The Philosophers Magazine’s reviewers have released a list of the ‘Best Philosophy Books’ published last year by taking into account of the twin virtues of philosophical rigor and readability. The Bodhisattva’s Brain: Buddhism Naturalized by the philosopher, Owen Flanagan*, is one of the ten books selected. Here, I have written a short reflection piece on the book. I had the privilege of taking few philosophy courses with Flanagan and discussing the book with him. This book has influenced my thinking on Buddhist philosophy in general and my training in comparative philosophy, in particular. 
Most philosophers are bright and well read. A handful has genuine insight. Very few are able to look at an ancient religious tradition and be both scathing about its supernatural excesses and sympathetic to its real wisdom. Hardly any can write clearly, rigorously and with vim and humour. A minority say things of importance to people outside the profession. Take these groups and arrange them in a Venn diagram. Owen Flanagan sits in the very lonely space where they all overlap. – Julian Baggini, founding editor of TPM
A prima facie question one would legitimately pose is to ask: is naturalism compatible with Buddhism? The answer is yes, or possibly yes, according to the philosopher, Owen Flanagan, and the whole book can be considered as an answer to this very question. Well, if one is a Buddhist or someone who has an interest in Buddhism or Buddhist philosophy, this is “a must read” book for many reasons one will be acquainted just by reading the introduction. He is one of the few philosophers of the analytic tradition to take Buddhism and Buddhist philosophy seriously. I am a Buddhist by birth (natural lottery), but gradually, with my training in philosophy I became a Buddhist of a different breed, I became more and more skeptical about its certain metaphysical claims/theories such as reincarnation and karma (a metaphysical justice system) yet retained great interest in its intellectual and philosophical tradition. Flanagan argues, plausibly, that Buddhism is a comprehensive philosophical system and one should attend and treat it in such a manner rather than to be looked upon as just another eastern ‘wisdom tradition’.
Flanagan wades through many aspects of my skepticism about Buddhism/Buddhisms or what people think of as Buddha’s teachings. With a naturalist approach, Flanagan examines various concepts like happiness, virtue or wisdom and their interactions in its metaphysics, epistemology and moral philosophy, and that too through a comparative treatment with western philosophical traditions. The naturalization project that he is proposing or arguing for is the possibility of divorcing what he calls the “hocus-pocus” of Buddhism, i.e. notions such as karma and reincarnation, to a demythologized and a secular Buddhism with its comprehensive philosophy like that of Aristotle or Plato. He reiterates the Dalai Lama’s comment and commitment to scientific truth when the Dalai Lama says, “if science disproves rebirth, Buddhists should give it up.” One must see that the Dalai Lama’s comment is quite shocking and revolutionary. And perhaps it is along these lines Flanagan is optimistic for such program of a naturalized Buddhism.
One of my favorite parts is his conceptualization of the Buddhist notion of “happiness” as opposed to the Aristotelian tradition while attending to similarities on their treatment of the basic relationship between intellectual and moral virtues, i.e. the absence of transcendence of morality in the state of perfection, but the embodiment of both virtue and wisdom as ends in themselves. Flanagan discovers by examining the list of virtues in both traditions that are necessary for human proper functioning (basic assumption in both traditions: nirvana for Buddha and eudaimonia for Aristotle) or the telos of human aspiration, he argues that while Buddhism lacks a notion of justice to its virtue theory, Aristotle lacks the compassion virtue (or hardly emphasized). This drives him in quandary and speculation about the political failure of the Buddhist states in the age of modern nation-states.
I think this puzzle, legitimately, raises the question that if Buddhism is a comprehensive philosophical system, what is its political theory or does it have a conception of justice for social cooperation to facilitate achieving those subjective goals of liberation? Or is it the case that the ultimate human aspiration for nirvana is incompatible with politics and political life? These are some of thoughts and questions that struck me. The question of Buddhist political theory really is exciting, because when one looks around all the contemporary Buddhist states are either failed or troubled states. Is it the lack of a conception of justice beyond its metaphysical (karmic) justice system in Buddhism or can a state not run successfully on the principle of compassion? Flanagan of course does not offer answers to these questions or even consider to, but I think these are some very interesting and intellectually demanding queries to wrestle with.
