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

Love of All Wisdom

~ Philosophy through multiple traditions

Love of All Wisdom

Tag Archives: fundamentalism

Trump is a BJP-wala

19 Sunday Jan 2025

Posted by Amod Lele in Islam, Modern Hinduism, Modernized Buddhism, Politics, Protestantism, South Asia

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

20th century, 21st century, BJP, Donald Trump, fundamentalism, George W. Bush, identity, Martin Luther King Jr., religion, Tim Alberta, United States

When Donald Trump first rose to rapid popularity in American politics, many people were shocked and had no explanation. I was not among those people, for a couple of reasons. Among them: one way to make a new phenomenon comprehensible is analogy. And having watched Indian politics for a couple decades, I found it easy to say: Trump is a BJP-wala.

Continue reading →

A beef with Hindutva

18 Sunday Jun 2023

Posted by Amod Lele in Food, Islam, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, Modern Hinduism, Politics, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Vedānta

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

BJP, D.N. Jha, fundamentalism, Ireland, Milan Singh, nonhuman animals, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Upaniṣads

When I was getting ready for my PhD program to study Indian philosophy, I figured I should get more acquainted with the classics, so I sat down to read through the Upaniṣads in their entirety. I was making my way through a passage about what a man should ask his wife to do if they want a good and learned son. I saw it advance through progressively better outcomes, a son who knows one Veda, two Vedas, three. And then it culminated in this passage:

‘I want a learned and famous son, a captivating orator assisting at councils, who will master all the Vedas and life out his full life span’—if this is his wish, he should get her to cook that rice with meat and the two of them should eat it mixed with ghee. The couple thus becomes capable of begetting such a son. The meat may be that of a young or a fully grown bull. (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 6.4.18, Olivelle translation)

I was startled. One of the first things you would typically learn in “Hinduism 101” is that “Hindus” are supposedly forbidden from eating beef, that that is one of the key requirements of their “religion”. And that certainly fit my own experience with the Indian side of my family, who consider themselves Hindu and don’t eat beef. I had vaguely heard of D.N. Jha’s The Myth of the Holy Cow, and its argued that the prohibition on eating beef was not as ancient as we think it is. But I hadn’t expected to encounter the very opposite – an instruction to eat cows right there in the Brḥadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad.

Continue reading →

The Sigālovāda’s vicious mean

01 Sunday Aug 2021

Posted by Amod Lele in Attachment and Craving, Early and Theravāda, Faith, Flourishing, Foundations of Ethics, Hermeneutics, Monasticism, Play, Pleasure, Self-Discipline, Work, Zest

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

fundamentalism, H.L. Seneviratne, Martin Hägglund, music, Pali suttas, Sri Lanka

The Sigālovāda Sutta might be my least favourite sutta in the Pali Canon.

There is relatively little that the Pali texts say on “ethics” in a modern Western sense of interpersonal action-guiding; much of the specific instructions on action are found in vinaya, legal texts for the conduct of monks. The Sigālovāda is relatively unusual in providing guidance for action to lay householders. For that reason, a number of secondary writers on Buddhist ethics regard it as as a valuable guide for Buddhist ethical conduct.

I do not.

Continue reading →

How a fundamentalist gave us fallibilism

29 Sunday Nov 2020

Posted by Amod Lele in Certainty and Doubt, Epistemology, Islam, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Science, Roman Catholicism

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

al-Ghazālī, Ann Druyan, David Hume, fundamentalism, ibn Rushd, Immanuel Kant, Nicholas of Autrecourt, Nicolas Malebranche, Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham

Fallibilism is one of the most important modern ideas. By fallibilism I mean the idea that no idea is in principle immune to revision. It is among the most important methodological principles for natural science. As Ann Druyan said, science “is forever whispering in our ears, ‘Remember, you’re very new at this. You might be mistaken. You’ve been wrong before.’” Many of the claims a Newtonian physicist would once have confidently made, have been shown to be false by Einsteinian and quantum physicists.

As it turns out, this crucial idea has important roots in Muslim thinkers who might reasonably be called fundamentalist.

Continue reading →

God’s natural law?

22 Sunday Nov 2020

Posted by Amod Lele in Biology, Deity, Foundations of Ethics, Islam, Metaphysics, Mu'tazila, Philosophy of Science, Roman Catholicism, Sex

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Alasdair MacIntyre, Aristotle, Charles Darwin, fundamentalism, George Hourani, hadith, ibn Hazm, ibn Ṭufayl, intelligent design, Lady Gaga, law, Qur'an, Thomas Aquinas

A few years ago I discussed why the debate between intellectualist and voluntarist conceptions of God (is God an intellect or a will?) was so important in the medieval Western world. (The West here includes medieval Muslims, who not only started the debate, but were often further west than the Christians – in what is now Spain and Morocco rather than France and Italy.) I followed up by speaking of the modern practical implications of this debate: how it shows up in modern conceptions of law, and democracy. I think there are also some interesting things to say about the ethical implications of the debate in its own context.

