first try

Richard Zanetti discusses the comparison between Buddhist philosophy and Neo-Confucianist philosophy, specifically focusing on the study of the mind. They also discuss the practicality of these philosophies and the importance of connecting with others. Richard shares his interest in self-discovery and Buddhist concepts such as karma and mindfulness. They explore the concept of attachment in both philosophies and the importance of connection to others. Overall, they aim to understand and apply these philosophies in their lives. Hi, this is Richard Zanetti. We're doing our final podcast for philosophy of East and West. Yes, sir. And so we're mainly going to be comparing our Buddhist philosophy and Neo-Confucianist philosophy, specifically Hsinchu, or the study of the mind. And for me, I'm going to be comparing, I'm going to be utilizing Buddhist philosophy. I'm going to be focused particularly on the Diamond that Comes to Delusion, referencing Nagarjuna within his work, but then also taking from more contemporary Buddhist ethics in order to compare Buddhism to Neo-Confucianism. Yeah, and I think also we really want to focus on the practicality of these two methods, like how would you tangibly institute maybe different metaphysical understandings into the way that you relate with people. And then also I think utilizing the podcast as kind of a form to be more connected with, like Richard and I, the people who are creating this intellectual content, instead of kind of compared to an essay where you're more detached as the thinker and you're creating an argument. Yeah, and for me, I think a big part of my motivation was kind of understanding that there could be a level of self-discovery between both Eddie and I when talking about these things. We already established a structure for the way we want the podcast to look like and the way that we're drawing these comparisons, but I think just bouncing off each other lends itself to being creative in the way that we can compare both philosophies, and that's something that interested me, and I know that's something that also interested Eddie as well. Yeah, definitely, like a dynamic kind of engaging. Dynamic! Each other's ideas, yeah, I think can be really beneficial and lead to insights that I wouldn't have ever thought about if I was just writing a paper. But, yeah, we also kind of want to talk about a bit of the metaphysical comparisons, but I think definitely relating the metaphysics into action, because sometimes these metaphysical concepts can feel very ungrounded, and then just seeing how one would actually practice this, I think is really important. And so I guess the way that I relate to Confucianism is I first studied it, like studying through history, but the philosophy really took hold within my brain. I think I really enjoyed the fact that your actions as a person matter, and that they impact the people around you, and then like a lot of what Mencius and Confucius wrote about are kind of like stories to help you, that kind of show you the proper ways to act, but there's not this one principle that you have to act in accordance with that's like stated. Yeah, the principle is something. It's more acting in accordance with the perfect mean, acting in accordance with the mean, because that's what the context of the situation means. There's not one, like utilitarianism, there's not one thing that you can just follow. Yeah, something that even for me, when Eddie was speaking about new Confucianism, also interested me was just the fact that it is kind of an immersion of one's own nature. What kind of struck out to me is that thought process of like discovering what that nature looks like to you, and how we go about cultivating that. I think that's something that is particularly interesting about Confucianism, and even like Mencius too, when he relates and uses different analogies to describe nature. But for me, I'm studying like the Buddhist philosophy, and I grew up in a Buddhist home, so I was pretty immersed within the culture. I will say though that a big part of like this class was furthering my understanding and respect for Buddhism, because I think it's one thing to be around it, and then it's another thing to truly understand what it means. Before reading these texts, I felt like I had a strong grasp of what that was, but after reading it, I was like, I actually don't know anything about what it means to be a Buddhist. And so one of the concepts for me that I think has stuck with me is the doctrine of karma, which is one of the Four Noble Truths, and intentionality, and what that looks like when you are being mindful for others. So I think, yeah, like mindfulness is something that for me is one of my favorite things about Buddhism. Definitely, definitely. I mean, yeah, I think also, I was wondering, how do you conceive of mindfulness in a Buddhist concept? Oh, I think that's a good question. How do I conceive of mindfulness? So I think, you know, within Buddhist literature, and even within like Nagarjuna, for example, there's an establishment of conventional reality and ultimate reality, understanding that relationship between what is considered an illusion versus what is considered ultimate reality, which, to Nagarjuna, is like a level of emptiness. And so a big part of me and being mindful is being reflective. And I guess if I were to take a more Buddhist approach to what that means, to be reflective, is to be aware of these emotions that come and hit me, and