As I have been working my way through Hegel’s dense thoughts and even denser prose I have not been able to help but make connections to things I have read in other classes. As I may have mentioned the first day of class I have a minor in Asian Studies focusing on Asian philosophy and religion, and as I read Hegel I have been thinking a lot about various ideas found in Buddhism. It seems to me that there are many things on which Hegel and Gotama Buddha would agree, but other issues not so much. In the Kalama sutta for instance, the Buddha advises his followers that they “should not be convinced by unconfirmed reports, by tradition, by hearsay, by scriptures, by logical reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by reflection on superficial appearances, by delighting in opinions and speculation, by the appearance of plausibility, or because you think this person is our teacher (Wallis, Basic Teachings of the Buddha, 23) Rather, we ought to “know for ourselves,” that is we need to try things on, to work them out in our own minds and our own lives. The Buddha’s strenuous criteria for “truth” seems at least on par with Hegel’s if not entirely the same.
Buddhism emerged at roughly the same time that Upanishadic Hinduism was on the rise, and many of the ideas found within Buddhism react to ideas within that tradition. If you all remember in class the other day we briefly discussed the upanishadic Hindu tradition when we talked about “Brahman,” a monistic concept which reduces all reality to one thing (Brahman). As Buddhism was emerging at the same time as ideas about Brahman were developing, it is only natural that Buddhism, like Hegel should develop a healthy skepticism towards monistic ideas. Like Hegel Buddhsm attempts to break down the subject object barrier, while still remaining skeptical of monistic ideas. Instead Buddhism posits that the world is bound together by an infinite web of causality whereby every phenomenon is related and interdependent, this casual principle is routinely translated as “interdependent arising,” or “conditioned genesis.”
I am not entirely sure, but I think that the Buddhist idea of interdependent arising is very similar to the way Hegel sees the world. In both cases phenomena do not appear spontaneously and the entire process of their becoming is present within their existence therefore understanding requires that one understand the process as well as the result. Of course these two thinkers have some major differences as well. Ultimately the Buddha is attempting not to create a science of philosophy, but to end human suffering, and with this different goal in mind he obviously came to some different conclusions.
Ultimately the Buddha believes that our suffering comes from our own ignorance about ourselves and about the world. Essentially, we think we have a “self” and because of that we spend our lives trying to satisfy it, but in reality our self is merely an amalgamation of various different substances and phenomena, it is constantly in flux and will never be satisfied. The key to ending our suffering, then is not to change reality but to change the way we look at it. In this regard, the Buddha and Hegel seem to agree, the world always has been rational, it is I who have not been looking upon it rationally. Given all of their similarities I wonder what Hegel would have thought of the Buddhist understanding of the “self”? The Buddha saw the self simply as the coming together of 5 aggregates: body, feeling, perception, conceptual fabrications, and cognizance. Basicaly he believed that there is perception but no perceiver, thought but no thinker, etc, the self is simply the conglomeration of all of these different phenomena, each of which is in a constant state of change.
Buddhism emerged at roughly the same time that Upanishadic Hinduism was on the rise, and many of the ideas found within Buddhism react to ideas within that tradition. If you all remember in class the other day we briefly discussed the upanishadic Hindu tradition when we talked about “Brahman,” a monistic concept which reduces all reality to one thing (Brahman). As Buddhism was emerging at the same time as ideas about Brahman were developing, it is only natural that Buddhism, like Hegel should develop a healthy skepticism towards monistic ideas. Like Hegel Buddhsm attempts to break down the subject object barrier, while still remaining skeptical of monistic ideas. Instead Buddhism posits that the world is bound together by an infinite web of causality whereby every phenomenon is related and interdependent, this casual principle is routinely translated as “interdependent arising,” or “conditioned genesis.”
I am not entirely sure, but I think that the Buddhist idea of interdependent arising is very similar to the way Hegel sees the world. In both cases phenomena do not appear spontaneously and the entire process of their becoming is present within their existence therefore understanding requires that one understand the process as well as the result. Of course these two thinkers have some major differences as well. Ultimately the Buddha is attempting not to create a science of philosophy, but to end human suffering, and with this different goal in mind he obviously came to some different conclusions.
Ultimately the Buddha believes that our suffering comes from our own ignorance about ourselves and about the world. Essentially, we think we have a “self” and because of that we spend our lives trying to satisfy it, but in reality our self is merely an amalgamation of various different substances and phenomena, it is constantly in flux and will never be satisfied. The key to ending our suffering, then is not to change reality but to change the way we look at it. In this regard, the Buddha and Hegel seem to agree, the world always has been rational, it is I who have not been looking upon it rationally. Given all of their similarities I wonder what Hegel would have thought of the Buddhist understanding of the “self”? The Buddha saw the self simply as the coming together of 5 aggregates: body, feeling, perception, conceptual fabrications, and cognizance. Basicaly he believed that there is perception but no perceiver, thought but no thinker, etc, the self is simply the conglomeration of all of these different phenomena, each of which is in a constant state of change.
No comments:
Post a Comment