How does buddhism solve the problem of theodicy? Video
The Augustinian Theodicy (Extract from \ how does buddhism solve the problem of theodicy?.Is the problem in our heads? Engaged Buddhists reject this latter idea, since they take changing the material conditions as essential. I see this point especially in comparing the different views expressed by Ron Purser and Sallie King.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with leaving the world and everything to do with transforming ourselves, here and now. Socially Engaged Buddhism 43; emphasis in original Notice the contrast and disagreement between the two about where the problem lies! Is the problem in our minds, or not? Therefore the https://digitales.com.au/blog/wp-content/custom/negative-impacts-of-socialization-the-positive-effects/the-hurricane-trailer.php problem is in our minds, not in the world.
If the fundamental problem is in our minds and not in the world, then solving the fundamental problem requires fixing our deos rather than fixing the world. Therefore we should fix our minds rather than fix the world.
6 Replies to “Is the problem in our heads?”
Now notice: Purser and King both appear to accept premise 1, that these three poisons sovle however one translates them — are how does buddhism solve the problem of theodicy? key problem in Buddhism, and they appear to accept this premise as their own constructive view. Neither of them accept the conclusion, 5; they both want an engaged Buddhist view that does focus on fixing the world. But they reject different parts of the intervening premises. So it would appear that he must also reject premise 2, the premise that Fhe accepts. My point here ties to a broader point underlying the Disengaged Buddhism article. The point of that article was not to reject Engaged Buddhism but to be clearer about our innovations, what it is in traditional Buddhism that we accept and do not accept. Here, neither Purser nor King spell out their rejections of the middle premises in the syllogism, and as a result, they do not explain their reasons for rejecting those premises.
I think that such explanations would be just the sort of thing that link intellectually sophisticated Engaged Buddhism needs.
And where do I stand on the question at hand myself? Well, unlike Purser and King I do accept both premise 2 and premise 4: if the fundamental human problem is the three mental poisons, then the problem is in our minds, and if the problem is in our minds, then solving the problem requires fixing our minds.
Navigation menu
I also think that premise 1 is impeccably Buddhist and pervades most classical Buddhist thought, at least in South Asia from Thailand to Tibet. We have a lot of other problems — isolation from love and community, finding our authentic selvesand, yes, taking care how does buddhism solve the problem of theodicy? basic needs like food and medicine, without which we cannot even get to solving our mental problems.
To the extent that activism is a good human activity, I think it is so above all in dealing with those other problems; it is much less helpful in dealing with the classically Buddhist problems of craving, hostility and delusion, each of which I suspect political engagement may tend to exacerbate. Bookmark the permalink. He administers the technical side of the Indian Philosophy Blog, as well as running his own cross-cultural philosophy blog, Love of All Wisdom. You can find out more about him than you ever wanted to know at his ePortfolio. You are basically saying that: yes of course the three mental challenges are fundamental, but they are not the only keys to relieving human suffering. Where there is a lack of the most basic physical needs, then there are also physical obstacles as well that need to be addressed…. Do I have this right? This is almost a hierarchy of needs approach.
I find it has merit, because it is realistic, practical.]
One thought on “How does buddhism solve the problem of theodicy?”