How does the Buddhist understanding of enlightenment compare with the Western Age of Enlightenment?
May 23, 2012 6:56 AM Subscribe
How does the Buddhist understanding of enlightenment compare with the Western Age of Enlightenment? People who we might now call children of the Enlightenment--Chomsky, Hitchens, Dawkins, deGrasse Tyson, Pinker, and so on--have a way of relating to ethical questions that is very similar to the teachings of the Buddha. There is an understanding that human suffering is a problem to be overcome, and that it can be overcome through understanding things as they are and engaging productively in the physical world, rather than getting caught up in metaphysical abstractions which, stemming from delusion, greed, and aversion, prolong cycles of suffering.
I am sure this is a simplistic comparison, so that's why I am asking. Also, one is a stage in an individual's development, and the other is a stage in the culture's development. In what other ways are they similar, and in what ways to the concepts diverge? Have any great books been written on the subject?
Also, I know that Buddhist traditions have accumulated a lot of metaphysical baggage on their own. I don't mean to suggest that a belief in literal cycles of rebirth are analogous to the scientific method! :) So I guess that's a point of divergence.
I am sure this is a simplistic comparison, so that's why I am asking. Also, one is a stage in an individual's development, and the other is a stage in the culture's development. In what other ways are they similar, and in what ways to the concepts diverge? Have any great books been written on the subject?
Also, I know that Buddhist traditions have accumulated a lot of metaphysical baggage on their own. I don't mean to suggest that a belief in literal cycles of rebirth are analogous to the scientific method! :) So I guess that's a point of divergence.
How does the Buddhist understanding of enlightenment compare with the Western Age of Enlightenment?
The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. The common word is entirely accidental.
People who we might now call children of the Enlightenment--Chomsky, Hitchens, Dawkins, deGrasse Tyson, Pinker, and so on--have a way of relating to ethical questions that is very similar to the teachings of the Buddha.
I'm pretty sure they'd disagree.
posted by valkyryn at 7:34 AM on May 23, 2012 [4 favorites]
The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. The common word is entirely accidental.
People who we might now call children of the Enlightenment--Chomsky, Hitchens, Dawkins, deGrasse Tyson, Pinker, and so on--have a way of relating to ethical questions that is very similar to the teachings of the Buddha.
I'm pretty sure they'd disagree.
posted by valkyryn at 7:34 AM on May 23, 2012 [4 favorites]
Buddhist enlightenment is a process that happens within an individual – there's no objective evidence.
The western enlightenment was all about objective evidence, and building a view of the world based on it.
posted by zadcat at 7:40 AM on May 23, 2012 [3 favorites]
The western enlightenment was all about objective evidence, and building a view of the world based on it.
posted by zadcat at 7:40 AM on May 23, 2012 [3 favorites]
I just finished reading The Philosophy of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy: Stoic Philosophy as Rational and Cognitive Psychotherapy by Donald Robertson, and he briefly connects enlightenment thinking (specifically Descartes) to stoicism, and briefly explores stoicism's similarity to Buddhism. I know next to nothing about Buddhism, but I found this book readable and fascinating, and it might be a good starting place for you to explore these connections.
posted by mmmbacon at 7:41 AM on May 23, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by mmmbacon at 7:41 AM on May 23, 2012 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: I appreciate the point about Kant being an essentially abstract thinker. Descartes too for that matter, but in his case the goal is to somehow get out of the mind and into the world. But in any case, I think it is a mistake to compare them to modern ways of thinking, rather than to the ways of thinking from which they emerged. Even at Kant's most abstruse, his concepts are more tied to experience than had been the prevailing ways of thinking based on angels and demons, salvation, and religious morality.
Since the Enlightenment the trend has been toward empiricism and away from pure abstraction, which is why I named Chomsky, Hitchens, etc. If they would object to the idea that their way of addressing ethical questions is similar to that of the Buddha, I'd like to know how and why--which is why I asked the question to begin with.
Also, I first started thinking about this question while reading Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature, in a passage where he says:
posted by jwhite1979 at 8:00 AM on May 23, 2012
Since the Enlightenment the trend has been toward empiricism and away from pure abstraction, which is why I named Chomsky, Hitchens, etc. If they would object to the idea that their way of addressing ethical questions is similar to that of the Buddha, I'd like to know how and why--which is why I asked the question to begin with.
