Difference between revisions of "Buddhist Philosophy"
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Introduction | Introduction | ||
− | + | [[Buddhist philosophy]] is the branch of {{Wiki|Eastern philosophy}} based on the teachings of [[Gautama]] [[Buddha]] (c. 563 BCE- c. 483 BCE). [[Buddhist philosophy]] deals extensively with problems in [[metaphysics]], [[Wikipedia:Phenomenology (philosophy)|phenomenology]], {{Wiki|ethics}}, and {{Wiki|epistemology}}. | |
− | From its inception, [[Buddhism]] has had a strong [[philosophical]] component. [[Buddhism]] is founded on the rejection of certain orthodox [[philosophical]] concepts, in which the [[Buddha]] had been instructed by various teachers. [[Buddhism]] rejects {{Wiki|atheism}}, {{Wiki|theism}}, {{Wiki|monism}}, and {{Wiki|dualism}} alike. The [[Buddha]] criticized all concepts of [[metaphysical]] being and non-being, and this critique is inextricable from the founding of [[Buddhism]]. | + | From its inception, [[Buddhism]] has had a strong [[philosophical]] component. [[Buddhism]] is founded on the rejection of certain {{Wiki|orthodox}} [[philosophical]] [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]], in which the [[Buddha]] had been instructed by various [[teachers]]. [[Buddhism]] rejects {{Wiki|atheism}}, {{Wiki|theism}}, {{Wiki|monism}}, and {{Wiki|dualism}} alike. The [[Buddha]] criticized all [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] of [[metaphysical]] [[being and non-being]], and this critique is inextricable from the founding of [[Buddhism]]. |
− | Particular points of [[Buddhist]] philosophizing have often been the subject of disputes between different schools of [[Buddhism]]. [[Metaphysical]] questions such as "Is there a [[god]]?" and "Does the soul ({{Wiki|Atman}}) really exist?" have divided the [[Buddha]]'s followers even during his own lifetime, and {{Wiki|epistemological}} {{Wiki|debates}} over the proper modes of evidence have always been lively in [[Buddhism]]. | + | Particular points of [[Buddhist]] philosophizing have often been the [[subject]] of disputes between different schools of [[Buddhism]]. [[Metaphysical]] questions such as "Is there a [[god]]?" and "Does the [[soul]] ({{Wiki|Atman}}) really [[exist]]?" have divided the [[Buddha]]'s followers even during his own [[lifetime]], and {{Wiki|epistemological}} {{Wiki|debates}} over the proper modes of {{Wiki|evidence}} have always been lively in [[Buddhism]]. |
− | Readers should note that theory for its own sake is not valued in [[Buddhism]], but theory pursued in the interest of [[enlightenment]] for oneself or others is fully consistent with [[Buddhist]] values and [[ethics]]. | + | Readers should note that {{Wiki|theory}} for its own sake is not valued in [[Buddhism]], but {{Wiki|theory}} pursued in the [[interest]] of [[enlightenment]] for oneself or others is fully consistent with [[Buddhist]] values and [[ethics]]. |
[[Buddhism]] As {{Wiki|Philosophy}}? | [[Buddhism]] As {{Wiki|Philosophy}}? | ||
[[File:95 200.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:95 200.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | Some have asserted that [[Buddhism]] as a whole is a {{Wiki|philosophy}} rather than a {{Wiki|religion}}. Proponents of such a view may argue that | + | Some have asserted that [[Buddhism]] as a whole is a {{Wiki|philosophy}} rather than a {{Wiki|religion}}. Proponents of such a [[view]] may argue that |
(a) [[Buddhism]] is non-{{Wiki|theistic}} (i.e., it has no special use for the {{Wiki|existence}} or {{Wiki|nonexistence}} of a [[god]] or [[gods]]) or [[atheistic]] and | (a) [[Buddhism]] is non-{{Wiki|theistic}} (i.e., it has no special use for the {{Wiki|existence}} or {{Wiki|nonexistence}} of a [[god]] or [[gods]]) or [[atheistic]] and | ||
− | (b) {{Wiki|religions}} necessarily involve some form of {{Wiki|theism}}. Others might contest either part of such an argument. Other arguments for [[Buddhism]] "as" {{Wiki|philosophy}} may claim that [[Buddhism]] does not have [[doctrines]] in the same sense as other [[religions]]; the [[Buddha]] himself taught that a person should accept a teaching only if one's own {{Wiki|experience}} verifies it. | + | (b) {{Wiki|religions}} necessarily involve some [[form]] of {{Wiki|theism}}. Others might contest either part of such an argument. Other arguments for [[Buddhism]] "as" {{Wiki|philosophy}} may claim that [[Buddhism]] does not have [[doctrines]] in the same [[sense]] as other [[religions]]; the [[Buddha]] himself [[taught]] that a [[person]] should accept a [[teaching]] only if one's own {{Wiki|experience}} verifies it. |
− | Arguments against [[Buddhism]] as a {{Wiki|philosophy}} might call attention to the way [[Buddhism]]'s pervasive inclusion of {{Wiki|supernatural}} entities (not "[[gods]]" in the sense of Western {{Wiki|monotheism}}, of course), to what most {{Wiki|scholars}} identify as worship practices (ceremonial reverence of {{Wiki|saints}}, etc.), to [[Buddhism]]'s thoroughly developed hierarchies of clergy (not usually characteristic of a "[[philosophy]]"), and its overall [[religious]] organization. | + | Arguments against [[Buddhism]] as a {{Wiki|philosophy}} might call [[attention]] to the way [[Buddhism]]'s {{Wiki|pervasive}} inclusion of {{Wiki|supernatural}} entities (not "[[gods]]" in the [[sense]] of {{Wiki|Western}} {{Wiki|monotheism}}, of course), to what most {{Wiki|scholars}} identify as {{Wiki|worship}} practices ({{Wiki|ceremonial}} reverence of {{Wiki|saints}}, etc.), to [[Buddhism]]'s thoroughly developed hierarchies of {{Wiki|clergy}} (not usually [[characteristic]] of a "[[philosophy]]"), and its overall [[religious]] organization. |