it almost feels like I don't know how to manage those emotions, just being mindful of that, and being mindful in the ways that I am treating myself in that process, but also the relationship I share. I think within both of our philosophies that attachment is something that stands out, because like in Buddhist philosophy, for example, I feel like attachment to any idea or concept is kind of like touching upon what the root of Buddhism is, which is like suffering, and like the fact that if you attach yourself to these things, that you inevitably suffer as well. I don't know if you have anything to say about that. No. I think, yeah. I mean, I think the concept of attachment is very interesting, because I think necessarily, like, lesson in Confucianism, attachment isn't, I guess, like, really a bad thing. If you think about, like, the way that one person is supposed to mourn after, like, a parent or a loved one dies, it is like you're almost supposed to go through that suffering in order to kind of honor them in a different way. But I also, I think, kind of the step that Neo-Confucianists took was really considering, like, metaphysical things. And so I think, like, when you're looking at Mentis, there's definitely less of that. Like, I think, attachment, he never really considers attachment. But then, kind of moving past that, I think, because the Neo-Confucianist philosophers were forced to engage with the Buddhist, and other Buddhist philosophers were being criticized, I think that they had to develop ideas about attachment, which are, honestly, I still think that they're not necessarily, like, think that attachment leads to a negative thing. And within Neo-Confucianism, or within, is that European Buddhism? No, I think within Neo-Confucianism. Because I think, like, I think you are supposed to be attached. It's kind of like the idea of the state, and I guess that even relates to how you're supposed to love. It's like you're supposed to be attached to the people around you, and construct your identity in accordance with those people, and be, like, a part of it, which I think is kind of what I was really talking about. Like, the world, I guess, in kind of the Confucian conception, is not, like, a complete illusion. Like, you can reach a harmonious state on that world, and so being detached from it, like, kind of makes, distances you from being able to enact that harmony, because you have to be kind of, like, one with, like, with the, you know, nature of the world, which gets a bit complicated in, like, the metaphysics, but, like, you have to be acting in accordance with the world, and you can't be detached from it. So, I guess, so I certainly agree that when we're comparing Buddhism and Neo-Confucianism, attachment is a theme that's played in terms of its relation to oneself, to nature, and to, like, higher forms of consciousness. I guess my question I would have for you is just, like, is there a difference between attachment and connection to other people, in the sense that, you know, attachment, I'm not saying it, it almost forms, it gives this, like, connotation of dependence, as opposed to, like, connection, where even though you share something, it doesn't necessarily, like, require that. It feels like, like, attachment comes a bit from, like, I wouldn't use the word in terms of, like, desperation, but then, like, it comes from a, I guess, like, they come from, like, different roots. And so, I don't know if you feel like a big part of Neo-Confucianism is, like, your attachment to the idea of things, or, like, being connected to, like, for example, like, what you were saying about the cultivation of your nature and stuff like that. Definitely. I think, yeah, I think connection is probably a better word, because when, kind of, thinking about, like, the way that, like, Wang Yongming conceived a reality, and then, so, the people before him, the world was transitory and kind of illusionary. So, there isn't any, like, real essence within that world, except it is created by a singular essence. So, when, like, I'm not, I think, like, I think you have to, like, the entire goal is to be connected to, kind of, the nature or the Heaven's principle. But, which I don't necessarily think requires disattaching yourself from the world, because I think, like, the world kind of splits up into, like, a myriad of different things, like, from the one principle. And so, then, like, you're obstructed, I guess, by the world around you, but once you connect with that one principle, I think it's, like, you have... I get what you mean. I get it. Like, for example, I think the father and the son, or, like, the ruler and the minister, are somewhat dependent on each other, because, like, they're not, they're not, they can't really be conceived, like, their specific roles within reality can't be perceived without the other person. So, like, without, like, I feel like as a minister you couldn't be quite detached from the ruler. Yeah. But, yeah. But I also don't, I may be misconstruing detachment in the Buddhist sense. No, yeah, I think, I think from a Buddhist lens, I feel like if we go under this preconception, like, Nagarjuna kind of finds there to be, you know, the contemporary reality to kind of be, like, empty, there isn't kind of, like, a rule regarding, like, what it means to necessarily be attached or detached from one another. Just that these conceptions that we created is something that we reify. If we're connected or detached from one another.