Also, I first started thinking about this question while reading Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature, in a passage where he says:
This line of reasoning may be called humanism because the value that it recognizes is the flourishing of humans, the only value that cannot be denied. I experience pleasures and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same.I think most people who practice Buddhism would immediately recognize the Buddhist principles in this statement, which is what caught my own attention. Humanism in this sense is clearly taught in the early Buddhist scriptures. Folk Buddhism did in time incorporate ritual, scripture, and so forth, but these dogmas are absent in the original teachings of the Four Noble Truths, which emphasize the value of productive empathy.
If this all sounds banal and obvious, then you are a child of the Enlightenment, and have absorbed its humanist philosophy. As a matter of historical fact, there is nothing banal or obvious about it. Though not necessarily atheistic [...], Enlightenment thinking makes no use of scripture, Jesus, ritual, religious law, divine purpose, immortal souls, an afterlife, a messianic age, or a God who responds to individual people.
posted by jwhite1979 at 8:00 AM on May 23, 2012
You mention folk Buddhism as though it were not "real" Buddhism, but it is. When my father-in-law died, we had to wait for 6 days until the funeral while he transited the underworld.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:06 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by KokuRyu at 8:06 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
"experience pleasures and pains, and pursue goals in service of them"
To me this describes the state of samsara, which is what Buddhists are trying to escape.
"but these dogmas are absent in the original teachings of the Four Noble Truths, which emphasize the value of productive empathy."
"Enlightenment thinking makes no use of scripture, Jesus, ritual, religious law, divine purpose, immortal souls, an afterlife, a messianic age, or a God who responds to individual people."
There are traditions which do make use of scripture, ritual, religious law, divine purpose, immortal souls, and an afterlife.
"but these dogmas are absent in the original teachings of the Four Noble Truths, which emphasize the value of productive empathy."
I'm not entirely sure what productive empathy is, but the four noble truths have nothing to do with empathy. Part of what makes Mahayana (in particular Tibetan) Buddhism distinct from Theraveda is the addition of a philosophy of empathy, so it is not integral to Buddhism.
posted by selfnoise at 8:15 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
To me this describes the state of samsara, which is what Buddhists are trying to escape.
"but these dogmas are absent in the original teachings of the Four Noble Truths, which emphasize the value of productive empathy."
"Enlightenment thinking makes no use of scripture, Jesus, ritual, religious law, divine purpose, immortal souls, an afterlife, a messianic age, or a God who responds to individual people."
There are traditions which do make use of scripture, ritual, religious law, divine purpose, immortal souls, and an afterlife.
"but these dogmas are absent in the original teachings of the Four Noble Truths, which emphasize the value of productive empathy."
I'm not entirely sure what productive empathy is, but the four noble truths have nothing to do with empathy. Part of what makes Mahayana (in particular Tibetan) Buddhism distinct from Theraveda is the addition of a philosophy of empathy, so it is not integral to Buddhism.
posted by selfnoise at 8:15 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
I wonder if what makes European Enlightenment values and Buddhism seem similar to you is in part a construction of the concept of Buddhism mediated through enlightenment-style thinking.
posted by ThisIsNotMe at 8:21 AM on May 23, 2012 [4 favorites]
posted by ThisIsNotMe at 8:21 AM on May 23, 2012 [4 favorites]
They are two completely different senses of the word which have no relationship to each other at all.
I'm also unclear on what makes the 21st century figures you mention "children of the Enlightenment" more than any other scientist, philosopher, or journalist of the last few centuries?
Your question is a little like asking what makes an Apple computer like an "apple" on a film set.
posted by Sara C. at 8:26 AM on May 23, 2012
I'm also unclear on what makes the 21st century figures you mention "children of the Enlightenment" more than any other scientist, philosopher, or journalist of the last few centuries?