− | A third perspective might take the position that [[Buddhism]] can be practiced either as a {{Wiki|religion}} or as a {{Wiki|philosophy}}. A similar distinction is often made with reference to {{Wiki|Taoism}}. | + | A third {{Wiki|perspective}} might take the position that [[Buddhism]] can be practiced either as a {{Wiki|religion}} or as a {{Wiki|philosophy}}. A similar {{Wiki|distinction}} is often made with reference to {{Wiki|Taoism}}. |
− | Lama {{Wiki|Anagorika Govinda}} expressed it as follows in the book 'A Living [[Buddhism]] for the West': | + | [[Lama]] {{Wiki|Anagorika Govinda}} expressed it as follows in the [[book]] 'A Living [[Buddhism]] for the [[West]]': |
[[File:Amitabha.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Amitabha.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
"Thus we could say that the [[Buddha]]'s [[Dharma]] is, | "Thus we could say that the [[Buddha]]'s [[Dharma]] is, | ||
− | as {{Wiki|experience}} and as a way to practical realization, a {{Wiki|religion}}; | + | as {{Wiki|experience}} and as a way to {{Wiki|practical}} [[realization]], a {{Wiki|religion}}; |
as the {{Wiki|intellectual}} formulation of this {{Wiki|experience}}, a {{Wiki|philosophy}}; | as the {{Wiki|intellectual}} formulation of this {{Wiki|experience}}, a {{Wiki|philosophy}}; | ||
and as a result of [[self]]-{{Wiki|observation}} and analysis, a {{Wiki|psychology}}. | and as a result of [[self]]-{{Wiki|observation}} and analysis, a {{Wiki|psychology}}. | ||
− | Whoever treads this path acquires a norm of behavior that is not dictated from without, but is the result of an inner process of maturation and that we - regarding it from without - can call {{Wiki|morality}}." | + | Whoever treads this [[path]] acquires a norm of {{Wiki|behavior}} that is not dictated from without, but is the result of an inner process of {{Wiki|maturation}} and that we - regarding it from without - can call {{Wiki|morality}}." |
− | It should also be noted that in the South and East Asian cultures in which [[Buddhism]] achieved most of its development, the distinction between {{Wiki|philosophy}} and {{Wiki|religion}} is somewhat unclear and possibly quite spurious, so this may be a {{Wiki|semantic}} problem arising in the West alone. | + | It should also be noted that in the [[South]] and {{Wiki|East Asian}} cultures in which [[Buddhism]] achieved most of its [[development]], the {{Wiki|distinction}} between {{Wiki|philosophy}} and {{Wiki|religion}} is somewhat unclear and possibly quite spurious, so this may be a {{Wiki|semantic}} problem [[arising]] in the [[West]] alone. |
[[Philosophical]] Areas Addressed in [[Buddhism]] | [[Philosophical]] Areas Addressed in [[Buddhism]] | ||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
{{Wiki|Epistemology}} | {{Wiki|Epistemology}} | ||
[[File:Amitabha24.JPG|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Amitabha24.JPG|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | Decisive in distinguishing [[Buddhism]] from what is commonly called {{Wiki|Hinduism}} is the issue of {{Wiki|epistemological}} {{Wiki|justification}}. The schools of Indian {{Wiki|logic}} recognize a certain set of valid justifications for [[knowledge]], while [[Buddhism]] recognizes a smaller set. Both accept [[perception]] and argument, for example, but for the {{Wiki|orthodox}} schools (of {{Wiki|Hinduism}}), the received textual [[tradition]] (e.g., the {{Wiki|Vedas}}) is in itself an {{Wiki|epistemological}} category equal to {{Wiki|perception}} and argument (although this is not necessarily true for some of the non-orthodox schools, like {{Wiki|Vedanta}}). Thus, in the {{Wiki|orthodox}} schools, if a claim was made that could not be substantiated by appeal to the textual {{Wiki|canon}}, it would be viewed as ridiculous as a claim that the sky was green. | + | Decisive in distinguishing [[Buddhism]] from what is commonly called {{Wiki|Hinduism}} is the issue of {{Wiki|epistemological}} {{Wiki|justification}}. The schools of [[Indian]] {{Wiki|logic}} [[recognize]] a certain set of valid justifications for [[knowledge]], while [[Buddhism]] [[recognizes]] a smaller set. Both accept [[perception]] and argument, for example, but for the {{Wiki|orthodox}} schools (of {{Wiki|Hinduism}}), the received textual [[tradition]] (e.g., the {{Wiki|Vedas}}) is in itself an {{Wiki|epistemological}} category {{Wiki|equal}} to {{Wiki|perception}} and argument (although this is not necessarily true for some of the non-orthodox schools, like {{Wiki|Vedanta}}). Thus, in the {{Wiki|orthodox}} schools, if a claim was made that could not be substantiated by appeal to the textual {{Wiki|canon}}, it would be viewed as ridiculous as a claim that the sky was green. |
[[Buddhism]], on the other hand, rejected an inflexible reverence of accepted [[doctrine]]. As the [[Buddha]] said: | [[Buddhism]], on the other hand, rejected an inflexible reverence of accepted [[doctrine]]. As the [[Buddha]] said: | ||
