I honestly would consider him a psychologist. At least a scientist. Buddhism is honestly the first school of transpersonal psychology. It had a big influence on Jungs individuatiion,and a number of other 20th century systems
I’d like to think so as well. There is room for all kinds of philosophy but it’s a shame the more down to earth ethical program of the classical philosophers has waned.
In my opinion, Buddha doesn't care whether he is philosopher or not . What his care is whether this discussion will lead you to end of Dukkha or not ? Just my point of view, thank you for sharing 🙏
Yes that's right eddygan, he wouldn't really care. The question for us now though is whether his teachings belong in a philosophy class as well as one on religion. I think so! 😊
This is what calls me to pull out something I wish to dubb “philosophical Buddhism” then I heard of the term secular Buddhism. Just feel the term secular may be abrasive to the religious.
Yes, there has been a lot of back-and-forth about the name. But “secular Buddhism” is pretty well established now, and so to counter the problem you highlight I and a few others are trying actively to make clear to religious Buddhists that our approach is not meant to replace theirs. It’s simply that we have different interests and therefore a different approach. 🙂
Buddhism seems to assert that desire is the root of all evils. Yet, it was precisely Gotama Siddhartha’s desire for deliverance from suffering that ultimately led to his enlightenment. Without this desire, he would just have been a run of the mill prince.
Let me explain it to you. An action can be performed based out of either both motive & intent or only intent. The motive for an action is nothing but our own desire so a motivated action is a desireful action. An action can be performed without any motive so without any desire also. Now compare it with intent of doing something where we perform an action not because of any motive or desire but just do it because it ought to be done or you can say that we don't have the motive (cause) but have intention (effect). This is a detached way of performing an action. Buddha's or enlightened beings do detached action just out of good intention but without any motive. An action can be performed without any motive but never be without intent. This same principle is used in criminal laws where one is liable of doing a crime if he is found to have done some criminal act out of intent but not out of some motive. To summarise it, a desireless action is performed without any motive (desire, cause) but with a intent (effect)
By this definition Buddha was a philosopher [original meaning of the word philosophy comes from the Greek roots philo- meaning "love" and -sophos, or "wisdom." ... In other words, they want to know the meaning of life.
Hello Doug ! Here's what I have to say about Buddha. You called him a 'Virtue Ethicist', Right ? Well, that's quite synonymous with the phrase 'Moral Philosopher'. However, he taught Philosophical Concepts like Dependent Origination, Impermanence etc. Some of these Topics are Natural Laws. So, we should call him something more than a 'Moral Philosopher'. The Term 'Philosopher' is better, as it's Less Specific. However, since he used Dependent Origination and Impermanence to come up with a Solution to the Problem of Mental Suffering, we should call him something more than even a Philosopher. I think it is Perfectly OK to call him a Psychologist. His very Approach is very Scientific. That's why, he must be called a Psychologist !
That's right Dipayan, the Buddha was to an extent a psychologist. I think he was more than that though. In being a philosopher he was looking for The Good Life (something that psychologists shy away from but philosophers aim for). His form of ethics was perhaps closest to virtue ethics in the West, but I wouldn't say "He was a virtue ethicist" since that's going too far. We might say he was an ethicist philosopher with a deep interest in psychology.
There is a way in which Buddha was not a philosopher: he was not interested in the functioning of the physical world. In fact, he thought that the knowledge of the physical world was futile (see the parable of the poisoned archer in Cūḷamālukya Sutta). Buddha was a skeptical philosopher who influenced ancient philosophers like Pyrrho. The Pyrrhonists were not loved by the other greek philosophers (Epictetus thought they should be tortured).
Buddha was neither philosopher nor psychologist or anything but a seer that's someone who just looks at things or happenings inside his body& mind and in the outside world. He is not one who conceptualizes one idea and then gives arguments in favour of it. Buddha's never prove anything. Buddha's don't have any "point of view" actually they are devoid of all of them. They have the most objective mind ever possible devoid of all sorts of biases. They just see things as it is and asks others to come and see it and leaves them to come up with their own inferences. The best way to describe buddha is a 'realist' or a scientist. A buddha mind works on a moment to moment intelligence without any preconceived notions or ideas. But then, buddha is also a saint , a man of highest order, most compassionate humanbeing , a teacher , a psychologist, a philosopher or a scientist or Just "AWAKE" as he himself says it.
