Philosophical Criticisms of Buddhism

How do you reconcile that with the effectiveness of science, which works precisely with the kind of reasoning this passage is talking about?

by logical reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it

Perhaps by adopting an anti-realistic understanding of science: by telling ourselves that it can never inform us about phenomena in themselves, only about the relationships of phenomena to each other (phenomena that appear to us in the experience).

Reason is then only useful to account for the links of experience, which has primacy.

This series of videos talks about it (especially the first one).

:pray:

1 Like

Hi venerable. I see your point and it does make sense linguistically here.

However I think we also need to see this issue in the context of other teachings, mainly how the Buddha’s teaching is focused on the phenomenological reality. I am referring to teachings such as that found in SN 35, which says that the “all” is merely the six sense spheres and any other “all” is beyond range.

Likewise, the idea that speculating about cosmological issues is outside of the Buddhadhamma can be seen suttas like SN 12.48.

So, while I accept that the Buddha’s position is not purely epistemic and includes some ontological sense, I also do not think that this extends into cosmological matters like the big bang and so forth.

3 Likes

I think some interesting questions that might be relevent to this debate has not been asked so far,

Is reason a part of experience or is experience a part of reason?

Can experience, experience/know it self?

Edit: if I would hazard a guess,
individuals who are labeled insane seems to say, do and believe very unreasonable things(that might be just because they are in the minority, if the majority were like that, then I would be the insane one). Certainly, it must appear completely reasonable in their experience.

This is one reason why I believe, mind/paññā has to have recourse to some thing else, that unconditioned element. Otherwise it does not seem logical to me that, there could be a complete eradication of doubt.

a lot is possible in the realm of fantasy :wink:

1 Like

I have wondered whether suttas like SN35.23 (The All) are a specific rejection of the assumed “underlying reality” of Atman/Brahman described in the Upanishads.

Advaita vedanta and its understanding of the Atman-Brahman is posterior to the Buddha.

Reference to the Upanishads does not exist in the nikāyas. Only reference to the Four Vedas is found: Did the Buddha ever mention the Upanishads or the Vedas?

I’ve talked a little bit about it here.

You might be interested in this paper.

I wasn’t referring specifically to Advaita, which is of course a later development, and arguably only loosely based on the Upanishads.
It’s true that the Buddha didn’t specifically refer to the Upanishads, though there are various explanations for that, and I’ve seen different academic opinions on the chronology of suttas v. Upanishads.

But as to my question, do you think The All is a specific rejection of an alternative contemporary view or belief? Why do you think the Buddha made statements like this?

Seems a bit long to read on my phone. But the main conclusion seems to be

most reasonable interpretation of the Nikāyas
is that final Nibbāna is no more than the cessation of the five khandhas.

I don’t agree completely(or I agree in part). But it’s all good. Trying to settle this intellectually might not end for another 2500 years.

1 Like

Not quite. There are late references, both explicitly and to the thought-world. DN 13:

Even though brahmins describe different paths—the Addhariya brahmins (Aitareya), the Tittiriya brahmins (Taittiriya), the Chandoka brahmins (Chandogya), and the Bavhadija brahmins (Bharadvaja) —all of them lead someone who practices them to the company of Brahmā.

Of these the Chandogya is known to us only by its Upanisad (theoretically there could have been a Brahmana though). Also Brahmaloka became a prominent goal only in the late Brahmanas and early Upanisads - so at least brahmaloka in the suttas refers to ideas which were also developed in the Upanisads.

Late suttas also have references to ‘vedanta’, in SN 7.9 and Snp 3.4 (as ‘vedantagu’).

Anyhow, I think contemporary criticism of Buddhism is more fruitful than the ancient ones. From the distance we can see some things people immersed in the culture couldn’t (of course we also cannot see many things they could).

3 Likes

I didn’t know that reference. It’s very interesting, thank you!

:pray:

Hi @Satananda

You might want to check out Jay Garfield, who is a philosophy professor who was trained in Western & Tibetan philosophy & seems to spend a lot of his time arguing with other Western-trained philosophers that Buddhist philosophy is real philosophy (i.e. not just religion). I’m not hugely familiar with his work, but I watched the first 3 videos of “Emptiness and the Mind Perceiving It” (see link) from Sravasti Abbey. He had me at “the object-less mind is no mind”. But he also made some other points- like when we talk about emptiness, we should ask, “empty of what”…some people see a lot of similarity between this approach and Wittgenstein. I mean, it’s not that we couldn’t have equally addressed the same issues adequately within a Theravada or EBT framework- maybe try Y. Karundasa, Early Buddhist Teachings. I just guess that you are interested in Madhyamaka.

4 Likes

He looks interesting. I’ve never heard of him. I’ll take a look at it, thank you!

:pray:

1 Like

I’m putting this here: Paul Williams & Intellectual Consistency.

:pray:

I’ve fantasised another simile( just for fun)

I think Einstein has shown, atleast intellectually that all motion is relative. All our mind has ever known is motion. Even Jhana is motion(sankhāra;Puññābhisaṅkhāra & āneñjābhisaṅkhāra). Surely, without glimpsing what is true stillness, there is no going beyond doubt that, whatever stillness we perceive is not just relative.

Perhaps if both are viewed as using instruments to investigate phenomena: the body/mind and microscopes and such?