− | Do not accept anything by mere {{Wiki|tradition}}. . . Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. . . Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. . . But when you know for yourselves -- these things are {{Wiki|moral}}, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the {{Wiki|wise}}, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness -- then do you live acting accordingly. | + | Do not accept anything by mere {{Wiki|tradition}}. . . Do not accept anything just because it accords with your [[scriptures]]. . . Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. . . But when you know for yourselves -- these things are {{Wiki|moral}}, these things are [[blameless]], these things are praised by the {{Wiki|wise}}, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and [[happiness]] -- then do you live acting accordingly. |
-the [[Kalama Sutta]], [[Anguttara Nikaya]] III.65 | -the [[Kalama Sutta]], [[Anguttara Nikaya]] III.65 | ||
{{Wiki|Metaphysics}} and {{Wiki|Phenomenology}} | {{Wiki|Metaphysics}} and {{Wiki|Phenomenology}} | ||
− | Issues Arising From the Doctrine of {{Wiki|Anatta}} | + | Issues [[Arising]] From the [[Doctrine]] of {{Wiki|Anatta}} |
[[File:Zhang Qian.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Zhang Qian.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | In earliest [[Buddhism]] and today still in [[Theravāda]] and the {{Wiki|Madhyamaka}}, any {{Wiki|metaphysical}} essence or being underlying the play of [[phenomenal]] {{Wiki|experience}} is rejected. No "{{Wiki|soul}}" or permanent {{Wiki|self}} was recognized, and the {{Wiki|perception}} of a continuous identity was held to be an {{Wiki|illusion}}. | + | In earliest [[Buddhism]] and today still in [[Theravāda]] and the {{Wiki|Madhyamaka}}, any {{Wiki|metaphysical}} [[essence]] or being underlying the play of [[phenomenal]] {{Wiki|experience}} is rejected. No "{{Wiki|soul}}" or [[permanent]] {{Wiki|self}} was [[recognized]], and the {{Wiki|perception}} of a continuous [[Wikipedia:Identity (social science)|identity]] was held to be an {{Wiki|illusion}}. |
− | Any feeling whatsoever, any {{Wiki|perception}} whatsoever, any [[mental]] processes whatsoever, any [[consciousness]] whatsoever -- {{Wiki|past}}, {{Wiki|future}}, or {{Wiki|present}}; {{Wiki|internal}} or {{Wiki|external}}; blatant or {{Wiki|subtle}}, common or {{Wiki|sublime}}, far or near; every [[consciousness]] -- is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as "This is not mine. This is not my {{Wiki|self}}. This is not what I am." | + | Any [[feeling]] whatsoever, any {{Wiki|perception}} whatsoever, any [[mental]] {{Wiki|processes}} whatsoever, any [[consciousness]] whatsoever -- {{Wiki|past}}, {{Wiki|future}}, or {{Wiki|present}}; {{Wiki|internal}} or {{Wiki|external}}; blatant or {{Wiki|subtle}}, common or {{Wiki|sublime}}, far or near; every [[consciousness]] -- is to be seen as it actually is with right [[discernment]] as "This is not mine. This is not my {{Wiki|self}}. This is not what I am." |
-the [[Anattalakkhana Sutta]], [[Samyutta Nikaya]] XXII.59 | -the [[Anattalakkhana Sutta]], [[Samyutta Nikaya]] XXII.59 | ||
From within the context of the {{Wiki|Madhyamaka}}, we find {{Wiki|Candrakirti}}: | From within the context of the {{Wiki|Madhyamaka}}, we find {{Wiki|Candrakirti}}: | ||
− | "Self is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The {{Wiki|non-existence}} of that is [[selflessness]]". | + | "[[Self]] is an [[essence]] of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic [[nature]]. The {{Wiki|non-existence}} of that is [[selflessness]]". |
− | -Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā (Bodhisattvayogacaryacatuhsatakatika) 256.1.7 | + | -[[Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā]] (Bodhisattvayogacaryacatuhsatakatika) 256.1.7 |
− | This anti-essentialist teaching, known as {{Wiki|anatta}}, brought up many questions. If there is no {{Wiki|ātman}} or {{Wiki|Brahman}} underlying the objects and events of the {{Wiki|universe}}, how could they be explained? What gave them their {{Wiki|existence}}? And if there was no "{{Wiki|self}}", who makes the decisions we think we make, and what gets {{Wiki|reincarnated}}? | + | This anti-essentialist [[teaching]], known as {{Wiki|anatta}}, brought up many questions. If there is no {{Wiki|ātman}} or {{Wiki|Brahman}} underlying the [[objects]] and events of the {{Wiki|universe}}, how could they be explained? What gave them their {{Wiki|existence}}? And if there was no "{{Wiki|self}}", who makes the decisions we think we make, and what gets {{Wiki|reincarnated}}? |
[[File:Ananda-ges.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Ananda-ges.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | Early [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|philosophers}} and [[Wikipedia:Exegesis|exegetes]] created a {{Wiki|pluralist}} [[metaphysical]] and {{Wiki|phenomenological}} system in which all experiences of people, things, and events, can be broken down into smaller and smaller {{Wiki|perceptual}} or {{Wiki|perceptual}}-{{Wiki|ontological}} units called [[dharmas]]. These [[dharmas]] (roughly synonymous with "[[phenomena]]") were interpreted differently by different schools: some held they were real, some held only some were real, some held all were {{Wiki|illusory}}, some held they were empty, some held they were intrinsically associated with [[suffering]], etc. | + | Early [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|philosophers}} and [[Wikipedia:Exegesis|exegetes]] created a {{Wiki|pluralist}} [[metaphysical]] and {{Wiki|phenomenological}} system in which all [[experiences]] of [[people]], things, and events, can be broken down into smaller and smaller {{Wiki|perceptual}} or {{Wiki|perceptual}}-{{Wiki|ontological}} units called [[dharmas]]. These [[dharmas]] (roughly {{Wiki|synonymous}} with "[[phenomena]]") were interpreted differently by different schools: some held they were real, some held only some were real, some held all were {{Wiki|illusory}}, some held they were [[empty]], some held they were intrinsically associated with [[suffering]], etc. |
