%20(1).jpg)
In the previous post we presented Buddhism as a religion. Now we will deal with Buddhist philosophy. Buddhist philosophizing, as with some Western philosophical proposals, is a process that has the explicit purpose of transforming those who dedicate themselves to such activity. Even though Buddhist philosophy is only one part of this universe, sometimes it merges so completely into this larger whole that it is difficult to separate them.
However, we cannot forget that, within the scholastic context in which Buddhist philosophy is presented, particularly in the Tibetan universe, faith is seen as something secondary, given that the development of wisdom is the main goal of this tradition. Although we can sometimes speak of Buddhism and Buddhist philosophy in an equivalent way, which could lead some to believe that only "faith" engages in both cases, it is precisely the opposite. What brings the two things together is the wisdom and critical questioning that guides both Buddhism and its philosophy.
Buddhist philosophy refers to the philosophical investigations and systems of inquiry that developed among various Buddhist schools in India after Buddhahood (deep and final state of nirvana, achieved after the death of the physical body, after attaining enlightenment) and in They then spread throughout Asia.
The Buddhist path combines philosophical reasoning and meditation. Buddhist traditions present a multitude of paths to liberation. Buddhist thinkers in India and later East Asia addressed topics as varied as phenomenology, ethics, ontology, epistemology, logic, philosophy of time, and metaphysics.
Is it possible to unite Eastern and Western thought?
In an interview with the Instituto Humanitas Unisons’ magazine, historian and philosopher André Bueno says that, to talk about what, in the West, is called “religion,” an extensive set of reservations is necessary in relation to the thoughts and beliefs of the Asian world which is vast and multifaceted. Trying to create any idea of an “Eastern thought” is as false and dangerous as saying that there is a “Western thought.”
The differences that would separate “philosophy” or “science” from “religion” are often not found. However, when Westerners read Saint Augustine or discuss human embryo research with reference to belief in life and God, these classifications do not make much sense to Easterners either. Even though a look at Asia mentions a fantastic cultural mirror, in which the meanings seem reversed, several points of similarity are found.
André prefers to say that Buddhism is a movement, and if he were to classify it according to Western criteria, he would be inclined to call it philosophy. He believes the problem is that a religion, as we understand it, has a clergy, a creed, and a liturgy. Buddhists have clergy and liturgies, but they do not have a defined creed.
Its main currents are Theravada, which holds the oldest and most traditional Buddhism that includes doubt in the existence of God or gods; Mahayana, argues that God or gods can exist, according to each school and Vajrayana, constitutes Tibetan Buddhism and says that if you believe in them, gods can exist.
These definitions are more than enough to demonstrate that Buddhism is far from being a “religion” as we conceive it. On the other hand, Buddhism is a phenomenon with deeply religious characteristics, and as such cannot be ignored. One of its most exciting elements is the notion of open and unrestricted spiritual freedom. He does not treat people as guilty of sins or as victims of fate. The choice for freedom is extremely personal.
Fusion of Eastern and Western philosophy
For André Bueno, any merger implies the loss of part of its original identity. These mergers should not be feared but rather encouraged. Why maintain old, worn-out identities if they no longer serve us? Even in the Chinese case, where some things have worked for centuries, there were other aspects of their culture that have gone with time, because change is inevitable.
We can only choose whether it will be done gradually or whether it will occur violently after irresponsible postponements. He considers the experience being conducted in Brazil to be wonderful. We have a large group of European descendants, capitalized on Portuguese culture – however, almost half of the population brought contributions from Africa to our culture, and we must also count on the indigenous presence, so massacred, but so vital to our culture. conquest of the land.
This is the construction of a new cultural wealth, a fantastic fusion with unimaginable possibilities, if we take it to the field of thought. We must also turn our attention to Asia, as it is already part of our daily lives through the thousands of products and technologies we use. We therefore need to understand how they think and draw lessons that will be useful to us.
