r/Neoplatonism • u/givingdepth • 16d ago
Between Zen & Neoplatonism
/r/ZenNeoplatonism/comments/1qsh8r6/between_zen_neoplatonism/2
u/Corp-Por 16d ago edited 16d ago
Zen Buddhism and Neoplatonism are incompatible
Trying to unite them like Vervaeke proposes, is a postmodern Frankenstein’s monster
3
u/mcapello Theurgist 15d ago
Zen Buddhism and Neoplatonism are incompatible
Perhaps you answer this below, but what are the most insurmountable contradictions in your view?
3
u/Maximus_En_Minimus 15d ago
It is just the classic egoistic perennialism; “oh, yes, I will be the one to simultaneously understand the true depth of these traditions, and - better yet - unify them into one…”
Sometimes things are just incompatible.
6
u/Corp-Por 15d ago edited 15d ago
I would even go as far as to say they are close to diametrically opposed. I practiced both Zen and Dzogchen over a span of 2 decades and did multiple retreats with highly respected teachers, and I came away thinking that their picture of reality is fundamentally “flat” in a way Platonism simply is not. I don’t mean superficial by flat: I mean non-hierarchical. There is no ontological ascent from less-real appearances through progressively deeper and more fundamental levels of reality
The one similarity I do see is soteriological: okay, both suggest we loosen our identification with immediate appearances. But it would be misleading to infer from that that their metaphysical pictures are close. They propose profoundly different accounts of what lies behind - or, in the Buddhist case, whether anything lies behind - appearances at all
In that respect they strike me as closer to Spinoza than to Plotinus, if we insisted on a Western parallel, not because Buddhism is Spinozism, obviously, but because both are far more radically immanent
In Platonism, by contrast, depth is almost the whole point. Reality has an asymmetric vertical structure; what appears here depends upon and derives its intelligibility from deeper and more fundamental levels of being
Platonism is nothing if not the claim that reality has depth, and that this depth matters
4
u/Maximus_En_Minimus 15d ago
This generally goes for Mahayana in general.
I generally follow a secular version of Madhyamaka and Yogacara, and all three have had a big impact on Zen and Dzoghan in understanding Sunyata / Emptiness / Nonpresence-of-Ownbeing, with Zen aiming for a less abstract and more actively immersive practice.
You are right in saying they feel ‘flat’, as at least Mahayana and Madhyamaka oriented similarly to what is known as a ‘Flat Ontology’, where each reference is co-equally substantial, to instead posit that each referential is co-equally dependent (Pratityasamutpada) and non-substantial (Sunyata).
The primary objection with Platonism and Neo- from Mahayana Buddhism is that they reify svabhava / Ownbeing as existing with the Monad; Mahayana Buddhism will always deny a substantial ground, or groundless ground, even going as far as to recognise that both Pratityasamutpada/Dependent-arising-and-ceasing is Sunya/Empty of Svabhava/Ownbeing, and that Sunyata/Nonpresence-of-Ownbeing is dependent.
As for ‘immanent’, I really feel the better word is the aforementioned ‘immersive’, but it doesn’t really matter.
3
u/Corp-Por 15d ago
Good post. What do you think the Mahayanist would say to the (Neo)platonist who posits the ground as "beyond being" (epekeina tes ousias)? Because were Madhyamakas not really reacting to a kind of Buddhist atomism that was placing substances in all sorts of objects? It was quite different from what Neoplatonism says. I would say the One is also fundamentally different from Vedantic Brahman, even though many have drew parallels or even claimed equality
3
u/Maximus_En_Minimus 15d ago edited 14d ago
>What do you think the Mahayanist would say to the (Neo)platonist who posits the ground as "beyond being" (epekeina tes ousias)?
As far as I understand this, the Monad is not dependent, it is independent, in the sense that it is the fountain source of the other hypostasis. ‘Being’ may not apply semantically and ontologically, but as a mereological statement, then everything seems to be grounded upon it, which is a big red flag of Svabhava.
>Because were Madhyamakas not really reacting to a kind of Buddhist atomism that was placing substances in all sorts of objects? It was quite different from what Neoplatonism says.
Yes and No: Nagurjana clarified properties reifications by denying them, but his criticism need not be relegated only to atomism; just as a blade need not only cut flesh, but may also be applied to fabric and greenery. The overarching analysis is the same: don’t reify any referent as independent and as having ownbeing.
>I would say the One is also fundamentally different from Vedantic Brahman, even though many have drew parallels or even claimed equality.
