This is more or less the thesis advanced by Jayarava in his longest comment on this post.
The idea is that the (Buddhist) religion is primarily experiential and that philosophy is a later reification which misses the main point at stake and moves the emphasis away from what really counts. Moreover, in the case of Buddhism (but I am inclined to think that no other theology would survive Jayarava’s analysis) the result is full of inner contradictions and does not stand a critical inquire.
Thus, why engaging in philosophical thought, if you care for a given religion? Why entering a field in which you will loose anyway, since sooner or later a new development in, say, physics or neurosciences will show that you are at least partly wrong?
A possible answer would be to claim that natural sciences and theology do not speak about the same things (a claim Jayarava appears to refute). Moreover, one might claim that human beings naturally try to understand (as in Aristotle). But are there positive reasons for engaging in philosophy if one comes from a religious standpoint? Let us consider Giordano Bruno’s paradoxical words on this topic (as you will all know, Giordano Bruno was a Catholic priest and philosopher who was burnt on 17.2.1600 because of his heretic ideas —this sonet praises the ignorance of those who do not question anything, as if this were a moral virtue):
IN LODE DELL’ASINO:
Oh sant’asinità, sant’ignoranza,
Santa stoltizia, e pia divozione,
Qual sola puoi far l’anime si buone,
Ch’uman ingegno e studio non l’avanza!
Non gionge faticosa vigilanza
D’arte, qualunque sia, o invenzione,
Né di sofossi contemplazione
Al ciel, dove t’edifichi la stanza.
Che vi val, curiosi, lo studiare,
Voler saper quel che fa la natura,
Se gli astri son pur terra, fuoco e mare?
La santa asinità di ciò non cura,
Ma con man gionte e ’n ginocchion vuol stare
Aspettando da Dio la sua ventura.
Nessuna cosa dura,
Eccetto il frutto dell’eterna requie,
La qual ne done Dio dopo l’esequie!
(cross-posted on my personal blog)
In a word, “no.”
If one conjures up or accepts certain narrow definitions of what “Buddhism” and “philosophy” are, then sure, one might think they are incompatible or carry one in different directions. The same debate has gone on for centuries re: Christianity, where Aquinus argued that “philosophy is the handmaiden of theology.”
Historically, over time philosophy pulled away enough from theology to be recognized as a distinct discipline. Contemporary commentators sometimes think that this (modern) notion of philosophy as a distinct discipline is simply “what philosophy is” in some sort of ahistorical sense and then say that this is not compatible with Buddhism.
Yet, I think any of us working in Asian/Indian/Buddhist philosophy know well that “philosophy” itself is a wide and fluid tradition and has for most of history been quite closely wedded to theological or soteriological concerns.
Your question of “why engage in philosophical thought” thus raises a counter-question of “what, exactly, is philosophical vs non-philosophical thought.” Is the classification of the constituents of experience or reality “philosophical thought”? I’d say yes. Is the distinction between “correctly grasping” and “incorrectly grasping” of key teaching “philosophical thought”? Again, I’d say yes.
Thanks for your thoughts, Justin. As you might have guessed, I tend to agree with you (and would even conclude that philosophising is some sort of a religious duty). See, however, also Jayarava’s contrasting remarks here: http://elisafreschi.com/2016/03/04/is-philosophy-an-involution-of-buddhism-and-other-religions/#comment-62233
Perhaps you have something to say about the value of Buddhist *experience* vs. the flawed attempts at rationalising it?
many thanks, elisa, for posting this sonnet of bruno. this reminds me very much of nietzsche’s lifelong argument for the value of ‘forgetting’ (see, e.g., the beginning of ‘nutzen und nachteil…’), although it is hard for me to gauge bruno’s level of irony.
Thanks for the mention, Andrew! In case someone else cannot remember what she read at school: