Socrates, a Paccekabuddha?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 955
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am

Socrates, a Paccekabuddha?

Post by dhammacoustic »

I found this old philosophy book in the house last tuesday and started reading, and I guess it sort of hit me :D And I've already finished reading 3 e-books on Plato and Xenophon in 6 days :clap:

Right now, I think that people are wrong calling Socrates a "philosopher", the guy was definitely an analyst of humanity. He doesn't sound like an idealist either, I now call him a realist. I think he really nails it regarding ethics and epistemology. And he does sound like a Buddhist monk at times :D

So I googled "the Buddha and Socrates", and it seems many people have noticed the similarities as well.

Here's a good read; http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/ ... w99057.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Those of you who are into philosophy, I'll surely appreciate any contributions. Maybe we could also use this thread for mentioning famous people that we see as enlightened?

:anjali:
Last edited by dhammacoustic on Fri Jul 24, 2015 3:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Socrates, a Paccekabuddha?

Post by Mkoll »

If I recall my history correctly, Socrates was apparently quite a drinker and partygoer who enjoyed company. I think someone like Lao Tzu would be closer to a Paccekabuddha than Socrates.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
lonewolf
Posts: 117
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Socrates, a Paccekabuddha?

Post by lonewolf »

silver surfer wrote:I found this old philosophy book in the house last tuesday and started reading, and I guess it sort of hit me :D And I've already finished reading 3 e-books on Plato and Xenophon in 6 days :clap:

Right now, I think that people are wrong calling Socrates a "philosopher", the guy was definitely an analyst of humanity. He doesn't sound like an idealist either, I now call him a realist. I think he really nails it regarding ethics and epistemology. And he does sound like a Buddhist monk at times :D

So I googled "the Buddha and Socrates", and it seems many people have noticed the similarities as well.

Here's a good read; http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/ ... w99057.htm

Those of you who are into philosophy, I'll surely appreciate any contributions. Maybe we could also use this thread for mentioning famous people that we see as enlightened?

:anjali:
Definitely my favorite philosopher. Socratic method is ingenuous. He wouldn't give you an answer, but instead ask you questions around it so you yourself could arrive at the right answer, thus gaining better understanding.
I know that Catholic monks, start theology training with, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle.

Never heard he was a drunkard, heard he had a nagging wife he tried to avoid as much as humanly possible. :tongue:
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Socrates, a Paccekabuddha?

Post by Mkoll »

lonewolf wrote:Never heard he was a drunkard, heard he had a nagging wife he tried to avoid as much as humanly possible. :tongue:
I hadn't heard he was a drunkard but that he frequented social gatherings and drank at them along with everybody else. I think "drunkard" has some negative connotations and I wouldn't use the word to describe Socrates.

My point is that he wasn't much of an ascetic whereas the Buddha (and I would assume, Paccekabuddhas) most certainly was.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Boris
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Socrates, a Paccekabuddha?

Post by Boris »

The Figure of Socrates

It was with the figure of Socrates that ancient philosophy distinguished itself from its ancient precedents: the rhetorical education of the sophists, the discourses of the pre-Socratic physikoi and historians, the sayings and lives of the seven sages, and the aristocratic concern with the paideia, or upbringing, of young men (WAP 9-21). Socrates inspired nearly all subsequent ancient philosophic schools, either directly, through students like Plato, Xenophon, Aristippus, Euclides, and Antisthenes, or indirectly, via the writings of Plato in particular, as a kind of ethical ideal in the Stoic school, and as a mythical, Silenic figure central to the entirety of subsequent Western intellectual life. In Philosophy as a Way of Life, Hadot devotes an entire chapter of WAP to “the figure of Socrates,” as well as a long, beautiful essay exploring Socrates’ atopia (enigmatic nature) and the extraordinary responses his life has inspired, focusing particularly on Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Hadot’s Socrates anticipates and sets the mold for all the ancient philosophies as ways of life. First, Socrates associated the philosophic life with a revaluation of accepted normative commitments of his society and with a studied indifference toward the things his contemporaries coveted (wealth, status, property, public office, political disputes), as attested by his appearance, dress, and absence of gainful employment (compare Apo. 36b). Second, as Plato’s Alcibiades famously attests in the Symposium, Socrates overturned accepted, inherited models of wisdom, in his discourse as much as in his person, as well as through his repeated ironic claims, that he lacked any kind of higher wisdom, saying that he was only a midwife for the ideas of others, or was like a gadfly stirring his fellows from ethical complacency. He is identified in Plato’s Symposium with the daimonic Eros, mediating between human beings and the gods, but not for that reason divine himself (PWL 158-165).Third, Hadot’s Socrates is the first, unsurpassable practitioner of philosophic dialogue conceived of as what Hadot calls a “spiritual exercise” (compare 5) designed to actively implicate the other in the Socratic process of doubting received opinions and seeking to render one’s own beliefs consistent. For Hadot, “in the Socratic dialogue, the real question is less what is being talked about than who is doing the talking,” as Nikias attests in the Laches, when the latter notes that whichever topic Socrates’ interlocutor may raise, “he will continually be carried round and round by him, until at last he finds that he has to give an account both of his present and past life” (Laches 197e; WAP 28; PWL 155). Fourth, Hadot notes that when Socrates does attest to having some kinds of knowledge, in the famous Socratic paradoxes—that no one does evil voluntarily, that it is better to suffer than to do wrong, and that the good man cannot be harmed—this knowledge is of a specifically ethical kind, concerning how to live, and what is good or bad for the psyche: “Socrates does not know the value to be attributed to death, because it is not in his power . . . Yet he does know the value of moral action and intention, for they do depend on his choice, his decision, and his engagement . . .” (WAP 83, 84). In other words, in Hadot’s Socrates, care for the self and care for others coincided with Socrates’ sense of what Hadot calls “the absolute value of moral intent: a philosophical commitment embodied in Socrates’ dialogical calling, “to try to persuade all of you to concern yourself less about what he has than about what he is . . .” (Apo. 36c). Above all, Hadot stresses that throughout antiquity Socrates was the model of the philosopher whose work was, above all, his own life, death, and example: “He was the first to show that at all times and all places, in everything that happens to us, daily life gives the opportunity to do philosophy” (Plutarch, at WAP 38).
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hadot/#SH4c
The man who wants to avoid grotesque collapses should not look for anything to fulfill him in space and time.