In general terms, Buddhism merges with other Asian traditions in its way of acting and debating its proposals, standing out only for social action and proselytism (intent or commitment to convert people, or certain groups, to a certain idea or religion, or gain followers via oral instruction). Whether in India or in China or Japan, Buddhism was received as an option of thought.
Buddhism arises from social and intellectual dissatisfaction with the traditional Indian world. A blessed prince, Siddhartha Gautama, discovers in the sixth century BC that reality is not as it seems. There is hunger, disease, old age, and death; but there is also wisdom, a means by which we can free ourselves from a repetitive cycle of rebirths.
After trying different meditation methods, he discovers a new path, more balanced, less demanding, and liberal, which makes him the enlightened one, the Buddha. Buddhism brought with it a series of elements of what is called Hinduism, such as the issue of reincarnation, gods, meditation, etc. Why did not Hinduism go beyond the Indian world? What did Buddha bring differently to this world? Firstly, Buddhism innovated when it ignored the issue of caste.
Transcendence within everyone’s reach
If for Hinduism the figure of the Brahmin is fundamental, he who by birth is destined for religion and the top of traditional society, for Buddhists, the liberation of the soul is a human potential and if it is human, it is in everyone. Everyone could free themselves from reincarnation! This was exciting news at the time, and seriously contradicted the elite of society.
As Buddha had been a prince, he gained even more authority by having abandoned all the advantages of his social position. Since Buddhism is a movement that was born as a spiritual liberation – but also, it is important to emphasize, social – the second step was to do something different from what the religions of the time did: preach.
Gautama Buddha surrounded by followers,
an 18th century Burmese watercolor
Yes, Buddhism is probably the first movement of its kind to be proselytizing, and its missionaries began their journeys across India to spread the good news: transcendence within everyone's reach.
Idea of “causes and conditions”
The fundamental question is: how to free yourself? Discourses on the origin of the universe are, in general, an inheritance from the early days of religions, and served to legitimize an equally religious ideology. For this reason, Buddhism was little concerned with the origin, but with how to resolve things now. One of the Buddhist lines argues that existence occurs like a cinema film, in distinct frames that, interconnected, generate movement. If we accept this proposition, creation occurs all the time, in imperceptible “flashes,” and nirvana is the cessation of this movement!
This is an extremely complicated and comprehensive question. Buddhist literature is vast, and, for this reason, studying Buddhism is adopting an interpretation from a lineage of masters. On the other hand, the goal of these quests – nirvana – means exactly the understanding of these things. What Buddhists mean by this is that “it does not matter at this moment how everything came about, but rather, enlightenment. After that, you will understand everything.”
Philosophical orientation
Philosophy in India aimed at spiritual liberation and had soteriological objectives (soteriology is a part of theology that studies the salvation of humanity). In his study of Indian Mādhyamaka Buddhist philosophy, Peter Della Santina (c. 1950-2006), translator and author of several books on Buddhism, wrote:
First, attention must be drawn to the fact that philosophical systems in India were rarely, if ever, purely speculative, or descriptive.All of India's great philosophical systems: Sāṅkhya, Advaitavedānta, Mādhyamaka were concerned with providing a means to liberation or salvation. It was an unspoken assumption with these systems that if their philosophy were correctly understood and assimilated, an unconditioned state free from suffering and limitation could be achieved. [...] If this fact is overlooked, as it often happens because of the propensity engendered by formal Western philosophy to regard the philosophical enterprise as purely descriptive, the real meaning of Indian and Buddhist philosophy will be lost.
From the lineage
Another extremely specific characteristic of Buddhist philosophy, which involves traditions of transmission of knowledge, is the so-called lineage. When we talk about lineage, we refer both to what is transmitted, as well as to the people involved in this transmission, the way in which it occurs, the place and moment in which it occurs.
Lineages are particularly important, because if a certain concept is not transmitted and received in a clear and precise way, avoiding as much as possible the countless interferences, misrepresentations and filters resulting from the passage of information from one mind to another, after a few generations, both the teachings that were passed down more than 2,500 years ago, as well as those that are being transmitted today, would be completely distorted.