Your question is a little like asking what makes an Apple computer like an "apple" on a film set.
posted by Sara C. at 8:26 AM on May 23, 2012
Response by poster: The Fourth Noble Truth--that is, the Eightfold Path--includes Wise Speech (being truthful, speaking gently), Wise Action (not hurting others, behaving in a state of awareness and intentionality), and Wise Livelihood (not deriving one's sustenance from practices that hurt other people, such as trading in weapons or meat). These all seem to be very clear articulations of using empathy to enhance one's own well-being. That's what I meant by "productive empathy"--understanding that your behavior effects other people, and will be returned back onto you. Which again seems like a Humanist principle.
Another couple of relevant ideas are the Metta Sutta, which explicitly says one gains peace through promoting the safety and well-being of others; and the Samannaphala Sutta, which reiterates the same question over and over: "But is it possible, lord, to point out yet another fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now?"
posted by jwhite1979 at 8:27 AM on May 23, 2012
Another couple of relevant ideas are the Metta Sutta, which explicitly says one gains peace through promoting the safety and well-being of others; and the Samannaphala Sutta, which reiterates the same question over and over: "But is it possible, lord, to point out yet another fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now?"
posted by jwhite1979 at 8:27 AM on May 23, 2012
Even at Kant's most abstruse, his concepts are more tied to experience than had been the prevailing ways of thinking based on angels and demons, salvation, and religious morality.
Ah, well, there you go.
If your point of reference is pre-enlightenment western thought (i.e. Christianity, Platonism) then yes, post-Enlightenment western thought and some varieties of Buddhism may have more in common with one another than with that.
I think ThisIsNotMe has it. A lot of writers for western audiences deliberately try to restate Buddhism in modern respectable-sounding (read: not reminiscent of Jesus-based religion) language. There is a fixation on seperating the putative views of the Buddha from all existing tradition, which almost no actual practicing Buddhist would recognize.
posted by phrontist at 8:30 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
Ah, well, there you go.
If your point of reference is pre-enlightenment western thought (i.e. Christianity, Platonism) then yes, post-Enlightenment western thought and some varieties of Buddhism may have more in common with one another than with that.
I think ThisIsNotMe has it. A lot of writers for western audiences deliberately try to restate Buddhism in modern respectable-sounding (read: not reminiscent of Jesus-based religion) language. There is a fixation on seperating the putative views of the Buddha from all existing tradition, which almost no actual practicing Buddhist would recognize.
posted by phrontist at 8:30 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Sara, the reason I pointed out those particular people--well, it varies with each of them. Noam has often been compared to Kant, and he himself acknowledges the strong influence, although he claims a stronger connection to the Scottish Enlightenment. Pinker was a student of Chomsky and inherited his structural approach to ethics. Hitchens seems relevant because of his crusade for an atheistic ethics, and I just really think Neil deGrasse Tyson is badass and wanted to toss him in the mix. How do they differ from other scientists, philosophers, or journalists of the last few centuries? Mostly in (with the exception of Tyson, who I admittedly through in there because I like him) their frequent articulation of their connection to the Enlightenment. Chomsky himself likes to talk about how science and philosophy has been derailed from Enlightenment principles, so if you really care to know more and weren't just being snarky, I can certainly recommend some of his talks.
posted by jwhite1979 at 8:36 AM on May 23, 2012
posted by jwhite1979 at 8:36 AM on May 23, 2012
Response by poster: phrontist, I'm really intrigued by that idea--that contemporary Buddhism has been made-over to suit modern humanist ethics. When I was a practicing Christian I came to see how that had been done with the Bible. I remember thinking when I actually started reading the Bible how remarkably pre-Modern it seemed, and I eventually gave up on it. But I have been practicing Buddhism with some intensity for a year now, and the stories, chants, and other forms of teaching from the Pali Cannon all seem to be authentically humanist. The Metta Sutta and the Samannaphala Sutta which I mentioned above seem like great examples. But if these are somehow revisions of more pre-Modern teachings, or if I'm somehow imposing my humanist principles onto the Pali Cannon, I'd be really interested in hearing more about that, if only from a 'holy shit that's crazy how my brain works' perspective.
posted by jwhite1979 at 8:50 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by jwhite1979 at 8:50 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
I think you can actually list some points of similarity. Both are rational; both distrust strong emotion; both see imperfections in human beings; both think the imperfections can be remedied by self-conscious moral action; both give the avoidance of suffering a high priority; both see the world as constantly changing.
