Buddhist Psychology vs Buddhist Philosophy
Amod left the following comment in defense of viewing Buddhism as a philosophy, and not just “a set of practices”:
Indeed, even for the Buddha himself, what meditation did above all was bring him a philosophical understanding of the way that the world works.
And I wouldn’t actually say I’m advocating a “traditional” perspective myself. As I said, I don’t have objections to mixing traditions – I do it myself.
But I will say that the most important thing I’ve learned from Buddhism is an ethical or psychological claim – that suffering comes in large part from craving – and I didn’t get that from meditating.
I’ve done a Goenka vipassana course (and my parents swear by it), but it didn’t do much for me. So I do find it important to stick up for non-meditative aspects of Buddhist tradition.
I agree with you about the value of Buddhism’s insight that “suffering comes in large part from craving.”
I regard this as a psychological insight, however, as opposed to a philosophical truth. It is sometimes raised to the level of philosophy — a sort of metaphysical axiom — by those who claim over-broadly that “all suffering arises from craving.”
But this seems to me like a clear error, to raise a psychological insight to the level of a philosophical truth; and if I’m not mistaken, Buddhists do it rather often.
Another example would be when they make distinctions between absolute truth (the Buddha’s teachings or “dharma”) and relative truth (everything else in the universe). Here, it seems like they are taking an insight, about the enduring value of the Buddha’s teachings, and raising it to the level of an axiom, as though the Buddha’s teachings exist in a different epistemological class apart from all other knowledge.
Still another example would be the elevation of karma to the level of actual reincarnation of souls. Again, a basic insight about life — the fact that bad choices and actions typically have bad consequences for our own happiness — is turned into a metaphysical position about the nature of reality and the soul’s ability to endure beyond death.
I’m sure there are a thousand technical reasons why I’m “misunderstanding” Buddhism from a scholarly perspective. But this is the broad trend that I see in Buddhist philosophy: repeatedly elevating psychological insights to the level of metaphysical absolutes.
I almost invariably find the psychological insights useful, and the metaphysical derivatives to be un-useful, because they are so at odds with my own understanding of reality as such.
Regarding meditation, I suppose it stands out to me because it seems like the best method for applying the Buddha’s psychological insights to one’s life. It is not a replacement for those insights, but it is a way to magnify one’s direct experience of the relevance and value of those insights. Plus, it is a good way to cultivate greater equanimity and happiness.
Historically, I can imagine good reasons why such insights would have been elevated to the level of philosophical absolutes; it helps make Buddhism practice-able by the uneducated and non-meditating masses. But preserving those philosophical tenets in an age when any Westerner who wants to meditate regularly can easily afford to do so, seems to me like a mistake.
I look forward to hearing others’ thoughts.
Hi Josh,
I appreciate some of the specific points you are making, yet I have a more favorable view of Buddhist philosophy as a whole.
When I think of Buddhist philosophy, I think of its ethics, its doctrine of no-self, and its doctrine of emptiness or “essencelessness.”
The ethics, of course, is in many ways quite Randian, and I think it does a good job of pointing out the various facets of life that we can profitably bring consciousness and effort to.
The doctrine of essencelessness also mirrors a profound and powerful Randian philosophical insight: that at a basic ontological level, there are no “essences.” (A point of view which, I think, tends to free consciousness from an arbitrary weight.)
Finally, the doctrine of no-self is, contextually understood, a provocative correlary of essencelessness in the realm of human nature, and is particularly useful if one integrates it with the insights of Western psychology.
For these reasons, I’d tend to argue that Buddhism does have something to offer at a philosophical level in addition to the level of practice.
best,
Andrew
Andrew,
Thanks for leaving these comments. I think you do a good job of identifying some aspects of Buddhist philosophy that are indeed good.
I would be interested in hearing you elaborate more, if you’re so inclined.
For example, what aspects of Buddhist ethics do you see as “quite Randian”? Are you referring to the 5 Precepts? The 4 Noble Truths? The Noble Eightfold Path? Or all of them?
Speaking for myself, I’m reminded that Rand says somewhere (VOS, I think) that the basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is the view that every man is an end in himself.
I usually find Buddhist ethical teachings to be compatible with this principle. The one Buddhist scholar I’ve spoken with about it, however, militated against it, pointing out instead that “Buddhism says there is no self, so how can a man be an end in himself?”
I tend think there’s a basic misunderstanding, there, of what it means to be an end in oneself and what implications it has for ethics.
Also, while I find ideas such as essencelessness to be good, I usually find that the ways they’re applied in context (e.g., any knowledge other than the Buddha’s teaching is merely a relative truth) tend to be harder to swallow.
But perhaps I’m unduly influenced by Brasington’s lectures.
In any case, I think it would be valuable to explore some of the areas of Buddhist philosophy that are particularly good, and I’m grateful for your comments.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts in greater detail, if you have time.
Joshua
Hi Joshua,
I’m happy to amplify on my thoughts.