Therefore, within this context of lineage, particularly an uninterrupted oral lineage, so significant in the universe of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist thought, it is essential that we know who was the author of a given text, to whom it was passed, through how many generations it was passed, how and where this happened, direct and in-person transmission from one to the other being essential.
This aspect, almost incomprehensible to most philosophical traditions as established in the West, and even in other contexts in the East, may seem "alien" to most of us, mainly because we have not been taught to relate to texts in this way that we consult, read and interpret; but, from a strictly logical perspective, it seems almost "natural" to see that the closer we are to the author of the text, the easier it will be to understand what he is trying to express, particularly when it is an understanding that is not only intellectual, but also based on experience.
As seems natural, it is common to have greater affinity with a certain way of thinking and it is easier for us to "understand" some authors than others, precisely because of this process of empathy, but to what extent can we be sure that what we are reading and reinterpreting in our minds is it even remotely close to what the "other" tried to convey? This does not mean that we must simply receive the information in the most accurate way possible, and accept it without questioning, quite the contrary, as was said, analysis and contemplation are sine qua non aspects of the process.
It would be great if we could have direct access to Heidegger, Kant, Nietzsche and so on, if we could sit down with them, clarify doubts, ask the questions we wanted without "intermediaries". But unfortunately, we cannot. We cannot even have access to direct "holders" of that way of thinking, direct students who absorbed and identified deeply with what had been exposed to them in such a way that it would be as if it had been created by themselves.
As we know, knowledge is built from a previous understanding, and we cannot eliminate our previous meanings engendered by the time in which we were born, the context in which we live, our personal circumstances, etc.
But, when we are aware of our own limitations, it seems to be easier to understand differences as profound as the importance of lineage in a philosophical tradition, remembering that extremely competent, lucid, and intellectually gifted people effectively engaged in these activities and maintained such a tradition, and that they must have reasonable grounds for behaving that way.
Therefore, this sometimes-neglected aspect among Brazilian academics could also be taken into consideration, and not left aside as if it were just an "undesirable part" of a universe that is intended to be investigated.
Of the qualities
Another fundamental aspect, characteristic of Buddhist philosophical practice, is behavioral ethics, often neglected by researchers. The philosopher's conduct is put on the agenda so that its quality can be assessed. To better understand how this works, one can take the example of the prerequisites necessary for a scholar to become director of a Buddhist university, such as Nālandā.
Historians consider the Buddhist university and monastery of Nalanda to be the world's first planned residential university, whose inscriptions and records indicate a hierarchical campus system that housed around 10,000 students and 2,000 teachers. It was an important center for learning philosophy in India from the fifth century AD until the 12th century. (Wikipedia).
According to Jamgön Kongtrül (he was a Tibetan Buddhist scholar, poet, artist, doctor, tertön and polymath) for a philosopher and scholar to occupy the position of general director of the University, as was the case with Śāntarakṣita (an important and influential Buddhist philosopher Indian, from the Tibetan Buddhist tradition), it was necessary to have three fundamental qualities: being extremely erudite, having impeccable conduct and being a pleasant person with "good character". But what exactly does the last condition mean?
Within the philosophical structure of Buddhism, in addition to knowledge, as a form of transformation, it is necessary that the person who teaches and writes about such philosophy has a full understanding of what he says, in addition to possessing the same qualities presented by him, which in Tibetan it is called rtogs pa. This word is complicated to translate, but the closest meaning would be "to become completely aware" of something, "to understand clearly and fully", or simply "to understand".
If we simply choose to "understand", this could lead us to a very "simplistic" understanding of the word, allowing erroneous interpretations that could lead to an understanding of this term in its merely intellectual aspect, which is not always consistent with the word used in Tibetan language and its importance within philosophy, in which theory is also "understood" and "realized" in practice.