− | Other debates in [[metaphysics]] and {{Wiki|phenomenology}} include the issue of the {{Wiki|Pudgala}}, or "person", which was inserted by the {{Wiki|Pudgalavada}} school to replace the {{Wiki|ātman}} as that which transmigrates and that which carries the burden of [[karma]] from one life to another. Other schools made unsurprising objection to this. There were further sub-[[debates]] regarding whether the {{Wiki|pudgala}} was real or {{Wiki|illusory}} or something in between. The [[Yogacara]] school, somewhat later, would later elevate the [[mind]] to act as a substitute for {{Wiki|Brahman}}, much as the {{Wiki|Pudgala}} replaces the {{Wiki|ātman}}. | + | Other [[debates]] in [[metaphysics]] and {{Wiki|phenomenology}} include the issue of the {{Wiki|Pudgala}}, or "[[person]]", which was inserted by the {{Wiki|Pudgalavada}} school to replace the {{Wiki|ātman}} as that which transmigrates and that which carries the [[burden]] of [[karma]] from one [[life]] to another. Other schools made unsurprising objection to this. There were further sub-[[debates]] regarding whether the {{Wiki|pudgala}} was real or {{Wiki|illusory}} or something in between. The [[Yogacara]] school, somewhat later, would later elevate the [[mind]] to act as a substitute for {{Wiki|Brahman}}, much as the {{Wiki|Pudgala}} replaces the {{Wiki|ātman}}. |
In many or all of these {{Wiki|debates}}, some would point out the irony of pursuing questions which the [[Buddha]] was often prone to refuse to answer, on the grounds that they were non-conducive to [[enlightenment]]. | In many or all of these {{Wiki|debates}}, some would point out the irony of pursuing questions which the [[Buddha]] was often prone to refuse to answer, on the grounds that they were non-conducive to [[enlightenment]]. | ||
{{Wiki|Dependent Origination}} | {{Wiki|Dependent Origination}} | ||
− | The original positive [[Buddhist]] contribution to the field of {{Wiki|metaphysics}} is {{Wiki|pratītyasamutpāda}}, which arises from the [[Buddhist]] critique of Indian theories of {{Wiki|causality}}. It states that events are not {{Wiki|predetermined}}, nor are they random, and it rejects notions of direct {{Wiki|causation}} owing to the need for such theories in the Indian context to be undergirded by a substantialist [[metaphysics]]. Instead, it posits the arising of events under certain conditions which are inextricable, such that the units in question at no time have independent {{Wiki|existence}}. | + | The original positive [[Buddhist]] contribution to the field of {{Wiki|metaphysics}} is {{Wiki|pratītyasamutpāda}}, which arises from the [[Buddhist]] critique of [[Indian]] theories of {{Wiki|causality}}. It states that events are not {{Wiki|predetermined}}, nor are they random, and it rejects notions of direct {{Wiki|causation}} owing to the need for such theories in the [[Indian]] context to be undergirded by a substantialist [[metaphysics]]. Instead, it posits the [[arising]] of events under certain [[conditions]] which are inextricable, such that the units in question at no [[time]] have {{Wiki|independent}} {{Wiki|existence}}. |
[[File:Zang2.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Zang2.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
This being, that becomes. | This being, that becomes. | ||
− | From the arising of this, that arises. | + | From the [[arising]] of this, that arises. |
This not being, that does not become. | This not being, that does not become. | ||
From the ceasing of this, that ceases. | From the ceasing of this, that ceases. | ||
− | -Samyutta Nikaya ii.28 | + | -[[Samyutta Nikaya]] ii.28 |
[[File:Ananda12.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Ananda12.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | {{Wiki|Pratityasamutpada}} goes on to posit that certain specific events, concepts, or realities are always dependent on other specific things. {{Wiki|Craving}}, for example, is always dependent on, and caused by, [[emotion]]. [[Emotion]] is always dependent on contact with our surroundings. This chain of {{Wiki|causation}} purports to show that the {{Wiki|cessation}} of decay, [[death]], and sorrow is indirectly dependent on the {{Wiki|cessation}} of {{Wiki|craving}}, and ultimately dependent on an all-encompassing stillness. | + | {{Wiki|Pratityasamutpada}} goes on to posit that certain specific events, [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]], or [[realities]] are always dependent on other specific things. {{Wiki|Craving}}, for example, is always dependent on, and [[caused]] by, [[emotion]]. [[Emotion]] is always dependent on [[contact]] with our surroundings. This chain of {{Wiki|causation}} purports to show that the {{Wiki|cessation}} of [[decay]], [[death]], and [[sorrow]] is indirectly dependent on the {{Wiki|cessation}} of {{Wiki|craving}}, and ultimately dependent on an all-encompassing stillness. |