I think the Buddha can only be considered a philosopher if you divorce everything he teaches from the spiritual aspects like Enlightenment, Nirvana, and Reincarnation. You can use the teachings to live a good life, but it isn't limited to just that. And I don't think the Buddha was interested in reason and argument, they're just discussions that happen. The Buddha asserts with reason that his way is superior to all of his contemporaries. If he didn't use reason and argument how else would one impart what they know to people who disagree with him? The Jews use reason and argument to understand the Torah, no interpretation is set in stone. Jesus often said, "have you not read?" (paraphrasing), meaning that he bases his reason and arguments on the Torah. He asserts that his way is superior to what the Jews knew at the time. Although Western religions use revelation as its unquestionable premise, all spiritual disciplines require an unquestionable premise. Socrates might not be considered a deity, but you'd have to assume that the Unity of Virtue is real and unquestionable in order to gain maximum benefit from whatever he taught. The further philosophers depart from the idea of virtue, the more materialistic philosophy becomes. Westerners began with virtue ethics, now philosophy is just another tool for academic purposes. Philosophy means love of wisdom, not love of intellect. Buddha taught about the Dharma, you'd have to unquestionably assume that it's real before you can gain maximum benefit. You'd also have to assume that Nirvana, Enlightenment, Reincarnation, and Karma are all real things. If you don't then you're just taking advice on how to live your life, but he didn't teach people how to live the good life. He taught people to end their eternal suffering in the cycle of samsara. Buddha Sakyamuni's teachings can be summed up in three words. Precept, Samadhi, and Wisdom. First, you discern right from wrong by understanding the Dharma (Laws of the universe), then you meditate, and then wisdom will come forth. It's not merely a philosophy as some would imagine.
Alan, although Buddha's Teachings included Nirvana, Rebirth, Realms of Existence etc, he was almost a Naturalist. Concepts like 'The 3 Marks of Existence', 'The 4 Noble Truths', 'The Noble Eightfold Path' etc are Fundamentally Naturalistic. He didn't know anything about the word 'Philosophy'. He must have believed everything he taught. So, the parts that would be considered religious by us, today, can be kept aside. However, he would still Qualify as a Philosopher. Why ? Coz the Epistemological Basis of his Teachings is Empiricism. His Reasoning was often driven by Empirical Evidence. So, he basically used 'Practical Reasoning' ...
I honestly would consider him a psychologist. At least a scientist. Buddhism is honestly the first school of transpersonal psychology. It had a big influence on Jungs individuatiion,and a number of other 20th century systems
Yes, that's another way to look at it. Thanks, Matt.
The Buddha was closer to being a classical philosopher than any other religious teacher.
Thanks Frank, maybe so!
A lot more people would be interested in philosophy if it returned to its origins of being the pursuit of understanding how to live well.
I’d like to think so as well. There is room for all kinds of philosophy but it’s a shame the more down to earth ethical program of the classical philosophers has waned.
Wonderfully presented. Many thanks
You're very welcome Shantha. Thank you for watching!
It would be interesting to see the Buddha debate Socrates.
That would be interesting! 😀
T
nice introductory vid for me, thank you. *5*
You're very welcome zzcaptain. Thanks for watching! 🙏
Can you do a video on the influence of the greco bactrïan state on the mahayana reformation of buddhism?
That's a very specific question! What do you have in mind, the Milinda Pañha? Are you thinking of specific works of scholarship?
3:23 The inner fortress by Pierre Hadot, recommended by Stephen Batchelor in his blog, stares at me reproachfully from my nightstand
Ah yes, that should be very interesting, about Marcus Aurelius. I have to say it's my co-author Justin Whitaker who's the Hadot expert. 🙂
we should strive for the life of a philosophy professor.
😄I think it's a lot of frustration too, with grading, publishing, committee work, and so on!
In my opinion, Buddha doesn't care whether he is philosopher or not . What his care is whether this discussion will lead you to end of Dukkha or not ?
Just my point of view, thank you for sharing 🙏
Yes that's right eddygan, he wouldn't really care. The question for us now though is whether his teachings belong in a philosophy class as well as one on religion. I think so! 😊
This is what calls me to pull out something I wish to dubb “philosophical Buddhism” then I heard of the term secular Buddhism. Just feel the term secular may be abrasive to the religious.
Yes, there has been a lot of back-and-forth about the name. But “secular Buddhism” is pretty well established now, and so to counter the problem you highlight I and a few others are trying actively to make clear to religious Buddhists that our approach is not meant to replace theirs. It’s simply that we have different interests and therefore a different approach. 🙂
Buddhism seems to assert that desire is the root of all evils. Yet, it was precisely Gotama Siddhartha’s desire for deliverance from suffering that ultimately led to his enlightenment. Without this desire, he would just have been a run of the mill prince.
Ah no, in Buddhism desire is not the root of all evils. See my earlier video on this topic: ruclips.net/video/VeShNoUXnxw/видео.html
Let me explain it to you. An action can be performed based out of either both motive & intent or only intent. The motive for an action is nothing but our own desire so a motivated action is a desireful action. An action can be performed without any motive so without any desire also. Now compare it with intent of doing something where we perform an action not because of any motive or desire but just do it because it ought to be done or you can say that we don't have the motive (cause) but have intention (effect). This is a detached way of performing an action. Buddha's or enlightened beings do detached action just out of good intention but without any motive. An action can be performed without any motive but never be without intent.
This same principle is used in criminal laws where one is liable of doing a crime if he is found to have done some criminal act out of intent but not out of some motive.
