Passivism and Pyrrhonism in Buddhist Ethics

Last updated on: April 30, 2010 at 10:36 pm by Justin Whitaker

Passivism and Pyrrhonism in Buddhist Ethics 2010-04-30T22:36:00-06:00 Justin Whitaker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The Journal of Buddhist Ethics is out with the start of it’s 2010 offerings now, including a fascinating book review about Pyrrhonism and Buddhism (.pdf). And be sure to check the 2009 page for Rev. Danny’s excellent book review (.pdf) there.

In my years studying philosophy I’ve read and heard countless times the critique of Buddhism as being overly passive, even by prominent Buddhists. At times I’ve bought into this criticism, at times opposed it. The following paragraph illustrates well the power of Buddhist practice (and Pyrrhonist as well it seems) to release one from the bonds that actually paralyze a person from acting.

What… would a Pyrrhonist do in the face of a totalitarian regime such as the Soviet Union or Nazi Ger-many, or in the face of human injustice and corruption more generally? Without a belief in the “dictatorship of the proletariat” or the “master race” or the “free market,” he, suspending all such concepts, would use none of them as a criterion of action. Rather, he would act out of direct experience, i.e., he would react to the involuntary sensory aspectsaround him. In the absence of any rationalizing dogmatic beliefs about the kinds of activities going on around him, presumably all that would remain for him is revulsion or disgust. This, it is expected, is sufficient for him to turn away from such acts and regimes or even resist them. As such, it is claimed that there is nothing passive or paralyzing about the Pyrrhonist lifestyle. Both Pyrrhonists and Buddhists, Kuzminksi claims, are similar with regards to their way of life. In both traditions, views are suspended, leaving the subject free to experience the natural flow of thoughts and sensations. The subject is able to react spontaneously and, presumably, appropriately, to the stimulus offered by appearances free of distortion. (emphasis mine pp.65-66)

Sure, such dogmas as the “master race” or “free market” can drive much activity, and some of it even of lasting good, but due to the ignorance inherent in all concepts, the good can easily be perverted leading to the destruction of both others and oneself. (yes, “master race” and “free market” are lumped in the same category here, discuss amongst yourselves)

Action in Buddhism may, too, be based on personally-held dogmas such as karma and rebirth (such terms are woven through the very fabric of the tradition). But ultimately one should step beyond these, and in fact the Buddha is described precisely as having gone beyond such concepts.

Just about as often as I hear the mistaken notion that Buddhism is a form of passivism, I hear the parable of the raft and the other shore misused to argue for an ad hoc suspension of thinking (a.k.a. dualism). The Buddha didn’t teach us not to cling to the teachings. He said to think of the Dhamma as a raft to be used to cross to the other shore (awakening). First we go through all of the effort to make a raft – akin to our efforts to learn and understand the Dhamma. Then we use this to cross a great expanse of water. Then we let it go.

The footnote in the AtI translation of the raft parable is instructive:

According to SN 35.197: “The great expanse of water stands for the fourfold flood: the flood of sensuality, the flood of becoming, the flood of views, & the flood of ignorance. The near shore, dubious & risky, stands for self-identity. The further shore, secure and free from risk, stands for Unbinding. The raft stands for just this noble eightfold path: right view…right concentration. Making an effort with hands & feet stands for the arousing of persistence.”

The whole image is one of great activity. And like many of the great Buddhist teachings, each part ‘unpacks’ to reveal depths of concepts (eg. the flood of views can unfold into the 62 wrong views described in the first discourse of the Digha Nikaya, or to the two wrong views of the self: eternalism and annihilationism, etc.).

Of course there is a place for cultivating calm and concentration in Buddhism, and of letting go of false views and habits. But, as should be clear, this is not a passivity or a case for abandoning the raft midstream.

Returning to the review, I found it well argued and very helpful. I don’t think I’ll buy the book, Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism any time soon. Aside from the concerns expressed by the reviewer (about whether Pyrrho was influenced by Indian philosophers at all), I have always taken Diogenes claim that Pyrrho met with Gymnosophists (naked philosophers) and Magi to refer to Jains, a statue of one pictured above, and Zoroastrians.

“Afterwards he (Pyrrho) joined Anaxarchus (an older contemporary), whom he accompanied on his travels everywhere so that he even forgathered with the Indian Gymnosophists and with the Magi. This led him to adopt a most notable philosophy…” (Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Vol. 2, trans. R. D. Hicks – from the review, p.62).

While the reviewer questions the force of this single quote (the only evidence we have that Pyrrho even went to India or that his philosophy derives from there), I find it equally dubious that the book’s author takes it yet further to tie together Pyrrho’s philosophy and that of Buddhism. This is especially eggregious when we find that the Buddhist philosophy compared to Pyrrhonism, and that which supposedly influenced him, is Madhyamaka philosophy, which wouldn’t be formulated until at least three centuries after Pyrrho’s death.

I haven’t read Kuzminski’s book, so perhaps the author is making less of a causal claim than this. Likewise he may be claiming that Pyrrho and Madhyamaka have common philosophical roots, which is not terribly problematic. Borrowing from yet another review, we see that Kuzminski “records an impressive number of parallels between Greek and Indian philosophy, and in particular his analysis of the analogy between Pyrrhonist/sceptic ataraxia and Nagarjuna’s “emptiness” is notable. However, analogies, similarities, parallels or whatever you will call them are one thing, concrete proof of influence and interdependence is another.”

Even if there is a mistaken causal claim made, the book will be very beneficial for its cultural and philosophical comparisons. He also discusses later philosophers including Berkeley and Wittgenstein, which is sure to spur discussion and thought amongst historians of philosophy. But beyond this discussion and thought should hopefully be a little personal reflection, as, “According to Kuzminksi (sic), nonviolence and peace can come about only in the absence of belief, when we adopt something like the Pyrrhonist or Buddhist attitude towards experience” (p.67).

Uncategorized

Previous Post

April 29, 2010

Politics: toward a Buddhist immigration policy

Next Post

May 3, 2010 Was the Buddha Guided by Evil?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Activism American Buddhism Art Book review Buddhism Buddhism Today Buddhist Ethics Burma/Myanmar China Christianity Commodification Environment Gender Happiness Health Humor India Interfaith Islam Japanese Buddhism Kant Media / News Meditation mindfulness Photography Poetry Politics quicktakes Running Teaching Technology Thailand Theism/Atheism Theravada Tibet Tibetan Buddhism Travels Uncategorized Unitarian Universalism video Western Philosophy Zen

Select a Month June 2021 January 2021 November 2020 August 2020 July 2020 March 2020 January 2020 October 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 November 2004 September 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz