Reddit mentions of Buddhism as Philosophy: An Introduction

Mark Siderits has written a wonderful introductory overview of many key features of Buddhist philosophy in a book that I would consider a must-read on the subject. It is called Buddhism as Philosophy and offers both great depth and critical examination of the arguments at play in many of the Buddhist traditions.

I would also recommend Owen Flanagan's The Bodhisatva's Brain for an insightful discussion on some of the problems facing the very hyperbolic and enthusiastic view that many contemporaries express when discussing the effects of Buddhist practice and meditation.

If you are interested in a broad and concise overview of Buddhist thought from a Buddhist scholar, I'd recommend Walpola Sri Rahula's classic What the Buddha Taught. This book is very lean in terms of metaphysical speculation and portrays the Buddhist path in a philosophically austere and precise manner.

Since there is no one universally accepted interpretation of Buddha's teaching I would highly recommend reading wide and deep on the subject. There are many contemporary philosophers who have done great work in interpreting and examining Buddhist philosophy through the lens of modern day thought. To name a few: Miri Albahari, Jonardon Ganeri, Evan Thomspon and Matthew Mackenzie. Galen Strawson has also engaged with Buddhist thought in his writing on questions of selfhood and consciousness. Have a look at their respective academia pages and you should find much ongoing discussion on the subject and recommendations for further reading in their published articles.

Hope this helps!

edit: spelling

https://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Philosophy-Introduction-Mark-Siderits/dp/0872208737/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543567015&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=siderits&dpPl=1&dpID=51fe7cE9THL&ref=plSrch

Mark Siderits, Buddhism as Philosophy: An Introduction, Hackett Pub Co Inc., 2007. Amazon link

 

One of fine books which deals with the subject from philosophical point of view (accessible introductory book for any reasonably educated lay reader).

> just read the wiki on the "Mūlamadhyamakakārikā", which seems pretty enlightening; though am a hardcore philosophical-theorist

I just looked over the wiki page and it seems pretty esoteric. The MMK is pretty hard-nosed philosophy when you get down to it. If that approach interests you, you might like Buddhism as Philosophy as a short, more down-to-earth overview of this, along with a bunch more topics from the tradition. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way seems to be recommended a lot around here if you're at all interested in diving into a translation/commentary.

> Thank you for your thoughtful replies.

Sure thing.

What about this one? I haven't read it.

This book http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-as-Philosophy-An-Introduction/dp/0872208737 is awesome as a survey of the theoretical aspects of Buddhist doctrine

I don't think it's really clear what you want. You could make a book describing the similarities between anything and Buddhism. My impression is that your project is making this particular comparison because it's interested in tacitly bolstering a certain metaphysics that you think both Buddhism and science point to, and that it's resting on the assumption that science is giving us access to reality as it is. For example in the thread you mention

> I'd consider scientific methodologies for empirical observation guided by reason to be a Western parallel to Buddhist principles for seeing through to the genuine non-conceptual, non-illusory reality.

That's a very common view in scientific materialist circles, for example, but it isn't actually established what the relationship between science and truth is. That seems to be overlooked by most scientific materialists (though not by philosophers of science). Metaphysical assumptions are being made, but in this materialist worldview they're often not addressed, supported, or even recognized. A lot of the times it's just asserted that a metaphysical assumption is truth in a way that glosses over the fact that it's a metaphysical assumption. So in other words, science is sort of being held up as a firm foundation of a worldview, but what science is itself is overlooked. Philosophy of science isn't addressed. I think I see that omission in that quote. If science is helping us see non-illusory reality then the metaphysical assumption is made that science is a means of finding truth, not just a means of finding better models to make predictions.

Also with that quote, I don't know how science could be non-conceptual. Non-conceptual, at least in the Buddhist sense, means direct experience and not making models. So to my mind metaphysical philosophies (like scientific materialism) that interpret scientific models as reality itself are actually trying to build conceptions of reality.

Of course Buddhism contains some conceptions of reality too. Just to mention some differences in these conceptions: Scientific materialism assumes that there is substance at the foundation of reality or the root of perception. The closest you get to that idea in Buddhism AFAIK is in the Abhidharma, where one attempt was made to systematize what was inferred to be Buddha's idea of reality, and where the result was the notion of Dharmas, which you could say are atoms of experience. They aren't atoms in the scientific sense, but in the sense that they are essential aspects of experience that can't be broken down into sub-aspects. So for example there's a dharma earth which is a component of all perceptions that include aspects of solidity. That's all pretty much Theravadan thought. If you get into Zen there's the Yogacarin idea that everything is projections of mind, and that even dharmas are empty of substance or self-existence. Then there's Madhyamaka thought which breaks everything including mind down to no substance or essence.

Anyway Buddhism generally describes experience and sometimes describes certain conceptions of reality, but all so that we can move in the direction of seeing through conceptions. Science lets us make conceptual models that help us make predictions, and you might say it's independent of Buddhism, but scientific materialism is different from science. It's a metaphysical philosophy or worldview that revolves around bolstering a certain conception of reality as reality itself, so you might say it's in conflict with the goal of Buddhism in that respect.

