All Posts Tagged With: "Philosophy"

Do you remember this verse by Dromtonpa (1005-1064) from the article on the tools for meditation?

Some think, “Meditators do not need to study; those who teach need to study”. Actually, learning is more necessary for the meditator; teachers may just incur the fault of explaining something incorrectly.

Have you thought about its meaning? It is pretty simple really. Dromtonpa is saying; it is vital for a meditator to study in order to properly understand what to meditate on. This may sound obvious however, many  people think that studying or doing philosophy gets in the way of real practice. Dromtonpa, however, is saying, it is more important for a meditator to study than a teacher, because all a teacher can do is say something wrong. Whereas a meditator who has not studied, could potentially waste years meditating on an incorrect object or wrong understanding of the nature of reality - Emptiness¹.

In this essay I intend to argue (not in the sense of a quarrel but, rather in the sense of a philosophical argument or essay) that studying philosophy is a form of dharma practice in and of itself. That there are real and tangible benefits in the practice of studying philosophy. Moreover, studying philosophy is vital, if one is seriously engaging the Buddhist path. Without the ability to think deeply and clearly on subjects such as the nature of conditioned existence or Dependant Arising, these subjects cannot be properly understood. Do you really expect to be able to meditate on subjects such as these if you cannot think deeply and clearly on them? In fact, I would argue that without the ability to analyze and use critical thinking, even the compassion spoken of in Buddhism cannot be fully developed. Therefore the wisdom lineage, as in “method and wisdom”, pervades the method lineage.

The late Gelug lama Geshe Jampa Gyatso, who was one of my teachers, a great scholar and meditation master² once said:

The Kadampa Geshes have a saying:
‘Meditating without having listened to teachings
is like someone without hands trying to climb a snow mountain’.

I believe a distinction needs to be made between studying philosophy and doing philosophy, in order to fully appreciate the benefits of philosophical knowledge. Much has been made of the worthiness of Buddhist scholars, that perhaps they are merely academics. Some say their knowledge of the dharma is merely knowledge for it’s own sake. This sentiment has at times, caused me great concern, because I feel it can sometimes used as an excuse to do no study at all. Although there will be times when a practitioner must focus almost exclusively on meditation, this is only after gaining a proper foundation in Buddhist thought. While it is true that some people think that meditation is all that is needed, and that philosophy is for teachers and academics, upon reflection this can be shown to be incorrect. However for those who may not intuitively see the benefits of doing philosophy, I will attempt to explain the difference.

Studying Philosophy vs Doing Philosophy

Studying is generally thought of as the act of analyzing a given subject as a means of understanding that subject. However, more often than not, we engage this process by merely learning definitions and divisions. We then think we know the material. If we are studying computer programming this method of study is fine. We will find suitable work and earn a living. However, this approach doesn’t work when it comes to the study of dharma. Why? Because the purpose of studying dharma is not merely the collection of information. Understanding the dharma is not merely the ability to repeat the definitions and divisions of a text.

Philosophical truths are not things that we look up in books; they are truths we acquire by hearing, reading, thinking, contemplation and meditation. If you merely report what someone else says, then you are not doing the thinking for yourself. Moreover, doing philosophy requires analysis and an ability to think critically. As Buddhist practitioners, we need to unearth the wisdom of an ancient tradition for ourselves. Therefore we need to think for ourselves. We are not reinventing the dharma wheel; we are discovering that wheel for ourselves.

Doing philosophy is therefore an investigation into the fundamental ideas and concepts we hold as true. We must challenge our everyday assumptions of personal identity, free-will and even if enlightenment is possible! Doing philosophy, for example, is taking the concept that all phenomena are dependent on causes and conditions, parts and an imputing consciousness, and critically and rigorously investigate these assertions to see if, in fact, this is the case. Being able to merely explain Dependent Arising is therefore not doing philosophy and therefore I suggest it is also not studying philosophy.

However, this rigorous investigation is only part of the process of doing philosophy. Developing responses to these questions is an important component in this process. Traditionally in India and in the monastic traditions of Tibet, doing philosophy was engaged through debate. But this requires the participants be in one place at the same time.

On the other hand, in western philosophy³ this same conversation and rigorous questioning of our unchallenged assumptions takes place via a written essay. The essay is the central communications device, in this tradition. It is a tool used to tease out from our subconscious these assumptions, to investigate them, and to formulate clear and concise thoughts on them. The written essay speaks our ideas, if you like. There is also the tradition in western philosophy of other philosophers responding to our claims via their own essays. Bringing points of difference, counter-arguments and objections to the conversation. A conversation of “call and response” takes place, albeit over a longer period of time.

I would like to see more of this type of conversation take place between western Buddhists. We, as a tradition , can leverage our own traditional cultural heritage in the form of essay writing, and use it to benefit both Buddhism and our own understanding of it. Lets not leave this conversation to only university professors and those from academia that merely engage it because it is interesting. Let us learn how to communicate as they do, and use these tools to forward the project of presenting Buddhism to the west.

There are also other benefits by communicating in this way. The most powerful of which is; writing as a means of learning. When writing in your own words for example, what is meditation, your thoughts on the subject need to be very clear. Writing is therefore a tool for learning and engaging the tradition. The other advantage is that others may also benefit from your efforts. This is something that western university philosophy departments have been acutely aware of for some time. Much emphasis is placed on the ability to think critically and write clearly. Because of the importance of these skills, students of western philosophy in universities are taught how to read and write critically.

