• About me
  • About this blog
  • After Anger
  • Comment rules
  • Other writings

Love of All Wisdom

~ Philosophy through multiple traditions

Love of All Wisdom

Category Archives: Mahāyāna

The importance of being Thich Quang Duc

07 Sunday Jul 2019

Posted by Amod Lele in Death, External Goods, Happiness, Mahāyāna, Meditation, Patient Endurance, Prayer, Serenity

≈ Comments Off on The importance of being Thich Quang Duc

Tags

Charles Goodman, David Halberstam, Malcolm Browne, Matthieu Ricard, Ngo Dinh Diem, Śāntideva, Siddhattha Gotama (Buddha), suicide, Thich Quang Duc, Tibet, Vietnam

In the Śikṣā Samuccaya‘s chapter on patient endurance, Śāntideva urges aspiring bodhisattvas to attain a meditative state (samādhi) called the Sarvadharmasukhākrānta, which Charles Goodman translates as “Everything is Covered with Happiness.” Śāntideva makes truly extraordinary claims about what is possible for a bodhisattva who has attained this state. In Goodman’s translation:

Bodhisattvas who attain this feel only happy feelings toward all objects they are aware of, with no feelings of suffering or unhappiness. Even while feeling the pains of the torments of hell, they think only happy thoughts. Even while suffering all the harms of the human condition, such as having their hands, feet, or noses cut off, they think only happy thoughts. Even while being beaten with canes, half-canes, or whips, they have only happy thoughts. Even when thrown into prison… or while being cooked in oil, or pounded like sugarcane, or flattened like reeds, or set on fire like an oil lamp, a butter lamp, or a yogurt lamp, they think only happy thoughts. (ŚS 181-2)

The passage is surprising, and modern readers often approach it with deep skepticism. We cannot imagine someone feeling this way; we think it must be impossible. Surely these are exaggerations? Surely it is psychologically unrealistic for anyone to attain such a state?

I think there is at least one significant empirical reason to believe that these claims are not exaggerated, and his name is Thich Quang Duc. Continue reading →

Does Śāntideva think bodhisattvas are happy?

24 Sunday Feb 2019

Posted by Amod Lele in Compassion, External Goods, Flourishing, Foundations of Ethics, Happiness, Hermeneutics, Mahāyāna, Patient Endurance

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

AAR, Candrakīrti, Disengaged Buddhism, Madhyamaka, Matthieu Ricard, Śāntideva, Stephen Harris, Thomas Kuhn, William Edelglass

A while ago William Edelglass put up a paper for discussion on academia.edu about Śāntideva and happiness. I made some suggestions for changes in a way that turned out to be unhelpful, since William informed me that the paper was already on its way to publication and he had only put it up by accident! Now, though, the paper has been published, as a chapter in David McMahan and Erik Braun’s valuable and readable volume on meditation, Buddhism and science. So perhaps now is the time to take my old suggestions and reframe them here as part of an ongoing public discussion.

William’s purpose in the chapter is to critique what he calls the “happiness turn” in Western Buddhism, in which Buddhist advocates cite Buddhism’s ability to make its practitioners happy. The most prominent such case is Matthieu Ricard, the Tibetan monk whose fMRI scans showed record levels of activity in the parts of the brain associated with happiness. William thinks this emphasis on happiness misrepresents significant elements of Buddhism, and cites Śāntideva at length to prove his case.

Overall, I do not find myself convinced. Continue reading →

“Indian philosophy” vs. “Buddhist ethics”

16 Sunday Sep 2018

Posted by Amod Lele in Early and Theravāda, Emotion, Foundations of Ethics, Mahāyāna, Metaphilosophy, Metaphysics, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion

≈ Comments Off on “Indian philosophy” vs. “Buddhist ethics”

Tags

Bimal Krishna Matilal, Damien Keown, Dan Arnold, David Chapman, Dharmakīrti, Dignāga, Engaged Buddhism, Śāntideva

It is not especially controversial to say that ethics is a branch of philosophy. I’ve occasionally heard people dispute that claim, but mostly on the grounds that ethics extends beyond philosophy per se, to narrative and the like; few would say that ethical reflection is in general not a philosophical activity. Likewise it is not controversial at all to say that Buddhism began in India, or that Buddhism played a central role in the development of Indian philosphy.