With regard to ethics, I was indeed thinking of the Noble Eightfold Path.
For those readers who aren’t familiar with it, the Eightfold Path is basically a list of eight virtues:
1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration
I find this list quite compatible with Rand’s ethics, in which the proposed virtues include rationality, integrity, honesty, independence, productivity, and pride. To wit:
Right View speaks to the importance of understanding how the world works in a conceptually clear way. Right Intention, Speech, and Action relate to the virtues of honesty and integrity. Right Livelihood is analogous to the virtue of productivity. Right Effort can be likened to Rand’s virtue of “pride,” (which means, for Rand, “doing one’s best”), while Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration are akin to the basic Randian virtue of choosing to focus our minds in ways that are appropriate to the contexts in which we operate.
And, as with Rand, for whom virtue is a means to happiness, Buddhist virtues also have a pragmatic flavor: students are not pushed to practice virtues in order to avoid God’s punishment; rather, the virtues are recommended as strategies for living a happy and peaceful life.
On the other hand, though I think there is value in philosophic Buddhism, I would not hold up Buddhism as an optimal philosophy for our age, all things considered.
For example, I agree with you that essencelessness is often taken to mean we cannot say anything about anything in the regular world — so why even try for knowledge? … and that no-self is often taken to mean there is no self in any way shape or form — so why even try for self-actualization?
I think Buddhism’s philosophic advocacy of the Middle Way and its pragmatic this-worldliness mitigates somewhat against these away-from-the-world tendencies of Buddhism — and yet, the philosophy does not, as far as I know, have a coherent framework for understanding the real differentiated self that ~does~ exist, or for understanding the nature of conceptual knowledge and objectivity.
This is why I think any insights gained from engagement with Buddhist philosophy can be put to use most profitably in today’s world if they are integrated with modern Western psychological and philosophical understandings. These include:
1. Understandings of
-how the human organism functions as a self in relation to its environment
-how the ~sense~ of self arises developmentally and can arise in both healthy and unhealthy ways, and
-how various methods and life-strategies can lead to the most healthy flowering of the self.
For these issues, one can study Reich, Perls, Freud, Feldenkrais — and ~Branden~, whose work on self-esteem is, I think, significant in this regard, in as-yet-unrecognized ways.
2. Understandings of the nature of concepts and objectivity. This would include an understanding of objectivity as a quality of conceptual behavior that includes, essentially, an appreciation for and specification of ~context~.
For these issues, I think ~Rand~ is very significant, again in as-yet-unrecognized ways.
(I also think it it will help when someone, perhaps myself, does the work to situate Rand’s epistemological contributions in a more integral context than she did.)
Anyhow, I know that’s a lot of info.
Does it clarify my perspective in a helpful way?
Andrew
Wow, yes, it’s wonderful.
And, I think, very well-said.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments everyone. I just thought I’d offer comments on a couple of points which I think might benefit from some clarification.
It seems that in the above discussion there some confusion with regard to the teachings on anatta or not-self. When the Buddha was asked whether or not there was such a thing as a self, he responded by saying that such a question can’t be answered in a meaningful way because it presupposes the validity of the concept of “self.” He said that it is not really true to say there is a self. It is also inaccurate to say there is no self. Nor can you say that there is and there isn’t a self. And finally, it’s also incorrect to say there is neither a self nor a not-self.
The Buddha suggested that we reflect on what is “not self” – body, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness – as a practice to uproot the delusion inherent in thinking in terms of the self/not-self dualit, rather than making a philosophical assertion about absolute reality.
On the concept of “absolute reality” – Nowhere that I know of did the Buddha ever suggest that his teachings themselves were to be understood as Absolute Reality itself. Rather, they are skillful constructs which can provide a realiable guide to the realization of that very truth. Perhaps this appears to be a fine distinction, but it is, in my opinion, critical to understand when approaching the Buddha’s teachings. Instead of thinking about the teachings in terms of philosophy versus psychological insights, I would suggest holding them as extremely beautiful and sophisticated tools – both practical excercises and conceptual tools – that can support waking up to, or perhaps, put in another way, realizing by direct experience, that ultimate Buddha Nature which is already who and what we are. To think of Buddhism as a philosophy leads to all kinds of vexation and painful confusion.
I hope you find these comments helpful. If I’ve misunderstood the above discussion, I beg your pardon in advance.
The Buddhist teaching that there is no self underscores the fact that the “self” as we perceive it is based on wrong perspectives and perception. However, Mahayana Buddhism accepts that there is a Self that transcends conditionality but that requires a transcendental perspective to appreciate. This self would be the substance of life or Buddha nature itself, and requires an enlightened mind to see.
One more note to add. Yes the Buddha does not say that what he says is the absolute truth, because what he says is just like the finger pointing at the moon. It takes the enlightened mind to see the reality. That is why the emphasis on the spiritual awakening of the individual. Each individual’s discovery is a personal discovery that cannot be substituted for by another person’s effort or teachings.