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

Love of All Wisdom

~ Philosophy through multiple traditions

Love of All Wisdom

Tag Archives: Candrakīrti

Snakes wrongly grasped: on the psychedelic experiences of Musk and Manson

28 Sunday Sep 2025

Posted by Amod Lele in Certainty and Doubt, Flourishing, Foundations of Ethics, Humility, Mahāyāna, Metaphysics, Self

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Candrakīrti, Charles Manson, drugs, Elon Musk, Ethan Mills, Jayarāśi, John Hick, Madhyamaka, MAPS, mystical experience, Nāgārjuna, narcissism, Roland Griffiths, Śāntideva

If Nāgārjuna, the great Madhyamaka Buddhist philosopher, is known for anything, it’s his doctrine of the emptiness (śūnyatā) of all things. But in his most famous work, Nāgārjuna warns his audience about emptiness: “Misperceived emptiness ruins a person of dull intelligence, like a snake wrongly grasped.” (MMK XXIV.11) If you know how to pick up a poisonous snake properly, you can move it to a place where it will do less harm, or even milk it to help produce an antidote. But if you don’t, then trying to grasp it will get you bitten and maybe killed. Likewise, if you perceive emptiness wrongly, that’s worse than not perceiving it at all.

If you’re going to try this, you’d better know what you’re doing. Adobe Stock image copyright by kampwit.
Continue reading →

Where Buddhists agree on metaphysics

24 Sunday Aug 2025

Posted by Amod Lele in Early and Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Metaphysics, Self, Truth

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Abhidhamma, Buddhaghosa, Candrakīrti, conventional/ultimate, Dan Arnold, Madhyamaka, Mark Siderits, Milindapañhā, Śāntideva, Tom Tillemans

Buddhists have never agreed on an overall metaphysics. They have long agreed that prajñā – accurately seeing things according to the ultimate truth – is hugely important, but they differ greatly on what that ultimate truth is. The Theravāda Abhidhamma view says everything is ultimately reducible to smaller parts; the Madhyamaka says it’s ultimately just emptiness; the Yogācāra says it’s all mind; Chinese Huayan and Tiantai views have their own trippy takes.

It recently hit me, though, that there’s actually a huge point of metaphysical agreement among all the Buddhist schools: huge enough to mean that this disagreement about the ultimate isn’t what matters most to them. And that’s on the point I discussed last time: namely that what really matters in Buddhist metaphysics isn’t so much the nature of the ultimate. Rather, it’s breaking down the conventional!

Continue reading →

Seeing through conventional reality

17 Sunday Aug 2025

Posted by Amod Lele in Attachment and Craving, Christianity, Deity, Foundations of Ethics, Islam, Mahāyāna, Metaphysics, Truth

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Candrakīrti, conventional/ultimate, existentialism, ibn Sīnā, Madhyamaka, Plato, Śāntideva

While Buddhist schools have many different takes on metaphysics – on what the world really is – they all acknowledge a distinction between two truths, or two levels of reality. That is: there is a conventional truth, the one familiar to us in everyday life where we can fruitfully speak of individual selves or persons and other everyday objects – and another, more ultimate (paramārtha) truth that is distinguished in some respect from the conventional, truer than the conventional. Their widely varying metaphysics mostly have to do with how we understand the ultimate truth, and I’ll talk about that more next week. I want to start this time, though, I want to note a key point that the metaphysical schools share: the importance of breaking down the conventional – or, put another way, of seeing through it.

Continue reading →

Disengaged Buddhism article is published

18 Monday Nov 2019

Posted by Amod Lele in Early and Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, Modernized Buddhism, Politics

≈ Comments Off on Disengaged Buddhism article is published

Tags

Aśvaghoṣa, Candrakīrti, Disengaged Buddhism, Engaged Buddhism, Jātakas, Pali suttas, Śāntideva

It’s been a long time in the making, but my article on disengaged Buddhism is finally published. It’s at the free online Journal of Buddhist Ethics, so you can go read it for yourself.

I’ll say a bit here about what you can expect to find. Some of the article goes over territory I’ve already covered on Love of All Wisdom and the IPB: I discuss Aśvaghoṣa’s worries about severity, Śāntideva’s rejection of external goods, the Cakkavatti Sīhanāda Sutta’s detached attitude to time. The article does this in more detail than the blogs have, and I also show similar ideas in other suttas and jātakas and from Candrakīrti.

The article also responds more directly to existing engaged Buddhist scholarship. Engaged Buddhist scholars have, so far, been the people actually doing constructive Buddhist ethics. They are not merely describing what Buddhists happen to believe but prescribing a Buddhist way of life, and that much is something I think we need more of. What I don’t think they do nearly enough is think about or respond to the points made by the likes of Śāntideva and Aśvaghoṣa. The article explains why they should.

