David Hume and Buddhism
Dear Nishijima Roshi,
Some of your posts and writings, as well as those of Brad Warner, seem to show Zen philosophy regarding the self as being extremely close to that of David Hume. Because I am a philosophy student, I was wondering if you could please elaborate on something for me so that I can understand whether the two philosophies agree or disagree.
Hume claims that there is no self because from moment to moment our identity is different, though very similar, to the identity of the moment before. He claims that we infer the connection between the different states of mind from moment to moment, and that we call this connection and continuity our "self" or our "identity". He gives the analogy of a movie - our self is like a movie in that it is an illusion: it appears as though the images are all connected and fluid, but when you look at the film it is actually a series of individual, slightly differing images moving quickly.
Up to this point, Hume's philosophy seems very much in line with Zen Buddhism. But I do know that Buddhism strongly advocates the existence of cause and effect. The problem is, Hume says the only reason that there is no connection between our identity from moment to moment is because we cannot experience the cause and effect, that we only assume A causes B.
Is there any way that Buddhist Philosophy explains the disconnectedness of time and "self" but maintains causality? I apologize if my question is not very clear.
-Jared
Some of your posts and writings, as well as those of Brad Warner, seem to show Zen philosophy regarding the self as being extremely close to that of David Hume. Because I am a philosophy student, I was wondering if you could please elaborate on something for me so that I can understand whether the two philosophies agree or disagree.
Hume claims that there is no self because from moment to moment our identity is different, though very similar, to the identity of the moment before. He claims that we infer the connection between the different states of mind from moment to moment, and that we call this connection and continuity our "self" or our "identity". He gives the analogy of a movie - our self is like a movie in that it is an illusion: it appears as though the images are all connected and fluid, but when you look at the film it is actually a series of individual, slightly differing images moving quickly.
Up to this point, Hume's philosophy seems very much in line with Zen Buddhism. But I do know that Buddhism strongly advocates the existence of cause and effect. The problem is, Hume says the only reason that there is no connection between our identity from moment to moment is because we cannot experience the cause and effect, that we only assume A causes B.
Is there any way that Buddhist Philosophy explains the disconnectedness of time and "self" but maintains causality? I apologize if my question is not very clear.
-Jared
posted by Jared | 5:43 AM
4 Comments:
Dear Jared San,
Thank you very much for your interesing question.
I remember that David Hume is a very famous English philosopher, who lived in 18th Century, and he belongs to English Empiricism.
But at the same time when we think about a philosophical problem in Buddhism, it is always necessary for us to think the problem on the basis of Four Philosophies.
Therefore in such a viewpoint I think that his philosophical basis belongs to the Buddhist second phase, that is Materialistic phase. And in Buddhism we usualy think the philosophical problem of cause and effect on the basis of Materialistic phase as continuing time. So I think that in the case of Hume he has mixed the problem of cause and effect with the problem of present moment.
But in the case of Buddhist philosophy we usually think the problem of the present moment on the basis of Philosophy of Action. And I think that such a kind of separation between cause and effect and the present moment in Buddhism might be a little more superior
than David Hume.
Gudo Wafu Nishijima
Thank you for your answer, Nishijima Roshi! It helps a great deal.
What is the importance, if any, of the conflict between the four philosophies of Buddhism? And how do we know when to apply each philosophy?
Thank you,
-Jared
Blogger Jared said...
Thank you for your answer, Nishijima Roshi! It helps a great deal.
What is the importance, if any, of the conflict between the four philosophies of Buddhism? And how do we know when to apply each philosophy?
Thank you,
-Jared
Dear Jared San,
Thank you very much for your questions, and if you like to understand Buddhism, it is necessary for you to think that if we want to understand Buddhist philosophy, it is necessary for us to believe, not only one philosophy, but we need to believe in the four philosophies together.
And this insistence sounds so strange to us, because if we believe in idealism, we can never believe in materialism, and if we believe in materialism, we can never believe in idealism, but in Buddhist philosophy, Buddhism insists that we, Buddhists, should believe in the four philosophies, that is, idealism, materialism, philosophy of action, and Realism itself.
Therefore when we want to understand Buddhism, it is necessary for us to believe in the four philosophies of Buddhism, that is, idealism, materialism, philosophy of action, and Reality itself.
So if you want to understand Buddhism, it is necessary for you to understand such a strange character of Buddhism relying upon the practice of Zazen, first.
With best wishes
Gudo Wafu Nishijima
3:07 AM, March 11, 2008
Delete
There is two different levels.
Identity as union between Mind and Body and Identity as union betweeen Consciousness and Mind. The two identies cannot be treated in the same manner as Hume does.
Clearly while in the first case causality cannot be applied, in the second one it is possible indeed. To infer a state of Mind is possible only from another state of Mind and not from a state of the body directly, the second case is just covered by Mind itself not by consciousness.
Thanks
Post a Comment
<< Home