Objectivism and Buddhism

Dharma does not, to my knowledge, explicitly discuss epistemology.

Right mindfulness is the controlled and perfected faculty of cognition. It is the mental ability to see things as they are, with clear consciousness. Usually, the cognitive process begins with an impression induced by perception, or by a thought, but then it does not stay with the mere impression. Instead, we almost always conceptualize sense impressions and thoughts immediately. We interpret them and set them in relation to other thoughts and experiences, which naturally go beyond the facticity of the original impression. The mind then posits concepts, joins concepts into constructs, and weaves those constructs into complex interpretative schemes. All this happens only half consciously, and as a result we often see things obscured. Right mindfulness is anchored in clear perception and it penetrates impressions without getting carried away. Right mindfulness enables us to be aware of the process of conceptualization in a way that we actively observe and control the way our thoughts go. Buddha accounted for this as the four foundations of mindfulness: 1. contemplation of the body, 2. contemplation of feeling (repulsive, attractive, or neutral), 3. contemplation of the state of mind, and 4. contemplation of the phenomena.

I practiced Zen Buddhism intensively for ten years and have read about other Buddhist traditions. Allow me to share my view, which now have become almost an essay on itself.

Buddha taught that there was no soul, that the illusion of an eternal, unchanging “Self” or essence was a main cause of suffering. Buddhism encourages you to look at yourself and your place in the world. It doesn’t pronounce itself on the role or existence of gods, the origin of the universe etc. In this way it looks a lot like a naturalist philosophy. This doesn’t make Buddha a proto-Objectivist, not even a eudaemonist, someone who holds the good life as the ultimate value. Buddhism is also known as the way of the middle. Traditionally, this is explained as the right middle between a hedonistic and indulgent lifestyle and ascetic religious practices, a bit like what Aristotle taught. A lot of his teachings intended for the laymen are pragmatic advices on how to lead a happy life, but there’s more to it then that. Buddha saw his way as a middle path to religious beliefs of his time on one side and materialism and nihilism on the other side. Although Buddha encouraged people to be their own light, he didn’t consider reason as the ultimate tool to know reality. He thought ultimate reality was unknowable but could be experienced. In that way Buddha was closer to the New Age movement then to Objectivism.

A key concept in Buddhism is Nirvana, or extinction of desire, attachments. This is linked to karma. Our actions (karma) and thoughts have an effect on our lives, even if we don’t experience this effect in our lifetime. What goes around comes around, if you die in the meanwhile, some other being will come in existence and will inherit the fruit of your actions. As long as you are attached to life and to the results of your actions, you are going to create more karma, thus creating the right conditions for a being to appear in the future. This being is going to face birth, loss of loved ones, sickness and many other sufferings linked to the fact of being alive. Buddha pretends to have found a way out of this eternal wheel of suffering and attained Nirvana, a state of extinction of desires, thus of suffering. He understood that trying to break this chain by repressing or fleeing desire, as did all the yogis of his time didn’t work. Wanting to be free of desire, to eliminate desire is in itself a desire, which creates karma, which etc, etc. Instead he concentrated on eliminating attachment and attachment to desire in particular. You live your life fully, except it’s not your life, it could just as well be the life of fictional character on a movie screen. Right understanding is seeing that there is no “I” to which good or bad things happen. There is just life happening, stuff happening, without someone to experience it. There is no unchangeable eternal Self and the self we refer to in the West as ego, is just a product of karma, of genetic coincidences, of education and clumsy attempts to organize past experiences. Just lose your obsession with the “I” and you’ll be free for eternity. Buddhism is a way of life, a culture of the mind, destined to free you of the exaggerated concern with the I (and the non-I). This resolves the question of ethics. When you have lost interest in the “I”, your actions will not be driven anymore by egoistic motives and will be pure and good. Because most of us still haven’t reached that stage, we have to follow the precepts (no killing, no stealing, no lying, no drugs…) to avoid creating more bad karma.

Stephen Batchelor has developed his own views, which are not shared by the majority of Buddhist schools, who accuse him of casting aside the fourth nobel truth – deliverance of suffering. He doesn’t give you an accurate image of what you’ll find when you turn to a Buddhist school or organisation. My opinion about his views is: Why bother with naturalistic Buddhism or Buddhist naturalism? I prefer to spend my time and effort testing my values and concepts against reality instead of another system of values and concepts.

Buddha was only concerned with the issue of the ultimate cause of all suffering. He didn’t expose his views on the existence or not of gods, the origins of the universe etc. When Buddhism spread, it had no difficulties incorporating the cosmologies, spirits and deities of the nations that adopted it. The same strategy is used in the west. In all the introductions to Buddhism you’ll find Buddhists where freethinkers, individualists and humanists well before Enlightenment in the West. In fact they where all that and had a deep sense of spirituality too! They’ll tell you it’s the perfect spirituality for the modern man drifting without moral compass in a shortsighted materialist society. However, they never engage in discussions about their basic premises.

To conclude: Buddhism has some good elements, it acknowledges we are responsible for our own life, it encourages us to look at the way we perceive things and how this in turn determines our feelings and actions. However, at it’s base it lacks a genuine sense of life. It is full of contradictions and unresolved basic questions. If anyone wants to experiment with Buddhism that’s fine, but don’t count on me to get you out of the swamp of unverified beliefs you created for yourself.

Hi Sarah, from my brief foray with Siddharta's teachings, I would say a lot of value exists in his teachings of, as you suggest, not concerning oneself so much with fleeting pleasures.  His four noble truths

1) all life is suffering

2) suffering has a cause

3) if it has a cause then it has a cure

4) the cure is the eightfold path to enlightment.

Clearly give one a suggestion to stop and think about desires.  Do I really suffer that I don’t have that fancy red sports car? 

But instead of thinking about why someone desires something, he simply suggests that you shouldn’t desire, and thus will not suffer.  The logical extension of this becomes nirvana, which is the complete absence of desire, including the desire to live, love, breathe.  This creates the very same nihilistic worldview that drives the modern compulsion people have to devalue life, so they won't be so afraid of death.  The truth, that life is wonderful and worth living directly implies that absence of life is horrible and the epitome of suffering, such strong extremes literally drive people to madness, and they make up all sorts of crazy things, religions and new age beliefs to deal with their inevitable demise.  

Siddharta was suggesting that our highest moral premise was to cease desiring to exist.  To become a non-sentient being.  Something most here would find terrible.  So while some value can be had in his suggestions to think about why we actually desire something, and possibly to abandon silly desires that make us suffer, the ultimate logic of his teachings (which he literally suggested) was to not want to exist. 

However, I think many of his comments on the eightfold path are very good advice, and he was ahead of his time in some of these teachings.  It’s very true that his successive followers have take his teachings and gone every which way with them, but this does not disguise the fact that core of his philosophy was to absolve oneself of the desire to exist in order to no longer suffer.  I’d rather suffer so that I might enjoy life, however I believe that to be a false correlation. 

“Empty pleasures maybe? If I were to live my life pursuing something like getting a drug high, this would be an unhealthy attachment to an empty pleasure”

I think this is one of Buddhism’s biggest flaws, in addition to advocating turning oneself into a desire less automaton, that no effort is made to identify WHY something gives us pleasure, and whether that is fundamentally good or not.  This is where Aristotle far excels over all other philosophers.  Empty pleasures are nothing more than hedonism, pleasure for its own sake.  It is as ridiculous as loving for its on sake and smiling for it’s own sake.  Aristotle's Eudaimonia is immensely more valuable.  And what were Howard Roark and John Galt but logical extensions of eudaimonists?

“Dharma does not, to my knowledge, explicitly discuss epistemology. However, to say that it attacks or limits human reason is inconsistent. The Eightfold Path's right views consists of using reason to evaluate the world. It isn't discussed because it is taken as a given”

I seem to recall some of Siddharta teachings in parralelel with a lot of modern fallacies of logic, like not appealing to authority, not accepting things on faith, etc.  Very progressive stuff for his time.  But as you note, all of this is lost on modern Buddhists and Zen.

Michael E Morotta said:

Luke Setzer is not alone in pointing out that at Mensa meetings, the common complaint is "If we're so smart, why aren't we rich."

