I often stumble upon books and articles claiming that Buddhism is not about metaphysics. Now, metaphysics is a problematic word, because people don't always agree what it means. It is often used as a synonym for "supernaturalism," but in current Western philosophy it is has to do with the fundamental nature of reality, supernatural or not.
Austin Cline, Guide to Atheism/Agnosticism, has a good article explaining metaphysics, and I'm going by his definition.
A few days ago I commented on an interview of Stephen Batchelor. One of the things that came out of this interview is that Batchelor has said "I honestly don't think the Buddha was interested in the nature of reality. The Buddha was interested in understanding suffering, in opening one's heart and one's mind to the suffering of the world."
Batchelor is one of the people who rails against the corrupting influence of metaphysics in Buddhism, as he did in his book Confession of a Buddhist Atheist. I wrote in my review of the book that Batchelor appeared to use the word metaphysical as a synonym for supernatural, but after seeing the quote in the interview I wonder if I was wrong about that. He really thinks the Buddha didn't teach about the fundamental nature of reality.
But Batchelor is not alone in this opinion. I run into it a lot. So I've written an article in response to this, "Buddhism and Metaphysics." I argue that saying the Buddha was only interested in releasing us from suffering, and not� in the nature of reality, is a bit like saying a doctor is only concerned with curing our disease and is not interested in medicine.
People making the anti-metaphysics argument point to various passages in the Pali Canon, in which the Buddha dismissed metaphysical questions as unhelpful. But I interpret those passages as being more about epistemology -- how do we know what we know?
The Buddha said that one does not gain wisdom through belief, rational speculation, or theories. Instead, wisdom is insight, free of delusion. He often spoke of direct insight or direct knowledge, gained through experience and practice of the Eightfold Path. In many other places, the Buddha also spoke about the nature of existence, and of reality, and how people could free themselves from delusion through practice of the Eightfold Path.
So when he brushed off people's questions about the nature of reality, was he saying "you don't need to understand that," or was he saying "speculating about that won't help you"?
There is no question the Buddha warned against speculation -- addressing a question through conjecture and supposition. Speculation leaves us in "a fetter of views," the Buddha said. We form ideas and opinions that get in the way of realization.
But I don't see how anyone could say the Buddha was "not interested in the nature of reality" without disregarding about two-thirds of what he taught. Dependent origination? The Three Marks of Existence? The Niyamas (natural laws)? Did he not teach all of that? Not to mention karma, although some anti-metaphysical Buddhist have decided arbitrarily that the Buddha didn't teach about karma. Because, you know, that's so metaphysical.
No comments:
Post a Comment