Above all, if God is taken as a supremely good being, then our conception of him is inextricable from our conceptions of goodness and morality as such – and for that matter, of how we can tell what is good. This was the context for the debates that raged in early Muslim ethics, perhaps best chronicled by George Hourani. Muslims of the time agreed that the good life should be thought of in terms of law (shari’a): the prohibitions and obligations set out by God. But how do we know what God’s law is, exactly? It depends on what God is.

Continue reading →

On natural law and positive law

03 Sunday Jul 2016

Posted by Amod Lele in Deity, Foundations of Ethics, Hermeneutics, Islam, Morality, Politics, Protestantism, Reading and Recitation, Roman Catholicism

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

fundamentalism, Jeremy Bentham, law, Martin Luther, modernity, rights, Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham

In the previous discussion of why intellectualism and voluntarism are important, I left out what I think may be the most important aspect of all, one which leaves its mark on our thought today in the modern West. Namely: whether God is an intellect or a will bears directly on the way we think of morality – at least when we understand morality in terms of law, as the Abrahamic traditions all have to some degree.

If God is a will, then that will makes morality: morality is whatever God’s will commands. Continue reading →

Modernity and modernism

31 Sunday Mar 2013

Posted by Amod Lele in Metaphilosophy, Politics, Social Science

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

conservatism, fundamentalism, Ken Wilber, modernism, modernity

It can feel pedantic to insist on the distinction between modernity and modernism (as I do in my tag cloud). I’ve seen eyes roll when I do it, and understandably so. Two nouns both deriving from the word modern: surely between them is the ultimate example of a trivial distinction, a hair-splitting, a difference that does not make a difference?

In fact the difference between modernity and modernism can make all the difference in the world. The importance of the distinction may become a little bit clearer when we move from the nouns to their corresponding adjectives. Modernity is simply the noun form of “modern”, as we might expect. But modernism is not. Modernity is merely the state of being modern. Modernism is the state of being modernist. And that is a difference that makes a huge difference. Continue reading →

“You’re no Buddhist!”

10 Thursday Sep 2009

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

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

Absolutely Fabulous, authenticity, Dick Cheney, drugs, fundamentalism, identity, Kyle (blogger), Marcus (blogger), Śāntideva, Scott Mitchell, Ugraparipṛcchā Sūtra

Justin Whitaker’s blog pointed me to some interesting recent discussions of what it means to be a Buddhist, among Buddhist bloggers mostly of the Yavanayāna persuasion. Blogger Marcus (no last name provided) threw down a strongly worded gauntlet last week: “The fact is, if you are serious about Buddhism, you don’t drink. The Buddha’s words couldn’t be clearer.”

I have at least two objections to Marcus’s claim about alcohol. First, we fail at our chosen life goals all the time; we may be serious about following Buddhism, believe that therefore we shouldn’t drink, and still drink anyway. That may make us bad at Buddhism, but it doesn’t make us unserious. Second, matters are often not so cut and dried. It would be hard to say that Śāntideva was not serious about Buddhism – he became a lifelong monk and tried hard to live according to the words of the Buddha as he understood them. But he actually advocates (following the Mahāyāna Ugraparipṛcchā Sūtra, which at least claims to be the word of the Buddha) that one give alcohol to alcohol drinkers, as a way of winning their trust. (I discuss this point briefly the fourth chapter of my dissertation, and am writing an article on it in more detail.)

On the specific matter of alcohol, I tend to disagree with Marcus. But the discussion among Buddhist bloggers centred around bigger issues, where I think Marcus was quite right. Kyle of The Reformed Buddhist (who also appears to go without a last name) made a number of objections to Marcus, some of which I think are valid, some not so. But at the core of his reaction seems to be his first sentence: “Sigh the whole you’re no Buddhist thing again.” [emphases his] He seems in this post to take offence to the idea that someone could declare someone else to not be a Buddhist, or not be a serious Buddhist. In this he would seem to be agreeing with a slightly earlier post by Scott Mitchell of The Buddha Is My DJ. Mitchell opposes the claim made by some Buddhists (presumably including Marcus?) that their Buddhism is better or (or more “authentic”) than others’: “feel free to define yourself and your Buddhist practice. But stop doing it as a means to differentiate yourself from some “other” kind of Buddhist.”

