Skip to content

Buddhist functionalism—Instrumentality reaffirmed

David Scott

Asian Philosophy October 1, 1995 DOI: 10.1080/09552369508575416 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed
Topics Buddhism
Citations 2
Key points Argues that Buddhism is best understood as primarily a functionalist tradition, drawing analogies with Western pragmatism, instrumentalism, empiricism, language games, and process thought. Contends that despite some correspondence-style truth claims in Theravāda, a deeper functionalism is present, and that Mahāyāna schools—including Mādhyamika, Tantras, Ch'an (Zen), and even Pure Land and Nichiren traditions—are clearly functionalist.

Abstract

This article seeks to determine if Buddhism can best be understood as primarily a functionalist tradition. In pursuing this, some analogies arise with various Western strands—particularly James’ ‘pragmatism’, Dewey's ‘instrumentalism’, Braithwaite's ‘empiricism’, Wittgenstein's ‘language games’, and process thinkers like Hartshorne and Jacobson. Within the Buddhist setting, the traditional Theravāda framework of sila (ethics/precepts), samādhi (meditation) and pañña (wisdom) are examined, together with Theravāda rituals. Despite some ‘correspondence’ approaches with regard to truth claim statements, e.g. vipassanā ’insight’ and Abhidharma analysis, a more profound functionalism seems present. This is even more clear with the Mahāyāna. Apart from the basic and explicit Mahāyāna underpinning of upāya, the Mādhyamika, Tantras and Ch'an (Zen) schools are clearly functionalist. Moreover, despite initially seeming more ‘absolutist’ in their positions, other strands like the Pure Land and Nichiren faith traditions, and Dharmakirti's Vijñānavāda epistemology can also be tied into this functionalist setting.

Comparable studies

Other theoretical and historical papers on buddhism, most cited first.

Explore topics