In thinking
about some of Plato’s ideas in conjunction with Buddhist doctrine, I
surprisingly thought of a few similarities. I suppose it shouldn’t be too much
of a surprise that commonalities exist, as there is an over arching theme of
greater learning and understanding in both, but some of the more specific
similarities I found really interesting.
Two of
Plato’s ideas could correspond with the Two Truths doctrine. This doctrine, of
which I am most familiar with the Mahayana understanding, explores the theory
of two distinct truths: the concrete truth and the conceptual truth. The
concrete, or conventional, truth consists of a surface level understanding of
things, while the conceptual, or ultimate, truth is how things really are
(circumstantial and changing). In Plato’s Theory of Forms, there is similarly a
dichotomy between what we see and what there is. However, in the Theory of
Forms, what we see is changing, and what really is is stagnant. In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave there again appears
the idea of surface understand and a more substantial understanding. In such a
scenario, the shadows would be the conventional truth for the prisoners in the
cave, and whatever the object is that is creating the shadows would be considered
a more “ultimate” version of the truth (although typically an ultimate truth is
void of tangible substance).
Dialectic also plays an integral role in Plato's teachings and Buddhist doctrine. In both, dialectic is used as a method of finding truth. Buddhist doctrine in itself was created on the basis of dialectic, as there is no other way to consolidate rhetoric such metaphysical things other than inquiry and discussion. Similarly, Plato used dialectic as a way to synthesize some of the more abstract elements of his philosophies.
No comments:
Post a Comment