To summarise it, a desireless action is performed without any motive (desire, cause) but with a intent (effect)
By this definition Buddha was a philosopher [original meaning of the word philosophy comes from the Greek roots philo- meaning "love" and -sophos, or "wisdom." ... In other words, they want to know the meaning of life.
That's right Alan, they want to know the good life, the right or best way to live. That's what wisdom shows us.
T
Hello Doug ! Here's what I have to say about Buddha. You called him a 'Virtue Ethicist', Right ? Well, that's quite synonymous with the phrase 'Moral Philosopher'. However, he taught Philosophical Concepts like Dependent Origination, Impermanence etc. Some of these Topics are Natural Laws. So, we should call him something more than a 'Moral Philosopher'. The Term 'Philosopher' is better, as it's Less Specific. However, since he used Dependent Origination and Impermanence to come up with a Solution to the Problem of Mental Suffering, we should call him something more than even a Philosopher. I think it is Perfectly OK to call him a Psychologist. His very Approach is very Scientific. That's why, he must be called a Psychologist !
That's right Dipayan, the Buddha was to an extent a psychologist. I think he was more than that though. In being a philosopher he was looking for The Good Life (something that psychologists shy away from but philosophers aim for). His form of ethics was perhaps closest to virtue ethics in the West, but I wouldn't say "He was a virtue ethicist" since that's going too far. We might say he was an ethicist philosopher with a deep interest in psychology.
So true
There is a way in which Buddha was not a philosopher: he was not interested in the functioning of the physical world. In fact, he thought that the knowledge of the physical world was futile (see the parable of the poisoned archer in Cūḷamālukya Sutta). Buddha was a skeptical philosopher who influenced ancient philosophers like Pyrrho. The Pyrrhonists were not loved by the other greek philosophers (Epictetus thought they should be tortured).
Buddha was neither philosopher nor psychologist or anything but a seer that's someone who just looks at things or happenings inside his body& mind and in the outside world. He is not one who conceptualizes one idea and then gives arguments in favour of it. Buddha's never prove anything. Buddha's don't have any "point of view" actually they are devoid of all of them. They have the most objective mind ever possible devoid of all sorts of biases. They just see things as it is and asks others to come and see it and leaves them to come up with their own inferences. The best way to describe buddha is a 'realist' or a scientist. A buddha mind works on a moment to moment intelligence without any preconceived notions or ideas.
But then, buddha is also a saint , a man of highest order, most compassionate humanbeing , a teacher , a psychologist, a philosopher or a scientist or Just "AWAKE" as he himself says it.
I think the Buddha can only be considered a philosopher if you divorce everything he teaches from the spiritual aspects like Enlightenment, Nirvana, and Reincarnation. You can use the teachings to live a good life, but it isn't limited to just that.
And I don't think the Buddha was interested in reason and argument, they're just discussions that happen.
The Buddha asserts with reason that his way is superior to all of his contemporaries. If he didn't use reason and argument how else would one impart what they know to people who disagree with him?
The Jews use reason and argument to understand the Torah, no interpretation is set in stone. Jesus often said, "have you not read?" (paraphrasing), meaning that he bases his reason and arguments on the Torah. He asserts that his way is superior to what the Jews knew at the time.
Although Western religions use revelation as its unquestionable premise, all spiritual disciplines require an unquestionable premise. Socrates might not be considered a deity, but you'd have to assume that the Unity of Virtue is real and unquestionable in order to gain maximum benefit from whatever he taught. The further philosophers depart from the idea of virtue, the more materialistic philosophy becomes. Westerners began with virtue ethics, now philosophy is just another tool for academic purposes. Philosophy means love of wisdom, not love of intellect.
Buddha taught about the Dharma, you'd have to unquestionably assume that it's real before you can gain maximum benefit. You'd also have to assume that Nirvana, Enlightenment, Reincarnation, and Karma are all real things. If you don't then you're just taking advice on how to live your life, but he didn't teach people how to live the good life. He taught people to end their eternal suffering in the cycle of samsara.
Buddha Sakyamuni's teachings can be summed up in three words. Precept, Samadhi, and Wisdom. First, you discern right from wrong by understanding the Dharma (Laws of the universe), then you meditate, and then wisdom will come forth. It's not merely a philosophy as some would imagine.
Thanks for your thoughts Alan.
@@DougsDharma I enjoyed watching your stuff :D
Alan, although Buddha's Teachings included Nirvana, Rebirth, Realms of Existence etc, he was almost a Naturalist. Concepts like 'The 3 Marks of Existence', 'The 4 Noble Truths', 'The Noble Eightfold Path' etc are Fundamentally Naturalistic. He didn't know anything about the word 'Philosophy'. He must have believed everything he taught. So, the parts that would be considered religious by us, today, can be kept aside. However, he would still Qualify as a Philosopher. Why ? Coz the Epistemological Basis of his Teachings is Empiricism. His Reasoning was often driven by Empirical Evidence. So, he basically used 'Practical Reasoning' ...
1st dislike😁😁
Oh well! 😄
Why Bro ? 😂 Doug is such a lovely guy with such a lovely channel ! 😄