But Western Enlightenment advocates engagement with the physical world while Buddhism advocates disengagement.
posted by Segundus at 9:03 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
But Western Enlightenment advocates engagement with the physical world while Buddhism advocates disengagement.
posted by Segundus at 9:03 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
The Fourth Noble Truth--that is, the Eightfold Path--includes Wise Speech (being truthful, speaking gently), Wise Action (not hurting others, behaving in a state of awareness and intentionality), and Wise Livelihood (not deriving one's sustenance from practices that hurt other people, such as trading in weapons or meat).
The thing is, for most people, Buddhism is not a text-based belief system. Sure, all this stuff has meaning, and there is a certain small percentage of people, such as clergy, academics or laypersons who investigate the Buddhist scripture, but, at least in Japan anyway, the majority of people live Buddhism. It's not a rational belief system (like scientific inquiry) that you choose. Even saying Buddhism is embedded in everyday life seems just wrong. Buddhism is the condition of being human.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:18 AM on May 23, 2012 [2 favorites]
The thing is, for most people, Buddhism is not a text-based belief system. Sure, all this stuff has meaning, and there is a certain small percentage of people, such as clergy, academics or laypersons who investigate the Buddhist scripture, but, at least in Japan anyway, the majority of people live Buddhism. It's not a rational belief system (like scientific inquiry) that you choose. Even saying Buddhism is embedded in everyday life seems just wrong. Buddhism is the condition of being human.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:18 AM on May 23, 2012 [2 favorites]
Even Christopher Hitchens's fans sometimes remembered him as a guy who went with his gut feelings and then defended them with spectacular writing. So I am having trouble seeing him as a guy who belongs in a gallery of Enlightenment figures. Except for opposing organized religion.
posted by steinsaltz at 9:31 AM on May 23, 2012
posted by steinsaltz at 9:31 AM on May 23, 2012
I don't see any commonalities.
The 18th century enlightenment was about replacing authority with reason. Buddhist enlightenment is about a sort of detachment that ends desire or craving.
But one might easily replace authority with reason while denying the basic Buddhist doctrines. One might even deny that to live is to suffer.
Moreover, it seems to me that one might accept the Buddhist dicta on the basis of authority and never replace that authority with reason. That is, Buddhists need not reason themselves into their Buddhist practices.
Buddhism is not inherently pro-science or pro-reason. If it were, the East would have had basic scientific breakthroughs long before the West. I mean, it's not like people in the East are less intelligent or less industrious. There is, in Buddhism, a maxim to see the world as it is, but that doesn't seem to have any connection to actual, empirical investigation. Rather, it connects to a broadly spiritual condition.
My guess is that most of the people you think of as children of the (Western) enlightenment would say that Buddhism is an impediment to real understanding, and where it is not, showing that it is not is a matter for experimental investigation.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:48 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
The 18th century enlightenment was about replacing authority with reason. Buddhist enlightenment is about a sort of detachment that ends desire or craving.
But one might easily replace authority with reason while denying the basic Buddhist doctrines. One might even deny that to live is to suffer.
Moreover, it seems to me that one might accept the Buddhist dicta on the basis of authority and never replace that authority with reason. That is, Buddhists need not reason themselves into their Buddhist practices.
Buddhism is not inherently pro-science or pro-reason. If it were, the East would have had basic scientific breakthroughs long before the West. I mean, it's not like people in the East are less intelligent or less industrious. There is, in Buddhism, a maxim to see the world as it is, but that doesn't seem to have any connection to actual, empirical investigation. Rather, it connects to a broadly spiritual condition.
My guess is that most of the people you think of as children of the (Western) enlightenment would say that Buddhism is an impediment to real understanding, and where it is not, showing that it is not is a matter for experimental investigation.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:48 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: There is clearly a gulf between Buddhism in the world and the teachings of the Buddha. This thread is helping me to understand that much better than I had. Most of the contradictions and dismissals that are being presented are based on Buddhism as a religion, rather than Buddhism as a set of teachings from the 6th century BCE, which is what I had originally meant to suggest.