− | [[Nāgārjuna]], one of the most influential [[Buddhist]] [[philosophers]], asserted a direct connection between, even identity of, {{Wiki|dependent origination}}, {{Wiki|anatta}}, and [[śūnyatā]]. He pointed out that implicit in the early [[Buddhist]] concept of {{Wiki|dependent origination}} is the lack of any substantial being ({{Wiki|anatta}}) underlying the participants in origination, so that they have no independent {{Wiki|existence}}, a state identified as [[emptiness]] ([[śūnyatā]]), or [[emptiness]] of a nature or essence ({{Wiki|svabhāva}}). This element of [[Nāgārjuna]]'s thought is relatively uncontroversial, but it opens the way for his identification of [[saṃsāra]] and [[nirvana]], which was revolutionary. | + | [[Nāgārjuna]], one of the most influential [[Buddhist]] [[philosophers]], asserted a direct connection between, even [[Wikipedia:Identity (social science)|identity]] of, {{Wiki|dependent origination}}, {{Wiki|anatta}}, and [[śūnyatā]]. He pointed out that implicit in the early [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|concept}} of {{Wiki|dependent origination}} is the lack of any substantial being ({{Wiki|anatta}}) underlying the participants in origination, so that they have no {{Wiki|independent}} {{Wiki|existence}}, a state identified as [[emptiness]] ([[śūnyatā]]), or [[emptiness]] of a [[nature]] or [[essence]] ({{Wiki|svabhāva}}). This [[element]] of [[Nāgārjuna]]'s [[thought]] is relatively uncontroversial, but it opens the way for his identification of [[saṃsāra]] and [[nirvana]], which was {{Wiki|revolutionary}}. |
Interpenetration | Interpenetration | ||
− | This [[doctrine]] comes from the [[Avatamsaka Sutra]] and its associated schools. It holds that all [[phenomena]] are intimately connected. Two images are used to convey this idea. The first is known as {{Wiki|Indra}}'s net. The net is set with jewels which have the extraordinary property that they reflect all of the other jewels. The second image is that of the world text. This image portrays the {{Wiki|world}} as consisting of an enormous text which is as large as the [[universe]] itself. The 'words' of the text are composed of the [[phenomena]] that make up the [[world]]. However, every atom of the {{Wiki|world}} contains the whole text within it. It is the work of a [[Buddha]] to let out the text so that beings can be liberated from [[suffering]]. | + | This [[doctrine]] comes from the [[Avatamsaka Sutra]] and its associated schools. It holds that all [[phenomena]] are intimately connected. Two images are used to convey this [[idea]]. The first is known as {{Wiki|Indra}}'s net. The net is set with [[jewels]] which have the [[extraordinary]] property that they reflect all of the other [[jewels]]. The second image is that of the [[world]] text. This image portrays the {{Wiki|world}} as consisting of an enormous text which is as large as the [[universe]] itself. The 'words' of the text are composed of the [[phenomena]] that make up the [[world]]. However, every {{Wiki|atom}} of the {{Wiki|world}} contains the whole text within it. It is the work of a [[Buddha]] to let out the text so that [[beings]] can be {{Wiki|liberated}} from [[suffering]]. |
− | This idea was enormously influential on the Japanese [[monk]] {{Wiki|kūkai}} in founding the {{Wiki|Shingon}} school of [[Buddhism]]. | + | This [[idea]] was enormously influential on the [[Japanese]] [[monk]] {{Wiki|kūkai}} in founding the {{Wiki|Shingon}} school of [[Buddhism]]. |
{{Wiki|Ethics}} | {{Wiki|Ethics}} | ||
− | Although there are many {{Wiki|ethical}} tenets in [[Buddhism]] that differ depending on whether one is a [[monk]] or a layman, and depending on individual schools, the [[Buddhist]] system of {{Wiki|ethics}} can always be summed up in the [[Eightfold Path]]. | + | Although there are many {{Wiki|ethical}} {{Wiki|tenets}} in [[Buddhism]] that differ depending on whether one is a [[monk]] or a [[layman]], and depending on {{Wiki|individual}} schools, the [[Buddhist]] system of {{Wiki|ethics}} can always be summed up in the [[Eightfold Path]]. |
[[File:Yunogo2000.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Yunogo2000.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | And this, [[monks]], is the noble [[truth]] of the way of practice leading to the {{Wiki|cessation}} of [[suffering]] -- precisely this [[Noble Eightfold Path]] -- {{Wiki|right view}}, {{Wiki|right resolve}}, {{Wiki|right speech}}, {{Wiki|right action}}, {{Wiki|right livelihood}}, {{Wiki|right effor}}t, [[right mindfulness]], {{Wiki|right concentration}}. | + | And this, [[monks]], is the [[noble]] [[truth]] of the way of practice leading to the {{Wiki|cessation}} of [[suffering]] -- precisely this [[Noble Eightfold Path]] -- {{Wiki|right view}}, {{Wiki|right resolve}}, {{Wiki|right speech}}, {{Wiki|right action}}, {{Wiki|right livelihood}}, {{Wiki|right effor}}t, [[right mindfulness]], {{Wiki|right concentration}}. |
-[[Samyutta Nikaya]] LVI.11 | -[[Samyutta Nikaya]] LVI.11 | ||
− | The purpose of living an {{Wiki|ethical}} life is to escape the [[suffering]] inherent in (unenlightened) worldly life. Although early [[Buddhism]] ({{Wiki|Hinayana}}) is contrasted with later [[Buddhism]] ([[Mahayana]]) in that the latter emphasizes striving for the [[enlightenment]] of all (apparent) beings rather than simply oneself, in neither case can the motivation for {{Wiki|ethical}} living be called '[[selfish]]', because [[Buddhist]] [[doctrine]] holds the notion of a '{{Wiki|self}}' to be {{Wiki|illusory}}. | + | The {{Wiki|purpose}} of living an {{Wiki|ethical}} [[life]] is to escape the [[suffering]] [[inherent]] in (unenlightened) [[worldly]] [[life]]. Although early [[Buddhism]] ({{Wiki|Hinayana}}) is contrasted with later [[Buddhism]] ([[Mahayana]]) in that the [[latter]] emphasizes striving for the [[enlightenment]] of all (apparent) [[beings]] rather than simply oneself, in neither case can the [[motivation]] for {{Wiki|ethical}} living be called '[[selfish]]', because [[Buddhist]] [[doctrine]] holds the notion of a '{{Wiki|self}}' to be {{Wiki|illusory}}. |
