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

Love of All Wisdom

~ Philosophy through multiple traditions

Love of All Wisdom

Category Archives: Vedānta

How may we tell true from false?

24 Sunday Jul 2011

Posted by Amod Lele in Aesthetics, Analytic Tradition, Epistemology, Philosophy of Science, Truth, Vedānta, Virtue

≈ 23 Comments

Tags

Benjamin C. Kinney, music, pramāṇa, T.R. (Thill) Raghunath, virtue epistemology

How can we, or should we, learn what is true and what is false? This is one of the most enduring and basic questions in philosophy – “basic” because it is fundamental to so many others, not because the answers are in any way easy or simple.

The question, or some form of it, came up a number of times in recent discussions of “common sense”: if common sense isn’t reliable, I was asked, what is? I’m going to try to avoid the word “reliable” as I think its different uses became confusing in the previous debate; I have little stake in its use as a term. But the basic question of determining truth from falsehood is a crucial one and worth asking.

That’s not to say, however, that it admits easy answers, for I don’t think we should expect easy answers on the most basic philosophical questions. Continue reading →

Mou Zongsan’s theories across cultures

05 Sunday Jun 2011

Posted by Amod Lele in Confucianism, Deity, East Asia, Judaism, Mahāyāna, Metaphysics, Sufism, Vedānta

≈ 38 Comments

Tags

Advaita Vedānta, ascent/descent, Bhagavad Gītā, Emmanuel Lévinas, interview, intimacy/integrity, Jason Clower, Ken Wilber, Martha C. Nussbaum, Mou Zongsan, nondualism, skholiast (blogger), Tiantai 天台, Yogācāra, Zhu Xi

I have recently taken on a position as interviewer for the New Books Network, an exciting new project to hold podcast interviews with the authors of recently published scholarly books. I will be interviewing for New Books in Buddhist Studies, a position I share with Scott Mitchell. I’ve completed a first podcast which is not yet available online, but I’ll let you know when it is.

I mention this now because that first podcast is with Jason Clower on his The Unlikely Buddhologist, the study I recently mentioned of 20th-century Confucian Mou Zongsan. The podcast is there to explore Clower’s ideas; here I’d like to add my own.

The book asks why Mou, a committed Confucian, spent a great deal of time thinking and writing about Buddhism. Its answer is that Mou found East Asian Buddhists expressing metaphysical distinctions with a clarity that the Confucians had not. Mou is deeply concerned with the metaphysics of value – specifically, the relationship between ultimate value and existing things. One might refer to this as the relationship between goodness and truth, or between God and world, even creator and creation. Continue reading →

How not to conduct interreligious dialogue

03 Sunday Apr 2011

Posted by Amod Lele in Christianity, Deity, Islam, Judaism, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, Modern Hinduism, Politics, Truth, Vedānta

≈ 26 Comments

Tags

Advaita Vedānta, Brit Hume, Dabru Emet, Hebrew Bible, identity, Jesus, Jon Levenson, law, Reconstructionist Judaism, religion, Śaṅkara, Vasudha Narayanan

When I taught an introductory religion class at Stonehill, one of my favourite texts to teach was Jon Levenson’s Commentary article, “How not to conduct Jewish-Christian dialogue.” Levenson’s article is a critique of Dabru Emet, a brief statement made by four professors of Jewish studies. Dabru Emet emphasizes the commonalities between Jews and Christians: they worship the same God, seek authority from the same Hebrew Bible, and accept the moral principles of that text.

