Comments on: Differences across traditions, or within them? http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/08/across-traditions-or-within-them/ Philosophy through multiple traditions Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:23:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Amod Lele http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/08/across-traditions-or-within-them/comment-page-1/#comment-264 Amod Lele Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:46:40 +0000 http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=28#comment-264 Yes, I think that's mostly right; I talked a little about the point in my <a href="http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/05/analytic-and-continental-philosophy/" rel="nofollow">first post</a>. Many analytic philosophers (following models of natural science, to which history is viewed as basically irrelevant) aren't even interested in the history of their own tradition, let alone anybody else's. So in large philosophy departments you'll often find the one token Continental philosopher, often as isolated as the token Marxist in an economics department, and <i>maybe</i> one token Asianist. But not enough to do graduate work with, for sure. As for magic, well, it's complicated. There were certain practices, like fortune telling, that the Buddha is said to have prohibited in the early texts (the Pali <i>sutta</i>s). But the same texts speak of magic powers that one can attain through high spiritual achievement - the trick is you're not supposed to let anyone know about them, basically because it's showing off. And certainly throughout the history of Buddhism people have had practices we would consider magical (like wearing amulets displaying the Buddha or revered Buddhist teachers in the hopes of warding off bad fortune). That's the basic summary, but beyond that you're quite right that it varies by sect: there's a lot more magic in the tantric traditions, for example, which have influenced Tibetan Buddhism. Which is part of the point I was hoping to make in this post: the ideas of the <i>sutta</i>s, in which magic's role is real but limited and the goal is to seek one's own liberation, may be closer in the end to Greek and Roman Epicureanism than they are to Tibetan tantra or Japanese Pure Land Buddhism. Yes, I think that’s mostly right; I talked a little about the point in my first post. Many analytic philosophers (following models of natural science, to which history is viewed as basically irrelevant) aren’t even interested in the history of their own tradition, let alone anybody else’s. So in large philosophy departments you’ll often find the one token Continental philosopher, often as isolated as the token Marxist in an economics department, and maybe one token Asianist. But not enough to do graduate work with, for sure.

As for magic, well, it’s complicated. There were certain practices, like fortune telling, that the Buddha is said to have prohibited in the early texts (the Pali suttas). But the same texts speak of magic powers that one can attain through high spiritual achievement – the trick is you’re not supposed to let anyone know about them, basically because it’s showing off. And certainly throughout the history of Buddhism people have had practices we would consider magical (like wearing amulets displaying the Buddha or revered Buddhist teachers in the hopes of warding off bad fortune). That’s the basic summary, but beyond that you’re quite right that it varies by sect: there’s a lot more magic in the tantric traditions, for example, which have influenced Tibetan Buddhism. Which is part of the point I was hoping to make in this post: the ideas of the suttas, in which magic’s role is real but limited and the goal is to seek one’s own liberation, may be closer in the end to Greek and Roman Epicureanism than they are to Tibetan tantra or Japanese Pure Land Buddhism.

]]> By: michael reidy http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/08/across-traditions-or-within-them/comment-page-1/#comment-263 michael reidy Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:08:23 +0000 http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=28#comment-263 Would you agree that the tolerance of themes in Eastern Philosophy in the average Anglo-American Philosophy Dept. would be slight given the general bias towards the analytic tradition. Being and Nothingness whether in French or Pali are perhaps equally spurned as 'not even wrong'. Not any sort of Continental then. That is my not very well informed impression. What is the Buddhist position on magic? Wouldn't it vary across the sects? I thought that the Buddha forbade the practice of magic which implies that there is something to be practiced. Is there a distinction between low and vulgar thaumaturgy and spontaneous compassionate miracles? Would you agree that the tolerance of themes in Eastern Philosophy in the average Anglo-American Philosophy Dept. would be slight given the general bias towards the analytic tradition. Being and Nothingness whether in French or Pali are perhaps equally spurned as ‘not even wrong’. Not any sort of Continental then. That is my not very well informed impression.

What is the Buddhist position on magic? Wouldn’t it vary across the sects? I thought that the Buddha forbade the practice of magic which implies that there is something to be practiced. Is there a distinction between low and vulgar thaumaturgy and spontaneous compassionate miracles?

]]>