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

[curt]

Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
>
> Those were the days my friend, allthough I would hesitate to qualify 
> Tsongkhapa and Mipam as philosophers, I think they were more doctrine 
> reformers like Luther and Küng. Nowadays the Buddhist leaders are not 
> productive, but reproductive, they preach the truth instead of asking 
> themselves questions, their minds are as dead as doornails. Their main 
> occupation is flying around in jets and buying real estate.
>
>
In the sense that Hadot uses the word philosophy, which I feel is very 
close to it's original meaning, the activity of philosophizing has 
little to do with "productivity" - which is a modern fixation of 
scholars of philosophy. By the criterion of "productivity" Marcus 
Aurelius would not be considered a "philosopher" - since there is 
absolutely nothing original in his "work" - which was never intended for 
others anyway. But as an exercise in applying philosophy to one's own 
life, Marcus' "Meditations" are rightly seen as a solid example of 
philosophy as "spiritual practice". Hadot discusses this question - of 
whether or not (and in what sense) Marcus should be considered a 
philosopher in his excellent book "The Inner Citadel". The issue is also 
discussed with respect to that other great philosopher emperor, Julian, 
in Rowland Smith's "Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the 
Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate".

- Curt