Here I’ve got issues. Continue reading →

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

  • Anthony Aird on Grief’s complex timing
  • Amod Lele on Grief’s complex timing
  • Anthony Aird on Grief’s complex timing
  • Paul D. Van Pelt on If only Bentham had read the Kāma Sūtra
  • Amod Lele on If only Bentham had read the Kāma Sūtra

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 mystical experience nondualism Pali suttas pedagogy Plato race rebirth religion Siddhattha Gotama (Buddha) technology theodicy Thomas Kuhn United States utilitarianism Śaṅkara Śāntideva

Categories

  • African Thought (15)
  • Applied Phil (356)
    • Death (44)
    • Family (53)
    • Food (20)
    • Friends (20)
    • Health (31)
    • Place (32)
    • Play (17)
    • Politics (219)
    • Sex (23)
    • Work (45)
  • Asian Thought (448)
    • Buddhism (322)
      • Early and Theravāda (136)
      • Mahāyāna (135)
      • Modernized Buddhism (97)
    • East Asia (98)
      • Confucianism (60)
      • Daoism (22)
      • Shinto (1)
    • South Asia (145)
      • Bhakti Poets (3)
      • Cārvāka-Lokāyata (5)
      • Epics (16)
      • Jainism (24)
      • Modern Hinduism (43)
      • Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika (6)
      • Sāṃkhya-Yoga (16)
      • Vedānta (42)
      • Vedas and Mīmāṃsā (7)
  • Blog Admin (28)
  • Indigenous American Thought (8)
  • Method (271)
    • Metaphilosophy (176)
    • Method and Theory in the Study of Religion (152)
  • Practical Philosophy (417)
    • Action (15)
    • Aesthetics (51)
    • Emotion (184)
      • Anger (37)
      • Attachment and Craving (31)
      • Compassion (9)
      • Despair (7)
      • Disgust (5)
      • Faith (20)
      • Fear (14)
      • Grief (9)
      • Happiness (49)
      • Hope (18)
      • Pleasure (34)
      • Shame and Guilt (10)
    • External Goods (52)
    • Flourishing (99)
    • Foundations of Ethics (123)
    • Karma (44)
    • Morality (76)
    • Virtue (178)
      • Courage (7)
      • Generosity (14)
      • Gentleness (6)
      • Gratitude (12)
      • Honesty (14)
      • Humility (26)
      • Leadership (7)
      • Mindfulness (20)
      • Patient Endurance (30)
      • Self-Discipline (10)
      • Serenity (38)
      • Zest (7)
  • Practice (138)
    • Karmic Redirection (5)
    • Meditation (44)
    • Monasticism (46)
    • Physical Exercise (4)
    • Prayer (15)
    • Reading and Recitation (12)
    • Rites (21)
    • Therapy (11)
  • Theoretical Philosophy (386)
    • Consciousness (21)
    • Deity (75)
    • Epistemology (137)
      • Certainty and Doubt (18)
      • Dialectic (19)
      • Logic (14)
      • Prejudices and "Intuitions" (30)
    • Free Will (17)
    • Hermeneutics (61)
    • Human Nature (33)
    • Metaphysics (114)
    • Philosophy of Language (29)
    • Self (76)
    • Supernatural (53)
    • Truth (62)
    • Unconscious Mind (16)
  • Western Thought (500)
    • Analytic Tradition (101)
    • Christianity (160)
      • Early Factions (8)
      • Eastern Orthodoxy (3)
      • Protestantism (27)
      • Roman Catholicism (60)
    • French Tradition (50)
    • German Tradition (94)
    • Greek and Roman Tradition (122)
      • Epicureanism (25)
      • Neoplatonism (2)
      • Pre-Socratics (6)
      • Skepticism (2)
      • Sophists (8)
      • Stoicism (22)
    • Islam (42)
      • Mu'tazila (2)
      • Salafi (3)
      • Sufism (10)
    • Judaism (35)
    • Natural Science (99)
      • Biology (30)
      • Philosophy of Science (50)
      • Physics and Astronomy (11)
    • Social Science (183)
      • Economics (43)
      • Psychology (79)

Recent Posts

  • What is a woman?
  • Snakes wrongly grasped: on the psychedelic experiences of Musk and Manson
  • Canadian psychedelic podcast interview
  • If only Bentham had read the Kāma Sūtra
  • Kali’s Child at 30

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 2009-2025 Amod Lele. Comments copyright 2009-2025 their comment authors. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (BY-NC-SA) licence.

Proudly powered by WordPress Theme: Chateau by Ignacio Ricci.