1 Like

@Satananda just on Avi Sion, their “critical analysis” is at best incompetent and at worst completely intellectually dishonest, the opening sentence is

“Western philosophical and scientific thought is based on Aristotelian logic, whose founding principles are the three “Laws of Thought”. These can be briefly stated as “A is A” (Identity), “Nothing is both A and non-A” (Non-contradiction) and “Nothing is neither A nor non-A” (Exclusion of the Middle). These are not claimed as mere hypotheses, note well, but as incontrovertible premises of all rational human thought”

This is complete nonsense, Arisotelian logic hasn’t been the basis of western science for hundreds of years, the law of excluded middle isn’t an “incontrovertible premises of all rational human thought” it’s not even accepted as valid in intuitionist logics, logics btw that Avi would absolutely have been aware of when he wrote the above. (also the logic that underwrites huge areas of computer science and modern mathematics)

It doesn’t get much better, the picture of “logic” Avi relies on hasn’t been current in the west since the middle ages, and the interpretation he has of nagarjuna is not reflective of modern scholarship.

This thread looks fascinating and I look forward to reading the rest of it, but Avi Sion is not well regarded as a philosopher in any field, and except as a polemical tool his work should be avoided.

Mark Siderits and Jan Westerhoff are worth checking out for legitimate attempts to take Buddhism philosophically seriously.

Oh, and no one takes WIliam Lane Craig seriously as a philosopher outside of the Baptist Church, if you want a Christian philosopher (and one with an incredibly soothing voice to boot) try Alvin Plantinga - Wikipedia

Metta

4 Likes

I want to shout out one of my favorite philosophy youtube channels with an actual published philosopher in the philosophy of religion field.

It’s called Majesty of Reason and it has tons of content on these theistic arguments, including this beast:

Honestly I think Buddhists should engage with the philosophy of religion field more, since currently it is dominated by theists and atheists, and the theist vs atheist debate.

2 Likes

Yeah, that’s the thing about transcending dualities… you aren’t really interested in debating them anymore :joy:

2 Likes

It is both strength and problem.

On one of the introduction for her book, bhiksuni Thubten Chodron highlight some difficulties for beginners who learn traditional Buddhism.

Preface - Bhikṣuṇī Thubten Chodron

The Purpose of This Series

EVERYTHING COMES ABOUT due to causes and conditions, and this series is no exception. Explaining some of its causes and conditions will help you understand the purpose of this series. Its ultimate purpose is to lead you, the reader, and other sentient beings to full awakening. Although many excellent works on the stages of the path, the lamrim, already exist, there is a need for this unique series. To explain why, I will share a little of my personal story, which is typical of the first generation of Westerners encountering Tibetan Buddhism.

Born in the United States, I grew up in a Judeo-Christian culture. I tried to believe in God, but that worldview didn’t work for me. There were too many unanswered questions. When I was twenty-four, I attended a three-week Dharma course taught by two Tibetan lamas. One of the first things they said was, “You don’t have to believe anything we say. You are intelligent people. Examine these teachings using reasoning. Practice them and see through your own experience if they work. Then decide if you want to adopt them.” The attitude of ehipaśyika, or “come and see,” that the Buddha spoke about in the sūtras attracted me. Studying, contemplating, and practicing the Buddha’s teachings over time, I became convinced that this path made sense and would help me if I practiced it sincerely.

Like many young Westerners in the 1970s, I steeped myself in studying and practicing Tibetan Buddhism as best I could, considering that I didn’t know the Tibetan language or much about Tibetan culture. Our Dharma education commenced with the lamrim — a genre of texts that lead readers through the progressive stages of the path to awakening. Here it is helpful to look at the place of Tibetan lamrim works within the tradition. After the Buddha’s awakening, he taught across India for forty-five years. Sensitive to the needs, interests, and dispositions of the various audiences, he gave teachings that were appropriate for them at that moment. After his passing (parinirvāṇa), the great Indian sages organized the material in the sūtras by topic points and wrote treatises and commentaries explaining these. After the Dharma spread to Tibet, Tibetan masters also wrote treatises and commentaries, of which lamrim literature is one type.
Tibetans see this development of treatises, commentaries, and commentaries on commentaries as a demonstration of the sages’ kindness. The fortunate ones who were direct disciples of the Buddha had great merit and could attain realizations of the path without needing lengthy teachings. Since those of future generations had less merit, their minds were not as sharp, and they required more detailed explanations to dispel their doubts, generate the correct views, and attain realizations. Since people’s minds are even more obscured and they have less merit now, new commentaries are needed. Our teachers thus said the sūtras are like freshly picked cotton, the Indian treatises and commentaries like woven cloth, and the lamrim texts like ready-made clothes. When the first generation of Westerners were introduced to the lamrim, we were told that everything we needed to know was in these texts, and that all we had to do to gain awakening was study and practice them correctly over time.

However, things didn’t turn out to be that simple. From the very beginning of the lamrim, we had doubts about topics that for our Tibetan teachers were obvious. Precious human life, one of the initial meditations of the lamrim, speaks of our fortune being born as human beings, not as hell beings, hungry ghosts, or animals. Tibetans, raised in a culture that believes in rebirth and various realms of existence, accept this without question. However, for those of us raised in Christian, Jewish, or secular cultures that respect science, this is not the case.

Furthermore, while our Tibetan teachers talked about all phenomena being empty of true existence, we were wondering, “Does God exist?” When they taught selflessness, we were trying to find our souls or our true selves. When they explained dependent arising, we were seeking the one absolute truth independent from all else. Philosophically, our views did not coincide.

These premises were also rendered inadequate and proven false over the past 100 years by Quantum Theory, i.e. particle-wave non-duality; quantum superposition; entanglement…and more.