So why is there so little overlap between “Indian philosophy” and “Buddhist ethics”? Continue reading →

The psychological case for disengaged Buddhism

05 Sunday Aug 2018

Posted by Amod Lele in Anger, Early and Theravāda, External Goods, Fear, Happiness, Health, Mahāyāna, Politics, Psychology

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

anxiety, Aśvaghoṣa, Boston University, Candrakīrti, Disengaged Buddhism, Donald Trump, Nick (Nattavudh) Powdthavee, Pali suttas, Philip Brickman, Richard Easterlin, Śāntideva, Steven Collins

My project on disengaged Buddhism has now been submitted to a journal. It’s undergone several revisions by this point. One of the most important such revisions was suggested unanimously by BU’s magnificent CURA seminar. In an earlier draft I had attempted to emphasize the contemporary constructive significance of disengaged Buddhism by noting how its ideas were corroborated by some contemporary psychological research. The seminar participants thought that discussion of psychology did not strengthen the paper because I didn’t have the space to defend them fully; the paper would stand best discussing disengaged Buddhists’ claims in their historical context and letting those claims stand on their own.

I think they were right, and I removed the psychology discussion from the paper – a little sadly, as I thought the psychological case for disengaged Buddhism was worth making. Fortunately, I have another place to make it: here. Continue reading →

Ethics of disposition, not decision

18 Sunday Feb 2018

Posted by Amod Lele in Action, Analytic Tradition, Early and Theravāda, Foundations of Ethics, Mahāyāna, Metaphilosophy, Morality, Psychology, Unconscious Mind, Virtue

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

Andrew Ollett, Aristotle, Buddhaghosa, Damien Keown, Daniel Kahneman, Śāntideva, trolley problem, virtue ethics

I’ve been thinking further on the decision/capacity distinction first articulated by Andrew Ollett, and I want to take a further step. So far Andrew and I have merely acknowledged the existence of this distinction – identifying different thinkers on either side and exploring the distinction’s implications for philosophical methodology. But I am, at this point, ready to make a more substantive claim: the “capacity” approaches are better. In ethics, we should be “capacity” rather than “decision” thinkers. I had stressed before that we can and should address the “capacity” approach philosophically and not merely historically; now I want to actually do so, and say that it is correct. Continue reading →

Unconscious illusions

04 Sunday Feb 2018

Posted by Amod Lele in Attachment and Craving, Consciousness, Early and Theravāda, Epistemology, Mahāyāna, Psychology, Unconscious Mind

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Amos Tversky, Aristotle, chastened intellectualism, Daniel Kahneman, David Burton, Franz Carl Müller-Lyer, mathematics, René Descartes, Śāntideva, Sigmund Freud, vinaya

Buddhist texts frequently stress the liberating power of prajñā or paññā, metaphysical insight. It is one of the three major components of the path in early texts, one of the six perfections in Mahāyāna. To know the truth about existence – its nature as impermanent, essenceless, unsatisfactory – is to liberate one’s mind and be unattached. In the Pali Vinaya, the Buddha’s first disciples Sāriputta and Moggallāna attain liberation from suffering as soon as they hear the Dhamma Eye: the phrase “Whatever can arise, can also cease.” Śāntideva at Śikṣā Samuccaya 264 says na śūnyatāvādī lokadharmaiḥ saṃhriyate: one who takes the position of emptiness will not be attached to worldly phenomena.

But something seems odd about these claims – perhaps especially to a beginning student of Buddhist philosophy. We might well acknowledge the tradition’s supposed truths as truths – and yet still be just as mired in suffering as we were before. I know I didn’t get liberated upon hearing that what can arise can cease, and you probably didn’t either. David Burton in his Buddhism, Knowledge and Liberation puts the problem well:

I do not seem to be ignorant about the impermanence of entities. I appear to understand that entities have no fixed essence and that they often change in disagreeable ways. I seem to understand that what I possess will fall out of my possession. I apparently accept that all entities must pass away. And I seem to acknowledge that my craving causes suffering. Yet I am certainly not free from craving and attachment. (Burton 31)

Continue reading →

Ultimate and conventional truth in Wilfrid Sellars

21 Sunday Jan 2018

Posted by Amod Lele in Analytic Tradition, Early and Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Science, Self, Truth

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Abhidhamma, conventional/ultimate, Democritus, Epicurus, Karl Marx, Madhyamaka, Milindapañhā, Wilfrid Sellars

Let me begin with a guessing game, for those readers who consider themselves relatively widely read in philosophy. I am thinking of a text that examines two different views of human beings. It examines on one hand the view that humans are entities that act on the world of the sort that one can tell stories about, using language, living in communities, giving and taking. It juxtaposes this view on the other hand with the view that humans are collections of smaller imperceptible particles that operate strictly according to universal laws of causation. The texts comes to the conclusion that the latter view is the one that corresponds to reality, with the former simply an appearance or convenient way of speaking. Which text is this? Continue reading →

Naturalizing Śāntideva’s eudaimonism

10 Sunday Dec 2017

Posted by Amod Lele in Death, External Goods, Flourishing, Foundations of Ethics, Happiness, Karma, Mahāyāna, Patient Endurance, Stoicism, Supernatural

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Barbra Clayton, Charles Goodman, hell, Jan Westerhoff, Jim Wilton, Martha C. Nussbaum, rebirth, Śāntideva, suicide, Thich Quang Duc

My disagreements with Charles Goodman continue with his contribution to Jake Davis’s thought-provoking volume A Mirror Is For Reflection. (I’ve previously written about Jan Westerhoff’s chapter in the same book.) Just like Westerhoff, Charles is exploring the important question of naturalizing karma. He does so with particular reference to Śāntideva. He opens with a beautiful reading of Śikṣā Samuccaya chapter 4’s graphic descriptions of the punishments a wrongdoer will face in the hells, reading them in terms of the actions’ psychological effects on the wrongdoer.

The problem with this reading is that it doesn’t go far enough. Continue reading →

Śāntideva vs. Singer

26 Sunday Nov 2017

Posted by Amod Lele in External Goods, Foundations of Ethics, Generosity, Mahāyāna, Morality

≈ Comments Off on Śāntideva vs. Singer

Tags

Charles Goodman, consequentialism, IABS, Peter Singer, Śāntideva, utilitarianism

I’ve been fortunate in the past year and a half to meet Charles Goodman at three different conferences, and to have long and stimulating discussions with him. Since our researches have both focused on Śāntideva’s ethics, we can critique each other’s ideas at a highly detailed level – one that has often involved whipping out a physical copy of Charles’s excellent new translation of the Śikṣā Samuccaya to confirm our points.

Probably our central point of disagreement: Charles is known for presenting a consequentialist interpretation of Buddhist ethics, and especially of Śāntideva; in his talk at the IABS, referred to Śāntideva as “the world’s first utilitarian”. Since I discovered Buddhism in part as an alternative to an unsatisfying utilitarianism, this has not sat particularly well with me. Continue reading →

The political path vs. the Buddhist path

29 Sunday Oct 2017

Posted by Amod Lele in Anger, Early and Theravāda, Gentleness, Mahāyāna, Politics, Serenity

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Aśvaghoṣa, Dalai Lama XIV, Disengaged Buddhism, Engaged Buddhism, Frédéric Richard, IABS, Stephen Jenkins, Tibet, Tibetan Youth Congress

I presented about Disengaged Buddhism at the International Association of Buddhist Studies conference in August. My talk was paired with a presentation by Frédéric Richard on a topic that did not initially appear to be related: the Tibetan government in exile. As it turned out, the papers proved fascinating mirror images of each other. Continue reading →

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Welcome to Love of All Wisdom.

I invite you to leave comments on my blog, even - or especially - if I have no idea who you are. Philosophy is a conversation, and I invite you to join it with me; I welcome all comers (provided they follow a few basic rules). I typically make a new post every Sunday. If you'd like to be notified when a new post is posted, you can get email notifications whenever I add something new via the link further down in this sidebar. You can also follow this blog on Facebook. Or if you use RSS, you can get updates through the RSS feed.

Recent Comments

  • Amod Lele on Christians can have neutral supernatural beings
  • Amod Lele on Christians can have neutral supernatural beings
  • Thomas Storck on Christians can have neutral supernatural beings
  • Rick Repetti on Christians can have neutral supernatural beings
  • Amod Lele on Marx and Mill: similar makers of the modern left

Subscribe to receive Love of All Wisdom by email:

Post Tags

20th century academia Alasdair MacIntyre Aristotle ascent/descent Augustine autobiography Buddhaghosa Canada Confucius conservatism Disengaged Buddhism Engaged Buddhism Evan Thompson expressive individualism Four Noble Truths Friedrich Nietzsche G.W.F. Hegel gender Hebrew Bible identity Immanuel Kant intimacy/integrity justice Karl Marx Ken Wilber law Martha C. Nussbaum modernity music mystical experience nondualism Pali suttas pedagogy Plato race rebirth religion Siddhattha Gotama (Buddha) technology theodicy United States utilitarianism Śaṅkara Śāntideva

Categories

  • African Thought (15)
  • Applied Philosophy (391)
    • Death (48)
    • Family (54)
    • Food (23)
    • Friends (21)
    • Health (33)
    • Place (40)
    • Play (18)
    • Politics (245)
    • Sex (25)
    • Work (48)
  • Asian Thought (468)
    • Buddhism (338)
      • Early and Theravāda (141)
      • Mahāyāna (145)
      • Modernized Buddhism (105)
    • East Asia (103)
      • Confucianism (62)
      • Daoism (24)
      • Shinto (1)
    • South Asia (150)
      • Bhakti Poets (4)
      • Cārvāka-Lokāyata (5)
      • Epics (16)
      • Jainism (24)
      • Modern Hinduism (46)
      • Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika (6)
      • Sāṃkhya-Yoga (16)
      • Sikhism (1)
      • Vedānta (42)
      • Vedas and Mīmāṃsā (7)
  • Blog Admin (29)
  • Indigenous American Thought (9)
  • Method (279)
    • Metaphilosophy (180)
    • Method and Theory in the Study of Religion (156)
  • Practical Philosophy (440)
    • Action (18)
    • Aesthetics (53)
    • Emotion (198)
      • Anger (43)
      • Attachment and Craving (33)
      • Compassion (9)
      • Despair (7)
      • Disgust (5)
      • Faith (20)
      • Fear (15)
      • Grief (9)
      • Happiness (52)
      • Hope (20)
      • Pleasure (38)
      • Shame and Guilt (10)
    • External Goods (55)
    • Flourishing (107)
    • Foundations of Ethics (126)
    • Karma (45)
    • Morality (80)
    • Virtue (191)
      • Courage (7)
      • Generosity (14)
      • Gentleness (7)
      • Gratitude (13)
      • Honesty (15)
      • Humility (27)
      • Leadership (7)
      • Mindfulness (27)
      • Patient Endurance (32)
      • Self-Discipline (11)
      • Serenity (41)
      • Zest (8)
  • Practice (147)
    • Karmic Redirection (5)
    • Meditation (47)
    • Monasticism (47)
    • Physical Exercise (4)
    • Prayer (16)
    • Reading and Recitation (14)
    • Rites (24)
    • Therapy (11)
  • Theoretical Philosophy (410)
    • Consciousness (24)
    • Deity (79)
    • Epistemology (141)
      • Certainty and Doubt (19)
      • Dialectic (21)
      • Logic (15)
      • Prejudices and "Intuitions" (31)
    • Free Will (18)
    • Hermeneutics (66)
    • Human Nature (36)
    • Metaphysics (118)
    • Philosophy of Language (31)
    • Self (79)
    • Supernatural (57)
    • Truth (64)
    • Unconscious Mind (16)
  • Western Thought (533)
    • Analytic Tradition (108)
    • Christianity (163)
      • Early Factions (8)
      • Eastern Orthodoxy (3)
      • Protestantism (28)
      • Roman Catholicism (62)
    • French Tradition (50)
    • German Tradition (98)
    • Greek and Roman Tradition (126)
      • Epicureanism (25)
      • Neoplatonism (2)
      • Pre-Socratics (6)
      • Skepticism (2)
      • Sophists (8)
      • Stoicism (22)
    • Islam (44)
      • Mu'tazila (2)
      • Salafi (3)
      • Sufism (10)
    • Judaism (38)
    • Natural Science (105)
      • Biology (34)
      • Philosophy of Science (51)
      • Physics and Astronomy (11)
    • Social Science (201)
      • Economics (50)
      • Psychology (87)

Recent Posts

  • Christians can have neutral supernatural beings
  • Marx and Mill: similar makers of the modern left
  • The Radical Buddhism Project
  • The present moment has no marshmallow
  • The gap is not glorious

Popular posts

  • One and a half noble truths?
  • Wishing George W. Bush well
  • Do Speculative Realists want us to be Chinese?
  • Why I am not a right-winger
  • On faith in tooth relics

Basic concepts

  • Ascent and Descent
  • Intimacy and integrity
  • Ascent-descent and intimacy-integrity together
  • Perennial questions?
  • Virtuous and vicious means
  • Dialectical and demonstrative argument
  • Chastened intellectualism and practice
  • Yavanayāna Buddhism: what it is
  • Why worry about contradictions?
  • The first philosophy blogger

Personal favourites

  • Can philosophy be a way of life? Pierre Hadot (1922-2010)
  • James Doull and the history of ethical motivation
  • Praying to something you don't believe in
  • What does postmodernism perform?
  • Why I'm getting married

Archives

Search this site

All posts, pages and metadata copyright 2009-2026 Amod Lele unless otherwise noted. Comments copyright 2009-2026 their comment authors. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (BY-NC-SA) licence.

Proudly powered by WordPress Theme: Chateau by Ignacio Ricci.