Flanagan, Owen J. The Bodhisattva’s Brain: Buddhism Naturalized, MIT Press, 2011, MA.
*Owen Flanagan is not a Buddhist.
Dear Palden-laa, You may not know it yet, but you display enough characteristics to be identified as one of a growing body of Yavanayanists, and I believe Owen Flanagan is too, although you say he is not a Buddhist. There’s a little discussion going on right now at this web page in the comments section:
http://hridayartha.blogspot.in/2013/02/lombre-de-dieu.html
Be trendy and join this trend. It’s going to be huge.
Cheers!
Dan
Love the site contents. Good stuff man. I never thought of it in this manner. Thanks for generating new spark in my brain.
It is indeed intriguing reflection and it would be great if you could come up with the some constructive analysis on the pressing questions that you have brought up at the end which is i think of great interest.
@Dan, I had a look at your website, but since it is written in French – google translation doesn’t help me to understand anything there. So I am not sure who exactly counts as a “Yavanayanist”, would you help me to define it? @Dongday, you are welcome. Stay tuned for more updates
@Tenzin, yes. I hope to do more research into this along the questions I have raised here.
This is the suitable weblog for anyone who wants to learn about this subject. You recognize so much its just about challenging to argue with you (not that I basically would want?-HaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a subject thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just good!
christian louboutin outlets
the Core of Buddhism is the eight-fold path one of which is right views a and of course the teachings oif Buddhism’s view of matter and consciousness is indeed interactive, which is expressed in pratitya-samutpada—interdependent arising. the very foundation of Buddhist thought is found in pratitya samtpada. Karma is not a moral system of Justice at all. Buddhism has no morality because you need a God or gods to have morality. karmic formations (sankhara) and consciousness (viññaa)
(“Karma is the field, consciousness the seed and craving the moisture for… rebecoming in the future,” A I 223), Vasubandhu explicitly portrays the continuity of samsaric existence in terms of the relationship of the seeds – representing the latent potencies of karma and the klesa – and consciousness. That is to say, mental intention consciousness with seeds and thereby lays the basis for further rebirth and continued existence
Karma derives from the word karman a religious rite,Buddha used the word karma as to describe actions derived form intentions,as opposed to unintended actions., Karma produces results.,there is no morality involved here. All seeds are considered to have six characteristics: [they are] momentary, simultaneous, they continue in an uninterrupted stream, are [karmically] determinate, require conditions, and are completed by their own fruit..
The ontology of materialism rests upon the illusion that t existence, the direct “actuality” of the world , can be extrapolated into a reductionist paradigm that has already been superseded by . This extrapolation is impossible, however.
the Core of Buddhism is the eight-fold path one of which is right views a and of course the teachings oif Buddhism’s view of matter and consciousness is indeed interactive, which is expressed in pratitya-samutpada—interdependent arising. the very foundation of Buddhist thought is found in pratitya samtpada. Karma is not a moral system of Justice at all. Buddhism has no morality because you need a God or gods to have morality. karmic formations (sankhara) and consciousness (viññaa)
(“Karma is the field, consciousness the seed and craving the moisture for… rebecoming in the future,” A I 223), Vasubandhu explicitly portrays the continuity of samsaric existence in terms of the relationship of the seeds – representing the latent potencies of karma and the klesa – and consciousness. That is to say, mental intention consciousness with seeds and thereby lays the basis for further rebirth and continued existence
Karma derives from the word karman a religious rite,Buddha used the word karma as to describe actions derived form intentions,as opposed to unintended actions., Karma produces results.,there is no morality involved here. All seeds are considered to have six characteristics: [they are] momentary, simultaneous, they continue in an uninterrupted stream, are [karmically] determinate, require conditions, and are completed by their own fruit..
The ontology of materialism rests upon the illusion that t existence, the direct “actuality” of the world , can be extrapolated into a reductionist paradigm that has already been superseded by . This extrapolation is impossible, however.
Flanagan conflates A state that is primarily made up of Buddhists with a “Buddhist State”a kind of theocracy. Japan is made up mostly of Buddhists is it a failed state is Taiwan a failed state is Thailand a failed state? The answer to the question is not a scientific materialistic world view is Wrong views, and incompatible with authentic Buddhism.
best call it for what it is Neo-Buddhist.,