Levenson responds: wait a minute. For Trinitarian Christians (the vast majority today and for most of Christianity’s history), Jesus is God in a fundamental sense; but for a Jew (or Muslim), to say that a man is God is an idolatry that drastically compromises God’s fundamental oneness and uniqueness. While the content of the Tanakh – the Hebrew Bible as understood by Jews – may be mostly the same as that of the Old Testament, they are read in a very different light. To understand the Tanakh, Jews turn to Mishnah and Talmud; to understand the Old Testament, Christians turn to the New. As a result, the stories of the Hebrew Bible unfold very differently in each – they are even placed in a different order, so that the Tanakh culminates with the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, while the Old Testament ends with a prophesy heralding the “coming of the Lord.” And this isn’t just a matter of arcane scriptural study: it affects one’s ethics, one’s idea of the good life. Jewish ethics have been traditionally focused on following God’s laws and commandments as revealed in Torah, Christian ethics on following Jesus’s example – or even more so on faith in him and his saving grace.

Now my interest in Levenson is not in the particulars of Jewish and Christian traditions, since I identify with neither tradition. Rather, what I deeply appreciate is his criticism of Dabru Emet‘s method. Such documents, Levenson argues, “avoid any candid discussion of fundamental beliefs,” and “adopt instead the model of conflict resolution or diplomatic negotiation.” Continue reading →

The inadequacy of primary theory

14 Sunday Nov 2010

Posted by Amod Lele in Greek and Roman Tradition, Mahāyāna, Metaphilosophy, Metaphysics, Prejudices and "Intuitions", Social Science, Vedānta

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

Aristotle, Nāgārjuna, nondualism, nonhuman animals, race, Robin Horton, Śaṅkara, T.R. (Thill) Raghunath

Last time, I accepted that there were two reasonable ways to define “common sense.” One can identify it with prejudices, as I did the first time around, so that common sense is what is held to be common and taken for granted by a given group of people (usually one’s own). Alternately, one can identify common sense with Robin Horton’s “primary theory”: the kind of description or explanation of human experience that is basic enough to be mostly universal, such as plants requiring water to grow. Primary theory is opposed to more complex “secondary theory” like witchcraft or subatomic physics, referring to unseen phenomena, which explains events anomalous to primary theory and is not at all universal.

Now if common sense is defined as primary theory, what then is its philosophical significance? Far less, I would argue, than is often claimed for “common sense.” The problems with primary theory are twofold: first, it is relatively limited in scope; and second, it is often wrong. Continue reading →

Hegel in space?

31 Sunday Oct 2010

Posted by Amod Lele in Buddhism, Confucianism, Dialectic, German Tradition, Greek and Roman Tradition, Metaphilosophy, Metaphysics, Place, Politics, Vedānta

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

David Harvey, G.W.F. Hegel, Karl Marx, Rāmānuja, Śaṅkara, skholiast (blogger), Zhu Xi

Skholiast makes a key point in response to my post on perennial questions. Regarding the categories I have drawn in the history of philosophy – ascent and descent, intimacy and integrity – he notes that these categories need to be viewed as dialectical, such that different thinkers do not merely oppose each other but supersede each other. I have noted before that the categories are intended as ideal types, so real thinkers will rarely if ever fall on one side or the other; that most thinkers land somewhere in the middle is a feature of the scheme, not a bug. But Skholiast goes further. It is not merely that all of history’s great thinkers have some element of both these sides – that they are in the middle – but that they try in some respect to put them together. They aim, that is, at synthesis and not merely compromise. I addressed this point in the earlier (perennial questions) post, but wrote the post as if it’s only modern comparative philosophers like Ken Wilber who try to do this. Skholiast rightly notes that this sort of attempt to put together opposites dialectically is to be found in the West as early as Plato, and possibly before. On a question as big as ascent and descent, everyone tries to put the opposing views together to some extent.

This is a broadly Hegelian account of the history of philosophy. Judging by his use of the term Aufhebung, Skholiast has intended it to be such. My own sympathies with G.W.F. Hegel are no secret, given my influence by James Doull and his school. But while expressing my admiration for Hegel before, I also expressed my biggest concern about his system: that it fails to do justice to Asian thought. Continue reading →

Perennial questions?