So I think what would serve you best is to gain some clarity by taking some time examining some of the issue's underlying philosophy first, and Nagel's book is one that deals specifically with some issues that you seem to be overlooking in this comparison, if my impression is right. And the fact that you don't agree with the descriptions of a prominent philosopher's ideas is the best reason to read it and see why he's arguing for them. :) Also something that might be helpful is to look at some of the philosophy in Buddhism. Buddhism as Philosophy is a really nice introductory book covering a a range of what you'll find.

> It proves that the respected philosophical institutions don't consider it to be worth thinking about in terms of philosophical practice

No, it doesn't! That's just an inference that the absence supports. The other inferences include, but are not limited to: there is no student interest, there is no professor interest, there is no knowledgeable professor, there is not enough money, there is not enough space, there is not enough time, Buddhism isn't interesting as a philosophy, the topic can be already be covered in another class, etc... All of those are inferences that are supported by Buddhism not being taught in the philosophy department, but we haven't proven any of them just by showing that it's not taught in the philosophy department.

>It proves that the respected philosophical institutions don't consider it to be worth thinking about in terms of philosophical practice

You mean kind of like the book that was given good praise on Ashgate and was reviewed in the Australasian Journal of Philosophy. Pleaes note that this particular philosopher has given lectures at least through Columbia University. This just shows his credibility, if he was really a hack, as you've asserted, I doubt he'd have been invited to speak about philosophy at all.

>Only you say this.

Obviously it's a complex system otherwise people wouldn't say that it's a philosophy and a religion. If it were simple, it would have a single classification, but it's not. It can, and does, exist in two realms at once. Philosophy and religion.

>Yes, you do

No, I don't. I'm not making a specific claim to a specific area of philosophy. I'm not saying Buddhism is Kant's views. I'm saying that the broad label of "philosophy" encompasses Buddhism. Buddhism is a sub-sub-category of philosophy.

>Which?

It was called Justice. 3rd time I've told you that by the way.

>Academia is hard and most can't do it, many go to law school

Academia isn't as hard to do as you suggest. Only about 2% of the population teach Whereas, .36% become lawyers. Sorry, I was just slightly offended that you inferred it was harder to teach than to become a lawyer.

>Enough that I can point at a few of them and say

And out of the 150 (guessing) professors that teach at Cornell, how many people do you think went to class with them and aren't teaching?

>His name just never really comes up.

So, now you've shrunk the field even further. Now you're arguing that because he isn't one of the legendary philosophers he can't be worth anything. How many philosophers in our time do you think will become legendary? How many philosophers do you think have existed throughout history that no one will ever know of? Do you only respect people if they are legends? How many legends have you sat in class with? You've taken your list of reliable experts for a crazy ride during this argument. You started with professors, then you took it down to professors who teach at respectable institutions, now you've taken it down to legendary masters of the topic. Well, you've got me. I don't think I can find any legendary masters of philosophy who have talked about Buddhism as a philosophy. Cool thing is, that still doesn't mean it's not a philosophy.

>Enough that I could easily do a google search for historians who are involved in history, academia, or teaching.

Okay, but that still doesn't prove your point. Only a small percentage of people go on to teach. A smaller percentage will be lucky enough to teach at a prestigious school, but that doesn't automatically mean that all the others are hacks.

>Isaiah Berlin, Edward de Bono, Alain LeRoy Locke, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, John Finnis, PF Strawson, and probably others.

And how many people do you think they went to class with that we will never know about?

I think I've finally figured out why you are having such a hard time grasping what I'm getting at. When I say Buddhism is a philosophy, you automatically think I'm saying that philosophers study epistimology, logic, aesthetics, metaphysics, and buddhism. Which is definitely not the case. The difference here and we can use the dictionary definition for illustration is that to you, metaphysics and the lot ARE the "ideas" you study regarding truth, knowledge, and life. Buddhism is not one of those ideas and so it cannot fit within your concept of philosophy. However, I am referring to Buddhism as "a particular set of ideas about truth, knowledge, and life." In this way Buddhism is definitely a philosophy because it is a particular set of ideas about those things. In these ways, Buddhism is a philosphy and it is not a philosophy. It all depends on what interpretation we are using. I don't think that when people say philosophy they mean something other than philosophy, I think they mean a different definition of philosophy. It's still philosophy, but it's not The Philosophies. This is how I'd break it down from here. We have Philosophy. Within Philosophy are the Ideas of Philosophy and then Philosophies. In this way we have our categories: Philosophy (Fruit) > Ideas of Philosophy (Apples) and Philosophies (Oranges). Buddhism is a philosophy, but it's not a philosophy in the same way that metaphysics is a philosophy. This is the only way I see that makes sense and ties together our conflicting views, the facts, and the evidence.

Have you read these, and if not, how do you justify making such claims in light of the fact that you've just never bothered to look hard enough?

Buddhism as Philosophy: An Introduction by Mark Siderits http://www.amazon.com/dp/0872208737/ref=cm_sw_r_udp_awd_8b57tb17XYZRE

Buddhist Philosophy: Essential Readings by William Edelglass et al. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195328175/ref=cm_sw_r_udp_awd_Yc57tb0QAVD3Y