The psychological case for disengaged Buddhism

My project on disengaged Buddhism has now been submitted to a journal. It’s undergone several revisions by this point. One of the most important such revisions was suggested unanimously by BU’s magnificent CURA seminar. In an earlier draft had attempted Continue reading The psychological case for disengaged Buddhism

Buddhaghosa on seeing things as they are (1)

Earlier this year I examined the classic Pali Milindapañhā dialogue and its claim that while one can speak of oneself as a “convention” (vohāra), ultimately (paramattha) a person is not found. I referred in passing to the Visuddhimagga (Path of Continue reading Buddhaghosa on seeing things as they are (1)

Ethics of disposition, not decision

I’ve been thinking further on the decision/capacity distinction first articulated by Andrew Ollett, and I want to take a further step. So far Andrew and I have merely acknowledged the existence of this distinction – identifying different thinkers on either Continue reading Ethics of disposition, not decision

Whose religion? Which science?

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a guest lecture on Buddhism to David Decosimo‘s class at the Boston University School of Theology. The students were a delight to teach – smart, actively engaged, asking many questions. Continue reading Whose religion? Which science?

Naturalizing Śāntideva’s eudaimonism

My disagreements with Charles Goodman continue with his contribution to Jake Davis’s thought-provoking volume A Mirror Is For Reflection. (I’ve previously written about Jan Westerhoff’s chapter in the same book.) Just like Westerhoff, Charles is exploring the important question of Continue reading Naturalizing Śāntideva’s eudaimonism

Philosophical and historical uses together

Cross-posted on Love of All Wisdom. Last time I examined Andrew Ollett’s distinction between “decision-oriented” texts like Kant’s Grounding and “capacity-oriented” texts like Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhimagga, and the ways in which that distinction might suggest a “philosophical” versus a “historical” approach Continue reading Philosophical and historical uses together

3rd annual meeting of the History of Philosophy Society (HOPS)

A call for papers for the 3rd annual meeting of the History of Philosophy Society (HOPS) has been released. The topic of the meeting is pleasure. The organizers have specifically mentioned that they are looking for a wide variety of Continue reading 3rd annual meeting of the History of Philosophy Society (HOPS)