Buddhist Philosophy

Buddhist philosophy is the branch of Eastern philosophy based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha (c. 563 BCE - c. 483 BCE). Buddhist philosophy deals extensively with problems in metaphysics, phenomenology, ethics, and epistemology.

Introduction

From its inception, Buddhism has had a strong philosophical component. Buddhism is founded on the rejection of certain orthodox philosophical concepts, in which the Buddha had been instructed by various teachers. Buddhism rejects atheism, theism, monism, and dualism alike. The Buddha criticized all concepts of metaphysical being and non-being, and this critique is inextricable from the founding of Buddhism.

Particular points of Buddhist philosophizing have often been the subject of disputes between different schools of Buddhism. Metaphysical questions such as "Is there a god?" and "Does the soul (Atman) really exist?" have divided the Buddha's followers even during his own lifetime, and epistemological debates over the proper modes of evidence have always been lively in Buddhism.

Readers should note that theory for its own sake is not valued in Buddhism, but theory pursued in the interest of enlightenment for oneself or others is fully consistent with Buddhist values and ethics.

Buddhism as philosophy?

Some have asserted that Buddhism as a whole is a philosophy rather than a religion. Proponents of such a view may argue that (a) Buddhism is non-theistic (i.e., it has no special use for the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods) or atheistic and (b) religions necessarily involve some form of theism. Others might contest either part of such an argument. Other arguments for Buddhism "as" philosophy may claim that Buddhism does not have doctrines in the same sense as other religions; the Buddha himself taught that a person should accept a teaching only if one's own experience verifies it.

Arguments against Buddhism as a philosophy might call attention to the way Buddhism's pervasive inclusion of supernatural entities (not "gods" in the sense of Western monotheism, of course), to what most scholars identify as worship practices (ceremonial reverence of saints, etc.), to Buddhism's thoroughly developed hierarchies of clergy (not usually characteristic of a "philosophy"), and its overall religious organization.

A third perspective might take the position that Buddhism can be practiced either as a religion or as a philosophy. A similar distinction is often made with reference to Taoism.

Lama Anagorika Govinda expressed it as follows in the book 'A Living Buddhism for the West':

"Thus we could say that the Buddha's Dharma is,

as experience and as a way to practical realisation, a religion;

as the intellectual formulation of this experience, a philosophy;

and as a result of self-observation and analysis, a psychology.

Whoever treads this path acquires a norm of behaviour that is not dictated from without, but is the result of an inner process of maturation and that we - regarding it from without - can call morality."

It should also be noted that in the South and East Asian cultures in which Buddhism achieved most of its development, the distinction between philosophy and religion is somewhat unclear and possibly quite spurious, so this may be a semantic problem arising in the West alone.

Philosophical areas addressed in Buddhism

Epistemology

Decisive in distinguishing Buddhism from what is commonly called Hinduism is the issue of epistemological justification. The schools of Indian logic recognize a certain set of valid justifications for knowledge, while Buddhism recognizes a smaller set. Both accept perception and argument, for example, but for the orthodox schools (of Hinduism), the received textual tradition (e.g., the Vedas) is in itself an epistemological category equal to perception and argument (although this is not necessarily true for some of the non-orthodox schools, like Vedanta). Thus, in the orthodox schools, if a claim was made that could not be substantiated by appeal to the textual canon, it would be viewed as ridiculous as a claim that the sky was green.

Buddhism, on the other hand, rejected an inflexible reverence of accepted doctrine. As the Buddha said:

Do not accept anything by mere tradition. . . Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. . . Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. . . But when you know for yourselves -- these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness -- then do you live acting accordingly.

-- the Kalama Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya III.65

Metaphysics and phenomenology

Issues arising from the doctrine of anatta

In earliest Buddhism and today still in Theravāda and the Madhyamaka, any metaphysical essence or being underlying the play of phenomenal experience is rejected. No "soul" or permanent self was recognized, and the perception of a continuous identity was held to be an illusion.

Any feeling whatsoever, any perception whatsoever, any mental processes whatsoever, any consciousness whatsoever -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle, common or sublime, far or near; every consciousness -- is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as "This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am."

-- the Anattalakkhana Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59

From within the context of the Madhyamaka, we find Candrakirti:

"Self is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness".

-- Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā 256.1.7

This anti-essentialist teaching, known as anatta, brought up many questions. If there is no ātman or Brahman underlying the objects and events of the universe, how could they be explained? What gave them their existence? And if