@Jonathan Livengood:
The 18th century enlightenment was about replacing authority with reason. Buddhist enlightenment is about a sort of detachment that ends desire or craving.
But one might easily replace authority with reason while denying the basic Buddhist doctrines. One might even deny that to live is to suffer.
I definitely agree with your first statement--that the enlightenment was about replacing authority with reason, but I disagree with each of your premises and conclusions after that. First, the suttas of the Pali Cannon say that the Buddha insisted that people not accept his argument from authority, but rather to constantly test his teachings "... as the wise would test gold by burning, cutting, and rubbing it on a piece of touchstone." The first three of the Noble Truths are as close to anything as a systematic argument as anything I know of in the Enlightenment, and are perfectly subject to testing. 1. Suffering exists. 2. Suffering is caused from clinging to things. 3. To rid yourself of suffering, find what you are clinging to and let go. We're all a clever enough group that we can invent scenarios where we can test these three points, then either accept them or reject them and move on, which is exactly what the Buddha suggested that we do. It seems very much like Enlightenment reason to me.
Again, I was probably mistaken in my initial framing of the question. The Buddhist teaching that I pursue, and which I was therefore addressing, has none of the religious baggage that most people in this thread seem to be associating with Buddhism.
posted by jwhite1979 at 10:10 AM on May 23, 2012
@Jonathan Livengood:
The 18th century enlightenment was about replacing authority with reason. Buddhist enlightenment is about a sort of detachment that ends desire or craving.
But one might easily replace authority with reason while denying the basic Buddhist doctrines. One might even deny that to live is to suffer.
I definitely agree with your first statement--that the enlightenment was about replacing authority with reason, but I disagree with each of your premises and conclusions after that. First, the suttas of the Pali Cannon say that the Buddha insisted that people not accept his argument from authority, but rather to constantly test his teachings "... as the wise would test gold by burning, cutting, and rubbing it on a piece of touchstone." The first three of the Noble Truths are as close to anything as a systematic argument as anything I know of in the Enlightenment, and are perfectly subject to testing. 1. Suffering exists. 2. Suffering is caused from clinging to things. 3. To rid yourself of suffering, find what you are clinging to and let go. We're all a clever enough group that we can invent scenarios where we can test these three points, then either accept them or reject them and move on, which is exactly what the Buddha suggested that we do. It seems very much like Enlightenment reason to me.
Again, I was probably mistaken in my initial framing of the question. The Buddhist teaching that I pursue, and which I was therefore addressing, has none of the religious baggage that most people in this thread seem to be associating with Buddhism.
posted by jwhite1979 at 10:10 AM on May 23, 2012
Response by poster: Oh, and also @Jonathan Livengood, regarding "Buddhist enlightenment [as] a sort of detachment that ends desire or craving," the following quote from the Dalia Lama seems relevant:
In order to develop unbiased infinite love, you first need the practice of detach[ment]. But "detach" does not mean to give up desire. Desire must be there. Without desire, how can we live our life? Without desire, how can we achieve Buddhahood?posted by jwhite1979 at 10:15 AM on May 23, 2012
Buddhism as a religion, rather than Buddhism as a set of teachings from the 6th century BCE,
This is a concept that wouldn't ever have existed prior to the late 1960's/early 1970's at the earliest.
Look, there's no way your question can be answered to your satisfaction. You're seeing some connection between two things nobody else thinks are related.
Your question isn't really a question and has no real answer. The only way anybody could possibly contribute here would be to say, "Stephen Pinker's favorite Beatle is George Harrison."
posted by Sara C. at 10:15 AM on May 23, 2012 [4 favorites]
This is a concept that wouldn't ever have existed prior to the late 1960's/early 1970's at the earliest.
Look, there's no way your question can be answered to your satisfaction. You're seeing some connection between two things nobody else thinks are related.