Nicolás Gómez Dávila
dhammapal
Posts: 2664
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:23 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Socrates, a Paccekabuddha?

Post by dhammapal »

Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote:A second major difference between the two teachers is in how they characterize the good will that provides the ideal atmosphere for discovering the truth. In Socrates’ eyes, this good will starts with carnal love and attraction, whereas for the Buddha good will starts with the realization that all beings desire happiness and freedom from suffering, and he allows no role for carnal love in the mutual pursuit of truth at all.
From: Skill in Questions: How the Buddha Taught by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (430 page pdf)
Boris
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Socrates, a Paccekabuddha?

Post by Boris »

I think, it is not necessary to compare Lord Buddha with other teachers, to prove that the Buddha is the Perfect One, while others are not so, and are mistaken in some ways. It is obvious. But to search for elements of truth, for Dhamma in others teaching can be very stimulating and such search may deepen our own understanding of the Dhamma.

Socrates famous "I know that I do not know", should be the starting point in our investigation of the Dhamma and it is in some ways related with M 95, that is, while we are puthujjana, by knowing that we don't know, we preserve truth.
If a person has faith, Bhāradvāja, he preserves truth when he says: ‘My faith is thus’; but he does not yet come to the definite conclusion: ‘Only this is true, anything else is wrong.’ In this way, Bhāradvāja, there is the preservation of truth; in this way he preserves truth; in this way we describe the preservation of truth. But as yet there is no discovery of truth.

“If a person approves of something…if he receives an oral tradition…if he reaches a conclusion based on reasoned cogitation…if he gains a reflective acceptance of a view, he preserves truth when he says: ‘My reflective acceptance of a view is thus’; but he does not yet come to the definite conclusion: ‘Only this is true, anything else is wrong.’ In this way too, Bhāradvāja, there is the preservation of truth; in this way he preserves truth; in this way we describe the preservation of truth. But as yet there is no discovery of truth.”
http://suttacentral.net/en/mn95

It should be than obvious that Socrates is wiser than most of therevada teachers, who teach paticcasamuppada, each one contradicting ideas of others. Most of them do teach what do they do not know and do not see. They are ignorant of their ignorance.

Certainly we can learn something from Socrates ...
The man who wants to avoid grotesque collapses should not look for anything to fulfill him in space and time.

Nicolás Gómez Dávila
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Socrates, a Paccekabuddha?

Post by daverupa »

I'm unimpressed with Socrates. He runs most of his dialogues into confusing and pointless dithering over definitions, and e.g. Hippias criticizes him for never offering definitions or positions of his own, only attacking those of others.

I think he's an eel-wriggler, whether one looks through Plato or Xenophon. I would much prefer to engage with a contemporary Sophist than with Socrates.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
HenryDLacklaw
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:59 am

Re: Socrates, a Paccekabuddha?

Post by HenryDLacklaw »

Socrates was a drunkard, but in Ancient Greece everyone was a drunkard. They used to drink watered down wine with breakfast and keep drinking wine (sometimes watered, sometimes not) all day long. Ancient Greeks were basically always buzzed.

Keep in mind that the Socrates of the dialogues was a literary character, not an accurate representation of a real human being. In Plato's dialogues the character Socrates is really more a mouthpiece for Plato than anything else. Socratic dialogues wer actually a popular literary style back then; only Plato's and Xenophon's works survive though.