Returning to our attempt to understand the qualities necessary for a Buddhist philosopher, since we are not capable of knowing what actually happens in other people's minds - in this case, whether they have the level of "rtogs pa" (a full understanding), we can only have access to what comes directly to us through the senses and cognition, the only possible way of trying to know if the person was really a philosopher with this quality of "realization/understanding" would be if he actually behaved as such.
For this reason, the question of the character/conduct of the person who occupied the main position at the University was so important. Within the parameters of philosophy in the West, and even in university institutions, this type of question is not even asked, unless something “perverse,” or "outside the law" is done and it is "discovered". But, to approach Buddhist philosophical thought, in a way consistent with its own paradigms, this is also a fundamental aspect, which cannot fail to be considered when thinking about the very motivation of philosophical practice.
From dogmatism
In general, Western philosophers proclaim themselves as thinkers free from the need to follow any previously established doctrine to develop their investigations, whereas, in the case of Buddhist philosophy, there would be a need to follow a certain "fixed and limited canon " so that the philosophers' positions were accepted, which would make it a dogmatic philosophy. This statement is doubly questionable, both from Buddhist and Western philosophy.
As for contemporary Western philosophy, even though ideally the philosopher can have total freedom to express his thoughts, it is not easy to point out any philosopher who has effectively developed a line of thought and legitimized it within his area or even other areas of knowledge, which has not used many of the countless references previously recognized within its field of investigation.
In the case of Buddhist philosophy, although the stance of thinkers in relation to the question of the authority of texts is quite complex, undoubtedly in most cases they work within the boundaries of a textual universe in which the opinion of past philosophers is relevant; but then to say that due to this fact Buddhist philosophy is dogmatic would be somewhat simplistic, not to say naive.
As Mexican scholar Jose Ignacio Cabezón (2010) asserts, the canon of Buddhist scriptures is so rich and diverse that a thinker can find textual authentication to justify any view he wants to embrace. Within this context, in which a given opinion can be supported or opposed by equally valid textual sources, it will become necessary for academics to look for other ways to validate their points of view, as is the case with logical argumentation, widely disseminated within the molds established by Buddhist philosophy. Furthermore, just like Western philosophers, Buddhist philosophers also criticize other thinkers when they find it justifiable, which would be impossible if Buddhist philosophy were simple dogmatism.
Tsongkhapa, also known as Je Rinpoche and Lobsang Drapka, founded the Guelupa school of Tibetan Buddhism as a reform of the ancient Kadampa school, founded by Atisha in the 11th century, drew from the most varied sources of Buddhist tradition and worked particularly with Atisha's texts, by dedicating himself to explaining the two levels, "definitive" and "provisional", of elaborations on reality as it is. He asserts that the question of what a definitive or provisional view in the Buddha’s discourses was could not be settled by "relying" exclusively on the scriptures; and a correct view of reality could only be established when based on perfect reasoning and analysis (Cabezón, 2010).
Therefore, the statement that Western philosophy is free and Buddhist philosophy is dogmatic is nothing more than a position that is not consistent with the way in which both philosophies develop. As we know, it is impossible for us, human beings, from any nation, not to be nourished and guided by unconscious - or even conscious - paradigms that are linked to the cultural, historical, and contextual models that shape, over time, our way of life to consider.
In this way, both philosophies are limited by this human conditioning, which is general, and not of a particular culture.
Dogmatism would kill the sole raison d'être of Buddhist philosophizing, as it would make impossible all achievement/understanding that only becomes possible through a process of personal investigation, capable of fulfilling the true objective of this philosophy, freeing ourselves from the ignorance inherent to cyclical existence.
Teachings must be confirmed by logical analysis
For Indian Buddhist philosophers, the Buddha's teachings should not be taken on faith alone but confirmed by logical analysis (pramana) of the world. Early Buddhist texts mention that a person becomes a follower of the Buddha's teachings after pondering them wisely. Gradual training also requires a disciple to "investigate" (upaparikhati) and "scrutinize" (tuleti) the teachings.