06 Wednesday Oct 2010

Posted by Amod Lele in East Asia, Greek and Roman Tradition, Metaphilosophy, Metaphysics, Prejudices and "Intuitions", Truth, Vedānta

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

Aristotle, ascent/descent, intimacy/integrity, Ken Wilber, Mozi, perennialism, Plato, Śaṅkara, skholiast (blogger), Thomas P. Kasulis

On my recent post about the ascent-descent and intimacy-integrity classifications in philosophy, skholiast asks an important question: “what is the itch in us to make such schematisms?” What is the point of trying to classify philosophies this way? Clearly many philosophers do attempt to so classify them – but is that anything more than the kind of obsessive interest that characterizes Asperger’s syndrome?

I thought of one important answer to this question because of some friends who are interested in Frithjof Schuon and his fellows in the Perennialist or Traditionalist School of thought. The members of this school believed, and continue to believe, in a philosophia perennis, a kind of philosophical wisdom that persists across cultures throughout the ages. Central to this perennial philosophy is the idea of an ultimate Reality distinguishable from the everyday world we perceive with our senses – an ultimate One which Plato, Śaṅkara, and Zhu Xi might all arguably be said to have found, more or less entirely independently of one another. The perennialists tend to believe that the reason so many came to this conclusion in so many places is because it was the truth – it was really there, to be observed or deduced by any human being anywhere if they cared to take a serious look.

As for me, one reason I find classification of philosophies so important is that I’m only willing to meet the perennialists halfway. Continue reading →

Supernatural and political death

03 Sunday Oct 2010

Posted by Amod Lele in Death, Epicureanism, Flourishing, Foundations of Ethics, French Tradition, Mahāyāna, Metaphysics, Politics, Psychology, Self, Supernatural, Vedānta

≈ 18 Comments

Tags

Advaita Vedānta, ascent/descent, consequentialism, Disengaged Buddhism, Epicurus, Eric Voegelin, French Revolution, Lucretius, rebirth, Śaṅkara, Śāntideva, Sigmund Freud, Simone Weil, Vladimir Lenin

A couple of my recent posts have explored the idea of anti-politics – the idea that concern with affairs of the state is typically detrimental to a good human life. The anti-political view is one for which I have great sympathy. Now, as the previous post might have suggested, I also reject the supernatural; I believe that natural science is our best guide to the causality of the physical world, and that we would do well to look with skepticism on belief in celestial bodhisattvas, the multiplication of tooth relics, or an afterlife.

But if one takes up the resulting position – neither supernatural nor political – then one has relatively little company in the history of philosophy. From Yavanayāna Buddhists to Unitarian Universalists, those who have sought to move beyond the supernatural have typically also believed in political engagement. The vast majority of political quietists like Śāntideva believed in a vast panoply of unseen worlds far beyond those supported by empirically tested evidence.

I continue to wonder: is there something I’m missing? Is there some reason why so many in the end tend to supernaturalism, politics, or both? Continue reading →

Asperger’s syndrome in the history of philosophy

12 Sunday Sep 2010

Posted by Amod Lele in Analytic Tradition, Confucianism, German Tradition, Greek and Roman Tradition, Metaphilosophy, Metaphysics, Psychology, Roman Catholicism, Vedānta

≈ 35 Comments

Tags

Aristotle, ascent/descent, Asperger's syndrome, Augustine, autobiography, G.W.F. Hegel, Graham Harman, Immanuel Kant, Ludwig Wittgenstein, nonhuman animals, Oliver Sacks, Plato, Rāmānuja, Raphael, Śaṅkara, Temple Grandin, Thomas Aquinas

I’ve just been reading the popular neurologist Oliver Sacks‘s piece “An Anthropologist on Mars,” from the book of the same name. It’s a short biography of Temple Grandin, a woman whose life was recently made into a movie. Grandin, an animal researcher, has Asperger’s syndrome or “high-functioning autism”; she understands science, and animals, much better than she understands the social interactions of her fellow human beings.

People describing Grandin often reach first for words like “extraordinary,” “fascinating,” “remarkable.” These are not the words that come to my mind. I say this not because I find her accomplishments limited – they are major – but because I find her story very familiar. I don’t know if I would be diagnosed with Asperger’s myself; but I do know that Asperger’s is part of a spectrum, with full-blown autism on one end. At the other end, I think, one finds the behaviour of typical science-fiction geeks and absent-minded professors, in whose company I unquestionably fall.

The central features of Asperger’s syndrome are a difficulty with social cues and a narrowness of interest; one falls far outside the normal realms of human interest and interaction. (My interests are almost opposite Grandin’s, yet this makes me sympathize with her more. Where Grandin has been obsessed with animals since her youth, my mother recalls that I was the only child to be completely uninterested when a bunny rabbit was brought into our classroom.) The subtle interplay and social niceties that come so naturally to most people, must be learned deliberately and consciously, as one learns mathematics – and learning these is often far more difficult than learning math.

There are a number of philosophical implications that the diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome might have. In today’s post, I want to focus on its implications for the history of philosophy. Continue reading →

The problem of bad and the problem of good

01 Wednesday Sep 2010

Posted by Amod Lele in Analytic Tradition, Christianity, Deity, Early and Theravāda, Foundations of Ethics, Greek and Roman Tradition, Metaphysics, Roman Catholicism, Vedānta

≈ 26 Comments

Tags

Advaita Vedānta, Alasdair MacIntyre, Aristotle, Christine Korsgaard, law, obligation, Plato, Śaṅkara, theodicy, Thomas Aquinas

In my previous discussion of Christine Korsgaard’s prologue to The Sources of Normativity, I left out one significant feature of the story she tells of Western philosophy. This is the reason – related to the basic account of excellence of obligation – why Christianity proved philosophically more powerful than Greek thought.

On Korsgaard’s account of Greek metaphysics (à la Plato and Aristotle), goodness is a feature of reality, one more fundamental in a sense than the particular physical objects that appear before us. Perfect form is more real than imperfect matter. This is true whether, with Plato, those forms exist in a world apart from matter, or, with Aristotle, they exist within matter as its potential and telos.

But if that’s the case, Korsgaard notes, then the logical question is: why aren’t things perfect already? We normally think of theodicy – the problem of suffering and responses to it – as primarily a problem for Abrahamic traditions. If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, it’s hard to see how there can be suffering in the world (though it’s less hard to see how there can be evil). But broaden the question a bit – make it “the problem of bad” – and it appears elsewhere too. For Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedānta, in which reality is pure knowledge, it’s a conundrum to think how there can be so much ignorance.

And Korsgaard seems to provocatively suggest that the Christians were better equipped to handle the problem than the Greeks – connecting to her account of how an ethics of excellence was superseded by an ethics of obligation. Continue reading →

Two concepts of altruism

08 Sunday Aug 2010

Posted by Amod Lele in Analytic Tradition, Early and Theravāda, Epicureanism, Foundations of Ethics, French Tradition, Judaism, Mahāyāna, Modern Hinduism, Morality, Roman Catholicism, Self, Vedānta

≈ 31 Comments

Tags

Aristotle, Buddhaghosa, Christine Korsgaard, Derek Parfit, Emmanuel Lévinas, Epicurus, nondualism, obligation, Paul Hacker, Paul Williams, Śaṅkara, Śāntideva, Swami Vivekānanda

The Catholic Pauls, it seems clear to me, oppose ethical egoism in strong terms. Interestingly, however, they do not spend much time attacking it; instead, they attack a kind of altruism that is very different from their own. And their positions interest me greatly because of the way it highlights differences among philosophical concepts of altruism.

Ethical egoism of some description – say, as advocated by Epicurus – is a perfectly respectable philosophical position. One can say that one’s reasons to benefit others are all ultimately based on benefit to oneself, if one’s own self-interest is rightly understood. Neither Paul has a great deal of sympathy for this position, as far as I can tell, but it is not what they take as a target for their attack.