− | [[Buddhist]] teachings claim that there is no real difference between ourselves and others; therefore one should attempt to increase the happiness of all living things as eagerly as one's own. This is why many [[Buddhists]] choose to be {{Wiki|vegetarians}}. | + | [[Buddhist]] teachings claim that there is no real difference between ourselves and others; therefore one should attempt to increase the [[happiness]] of all living things as eagerly as one's own. This is why many [[Buddhists]] choose to be {{Wiki|vegetarians}}. |
− | Historical Development of [[Buddhist Philosophy]] | + | Historical [[Development]] of [[Buddhist Philosophy]] |
− | Early Development | + | Early [[Development]] |
− | The [[philosophical]] outlook of Earliest [[Buddhism]] was primarily negative, in the sense that it focused on what [[doctrines]] to reject more than on what [[doctrines]] to accept. This dimension has been preserved by the {{Wiki|Madhyamaka}} school. It includes critical rejections of all views, which is a form of [[philosophy]], but it is reluctant to posit its own. Only [[knowledge]] that is useful in achieving [[enlightenment]] is valued. The cycle of [[philosophical]] upheavals that in part drove the diversification of [[Buddhism]] into its many schools and sects only began once [[Buddhists]] began attempting to make explicit the implicit {{Wiki|philosophy}} of the [[Buddha]] and the early [[Suttas]]. | + | The [[philosophical]] outlook of Earliest [[Buddhism]] was primarily negative, in the [[sense]] that it focused on what [[doctrines]] to reject more than on what [[doctrines]] to accept. This [[dimension]] has been preserved by the {{Wiki|Madhyamaka}} school. It includes critical rejections of all [[views]], which is a [[form]] of [[philosophy]], but it is reluctant to posit its own. Only [[knowledge]] that is useful in achieving [[enlightenment]] is valued. The cycle of [[philosophical]] upheavals that in part drove the diversification of [[Buddhism]] into its many schools and sects only began once [[Buddhists]] began attempting to make explicit the implicit {{Wiki|philosophy}} of the [[Buddha]] and the early [[Suttas]]. |
− | After the [[death]] of the [[Buddha]], attempts were made to gather his teachings and transmit them in a commonly agreed form, first {{Wiki|orally}}, then also in writing (The [[Tripitaka]]). In addition to collecting the [[Buddha]]'s speeches and rules for {{Wiki|monastic}} life ([[Vinaya]]), [[monks]] soon undertook to condense what they considered the essential elements of [[Buddhist]] [[doctrine]] into lists of categories, provided with extensive commentary. This process took shape from about the 2nd century BCE to probably the 2nd century CE. | + | After the [[death]] of the [[Buddha]], attempts were made to [[gather]] his teachings and transmit them in a commonly agreed [[form]], first {{Wiki|orally}}, then also in [[writing]] (The [[Tripitaka]]). In addition to collecting the [[Buddha]]'s speeches and {{Wiki|rules}} for {{Wiki|monastic}} [[life]] ([[Vinaya]]), [[monks]] soon undertook to condense what they considered the [[essential]] [[elements]] of [[Buddhist]] [[doctrine]] into lists of categories, provided with extensive commentary. This process took shape from about the 2nd century BCE to probably the 2nd century CE. |
Later Developments | Later Developments | ||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
Comparison With Other [[Philosophies]] | Comparison With Other [[Philosophies]] | ||
− | {{Wiki|Arthur Schopenhauer}} in his "World as Will and Idea" presented a description of [[suffering]] and its cause in a Western garb. | + | {{Wiki|Arthur Schopenhauer}} in his "[[World]] as Will and [[Idea]]" presented a description of [[suffering]] and its [[cause]] in a {{Wiki|Western}} garb. |
− | {{Wiki|Baruch Spinoza}}, though he argued for the existence of a permanent {{Wiki|reality}}, asserts that all [[phenomenal]] existence is transitory. In his opinion sorrow is conquered "by finding an object of [[knowledge]] which is not transient, not {{Wiki|ephemeral}}, but is immutable, permanent, everlasting." [[Buddhism]] teaches that such a quest is bound to fail. | + | {{Wiki|Baruch Spinoza}}, though he argued for the [[existence]] of a [[permanent]] {{Wiki|reality}}, asserts that all [[phenomenal]] [[existence]] is transitory. In his opinion [[sorrow]] is conquered "by finding an [[object]] of [[knowledge]] which is not transient, not {{Wiki|ephemeral}}, but is immutable, [[permanent]], everlasting." [[Buddhism]] teaches that such a quest is [[bound]] to fail. |
− | {{Wiki|David Hume}}, after a relentless analysis of the [[mind]], concluded that [[consciousness]] consists of fleeting [[mental]] states. {{Wiki|Hume}}'s Bundle theory is a very similar concept to anatta. | + | {{Wiki|David Hume}}, after a relentless analysis of the [[mind]], concluded that [[consciousness]] consists of fleeting [[mental]] states. {{Wiki|Hume}}'s Bundle {{Wiki|theory}} is a very similar {{Wiki|concept}} to [[anatta]]. |
− | Buddhist Philosophical Figures | + | [[Buddhist]] [[Philosophical]] Figures |
[[Asanga]] | [[Asanga]] |
Latest revision as of 18:31, 3 January 2015
Introduction
Buddhist philosophy is the branch of Eastern philosophy based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha (c. 563 BCE- c. 483 BCE). Buddhist philosophy deals extensively with problems in metaphysics, phenomenology, ethics, and epistemology.