Buddha also expected his disciples to approach him as a teacher critically and examine his actions and words, as shown in the Vīmaṃsaka Sutta (47th discourse of the Chinese Taisho Tripitaka within Majjhima Nikaya of the Pāli Canon in Theravada Buddhism and parallel to the Madhyama Agama), encouraging people to put the authority of spiritual teachers under investigation based on the results of their experiences and examples and to question the authority of the words of masters (including their own), scriptures and traditions – even their own logic, reasoning and deductions, as in Kālama-sutta, a discourse of the Buddha contained in the Aṅguttara Nikaya of the Tipiṭaka.
The relationship of the self is with its own self
According to André Bueno, Buddhism was well received in China by the general population, but Chinese intellectuals have always maintained a great distrust towards it. The Chinese had an ancient cultural tradition before Buddhism arrived in their lands; In China, to this day, immeasurable value is given to the study of history, literature, and philosophy. Thus, when Indian missionaries arrived, they won the hearts of the poorest population, but convinced very few Chinese intellectuals of the value of their proposals.
And what was the core of Chinese criticism of Buddhists? In addition to the fear of this foreign thought affecting the cultural and social structures of this civilization, which had already been established for a long time, Chinese thinkers proposed some questions that are very pertinent to Buddhists, such as: if a person meditates to achieve enlightenment, they will not it works. Whoever works supports what will become enlightened, but he himself does not become enlightened. Now, where is the justice in this situation?
Does this mean, therefore, that he who strives in the field to favor the nirvana of others achieves nothing for himself? And for those who meditate, are selfishness and inaction a reward? Another comic story illustrates this well: a Buddhist master once wanted to teach a Chinese sage what meditation was. He explained to him that meditation consisted of standing still, with his eyes closed, oblivious to the world and forgetting himself. The wise man replied: “I already do this every night when I sleep. Why do I need to do more”?
What we see, therefore, is that Buddhism, to survive within China, needed to adapt to the local culture. Although he proposed interesting problems for Chinese philosophy, his space was consolidated precisely in this area that we call “religious,” and after some time, his main challenge was to compete for believers with the Taoists. Furthermore, André states that he is not at all convinced that Buddhism is the only movement that has a special relationship of “I with myself.”
Except for some specific schools, many Buddhists dedicate themselves daily to their gods, and understand themselves as active parts of an interconnected cosmos. Perhaps we can say that Buddhists do defend individual overcoming as an indispensable factor in enlightenment. But is this so different from what some of us in the West believe?
Octavio Paz Lozano, Mexican poet, essayist, translator, and diplomat, notable for his practical and theoretical work in the field of modern or avant-garde poetry, liked to say that the only thing the world was missing was the fertile encounter between Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhism could teach more effective meditation techniques, a little more tolerance and a more responsible way of life that is less harsh on human errors.
Ancient Christianity, however, had a special message of hope and liberation, and was also born, destined to be multiethnic, transcultural, and egalitarian. The human concern of original Christianity, from Jesus to Saint Francis, is the core of a discourse of charity and support often unknown in some corners of Asia. And what does this have to do with the “I with myself” relationship?
A meditative Buddhism like Zen, for example, can teach self-discovery, but it can also lead to selfishness; Christianity can cling to a radical, fundamentalist dogmatic message that makes the individual forget himself, which can make him either an automaton devoid of will or an active and reforming saint.
The meeting of these thoughts always leads to some kind of friction, but the results can be healthy. The reasoning is simple, but true: we can use the best of both to benefit a renewed conscience, the construction of greater tolerance, and a healthier individuality. The most demanding thing, however, is to have a clear awareness of what we are doing.
So, if we make a real attempt at rapprochement, it is quite possible that some meaningful experiences could be extracted from it; otherwise, we will continually be held hostage by fundamentalists or falsifiers, and as a result, religious dialogue will inevitably be harmed.