Rather, they reserve their greatest ire for a position that derives other-orientation from ātmanism – or at least from nondualism. 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

  • Sandhya Lele on Hiding your ideas in plain sight
  • Sandhya Lele on Hiding your ideas in plain sight
  • Nathan on Hiding your ideas in plain sight
  • Paul D. Van Pelt on Hiding your ideas in plain sight
  • Seth Zuihō Segall on Hiding your ideas in plain sight

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 Phil (377)
    • Death (44)
    • Family (53)
    • Food (22)
    • Friends (21)
    • Health (33)
    • Place (37)
    • Play (17)
    • Politics (237)
    • Sex (25)
    • Work (48)
  • Asian Thought (459)
    • Buddhism (331)
      • Early and Theravāda (140)
      • Mahāyāna (140)
      • Modernized Buddhism (101)
    • East Asia (101)
      • Confucianism (62)
      • Daoism (22)
      • Shinto (1)
    • South Asia (148)
      • Bhakti Poets (3)
      • Cārvāka-Lokāyata (5)
      • Epics (16)
      • Jainism (24)
      • Modern Hinduism (45)
      • Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika (6)
      • Sāṃkhya-Yoga (16)
      • Sikhism (1)
      • Vedānta (42)
      • Vedas and Mīmāṃsā (7)
  • Blog Admin (28)
  • Indigenous American Thought (8)
  • Method (278)
    • Metaphilosophy (180)
    • Method and Theory in the Study of Religion (155)
  • Practical Philosophy (429)
    • Action (16)
    • Aesthetics (52)
    • Emotion (193)
      • Anger (41)
      • Attachment and Craving (32)
      • Compassion (9)
      • Despair (7)
      • Disgust (5)
      • Faith (20)
      • Fear (15)
      • Grief (9)
      • Happiness (51)
      • Hope (19)
      • Pleasure (37)
      • Shame and Guilt (10)
    • External Goods (55)
    • Flourishing (102)
    • Foundations of Ethics (124)
    • Karma (44)
    • Morality (78)
    • Virtue (185)
      • Courage (7)
      • Generosity (14)
      • Gentleness (6)
      • Gratitude (13)
      • Honesty (15)
      • Humility (27)
      • Leadership (7)
      • Mindfulness (24)
      • Patient Endurance (30)
      • Self-Discipline (10)
      • Serenity (38)
      • Zest (8)
  • Practice (146)
    • Karmic Redirection (5)
    • Meditation (47)
    • Monasticism (47)
    • Physical Exercise (4)
    • Prayer (16)
    • Reading and Recitation (14)
    • Rites (23)
    • Therapy (11)
  • Theoretical Philosophy (401)
    • Consciousness (22)
    • Deity (76)
    • Epistemology (140)
      • Certainty and Doubt (19)
      • Dialectic (19)
      • Logic (15)
      • Prejudices and "Intuitions" (31)
    • Free Will (18)
    • Hermeneutics (66)
    • Human Nature (34)
    • Metaphysics (115)
    • Philosophy of Language (31)
    • Self (78)
    • Supernatural (54)
    • Truth (64)
    • Unconscious Mind (16)
  • Western Thought (522)
    • Analytic Tradition (106)
    • Christianity (162)
      • Early Factions (8)
      • Eastern Orthodoxy (3)
      • Protestantism (27)
      • Roman Catholicism (61)
    • French Tradition (50)
    • German Tradition (96)
    • 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 (101)
      • Biology (31)
      • Philosophy of Science (50)
      • Physics and Astronomy (11)
    • Social Science (194)
      • Economics (47)
      • Psychology (84)

Recent Posts

  • Hiding your ideas in plain sight
  • Don’t be an Ugly Canadian
  • How to actually decentre whiteness
  • Habermas and a road not taken
  • Canada’s anti-American anger is no small matter

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.