From its inception, Buddhism has had a strong philosophical component. Buddhism is founded on the rejection of certain orthodox philosophical concepts, in which the Buddha had been instructed by various teachers. Buddhism rejects atheism, theism, monism, and dualism alike. The Buddha criticized all concepts of metaphysical being and non-being, and this critique is inextricable from the founding of Buddhism.
Particular points of Buddhist philosophizing have often been the subject of disputes between different schools of Buddhism. Metaphysical questions such as "Is there a god?" and "Does the soul (Atman) really exist?" have divided the Buddha's followers even during his own lifetime, and epistemological debates over the proper modes of evidence have always been lively in Buddhism.
Readers should note that theory for its own sake is not valued in Buddhism, but theory pursued in the interest of enlightenment for oneself or others is fully consistent with Buddhist values and ethics.
Buddhism As Philosophy?
Some have asserted that Buddhism as a whole is a philosophy rather than a religion. Proponents of such a view may argue that
(a) Buddhism is non-theistic (i.e., it has no special use for the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods) or atheistic and
(b) religions necessarily involve some form of theism. Others might contest either part of such an argument. Other arguments for Buddhism "as" philosophy may claim that Buddhism does not have doctrines in the same sense as other religions; the Buddha himself taught that a person should accept a teaching only if one's own experience verifies it.
Arguments against Buddhism as a philosophy might call attention to the way Buddhism's pervasive inclusion of supernatural entities (not "gods" in the sense of Western monotheism, of course), to what most scholars identify as worship practices (ceremonial reverence of saints, etc.), to Buddhism's thoroughly developed hierarchies of clergy (not usually characteristic of a "philosophy"), and its overall religious organization.
A third perspective might take the position that Buddhism can be practiced either as a religion or as a philosophy. A similar distinction is often made with reference to Taoism.
Lama Anagorika Govinda expressed it as follows in the book 'A Living Buddhism for the West':
"Thus we could say that the Buddha's Dharma is,
as experience and as a way to practical realization, a religion;
as the intellectual formulation of this experience, a philosophy;
and as a result of self-observation and analysis, a psychology.
Whoever treads this path acquires a norm of behavior that is not dictated from without, but is the result of an inner process of maturation and that we - regarding it from without - can call morality."
It should also be noted that in the South and East Asian cultures in which Buddhism achieved most of its development, the distinction between philosophy and religion is somewhat unclear and possibly quite spurious, so this may be a semantic problem arising in the West alone.
Philosophical Areas Addressed in Buddhism
Epistemology
Decisive in distinguishing Buddhism from what is commonly called Hinduism is the issue of epistemological justification. The schools of Indian logic recognize a certain set of valid justifications for knowledge, while Buddhism recognizes a smaller set. Both accept perception and argument, for example, but for the orthodox schools (of Hinduism), the received textual tradition (e.g., the Vedas) is in itself an epistemological category equal to perception and argument (although this is not necessarily true for some of the non-orthodox schools, like Vedanta). Thus, in the orthodox schools, if a claim was made that could not be substantiated by appeal to the textual canon, it would be viewed as ridiculous as a claim that the sky was green.
Buddhism, on the other hand, rejected an inflexible reverence of accepted doctrine. As the Buddha said:
Do not accept anything by mere tradition. . . Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. . . Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. . . But when you know for yourselves -- these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness -- then do you live acting accordingly.
-the Kalama Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya III.65
Metaphysics and Phenomenology
Issues Arising From the Doctrine of Anatta
In earliest Buddhism and today still in Theravāda and the Madhyamaka, any metaphysical essence or being underlying the play of phenomenal experience is rejected. No "soul" or permanent self was recognized, and the perception of a continuous identity was held to be an illusion.
Any feeling whatsoever, any perception whatsoever, any mental processes whatsoever, any consciousness whatsoever -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle, common or sublime, far or near; every consciousness -- is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as "This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am."
-the Anattalakkhana Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59
From within the context of the Madhyamaka, we find Candrakirti:
"Self is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness".
-Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā (Bodhisattvayogacaryacatuhsatakatika) 256.1.7
This anti-essentialist teaching, known as anatta, brought up many questions. If there is no ātman or Brahman underlying the objects and events of the universe, how could they be explained? What gave them their existence? And if there was no "self", who makes the decisions we think we make, and what gets reincarnated?
Early Buddhist philosophers and exegetes created a pluralist metaphysical and phenomenological system in which all experiences of people, things, and events, can be broken down into smaller and smaller perceptual or perceptual-ontological units called dharmas. These dharmas (roughly synonymous with "phenomena") were interpreted differently by different schools: some held they were real, some held only some were real, some held all were illusory, some held they were empty, some held they were intrinsically associated with suffering, etc.