Your question isn't really a question and has no real answer. The only way anybody could possibly contribute here would be to say, "Stephen Pinker's favorite Beatle is George Harrison."
posted by Sara C. at 10:15 AM on May 23, 2012 [4 favorites]
It seems like a coincidence having to do with the connotations of the idea of "light" in English. One thing you might look at is how various Asian languages translate the Buddhist terms for enlightenment vs what term they use for the western intellectual movement.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:18 AM on May 23, 2012 [4 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:18 AM on May 23, 2012 [4 favorites]
Oh, and also @Jonathan Livengood, regarding "Buddhist enlightenment [as] a sort of detachment that ends desire or craving," the following quote from the Dalia Lama seems relevant:
All the scriptures and teachings and precepts of Buddhism are pretty meaningless, and are pretty dangerous if you actually take them seriously. Buddhism as a philosophy is meant to alleviate suffering. To do that you extinguish the ego. Extinguish the ego and you achieve "enlightenment".
Enlightenment is really about extinguishing the ego and seeing the world as-it-is. It's actually contradictory to the Enlightenment ideal of the Rights of Man and primacy of the individual.
All the scriptures and koans and speeches and teachings etc etc etc are just multiple attempts to reinforce this basic truth.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:25 AM on May 23, 2012 [2 favorites]
All the scriptures and teachings and precepts of Buddhism are pretty meaningless, and are pretty dangerous if you actually take them seriously. Buddhism as a philosophy is meant to alleviate suffering. To do that you extinguish the ego. Extinguish the ego and you achieve "enlightenment".
Enlightenment is really about extinguishing the ego and seeing the world as-it-is. It's actually contradictory to the Enlightenment ideal of the Rights of Man and primacy of the individual.
All the scriptures and koans and speeches and teachings etc etc etc are just multiple attempts to reinforce this basic truth.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:25 AM on May 23, 2012 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Sara C., I really thought these four answers were exactly on point, and I appreciated them, even if they weren't necessarily affirming what I had suggested. I had not intended to actually get involved in a discussion at all--hadn't wanted to get all chatty--but felt that comments like "They are two completely different senses of the word which have no relationship to each other at all. I'm also unclear on what makes the 21st century figures you mention children of the Enlightenment more than any other scientist, philosopher, or journalist of the last few centuries?" were just snarky and unhelpful enough to either deserve a response or to suggest I needed to reform my initial question. Basically I just wanted to know if there were any resources making the connection between Buddhist principles and the age of reason which, after everything that has been said here, still seem excitingly similar to me.
posted by jwhite1979 at 10:28 AM on May 23, 2012
posted by jwhite1979 at 10:28 AM on May 23, 2012
It would be more interesting to map out the connections between Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, and how that connection would pass down to Enlightenment thought.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:33 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by KokuRyu at 10:33 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
(I am not suggesting that Chomsky is a disciple of Zoroaster, although as we all know Hitchens' writing has been shown to display some Manichean influences; Amy Goodman's concept of "Gnosticism and the State" is also well-known)
posted by KokuRyu at 10:50 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by KokuRyu at 10:50 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Okay, so apparently there is a Wikipedia article on the subject, and it has some favorable quotes from Bertrand Russell, Niels Bohr, and J.R. Oppenheimer. All of these quotations come from secondary sources, so I can't vouch for their authenticity. But that the Wikipedia page exists, that it is composed of information from various sources, and that it hasn't been deleted for the (at least) six years it's existed, and the fact that it is accompanied by a healthy discussion page, all suggest that my question is based on something more than a childish and simpleminded conflation of two distinct concepts because of the word "light."
posted by jwhite1979 at 10:54 AM on May 23, 2012
posted by jwhite1979 at 10:54 AM on May 23, 2012
More interesting question:
Were Enlightenment thinkers aware of Buddhism? If so, in what capacity? Did they respect The Teachings Of The Buddha in the sort of Buddhism 101 Wikipedia sense that most modern Western non-Buddhists would? Or was it just a funny little tribal religion practiced by those inscrutable Yellow and Brown folks who made it so hard to get tea at a decent price? Can any Buddhist concepts be said to have trickled down to European Christendom before people like Aldous Huxley got into the Tibetan Book Of The Dead in the 50's?
