[Buddha-l] philosophical (as opposed to agnostical) buddhism

[curt]

Since I have been taking pot-shots at Agnostic Buddhism - I'll briefly 
outline a positive alternative.

1. First off, there seem to be two primary motivations behind the idea 
of "Agnostic Buddhism":

(a) a wish to express Buddhist teachings in a way that is compatible 
with western culture.
(b) a wish to emphasize the freedom to exercise one's own judgment, as 
opposed to merely accepting the pronouncements of authority figures.

2. "Agnostic" as an adjective modifying "buddhism" does meet these 
criteria - but in my opinion it is unnecessarily (and misleadingly) 
restrictive.

3. In western culture the activity of inquiring into "big questions", 
such as "how should I live my life?" (which is the one question that 
really matters), has historically gone under the name of "philosophy". 
In fact, T.H. Huxley, who coined the term "agnostic" is usually 
identified as "a biologist and a philosopher" NOT as "a biologist and an 
agnostic."

4. The adjective "philosophical" is indigenous to western culture (in 
fact it is often thought to be one of greatest achievements of that 
culture), and also strongly denotes free and unfettered inquiry. 
Therefore, it clearly meets the two criteria above. "Skepticism" is a 
very specific school of philosophy (well, actually, *two* schools) - and 
it has absolutely no monopoly on free and unfettered inquiry - and it is 
no more "western" than any other school of western philosophy. 
"Agnosticism" is a modern form of philosophical skepticism - although it 
lacks the coherence and rigor of the Academic and Pyrrohnist schools.

5. The reason that Agnostic Buddhism has been proposed (as opposed to 
something broader like "philosophical buddhism") appears to be (to me) 
that while "philosophical" fits the two criteria above, it fails to 
conform to a third criterion:
(c) a wish to reject all things "religious".

6. Philosophy *as a whole* has always been compatible with religion *in 
general*. But Batchelor feels that it is essential dispense with 
everything "religious" - although he unable to express what he means by 
"religion" - beyond a hamfisted caricature (which appears to be derived 
from hackneyed Victorian polemics against the more odious aspects of 
Christianity).

7. To reiterate, with respect to criteria (a) and (b) above: philosophy 
has much deeper roots in western culture than agnosticism - and much 
broader roots than mere skepticism. And the *activity* of philosophy is 
nothing other than the unfettered exercise of one's very own inquiring 
mind.

8. Rather than artificially exaggerating the cultural differences 
between "east" and "west" - "philosophical buddhism" would emphasize 
significant common ground that bridges east and west. It would also 
avoid being a sectarian label - because *all* Buddhist teachers of all 
schools are, in fact, "philosophers." Of course philosophical buddhism 
would also include skeptical and/or agnostic - and even secular buddhisms.

9. The adjective "philosophical" does not exclude things "religious", 
"mystical" or even "dogmatic". But it certainly allows for (indeed 
demands) a vigorous examination and critique all things "religious", etc 
(as well all things not "religious" for that matter). Anyone familiar 
with Plato and Plotinus knows that a wide variety of religious, mystical 
and even (at least superficially) "dogmatic" ideas can be incorporated 
into "philosophy".

10. The people who first called themselves "philosophers" were also the 
first people to call themselves "cosmopolitans" - literally, "citizens 
of the Cosmos". While these "philosophers" are often thought of (and 
often rightly so) as "Greek" - they were in fact intensely interested in 
the ideas, especially the religious ideas, of non-Greek peoples. This 
was especially true with respect to Egypt, Persia - and India. Many 
philosophers, including Plato and Plotinus, expressed the opinion that 
what we would today call "the spiritual traditions of the east" predated 
and presaged "Greek philosophy".

11. Many schools of Greek philosophy included conceptions of rebirth and 
even something like "karma" - at least in the sense that successive 
"births" are influenced by one's actions in previous "births". As 
fascinating as such parallels are, as far as "philosophical buddhism" 
goes they simply demonstrate that the "common ground" spoken of in point 
8 above is not merely wishful thinking - they do not imply, necessarily, 
any deeper connection between eastern and western philosophy.

- Curt