Buddhists, Objectivists and Randians join hands in circularity?


Selene

Recommended Posts

I ran across this rather unique approach while doing a search...

POP culture

Premises Of Post-Objectivism

A CALL TO OBJECTIVISTS AND RANDIANS FOR DIALOGUE WITH BUDDHISTS

Copyright Savaka Sukhothaia (June 2001)

"The wise man who by watchfulness

conquers thoughtlessness

is as one who, free from sorrows,

ascends the palace of wisdom

and there, from the high terrace,

sees those in sorrow below;

even as a wise strong man

on the holy mountain

might behold the many unwise

far down below on the plain."

- The Buddha

The Dhammapada
28

This is an unusual suggestion to Objectivist and Randian communities, but I ask you to consider it and to please try to be objective. I am here offering to you the shocking consideration that Objectivists and Randians should reach out to the Buddhist portion of humanity. Some Buddhists are closer to you than you might imagine, regardless of highly touted tenets of Buddhist 'doctrine' that would make you think otherwise.

I am a Buddhist - a Theravada Buddhist. I do not believe in the supernatural, nor in a god or gods of any kind. I first read Ayn Rand's fiction because a Buddhist friend told me that her heroes were sages of advanced Buddha-like characteristics. For instance, one of her greatest heroes exhibited a face that was without the trace of "pain, fear, or guilt". That is the face of the Buddha as we in Buddhist cultures have always imagined him and have portrayed him in art.

You name him "John Galt". Howard Roark is also in possession of great self-command, detachment from pain, and serenity. Andrej Taganov reminds one of a samurai warrior, does he not? And what of Ragnar Danneskjold, that ideal champion of justice?

When considering the Western Tradition, Buddhism reminds me a lot of Stoicism, i.e., accepting one's Fate while controlling one's attitude toward that Fate. Didn't the Stoics also come up with Natural Law, an incredible philosophy of tolerance (also very Buddhist-like)? Ayn Rand starts her essay, The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made, with a quasi-Stoic quote: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference". This is vintage Greek and solidly Objectivist, but it is also classically Buddhist. Balance, perspective, wisdom, and that Greek-like poise of a confident mind.... A Buddhist might see Aristotle as a friend. His eudaimonia is quite interesting, his megalopsychia quite familiar.

I really do not expect, or even desire, that any of you Objectivists will become Buddhists. If I were a Mahayana Buddhist, I might try to proselytize, but I am essentially in the Theravada school and recognize the beauty of the individualist path. Rather, I believe that we in the East need the influences of a modern, rational, freedom oriented philosophy such as Objectivism. You can teach my culture much and are more similar to us than you can conceive. Buddhists will not often completely throw away their entire tradition and they will nearly always identify themselves primarily as Buddhists, but they often can modernize, learn, adjust, and synthesize. A dialectical conversation is necessary to orient the East toward the future - and the stars.

We Buddhists love the moon. Ayn Rand's Apollo 11 is still my favorite of her writings, for it celebrates the event of representatives of the human race actually setting foot on the moon - and making it safely back to earth. What a triumph of mind!

If you want complete 100% conversion to "dogmatic" Objectivism, you will forever be an unnoticed minority on this planet (and beyond, some day). But Objectivist ideas are fecund, vital, uplifting, and hopeful. In the technological future, Objectivism's grounding of human rights is humankind's great hope of freedom. You are secular and universal. You can enrich, ennoble, and inform many segments of humanity.

Few of you probably realize what a natural ally you have in Buddhism. It is ethical but is not interested in theological dogma. It is radically individualistic (especially in its Theravada form). Its trappings, stories, and doctrines are old. They echo antiquity, but there is a kernel of noble wisdom there. Also, many in the West are turning to Buddhism because of disillusionment with Christianity and with much of modern Western philosophy.

Some among the practitioners of Buddhism are natural advocates for freedom and dignity. The plight of Buddhists in Tibet and elsewhere in the empire of the Peoples Republic of China are examples of high profile tyranny against peaceful peoples, and many are united by their revulsion when freedom is denied. But, you must never ask them to accept Objectivism as a dogmatic religion/philosophy. They abhor such simplemindedness.

In sum, you can befriend Buddhists, if you parley like honest seekers of the truth. The East needs to update itself with reason, science, business ethics, the politics of individual rights, and completely free enterprise. And maybe you could benefit from a jolt of wisdom from aspects of the dharma. After all, do you folks know everything? (Please take this last remark in good humour.) Seriously, Buddhists can be powerful allies to Objectivism. After all, we are both on an ethical crusade for - among other things - nobility, serenity, and integrity, are we not?

With the utmost metta ("loving kindness"),

Savaka Sukhothaia

June 2001

MORE ON BUDDHISM AND OBJECTIVISM

Thomas Gramstad: A Few Notes Towards Buddhjectivism

http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/buddhjectivism.html

Paul Hibbert: Objectivism and Zen

http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Hibbert/Objectivism_and_Zen.shtml

Mudita Forum:

http://www.zader.com/mudita-forum/index.html

(A moderated discussion group at wetheliving.com for individuals with an interest both in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and in the consciousness-raising practices associated with Eastern thinking.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."