Probaby because all they do is stand around and talk about how smart they are, play chess to demonstrate that, and compare IQ’s scores. 

That applies to Objectivists.  If we know so much about capitalism, why are we not billionaires?  Why is Bill Gates not an Objectivist?

I have only recently gotten involved in official online objectivist circles and groups, and I was surprised at the large number of people who are artists, and use the objectivist philosophy to further their artistic goals, e.g. representing the highest capable to man in an aesthetic form, creating the best music celebrating all the great things about living, etc.  While these are great and enjoyable pursuits, they are not really money making endeavors.  It seems most Rand inspired people live typical lives but use her teachings as a tool for living a more intellectually and spiritually fulfilling life.  No aspect of Rand’s teachings insist that we must all be multi millionaire industrial conglomerates to be objectivists.  She explicist condemns the acquisition of wealth for its own sake, money is not a source of value, but a means to attain value. 

Regards,

Michael F Dickey

“A question to everyone: Have you no sense of curiosity? Any desire of knowledge for knowledge sake? Must everything be a competition between objectivism and [idea]? Must everything fit with objectivism before you'll even look at it, even if for no other reason than to learn about it? How can you claim to be anything like a philosopher and not have that love of wisdom?
[outburst complete]”

Sarah,

Thanks for your comments. It seems like you are a little upset that we are not seeing Buddhism in as positive of a light as you feel it deserves.  As far as religions go, Siddhartha’s teachings are the best of the bad.  Though I wouldn’t really call it a religion, since it does not profess to answer the ultimate questions of the universe, give us purpose, or explain the unexplained. 

I assure you that you are not the only person here with a deep curiosity and a overwhelming desire to learn as much as you can.  In fact I think having those traits is probably what brought many of us to Rand in the first place.  Personally, I love Feynman’s quote on the matter (possibly poking fun at Socrates)  ‘All I know is that everything is interesting”   I started out as a paternalist liberal, always having a deep interest in science and philosophy of science, I eventually became very involved with the organized skeptics movement, that of Michael Shermer, James Randi, Carl Sagan, etc.   I met both Shermer and Randi, Shermer being one of the prominent authors who considered objectivism a cult.  This involvement solidified my tools for thinking and also gave me a deeper appreciation for cultural aspects of humanity.  However, it also made me, in Rand’s words, one of those ‘practical people’ that despised art, philosophy, abstractions, and felt I was a collection of chemicals.  The skeptic movement is very nihilistic and existentialist, and still embraces the concept that emotions work in opposition to reason.  Applying the things I learned in logic and skepticism to politics ended up making me a libertarian, and through libertarianism I became familiar with first Aristotle’s works and then with Rand’s.  I feel Rand’s works mostly identified, clarified and are the logical extension of Aristotle’s concept of Eudaimonia (also correcting his errors)   learning to love life, value my existence, and wanting to embrace all of the things that make living wonderful and worthwhile eventually led me to extropianism, which is, I feel, the logical extension of objectivism. 

Somewhere along the way I became very interested in Buddhism while taking a class on world religions.  It is, imo, the best (least bad) of the ‘religions’ in its original sense (not in the modern incarnations of Zen Buddhism, Theravedic or Maharan) Consider some of Siddhartha’s teachings:  (excerpts from an old essay I wrote on the advantages of Buddhism)

“Do not accept what you hear by report, do not accept tradition, do not accept a statement because it is found in our books, nor because it is in accord with your belief, nor because it is the saying of your teacher....Be ye lamps unto yourselves”

“Buddhism intentionally avoids matters of speculation and issues of philosophy. On such questions, Buddha maintained a silence, for, as he put it "opinions tend not to edification". Buddhism teaches we have no way to find answers to these questions, so make of them what you will”

"Do not go by what is handed down, nor by the authority of traditional teachings." he said "When you know of yourselves 'these teachings are good or not good' only then accept or reject them"

Work out your own salvation with diligence." Buddha further encourages self effort suggesting that "Those who rely upon themselves only, not looking to assistance by anyone besides themselves, it is they who reach the topmost height

By this yee shall know that a man is not my disciple - that he tries to work a miracle

However, we see some bad teachings as well

“Do not go by reasoning, nor by inferring, nor by argument. A True disciple must know for himself”  (note:  this could entirely be a translation error, since in many other aspects Siddhartha suggested knowledge through empiricism, this might refer to reason in a classical sense as separate from scientific inquiry into nature.  Reason as pure mental philosophical speculation.)