(Sorry if this is the sort of thing that is Not Allowed on Ask Metafilter.)
posted by Sara C. at 10:54 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
Were Enlightenment thinkers aware of Buddhism? If so, in what capacity? Did they respect The Teachings Of The Buddha in the sort of Buddhism 101 Wikipedia sense that most modern Western non-Buddhists would? Or was it just a funny little tribal religion practiced by those inscrutable Yellow and Brown folks who made it so hard to get tea at a decent price? Can any Buddhist concepts be said to have trickled down to European Christendom before people like Aldous Huxley got into the Tibetan Book Of The Dead in the 50's?
(Sorry if this is the sort of thing that is Not Allowed on Ask Metafilter.)
posted by Sara C. at 10:54 AM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
As far as I know, the first Western philosopher who mentioned Buddhism was Schopenhauer, in the 19th century. He had read some Latin translations of Sanskrit, I think.
posted by thelonius at 11:30 AM on May 23, 2012 [4 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 11:30 AM on May 23, 2012 [4 favorites]
There are a whole lot of terms that have become standard English translations for Buddhist ideas, since the first English translators tended to use the nearest Christian or otherwise Western notions for some of the principles in Buddhism (there is no word for 'Buddhism' for one thing, within the Buddhist teachings) . 'Sentient beings' is misleading, 'compassion' is off, as is 'transcendental wisdom'. 'Enlightenment' is one of the more misleading of these translations. Over time, connotation pushes the understanding of these terms by students of Buddhism so that they do come to mean something close to their equivalent in the teachings - it is too late to go back and correct these errors. But it's best to just use the Pali or Sanskrit term when you can.
posted by not_that_epiphanius at 1:08 PM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by not_that_epiphanius at 1:08 PM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
the following quote from the Dalia Lama seems relevant:
In order to develop unbiased infinite love, you first need the practice of detach[ment]. But "detach" does not mean to give up desire. Desire must be there. Without desire, how can we live our life? Without desire, how can we achieve Buddhahood?
The Dalai Lama is probably not the best go-to source for the Buddhism-as-a-philosophy-rather-than-a-religion approach in which you seem most interested.
That said, I agree with you that there are definite parallels between early Buddhist thought and Age of Enlightenment-style humanism (especially in comparison to pre-Enlightenment Christianity), but there are some big enough, important enough differences to make them deal-breakers.
For one thing, there's the idea that "this is all there is," the sort of mechanistic atheism best represented in your list by Dawkins and Hitchens. I think Buddhism would, instead of saying "this is all there is" would go further and say, "there isn't even this."
There's also the difference in the emphasis on the individual, as KoKuryu explained above, and that in Buddhism the idea of an unchanging "self" or "individual" is the error in perception that ultimately creates all suffering. (There are of course different degrees of this idea within Buddhism; some say that the self and the personality must be completely extinguished or annihilated, while at the moment I lean more toward the idea that even after a being becomes "enlightened," he or she will still have a personality, interests, likes and dislikes, etc. but no longer confuses those aspects as a permanent "self").
posted by infinitywaltz at 1:25 PM on May 23, 2012 [4 favorites]
In order to develop unbiased infinite love, you first need the practice of detach[ment]. But "detach" does not mean to give up desire. Desire must be there. Without desire, how can we live our life? Without desire, how can we achieve Buddhahood?
The Dalai Lama is probably not the best go-to source for the Buddhism-as-a-philosophy-rather-than-a-religion approach in which you seem most interested.
That said, I agree with you that there are definite parallels between early Buddhist thought and Age of Enlightenment-style humanism (especially in comparison to pre-Enlightenment Christianity), but there are some big enough, important enough differences to make them deal-breakers.
For one thing, there's the idea that "this is all there is," the sort of mechanistic atheism best represented in your list by Dawkins and Hitchens. I think Buddhism would, instead of saying "this is all there is" would go further and say, "there isn't even this."
There's also the difference in the emphasis on the individual, as KoKuryu explained above, and that in Buddhism the idea of an unchanging "self" or "individual" is the error in perception that ultimately creates all suffering. (There are of course different degrees of this idea within Buddhism; some say that the self and the personality must be completely extinguished or annihilated, while at the moment I lean more toward the idea that even after a being becomes "enlightened," he or she will still have a personality, interests, likes and dislikes, etc. but no longer confuses those aspects as a permanent "self").
posted by infinitywaltz at 1:25 PM on May 23, 2012 [4 favorites]
Did the Buddhist become more nationalistic? more demanding of individual rights? more concerned with evidence and rationality over tradition or power as the authority of truth? Did they demand self-determinism in government? Did they begin to question religious orthodoxy more after Enlightenment?
Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. Maybe the Buddhist did because there is an essential similarity between Buddhist enlightenment and the age of enlightenment. Or maybe there isn't.
What about the European age of enlightenment? Did something become self aware? Was an illusion cast aside? Did something use its mind to perceive the true nature of something? Was a level of awareness achieved so that true nature of of the situation of humanity could be probed and a solution discovered?
Maybe it doesn't seem to be fair to make this sort of comparison.
Maybe if you are willing to admit the metaphor of the European population as a mind, or even better, European culture, as a mind. Then, with this metaphor and the coincidence of names, it would be tempting to suggest that the 16th century was a Buddhist like casting aside of illusions and viewing the truth of rationality, tolerance, human rights and empiricism by this mind.
I don't find this metaphor or coincidence compelling but we all have the right our intellectual choices and to test their strength in rational debate.
posted by bdc34 at 3:09 PM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. Maybe the Buddhist did because there is an essential similarity between Buddhist enlightenment and the age of enlightenment. Or maybe there isn't.
What about the European age of enlightenment? Did something become self aware? Was an illusion cast aside? Did something use its mind to perceive the true nature of something? Was a level of awareness achieved so that true nature of of the situation of humanity could be probed and a solution discovered?
Maybe it doesn't seem to be fair to make this sort of comparison.
Maybe if you are willing to admit the metaphor of the European population as a mind, or even better, European culture, as a mind. Then, with this metaphor and the coincidence of names, it would be tempting to suggest that the 16th century was a Buddhist like casting aside of illusions and viewing the truth of rationality, tolerance, human rights and empiricism by this mind.
I don't find this metaphor or coincidence compelling but we all have the right our intellectual choices and to test their strength in rational debate.
posted by bdc34 at 3:09 PM on May 23, 2012 [1 favorite]
The Dalai Lama is probably not the best go-to source for the Buddhism-as-a-philosophy-rather-than-a-religion approach in which you seem most interested.
It seems ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous, to treat remarks made by the Dalai Lama as similar to aphorisms of Enlightenment philosophers. It also seems completely strange to take examples Buddhist scripture out of context, to compare with some seemingly similar Enlightenment concept.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:19 PM on May 23, 2012
It seems ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous, to treat remarks made by the Dalai Lama as similar to aphorisms of Enlightenment philosophers. It also seems completely strange to take examples Buddhist scripture out of context, to compare with some seemingly similar Enlightenment concept.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:19 PM on May 23, 2012
I agree with mmmbacon. I was surprised when reading The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, how much some of the stoic ideas reminded me of Buddhism.
Sara C, lower down, suggests that perhaps there was some transplanting of ideas. I think she might be right: Emerson and Thoreau are called American Transcendentalists. If I remember correctly, that group was directly influenced by Madame Blavatsky, who for sure was educated in Eastern ideas.
In my own mind, the idea of "show me/prove it" that I associate with the scientific method is very similar to Buddha basically saying, "don't just take it on authority, see if it works for you".
posted by PickeringPete at 3:39 PM on May 23, 2012 [2 favorites]
Sara C, lower down, suggests that perhaps there was some transplanting of ideas. I think she might be right: Emerson and Thoreau are called American Transcendentalists. If I remember correctly, that group was directly influenced by Madame Blavatsky, who for sure was educated in Eastern ideas.
In my own mind, the idea of "show me/prove it" that I associate with the scientific method is very similar to Buddha basically saying, "don't just take it on authority, see if it works for you".
posted by PickeringPete at 3:39 PM on May 23, 2012 [2 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
Enlightenment thinkers were not at all against getting "caught up" in metaphysical abstraction - who is more of an enlightenment figure than Kant, and who could be more metaphysical?
posted by phrontist at 7:29 AM on May 23, 2012 [3 favorites]