![](\"https:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/_fyeYpxfdjuI\/S5GKVheE01I\/AAAAAAAAA5g\/mYS5upGOtIQ\/s320\/Devil%27s-tuning-fork.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nPhilosophy, Greek for love of wisdom<\/i>, is the search for practices and principles conducive to Truth, the Good Life, and Beauty. Philosophy flows both inductively<\/b>, moving from observed facts toward general conclusions, and deductively<\/b>, moving from general facts to specific truths. Philosophy is no fixed entity, but itself a tradition of inquiry spanning 2500 years in the West. And finally, Mind<\/i>, for our purposes, will be defined as the subjective aspect of experience, the phenomenon of being conscious.<\/p>\n Is there a \u201cBuddhist Philosophy?\u201d I think so. D.S. Ruegg, a major figure in Buddhist studies in the 20th century, began an article in 1995 by saying, \u201cit is surely no exaggeration to say that philosophical thinking constitutes a major component in Buddhism.\u201d<\/b> However, he cautions against importing our Anglo\/Western modes of thought\u00a0<\/i>into Buddhism, a tradition that may not have these modes of thought itself.<\/p>\n One way of doing this is to engage in a dialectic, or a dialog, of positions moving back and forth \u2013 no one position being favored over the other. \u00a0One example of dialectic in Buddhism is in the teacher-student relationship:<\/b> the teacher cannot be deified, because he\/she cannot save<\/i>\u00a0the student, but his\/her guidance is of great value. At the same time, the student\u2019s experience<\/i>\u00a0is also of great value, but it cannot be given sole value because of the ignorance intrinsic to that experience and the play of the ego. And the work of both is to balance the teacher\u2019s guidance with the student\u2019s experience. <\/p>\n Another example is in balancing theorizing with practice.<\/b> Anam Thubten Rinpoche put it wisely when he said that you cannot just get in a car in Virginia and say \u201cI\u2019m going to San Francisco, if you have no map or knowledge of how to get there.\u201d He also gave the example of when he was staying in Southern France and wanted to go see the leaning tower of Pisa. A friend with a car agreed to take him and the two drove for many hours through Italy and, just after gazing out at a rather large city as they passed, Anam Thubten asked the driver how much further it would be. The driver, surprised, said, \u201coh, I think that might have been it.\u201d So you might even catch a glimpse of awakening, but\u00a0you won\u2019t recognize it\u00a0if you haven\u2019t done the prior study to know what you\u2019re looking for. <\/p>\n We need to understand what we\u2019re doing and how to achieve our desired goals, but we also need the energy and effort to get there. A map alone will get you nowhere; and running around aimlessly is no better<\/b>.<\/p>\n Next time we\u2019ll look a bit more at the relationship between theory and practice in Buddhism and how these gave rise to a \u201cBuddhist philosophy of Mind.\u201d \u00a0To whet your appetite, here is a quote I plan to explore a bit more then: \u00a0From\u00a0Sungtaek Cho (a contemporary Korean Buddhologist and philosopher), <\/b>\u201cfrom the Buddhist perspective, all philosophical speculation is based on a meditative experience, which is clearly distinguished from our daily, rational experience.\u201d<\/p>\n ** Sources **<\/i><\/b> Ruegg, D.S. 1995. \u201cSome Reflections on the Place of Philosophy in the Study of Buddhism.\u201d In the Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 18, No.2, pp.145-181.<\/p>\n Buddhist Philosophy of Mind: what is it? Does it exist? Does Buddhism do\u00a0philosophy? Or is all philosophy the kind of metaphysical speculation that the Buddha was famously silent about? The first thing we ought to do is define our terms. Buddhism is the teaching of the Buddha and of his awakened (according to tradition) disciples. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":118,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-207","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n
Cho, Sungtaek. 2002. \u201cThe rationalist tendency in modern Buddhist Scholarship: A reevaluation.\u201d In Philosophy East and West, vol. 52, No.4, pp.426-440.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7907151-2512383091184258419?l=americanbuddhist.blogspot.com\")