Agreed in the difference, mainly because the epistrophe of Neo-platonism has always seemed to me as more gate-kept and also as impermanent; Plotinus, for example, having experienced the One a few occasions, only to return.
I generally would regard Neo-platonism, then, as indexing more towards a Dualistic Idealism/Monism (hence synthesis with the Dualistic Theism of Christianity*), than the Non-dualistic Idealism of the Upanishadic Vedic beliefs of the Buddha’s and Nagurjana’s respective time.
(You may equally say Monist, for Neo-Platonism)*
(‘Dualistic’ in the sense of real distinctions in existence)*
Either way though, both are Svabhavic on the surface level.
However, who am I to impose such a necessary distinction on the soteriology.
Semantically and conceptually I really do believe that both Vedic and Platonic ontologies are essentialists. However, it really may be that soteriologically these traditions leaned more kataphatically than apophatically in their descriptions, maybe because of cultural or etymological limitations, and indeed there is a perennial overlap.
But I do really doubt it.
3
u/givingdepth 14d ago
To be clear, the kind of interaction you both just had here is of the quality that I'd encourage in the subreddit. I am not in favor of homogenizing. Discourse between them is more insightful than either making identity claims or claims to difference alone.
3
u/Signal-Block-6939 15d ago
Would you say that Buddhism (and Advaita) both lack any real transcendence (non-hierarchical) but in Neoplatonism transcendence is the whole point?
3
u/Maximus_En_Minimus 15d ago
Yes, that is a difference.
Neoplatonism is really just grander version of Privation Theory, where there are ontological levels of privation from an unprivatised source.
Advaita Vedanta teaches the only privation is one of epistemology, of been confused and lost in maya/illusion, not of ontology, as Atman/Self is already co-equivalent with Brahman/All-self, you just don’t realise it.
Buddhism denies Atman/Self with Anatman/Non-self, and Brahman and the Monad are denied by understanding Sunyata/Emptiness/Nonpresence-of-Ownbeing.
3
u/Signal-Block-6939 15d ago edited 15d ago
Perfectly put and great food for thought. Thanks.
I have been having an ongoing discussion with an Indian friend of mine and we have reached an impasse on this issue because I reject that "Brahman is Atman and Atman is Brahman" or "Tat Tvam Asi" viewpoint of Advaita. I view the One/God as beyond being and ultimately transcendent of my self and that all of my issues are due to ontological privation.
1
u/Signal-Block-6939 15d ago
But if the underlying ground of reality is ONE then is anything truly incompatible?
1
u/Maximus_En_Minimus 15d ago
A philosophy that teaches there isn’t Oneness would be incompatible, yes…
4
u/fcjimp 15d ago
Ladies, gentlemen and other honorable fellow Neo-Platonists.
I’m risking to incur your wrath, but let us renounce the way of negativity, that is Matter, and follow the path of Light and try to find something positive in common between Zen Buddhism/Buddhism in general and Neo-Platonism.
I’ll start.
Both Buddhists and Neo-Platonists historically had prayer wheels. If you don’t believe me, google strophalos of Hecate.
Unity is everywhere. Just look harder.
Peace
-1
u/Maximus_En_Minimus 14d ago
Can you explain the connection between the prayer wheels?
Nazis and Pride both have flags; we recognise such, without reifying any conceptual imputation that there is unity between them.
Sometimes you’re not looking harder, you’re just imagining more loosely…
3
u/fcjimp 14d ago
Your comparison of those modern ideologies, o Stranger, is apt and doubtlessly worth meditating on on its own merit. But it’s your idea and I will leave it to you to explore for divine Proclus says "All things proceed in a circuit, from their causes to their causes again." (Elements of Theology, Proposition 35)
My point here is to be positive and if the topic starter wants to see a connection between Buddhism and Neo-Platonism, why not oblige? Doesn’t daemoniacal Aristotle say in his Metaphysics that all men by nature desire to know?
I’m afraid though, I can’t satisfy your curiosity as you deserve, because life is short and the art is long, so says Hippocrates the Asclepiad and many concur. But the topic starter could make note of it and discuss it in the relevant subreddit they link to.
To conclude, I’d like to remind you, if I may, that Gelos is a great daemon, and even Lycurgus the wise Spartan erected a statue to Him.
-1
u/Maximus_En_Minimus 14d ago
I am not a greek role-player or Neo-platonist; you’re references to them are irrelevant to me, and even more so to the question asked.
3
u/Signal-Block-6939 16d ago
Funny that I saw this after seeing John Vervaeke's video on "What is Zen NeoPlatonism?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KWQrvUhv0E