What is the meaning of silence about God in Buddhism?
Depending on the Buddhist tradition in which the practitioner belongs, André Bueno says that there is great care in affirming the existence of God or any other divine force. We are so small in front of it that appealing to it is a waste of time and energy. Some Chinese theories argue that the universe, if infinite, has always existed – both in time and in constitution.
The phenomenon of creation, as well as the end of everything, belong to the finite, and not to the infinite. If God is infinite, then the creation of the world may be just a moment in it all. Faced with the magnitude of the issue, Chinese intellectuals appealed for different answers, ranging from physical theories to even a lack of interest in the problem.
As for the Buddhists, they decided to face the problem in two ways: one of them was the creation of the Chan school (which in Japan would become Zen), which consists of dedicating oneself to oneself, seeking an inner and integrative connection with oneself the cosmos, in order to put an end to the matter; the other was to invest in a popular religiosity, full of gods and myths, which facilitate dialogue with the humblest people, simplifying the problem of liberation through a discourse that privileges the execution of good deeds as a form of spiritual liberation.
It may seem strange that there are two such opposing tendencies, and the acceptance of their coexistence is a great hypocrisy: however, if people can liberate themselves by two different means, then the fundamental question is how the individual finds the correct method for free yourself. The rest is detail.
Unreal entities and acting in the void
As for “acting in the void,” this concerns, within traditional Chinese thought, the ability of the wise man to move in a discreet, harmonious, and necessary way in the face of the unfolding of life. Given that we cannot prove the existence of an afterlife, or even if there is reincarnation, the Chinese – Confucian intellectuals, and to a certain extent, Daoist thinkers – believed that correct wisdom in acting would bring happiness here, now, in immanence. This means understanding the mechanisms by which things operate, their functional ecology, and, therefore, avoiding friction and useless wear and tear.
Therefore, the wise man does not act directly, he knows how to adapt to the movement, he knows how to lead without forcing, he knows how to promote without imposing, and so on. If he achieves this, he “acts in the void,” conducting things in an “invisible” way. He only manifests himself when necessary, considering that his knowledge inevitably generates actions and reactions.
This conception is quite different from the “Buddhist void,” a concept imported from India that presupposed that we are “unreal” entities. In this view, if everything is composed of tiny particles without a distinct character, then we ourselves are a great mass of indistinct things! The search for this meaning of who we are, found in an emptying of the notion that “I am something,” is what would bring liberation.
But let us always remember: such definitions, as presented here, are quite general, and tend to be the subject of entire books. What we can do is instigate a little debate on the topic, considering that we have very few experts on the subject, but many dogmatic beginners ready to disagree with the first syllable of each of these phrases.
Transcendence
Another probable reason the Buddha refused to engage in metaphysics is that he viewed Ultimate Reality and Nirvana as devoid of sensory mediation and conception. Therefore, language itself is a priori inadequate to explain it.
Thus, the Buddha's silence does not indicate misology (hatred, aversion to logic, logical reasoning, logical discourse, reason, the art of reasoning) or disdain for philosophy. Rather, it indicates that he viewed the answers to these questions as incomprehensible to the unenlightened. Dependent arising provides a framework for analyzing reality that is not based on metaphysical assumptions about existence or non-existence, but rather on the direct cognition of phenomena as they are presented to the mind in meditation.
In his early texts Buddha describes Dharma (in the sense of "truth") as "beyond reasoning" or "transcending logic", in the sense that reasoning is a subjectively introduced aspect of the way unenlightened humans perceive things, and it is the conceptual structure that supports your cognitive process, rather than a characteristic of things as they really are.
In this context, going "beyond reasoning" means penetrating the nature of reasoning from within and removing the causes of experiencing any future stress because of it, rather than working outside the system in its entirety.
֎
Did you like this post? Do you have any suggestions or criticism? Write your comment below and, if you want, you can share it. All of this helps a lot in my work.
Links used and suggested
댓글