-Ayn Rand,

Atlas Shrugged

, Part 3, Ch. 7

Buddhist scrolls might be good for research and historical purposes but I'm afraid in the end, it's gonna have to be this kind of buddhism that will have to step up to the plate of reason and science (not Objectivism per se). Heck, I'm still a student of Objectivism and ultimately, Philosophy.

This guy states the similarities between us and them, sure. However, would he care to enlighten O'ists to their tenets, motives, reasons and goals. In fact, who is their representative if they are individualists or should I ask, "Who is your leader?" if they bow down to - or worse grovel at the feet of - another man.

I bow down to reality and truth. Revere my intellectual forefathers (my ancestry of choice(?)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Buddhist concept of 'Nirvana' is totally opposed to Objectivism, since it values non-life over life.

Angela:

Would it not be fair to say that there are a number of different, or shadings of definitions as to "nirvana?"

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nirvana is a Sanskrit word, literally meaning "to cease blowing."

"Nirvana is meant specifically - as relevant with gnosis (the Greek word for knowledge, it means the spiritual knowledge of a saint or enlightened being)- that which ends the individuality of the mind (citta) with empirical phenomena. Doctrinally, Nibb?na is spoken about the mind which "no longer is coming (bhava) and going (vibhava)", but which has attained a status in perpetuity, whereby 'liberation (vimutta) can be said'."

"Buddhist philosophy states that nirvana is neither a state of annihilation nor nothingness. It is subha (auspicious), dhuva (eternal) and sukha (happy). Nirvana deviates from the concept of heaven. The state of Nirvana passes through nirodha. Nirodha in Buddhism means breaking away from the false notions of the world and soul, as Buddhism does not believe in the concept of a permanent soul. Buddhism does not profess that nirvana is to be achieved in an afterlife. This is where it sets itself apart form most of the religious philosophies."

"When nirvana is realized in this life it is known as sopadisesa nibbana-dhatu. When an arahant attains nirvana after the dissolution of his body then he attains anupadisesa nibbana-dhatu. Nirvana is in many ways similar to the concept of Salvation."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Buddhist concept of 'Nirvana' is totally opposed to Objectivism, since it values non-life over life.

Angela:

Would it not be fair to say that there are a number of different, or shadings of definitions as to "nirvana?"

Adam

Adam,

It's fair to say that, yes.

It would be interesting to look for a possible common denominator that all definitions of "nirvana" share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't claim anything beyond a sophomore's understanding of Buddhism, but I have for some time believed much of what the author says.

There is an additional element as well that I find interesting as well: some Eastern mystics (sorry about that word...) have held that the universe is driven by a divine energy that is essentially benevolent, and thus creating somewhat of a parallel to Rand Benevolent universe premise.

The premise of the author's appeal is less far-fetched that a first glance would indicate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an additional element as well that I find interesting as well: some Eastern mystics (sorry about that word...) have held that the universe is driven by a divine energy that is essentially benevolent, and thus creating somewhat of a parallel to Rand Benevolent universe premise.

I've been ruminating quite a bit in recent years about a possible 'positive cosmic energy' principle, but each time I see an animal film where a living prey is being devoured, the 'benevolent universe' premise collapses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an additional element as well that I find interesting as well: some Eastern mystics (sorry about that word...) have held that the universe is driven by a divine energy that is essentially benevolent, and thus creating somewhat of a parallel to Rand Benevolent universe premise.

I've been ruminating quite a bit in recent years about a possible 'positive cosmic energy' principle, but each time I see an animal film where a living prey is being devoured, the 'benevolent universe' premise collapses.

A fair point.

The Holocaust wouldn't exactly be Exhibit A to the argument, either.

Has anybody else noticed how much sharper Xray's arguments have become of late? I attribute it to her toiling in the vinyards of OL... :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an additional element as well that I find interesting as well: some Eastern mystics (sorry about that word...) have held that the universe is driven by a divine energy that is essentially benevolent, and thus creating somewhat of a parallel to Rand Benevolent universe premise.

I've been ruminating quite a bit in recent years about a possible 'positive cosmic energy' principle, but each time I see an animal film where a living prey is being devoured, the 'benevolent universe' premise collapses.

A fair point.

The Holocaust wouldn't exactly be Exhibit A to the argument, either.

Has anybody else noticed how much sharper Xray's arguments have become of late? I attribute it to her toiling in the vinyards of OL... :cool:

Yeah, but don't drink the wine, even OL wine.

--Brant

maybe the kids she teaches have something to do with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an additional element as well that I find interesting as well: some Eastern mystics (sorry about that word...) have held that the universe is driven by a divine energy that is essentially benevolent, and thus creating somewhat of a parallel to Rand Benevolent universe premise.

I've been ruminating quite a bit in recent years about a possible 'positive cosmic energy' principle, but each time I see an animal film where a living prey is being devoured, the 'benevolent universe' premise collapses.

A fair point.

The Holocaust wouldn't exactly be Exhibit A to the argument, either.

Has anybody else noticed how much sharper Xray's arguments have become of late? I attribute it to her toiling in the vinyards of OL... :cool:

Yeah, but don't drink the wine, even OL wine.

--Brant

maybe the kids she teaches have something to do with it

And stay away from the kool-aid too. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now