And of course, after touting thinking for oneself and abandoning authority, he turned right around and laid out 8 things one must follow to reach nirvana.

As I became a person that looked farther and farther ahead I focused more on the logical extensions philosophical basis, e.g. extropianism from eudaimonism.  The logical extensions of the teachings of Siddharta are all negative.  It goes from being a tool for living to tools to avoid life.

Sarah said:

“Again I would like to point out that suffering is a mistranslation of dukkha. The most literal translation in our language is the idea of a wheel with its axle off center.”

Where do you get this translation from?  From a few minutes of googling, it looks like Pali was the first language that Siddharta’s teachings were written in, and was probably the language he originally spoke.  Though it was a few centuries after his passing, the change in definition soudnt to be more an influence by modern mystical pressures on Buddhism than on what Siddharta taught. 

Dukka – The Characteristic of Suffering:

In Pali, the word Dukkha means sorrow, pain and suffering. It is believed to be a dominant characteristic in the world in which we live. According to the Buddha, the simple fact of living is marked by the characteristic of Dukkha, which is suffering made manifest in many forms. It can be the sorrow that one experiences in sadness, in the misery or the difficulties of this life. It can also be the sorrow that can be felt when one is saturated with pleasure, to the point that the object of pleasure itself becomes disgusting and repulsive. It is the pain to be separated from those we love, and it is also that of having to endure the presence of those whom we do not love. It is the pain of not living in places where we would like to live, and also that of being forced to live in places where we do not want to live.

 

From - http://xtro1666.tripod.com/siddhartha_gautama.htm

I am by no means a historical scholar on Siddharta but I can not find any pages suggesting the translation you feel is more fitting.  Can you cite some references?

This page also suggests:

“According to the Buddha, our most significant goal is not the acquisition of happiness. The most significant goal is to reach the end, the cessation, the extinction, the disappearance of sorrow”

The only way to absolve ourselves of sorrow is to have no values. 

Sarah said:

“Nirvana is not to cease the desire to live, it is to know that you are alive; being aware of every breath you take, conscious of every word speak, fully loving the one(s) you love.”

Many aspects of religions and philosophies can mean very different and special things to different people, and if your  reading of Nirvana have taught you the above lessons than that is wonderful, they are great lessons to learn.  But I really am at a loss as to how you got that from Siddhartha’s teachings.  Where did Siddhartha advocate fully loving the ones you love (he left his wife and son).  Far from being conscious of every word you speak and every breath you take, he suggested that the you of this moment is not the same as the you of the previous moment, and the very concept of you is an illusion. 

Regards,

Michael F Dickey

Sarah said:

"I don't care what light it's viewed in as long as it's viewed accurately, which it hasn't been for the most part."

Well we can all be sympathetic to that plight.  We are here on SOLOHQ, and Rand probably ranks as one of the most often intentionally misrepresented people ever. 

" But he did not say that you must follow them, only that they worked for him and can be something to try for yourself if you want."

Well, I will have to take your word for that.  Without digging into the original earliest written accounts and then undertaking a study of that culture in an attempt to appropriately translate concepts I really cant be a 'compass unto myself' in this area.  As it is, I really want to do the same with Aristotle's writings all ready, since so much gets lost in translation. 

" Ah ha! Something I've been waiting for. Logical discussion of Siddhartha's teachings. This is an avenue I'd very much like to explore in great detail. Perhaps you could suggest a idea to examine first?"

Well, it seems that translating dukkha properly is the best place to start.  If it means suffering, and Siddharta was saying that all life is suffering, the negation of that, that death is joy, is a direct implication.  So it seems clarifying the definition is of utmost importance.