Very little is known about the historical Socrates. What we do know is that he was a war veteran, he was popular with the ladies, and he was executed by the city on BS charges during a time of political crisis (shortly before his execution the regime of the thirty tyrants, a sort of proto-fascist dictatorship set up by the Spartans in Athens, had collapses and the new government used the political tensions of the day as an excuse to go after undesirables like him). That's basically it. At any rate, from what little we know about him, I'm sure if you met Socrates in person you wouldn't be so sure of his enlightenment.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4039
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Socrates, a Paccekabuddha?

Post by Alex123 »

Mkoll wrote:but that he frequented social gatherings and drank at them along with everybody else.
How much would he drink? How strong was that drink?
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Socrates, a Paccekabuddha?

Post by Mkoll »

Alex123 wrote:
Mkoll wrote:but that he frequented social gatherings and drank at them along with everybody else.
How much would he drink? How strong was that drink?
I dunno, but it sounds like HenryDLacklaw has more knowledge than I about this subject so maybe he has an idea.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Viscid
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:55 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Socrates, a Paccekabuddha?

Post by Viscid »

Drinking alcohol wouldn't disquality Socrates from being enlightened per se.. If everyone around him drank moderately, and he was simply engaged in the culture of the time, then his drinking means little. If he was overindulging in drink because he was craving sensual pleasure, or averse to sobriety, then, by definition, he could not be considered enlightened.
daverupa wrote: I'm unimpressed with Socrates. He runs most of his dialogues into confusing and pointless dithering over definitions, and e.g. Hippias criticizes him for never offering definitions or positions of his own, only attacking those of others.

I think he's an eel-wriggler, whether one looks through Plato or Xenophon. I would much prefer to engage with a contemporary Sophist than with Socrates.
Quite the contrary! He was shedding light on the sophist's ignorance, and the fact that, on some fundamental level, we're all ignorant. I think back to the formulation of twelve nidānas where ignorance forms the first link-- if we take apart our ideas, our concepts, we find their foundation dubious. The state of realizing this, aporia, provokes us to look beyond intellectual investigation for satisfaction.
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Socrates, a Paccekabuddha?

Post by daverupa »

(For what it's worth, there is a related issue with respect to the paccekabuddha's place in the Buddhist worldview altogether, it's historical provenance and so on. Here's a .pdf on this issue:
The concept of the Paccekabuddha presented the opportunity to include pre-Buddhist recluses and seers in Buddhism and in doing so it continued these pre-Buddhist traditions. In this respect it becomes clear why Paccekabuddhas are referred to in the scriptures with all other terms that could be used to denote ascetics: muni, isi, samaṇa, tāpasa, jaṭila, terms which emphasise different aspects of asceticism.
)

---
Viscid wrote:Quite the contrary! He was shedding light on the sophist's ignorance, and the fact that, on some fundamental level, we're all ignorant. I think back to the formulation of twelve nidānas where ignorance forms the first link-- if we take apart our ideas, our concepts, we find their foundation dubious. The state of realizing this, aporia, provokes us to look beyond intellectual investigation for satisfaction.
I think you're reading a bit much into his negative dialectic, but we aren't dealing in quotes yet; maybe we could take the Meno and find out if Socrates thinks virtue is (a) definable, (b) teachable, and also find out from the Phaedo whether he would say there's an immortal soul or not. These will be important aspects of his views, ones that we can hold up to the Dhamma for comparison.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Socrates, a Paccekabuddha?

Post by Mkoll »

Viscid wrote:Drinking alcohol wouldn't disquality Socrates from being enlightened per se.. If everyone around him drank moderately, and he was simply engaged in the culture of the time, then his drinking means little. If he was overindulging in drink because he was craving sensual pleasure, or averse to sobriety, then, by definition, he could not be considered enlightened.
Unless your meaning of "enlightenment" is something different from the suttas, I don't buy the "culture of the time" argument. If murder was part of the culture of the time, everyone around him murdered, and he murdered as well, does that murder "mean little"? Do you think that he could still be enlightened in that case?
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Viscid
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:55 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Socrates, a Paccekabuddha?

Post by Viscid »

Mkoll wrote:
Viscid wrote:Drinking alcohol wouldn't disquality Socrates from being enlightened per se.. If everyone around him drank moderately, and he was simply engaged in the culture of the time, then his drinking means little. If he was overindulging in drink because he was craving sensual pleasure, or averse to sobriety, then, by definition, he could not be considered enlightened.
Unless your meaning of "enlightenment" is something different from the suttas, I don't buy the "culture of the time" argument. If murder was part of the culture of the time, everyone around him murdered, and he murdered as well, does that murder "mean little"? Do you think that he could still be enlightened in that case?
Well, what is it about drinking alcohol which would disqualify one from being enlightened? At moderate doses, it's just a pleasant drink, and doesn't cause heedlessness. I don't see such responsible drinking any different from eating something sweet, or abiding in pleasant states of jhana. It's when the drinking causes the person to become heedless, to make poor decisions, or to potentially harm themselves or others that drinking alcohol then becomes a problem.
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
Post Reply