So the article isn’t itself a work of constructive Buddhist ethics; I’m not taking a position on engagement or disengagement there. What I am doing is reminding other people doing constructive Buddhist ethics about a large body of ideas that they ignore or silence, and urging them to take those ideas more seriously. My own constructive position on these questions is complicated. I’ve started to take some of it up on the blog – for example, I think there is some empirical confirmation for the Disengaged Buddhists’ psychological claims. That isn’t the whole story, though, and you can expect to hear more about my constructive views in the years to come. I am proud of the article as a starting point.

Cross-posted at the Indian Philosophy Blog.

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 →

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 →

The significance of ethics to Candrakīrti’s metaphysics

25 Sunday Jun 2017

Posted by Amod Lele in Epistemology, Foundations of Ethics, Mahāyāna, Metaphilosophy, Metaphysics, Truth

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Candrakīrti, conventional/ultimate, Dan Arnold, Dignāga, Jayarāśi, John Dunne, Madhyamaka

As I noted last time, I think the disregard of ethics by Indian-philosophy scholars like Dan Arnold is a problem in itself: it’s a misconception of what philosophy is, and one that harmfully shrinks the field of the study of Indian philosophy. But I think this neglect would still be a problem even for people who do decide to restrict their study of Indian philosophy to the theoretical realms of metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language. For it seems to me that at least in Arnold’s case, the neglect of ethics leads to a misinterpretation of the metaphysics.

Arnold’s misinterpretation is focused above all around the relationship between the famous Buddhist “two truths”: conventional truth (saṃvṛti) and ultimate truth (paramārtha). Consider Arnold’s description (again in his review of Karen Lang) of the second chapter of Candrakīrti’s Catuḥśatakaṭīkā. “Candrakīrti develops (contra Vasubandhu) a characteristically Mādhyamika point to the effect that the conventional reality of pleasure is not denied, only its being the ‘inherent nature’ of life.” From this description, Candrakīrti’s chapter sounds like it is all about acknowledging pleasure and making room for it. You would not be able to tell that the point of this chapter, very explicitly stated at its beginning, is “rejecting the illusion of regarding the painful as being pleasant” – or that in this chapter, pretty much everything that we would normally consider pleasant turns out to be painful. Continue reading →

Don’t exclude ethics from philosophy

11 Sunday Jun 2017

Posted by Amod Lele in Analytic Tradition, Emotion, Foundations of Ethics, Mahāyāna, Metaphilosophy, Metaphysics

≈ Comments Off on Don’t exclude ethics from philosophy

Tags

Bimal Krishna Matilal, Candrakīrti, Dan Arnold, Karen Lang, Madhyamaka, Martha C. Nussbaum, Pierre Hadot, Śāntideva

It is commonplace today for scholars of Indian philosophy to focus their attention entirely on theoretical philosophy at the expense of the practical. I think this tendency is a mistake. I see at least two grave problems with it. First: In my 2015 article I argued that (at least in the case of Śāntideva) our understanding of Buddhist ethics is incomplete if we ignore Buddhist metaphysics. I am now beginning to think this issue goes in the other direction as well: that we will misinterpret Buddhist metaphysics if we ignore Buddhist ethics. I will talk about that problem next time. This time, I will address the other problem: it can drop us into the all-too-familiar trap of treating some Indian inquiries as “not philosophical” even when they were engaged in by most of the great philosophers of the West.

Traditional Tibetan portrait of Candrakīrti, taken from Rigpa Wiki.I notice both problems most clearly in the writings of Dan Arnold on Candrakīrti. Continue reading →

Précis of “Beyond enacted experiences”

30 Sunday Sep 2012

Posted by Amod Lele in Buddhism, Christianity, Consciousness, Dialectic, Judaism, Meditation, Metaphilosophy, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, Natural Science, Vedānta

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

Candrakīrti, Jesus, Ken Wilber, mystical experience, New Testament, perennialism, religion, Robert Sharf, Wilhelm Halbfass

I’ve been wanting to refer on the blog to the article I recently wrote for the Journal of Integral Theory and Practice. Out of respect for the journal’s hardworking editors (and the law!), I will not post the article or its text on the site. But I’d like to give a summary of what I said there, so that blog readers without access to JITP will know what I’m talking about. The argument here is not as precise or careful as that in the article, and readers will need to find a copy of JITP 7(2) to get those details.

The article is above all a critique of Ken Wilber’s method in cross-cultural philosophy, a method that Wilber himself describes as a form of empiricism. Continue reading →

Skepticism in two directions

29 Wednesday Dec 2010

Posted by Amod Lele in Cārvāka-Lokāyata, Epistemology, Mahāyāna, Prejudices and "Intuitions", South Asia

≈ 18 Comments

Tags

APA, Candrakīrti, Ethan Mills, Jayarāśi, Laura Guererro, Madhyamaka, Śāntideva, Tibet, Tsong kha pa

I attended a great panel yesterday at the Eastern APA. Two of the presentations addressed each other directly on a topic I’ve discussed before: skepticism in Indian thought. The presenters, Ethan Mills and Laura Guererro of the University of New Mexico, had clearly been engaged in a longstanding debate with each other on the subject beforehand, which I think helped sharpen their thoughts nicely for the talk.

