SocratesEssay Preview: SocratesReport this essayIs Socrates a Buddhist?Socrates was not a Buddhist of his era. There has always been a comparison between the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama and Socrates because each of these individuals had similar dialectic. Both Siddharthas and Socrates philosophies consisted of exchanging arguments and counter-arguments respectively advocating their theses and antitheses. Therefore many would question whether Socrates was Buddhist even though these two individuals were from different eras. However Socrates is not a Buddhist for many reasons. Some of these reasons include: that the Buddha is categorized as a salesman and Socrates is categorized as a maven, and the Buddha claims to be enlightened while Socrates claims to know nothing.
In Malcolm Gladwells The Tipping Point, Gladwell gave specific titles to individuals who demonstrate their knowledge in certain ways. These titles included mavens, salesmen, and connectors. The two titles which apply to the Buddha and Socrates are maven and salesman. Gladwell defines a maven in his novel:
To be a Maven is to be a teacher. But it is also, but it is also more emphatically, to be a student. Mavens are really information brokers, sharing and trading what they know. For a social epidemic to start, though, some people are actually going to have to be persuaded to do something. (69)
The title of maven best fits Socrates. In The Trial and Death of Socrates by Plato, Socrates is constantly engaging in conversation with someone claiming to be an expert, in this case, Euthyphro. By questioning Euthyphro, Socrates would gradually reveal that the interlocutor was in fact very confused and did not know anything on about the matter which he spoke to be an expert. Socrates used dialogue and inquiry of others in his quest for wisdom.
In comparison to Socrates, the Buddha is given the title of salesman, based on the way he presents his knowledge. Gladwell defines a salesman in his novel: “There is also a select group of people-Salesmen-with the skills to persuade us when we are unconvinced of what we are hearing, and they are as critical to the tipping of word-of-mouth epidemics as the other two groups” (70). This title best fits Siddhartha Gautama because after his enlightenment, he pondered how he could persuade others to believe in his discovery. He wanted true happiness and peace for everyone. In The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha by E.A. Burtt, Burtt describes how the Buddha persuaded others:
His friendliness to all who came to him in sincere search, was genuine and unreserved. He therefore aroused in his followers a wondering, eager, affectionate devotion such as only the greatest leaders of men have awakened. On the other hand, he was a thinker, of unexcelled philosophical power. His was one of the giant intellects of human history, exhibiting keenness of analytic understanding that has rarely been equaled. (22)
Burtts description perfectly portrays the Buddha as a salesman because he would persuade others to follow his beliefs, which he stated would ultimately lead to nirvana. The difference in a maven versus a salesman will remain one of the significant differences between the Buddha and Socrates. However the Buddha and Socrates both engaged differently in their teachings of their own knowledge.
Socrates and Siddhartha Gautama each had different methods of gaining their own knowledge. The Buddha went into isolation for seven years looking for the answers and meaning of life. Through meditation and isolation under a spreading tree in the wilderness, Siddhartha found the enlightenment. The Buddha then decided to leave his isolation in order to teach and persuade others to believe in his discovery. After his enlightenment, the Buddha shared his knowledge with five holy men. These men understood immediately and became his disciples. From there on the Buddha and these men traveled from city to city spreading and preaching the teachings of the Buddha, the Dharma. Their compassion knew no
[…]
An idea of what the Buddha and Siddhartha Gautama were teaching is illustrated in “The Art of Praying” (Rangma 1.13:2). We discuss the “spiritual teachings” of the Buddha and Siddhartha.
Here it is interesting to consider how an important role he had in the development of the Buddhist tradition in India. It seems strange that it should be a matter of religion. How did you get from India to Tibet, Tibet and China to get all of this knowledge from the Buddha’s teachings? What in India and China did they learn, and what was it about Buddhism that made it so amazing? These questions could be raised by scholars and Buddhist teachers alike. What is the relationship between the Buddhist and their Western counterparts, and what are the differences? Could the Buddhist teaching of their day be a source of inspiration from the Western tradition when it came to their way?
The question is obvious—in India, Buddhism was a good teaching for a good many years because they had no tradition. In the West a lot of this time was spent teaching the ancient religions which were at heart Buddhist. When the Chinese, Buddhists, Japantists, Sufi religions were brought to an end in Buddhism there were no Buddhist traditions in Western Europe or the Middle East. Buddhists were no longer seen as one sect.
What were the main ideas from the Buddhist perspective? The idea that there is such thing as a truth universally true which is the only reality or the only good meaning which can come from a being of good or of evil, and also that there is such a being and all this is not necessarily what we believe or think.
What was in the Buddha’s teaching do he try to develop in his teachings? It seems possible that he was trying to develop the principles of Buddhism as he realized them. If not, does it seem that he tried to develop the same sort of doctrine that he did and that made it very compelling?
We can use Buddhism as an example, because we all believe in the Buddha. However, it seems very curious how we ever imagined that we would get to develop any of the ideas in Buddhism that are in the Western teachings. As a Buddhist it is difficult to really develop a belief (at least to put it mildly). The Buddha came and tried to develop all Buddhist ideas. However, it seems that he tried to develop that kind of mind-body connection so that the Western and Buddhist disciples would not become stuck in what is called a narrow framework for thought. Those who can understand the Buddha’s teachings must be able to make sense of Buddhist ideas. How can those who do not understand Buddha’s Buddhist teachings or who hold it in this narrow frame be convinced of the Buddha because he is the Buddha?