Other debates in metaphysics and phenomenology include the issue of the Pudgala, or "person", which was inserted by the Pudgalavada school to replace the ātman as that which transmigrates and that which carries the burden of karma from one life to another. Other schools made unsurprising objection to this. There were further sub-debates regarding whether the pudgala was real or illusory or something in between. The Yogacara school, somewhat later, would later elevate the mind to act as a substitute for Brahman, much as the Pudgala replaces the ātman.
In many or all of these debates, some would point out the irony of pursuing questions which the Buddha was often prone to refuse to answer, on the grounds that they were non-conducive to enlightenment.
Dependent Origination
The original positive Buddhist contribution to the field of metaphysics is pratītyasamutpāda, which arises from the Buddhist critique of Indian theories of causality. It states that events are not predetermined, nor are they random, and it rejects notions of direct causation owing to the need for such theories in the Indian context to be undergirded by a substantialist metaphysics. Instead, it posits the arising of events under certain conditions which are inextricable, such that the units in question at no time have independent existence.
This being, that becomes.
From the arising of this, that arises.
This not being, that does not become.
From the ceasing of this, that ceases.
-Samyutta Nikaya ii.28
Pratityasamutpada goes on to posit that certain specific events, concepts, or realities are always dependent on other specific things. Craving, for example, is always dependent on, and caused by, emotion. Emotion is always dependent on contact with our surroundings. This chain of causation purports to show that the cessation of decay, death, and sorrow is indirectly dependent on the cessation of craving, and ultimately dependent on an all-encompassing stillness.
Nāgārjuna, one of the most influential Buddhist philosophers, asserted a direct connection between, even identity of, dependent origination, anatta, and śūnyatā. He pointed out that implicit in the early Buddhist concept of dependent origination is the lack of any substantial being (anatta) underlying the participants in origination, so that they have no independent existence, a state identified as emptiness (śūnyatā), or emptiness of a nature or essence (svabhāva). This element of Nāgārjuna's thought is relatively uncontroversial, but it opens the way for his identification of saṃsāra and nirvana, which was revolutionary.
Interpenetration
This doctrine comes from the Avatamsaka Sutra and its associated schools. It holds that all phenomena are intimately connected. Two images are used to convey this idea. The first is known as Indra's net. The net is set with jewels which have the extraordinary property that they reflect all of the other jewels. The second image is that of the world text. This image portrays the world as consisting of an enormous text which is as large as the universe itself. The 'words' of the text are composed of the phenomena that make up the world. However, every atom of the world contains the whole text within it. It is the work of a Buddha to let out the text so that beings can be liberated from suffering.
This idea was enormously influential on the Japanese monk kūkai in founding the Shingon school of Buddhism.
Ethics
Although there are many ethical tenets in Buddhism that differ depending on whether one is a monk or a layman, and depending on individual schools, the Buddhist system of ethics can always be summed up in the Eightfold Path.
And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of suffering -- precisely this Noble Eightfold Path -- right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
-Samyutta Nikaya LVI.11
The purpose of living an ethical life is to escape the suffering inherent in (unenlightened) worldly life. Although early Buddhism (Hinayana) is contrasted with later Buddhism (Mahayana) in that the latter emphasizes striving for the enlightenment of all (apparent) beings rather than simply oneself, in neither case can the motivation for ethical living be called 'selfish', because Buddhist doctrine holds the notion of a 'self' to be illusory.
Buddhist teachings claim that there is no real difference between ourselves and others; therefore one should attempt to increase the happiness of all living things as eagerly as one's own. This is why many Buddhists choose to be vegetarians.
Historical Development of Buddhist Philosophy
Early Development
The philosophical outlook of Earliest Buddhism was primarily negative, in the sense that it focused on what doctrines to reject more than on what doctrines to accept. This dimension has been preserved by the Madhyamaka school. It includes critical rejections of all views, which is a form of philosophy, but it is reluctant to posit its own. Only knowledge that is useful in achieving enlightenment is valued. The cycle of philosophical upheavals that in part drove the diversification of Buddhism into its many schools and sects only began once Buddhists began attempting to make explicit the implicit philosophy of the Buddha and the early Suttas.
After the death of the Buddha, attempts were made to gather his teachings and transmit them in a commonly agreed form, first orally, then also in writing (The Tripitaka). In addition to collecting the Buddha's speeches and rules for monastic life (Vinaya), monks soon undertook to condense what they considered the essential elements of Buddhist doctrine into lists of categories, provided with extensive commentary. This process took shape from about the 2nd century BCE to probably the 2nd century CE.
Later Developments
Very soon after, additional teachings began to be added to the list of important Buddhist texts. Many of these altered and refined Buddhist philosophy.
Comparison With Other Philosophies
Arthur Schopenhauer in his "World as Will and Idea" presented a description of suffering and its cause in a Western garb.
Baruch Spinoza, though he argued for the existence of a permanent reality, asserts that all phenomenal existence is transitory. In his opinion sorrow is conquered "by finding an object of knowledge which is not transient, not ephemeral, but is immutable, permanent, everlasting." Buddhism teaches that such a quest is bound to fail.
David Hume, after a relentless analysis of the mind, concluded that consciousness consists of fleeting mental states. Hume's Bundle theory is a very similar concept to anatta.
Buddhist Philosophical Figures
Asanga
Chandrakirti
Dignaga
Dogen
Fazang
Jinul
Jizang
Nagarjuna
Vasubandhu
Wonhyo