdotes about Diogenes, especially when he's giving Plato shit.
More or less.
I totally missed this. Yeah, the original Dune saga is amazing (the newer ones written by his son are OK too). Besides the Lord of the Rings trilogy, they were my favourite books growing up. I pretty much failed chemistry in high school because of them. It's too bad you didn't get a chance to read them all.
As I get older and softer in the head, I find dogma to be less important than experience. I recall Ramakrishna's words when talking about nirvikalpa samadhi: "I want to taste sugar, not become sugar." There is something to be said for a plethora of end goals rather than merely that of liberation. For what its worth, that isn't everyone's proximate goal.