Raising Possible Objections

Some people might object to the argument that doing philosophy is a practice in and of itself. They might say that knowledge for knowledge sake is a waste of time. That wisdom will arise through meditation alone. They assume that study is knowledge for knowledge sake. They do this because they fail to see the distinction between doing philosophy and knowing lots of different stuff. As to whether wisdom will naturally arise through meditation. I believe that even the action of meditation comes from learning it from a teacher or a book. So, if one needs to hear and think about how to meditate, how can the ultimate nature of reality dawn without any guidance? Surely if this were the case we would have already finished the job of becoming enlightened.

Others criticize those who debate details of, for example, the view of emptiness or the meaning of cessation. They believe that these things are beyond conceptuality and therefore; speaking, debating (as in the monastic sense) and discussing them will not bear fruit. That one should just meditate, they might say. However, these people fail to understand that discussion is part of the process of hearing, thinking and meditating. While it may be true that the direct cognition of emptiness is beyond words. That does not invalidate the benefits gained by investigating the nature of such things. Moreover, I would assert that in order for the direct non-conceptual cognition of emptiness to arise, it must be proceeded by a conceptual cognition, which is a union of calm-abiding and special insight. This union in turn is proceeded by thinking about the meaning of emptiness. So you can see from this, an understanding of the ultimate truth of all phenomena starts by deeply, clearly and critically contemplating the meaning of reality.

Yet others may think that combining western and Buddhist philosophy will weaken what the Buddha had to say. Besides that fact that this counter-argument commitments the Straw-person fallacy⁴, I would suggest that if something is worth believing, it is worthy of critical analysis. If the basic assertions of Buddhism are true, then these assertions will be validated when placed under critical analysis. I would also suggest that we are not conflating two traditions but, rather leveraging the tools of one tradition for the betterment of the other.

Summary and Call to Action

Given the different locations and time zones of Buddhist scholars, authors and practitioners, using the tool of essay writing to discuss ideas and thoughts on philosophical truths seems like the perfect communication device. I would like to see those in the position to do so, begin to engage each other in this way. I don’t know where or how that would happen. Perhaps one of the Buddhist magazines could help publish and distribute these essays much like university academic philosophical journals do.

In this essay I have tried to posit the benefits of rigorous investigation and critical thinking as a means of gaining insights. That is to say, studying philosophy is not merely knowledge for knowledge sake. That it can in fact be an actual dharma practice. Much of the Buddhist path is made up of insights and perspectives. So if we are to achieve the paths to enlightenment, we need to develop these insights and perspectives. In order to do that, we need to challenge our everyday assumptions on how things exist. Thus we must do philosophy.

Footnotes:

1. Emptiness is a technical Buddhist term that relates to the ultimate nature of reality [↩]
2. At the time of his death, Geshe Jampa Gyatso remained in clear light for seven days [↩]
3. though perhaps this is merely my observation based on limited exposure to this tradition [↩]
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man [↩]

from Philosophy for kids

Teaching children the art of collaborative philosophical inquiry brings them persistent, long-term cognitive benefits, according to psychologists in Scotland.

For me the main issue here is to develop the facility of critical thinking within a community of inquiry. I think a great example of this is in the Tibetan tradition of debate. From a very early age monks spend many hours debating (a form of formalized discussions, not just auguring with each other) after receiving teachings on a particular subject. This all takes place from within a support base that encourages open mindedness, with a strong community of participates willing to hear new ideas as long as they are logically based.

I would like to see Buddhist philosophy included in something like this. Or al least have philosophy classes embrace other traditions than Western ones.

Update: 12/12/2007

I finally got around to listening to the second hour of this podcast.
In the second half I found myself less enthusiastic about Owen’s presentation. I find it hard to hear someone present fiction as fact…I can understand how someone not a belonging to a tradition can speak for that tradition. He even suggested that the Dalai Lama doesn’t believe in rebirth! I love thought provoking discussions, I mean to did link to this podcast in the first place but, I was disappointed by the second Question and answer section.

    
In the following lecture, the philosopher Owen Flanagan explores whether Buddhism is eudaimonistic. In so doing, he presents some interpretive points about the general structure of Buddhist ethics, and the plausibility of empirical claims about Buddhism and happiness.
http://www.cbs.columbia.edu/weblog/2007/11/the-bodhisattva.html

If you are into philosophy this podcast is worth a listen. Owen is thought provoking. There are some assertions he puts forward as Buddhist theories that are simply incorrect and this is a shame.

Minute 10.35 At one point his says that Buddhist ethics is rich although.
He goes on to say the practice of compassion and loving-kindness for all beings might be way too demanding but it is nonetheless ethically rich.

This shows me that he really doesn’t get the process of transformation presented in Buddhist meditation. Yet he says at the very start of the lecture that he is a skeptic in regards to whether Buddhist meditation can produce eudaimonistic.Is this tantamount to not believing in modern physics just because the experiments were not done by you the individual? I NOT saying that he should just accept Buddhist theories on the production on eudaimonistic or what Buddhist yogis would call the bliss of meditation. What I am saying is it is not good science to dismiss them outright without first doing the tests.

He also over simplifies the Buddhist theory of emptiness. Minute 9.40 His description of the self as a psychologically continuous and connected being is classic Sautrantika’s view of selflessness and this is not emptiness. It is not the final view of the Buddha nor that of Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti or Tsong Khapa.

Also he says that Jay Garfield says that the Dalai Lama is pandering to Westerners by presenting Buddhadharma as a path to happiness. Because the Buddha first teaching was about removing suffering.

I think that there is something in that statement that is worth looking at.
Happiness for the sake of happiness, or put another way, happiness as the goal is not a Buddhist practice. However it is a byproduct of the path and to suggest otherwise is simply silly.

Having said all that, I really enjoyed it and I’m looking forward to the next one.