Mills presented on Jayarāśi, whose Tattvopaplavasiṃha (“The Lion that Afflicts Categories”) is the only extant full text attributed to a member of the Cārvāka-Lokāyata, the atheist and materialist school of ancient Indian thought. But Jayarāśi takes the Cārvāka school’s thought much further than it is usually thought to go. Whereas this materialist school is normally understood to merely deny the existence of gods and karma, Jayarāśi denies the existence of pretty much everything. Previous Cārvākas were said to believe that the world was made up entirely of the four elements; Jayarāśi says, “Even the view of world as elements is not well established. How much less are all the others?” He is, in short, a skeptic. Continue reading →

← Older 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

  • Freedom of speech was never just about government | Love of All Wisdom on Why freedom of speech matters
  • Amod Lele on Why freedom of speech matters
  • Nathan on Why freedom of speech matters
  • Amod Lele on Legalize Plato
  • Nathan on Legalize Plato

Subscribe 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 (368)
    • Death (44)
    • Family (53)
    • Food (22)
    • Friends (21)
    • Health (32)
    • Place (35)
    • Play (17)
    • Politics (228)
    • Sex (24)
    • Work (46)
  • Asian Thought (456)
    • Buddhism (330)
      • Early and Theravāda (139)
      • Mahāyāna (140)
      • Modernized Buddhism (100)
    • East Asia (99)
      • Confucianism (61)
      • Daoism (22)
      • Shinto (1)
    • South Asia (147)
      • Bhakti Poets (3)
      • Cārvāka-Lokāyata (5)
      • Epics (16)
      • Jainism (24)
      • Modern Hinduism (44)
      • Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika (6)
      • Sāṃkhya-Yoga (16)
      • Sikhism (1)
      • Vedānta (42)
      • Vedas and Mīmāṃsā (7)
  • Blog Admin (28)
  • Indigenous American Thought (8)
  • Method (275)
    • Metaphilosophy (177)
    • Method and Theory in the Study of Religion (155)
  • Practical Philosophy (424)
    • Action (16)
    • Aesthetics (52)
    • Emotion (189)
      • Anger (39)
      • Attachment and Craving (32)
      • Compassion (9)
      • Despair (7)
      • Disgust (5)
      • Faith (20)
      • Fear (15)
      • Grief (9)
      • Happiness (49)
      • Hope (18)
      • Pleasure (36)
      • Shame and Guilt (10)
    • External Goods (53)
    • Flourishing (101)
    • Foundations of Ethics (124)
    • Karma (44)
    • Morality (78)
    • Virtue (183)
      • Courage (7)
      • Generosity (14)
      • Gentleness (6)
      • Gratitude (12)
      • Honesty (14)
      • Humility (27)
      • Leadership (7)
      • Mindfulness (23)
      • Patient Endurance (30)
      • Self-Discipline (10)
      • Serenity (38)
      • Zest (8)
  • Practice (145)
    • Karmic Redirection (5)
    • Meditation (47)
    • Monasticism (46)
    • Physical Exercise (4)
    • Prayer (16)
    • Reading and Recitation (14)
    • Rites (23)
    • Therapy (11)
  • Theoretical Philosophy (397)
    • Consciousness (22)
    • Deity (76)
    • Epistemology (140)
      • Certainty and Doubt (19)
      • Dialectic (19)
      • Logic (15)
      • Prejudices and "Intuitions" (31)
    • Free Will (18)
    • Hermeneutics (64)
    • Human Nature (34)
    • Metaphysics (115)
    • Philosophy of Language (30)
    • Self (78)
    • Supernatural (54)
    • Truth (63)
    • Unconscious Mind (16)
  • Western Thought (514)
    • Analytic Tradition (105)
    • Christianity (162)
      • Early Factions (8)
      • Eastern Orthodoxy (3)
      • Protestantism (27)
      • Roman Catholicism (61)
    • French Tradition (50)
    • German Tradition (94)
    • Greek and Roman Tradition (124)
      • Epicureanism (25)
      • Neoplatonism (2)
      • Pre-Socratics (6)
      • Skepticism (2)
      • Sophists (8)
      • Stoicism (22)
    • Islam (43)
      • Mu'tazila (2)
      • Salafi (3)
      • Sufism (10)
    • Judaism (38)
    • Natural Science (101)
      • Biology (31)
      • Philosophy of Science (50)
      • Physics and Astronomy (11)
    • Social Science (190)
      • Economics (45)
      • Psychology (83)

Recent Posts

  • Freedom of speech was never just about government
  • Why freedom of speech matters
  • Legalize Plato
  • The world of the women’s room
  • Do you need anger for respect and accountability?

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.