" Excerpt from Huston Smith and Philip Novak's Buddhism: A Concise Introduction

 

"The First Noble Truth is that life is dukkha, usually translated "suffering." Though far from its total meaning, suffering is an important part of that meaning and should be brought into focus before proceeding to other connotations. ... Dukkha, then, names the pain that to some degree colors all finite existence. The word's constructive implications come to light when we discover that it was used in Pali to refer to wheels whose axles were off center or bones that had slipped from their sockets. ... The exact meaning of the First Noble Truth is this: Life (in the condition it has gotten itself into) is dislocated." "

I read Huston Smiths "World Religions" book and absolutely hated it.  I wish I had it handy, but it was full of vague sentences like "A Confucius likes throws himself into the middle of the river that is life"  What the hell does that mean?  Similarly an interview I saw with him was equally bad, he always seemed to be trying to come up with the most profound sounding statement, but was never actually saying anything. 

Have you come across any evidence to support that translation?  Why was there a word in Pali specifically for wheels who have off center axles.  Seems to be an odd thing to have a word for.  Was the context Siddharta used it in easily translatable to that interpretation?  E.g. the four noble truths now become "All life is a wheel with an off center axle" "If it is off center it has a cause" etc... Did he use analogies like, say, deviating from prescribed courses and then returning, or moving around but not quite getting anywhere?  Or was he continually referencing aspects of suffering (seems like he was, given the sights on his first journey out of the palace)

" As to that site I think you should note the disclaimer."

True, but is the root of the different parts of the word the same as the author asserted?  If Smith Is the only guy asserting this, I would skeptical of it.  He smacks of a new agey kind of guy to me, and also smacks of trying to be as profound as possible at all times.  Redefining the root of Buddhism would certainly be an intellectual milestone in the study of religions. 

"Is this a place where every argument must be in the context of why objectivism is better? If so then this is certainly not the place for me. I argue the most against what I support"

Well, presumably most of us here will feel it is better and that is probably why we are here.  Otherwise we would be at a Buddhism forum or an extropy forum.  As it is I am a regular member of dozens of mailing lists, but as philosophies go, nothing beats a rigid adherence to reality,  the rules that govern existence and the profound sense of self worth and enlightenment that comes from Objectivism.  The sense of life that Objectivism brings is far more spiritually enjoyable than any other philosophy I have studied, but this is not what makes it right.  I think it is far more enjoyable ­_because_ it is right.  As a tool for living, nothing I have yet come across beats it. 

I should note, however, that Dean Michael Gores comment

"but is missing a basis for reality and morality."

(which I guess is what spawned you to ask if we must compare everything here to objectivism) Is generally the biggest lacking I have found with extropianism (among others I will comment on when I discuss how I find it to be different that Objectivism).  It is focused on bettering oneself through whatever means are necessary, through technology, biology, whatever, and to whatever end is one desires.  It respects the will of an individual above all else.  But in its goal it is undirected, much as hedonism is an undirected form of happiness.  Eudaimonia identifies the highest good for an individual as the directing motive for happiness, striving a perpetual state of excellence in reason and action.  Shall we use technology and science to be immortal hedonists, or use technology and philosophy and science to be immortal eudaemonists?  I prefer, of course, the latter.  But many extropians advocate the Hedonist aspect.  To each their own, but I for one find non-purposeful happiness as meaningless as any drug high.   Quite frankly I get surprised that more objectivist are NOT extropianisms or transhumanists, specifically because this philosophy so strongly advocates life as a good and wonderfull thing and focuses as us on beings of volitional consciousness.  Perhaps the lack of moral purpose is what keeps objectivsts away. 

I'll put up a post on Extropianism a bit latter. 

"On another note, is objectivism a "you're with us or you're against us" philosophy? This is not a question of moral or philosophical relativism here, just wondering what the accepted objectivist view of fence-sitting is."

Well, I don’t think anyone is opposed to fence sitting, we have probably all been somewhere with something and said 'well, I couldn’t say I have investigated that enough to have an informed opinion' But on all things one should eventually make a 'best case' guess about what is right.  Pick a go-no go date and presume it is correct until obviously shown otherwise.  In that sense, as a philosophy, objectivism stands above all others.  It advocates freedom for individuals and justifies it, it adopts objective reality as a world view and suggests embracing it as a moral virtue, justifies why each one of us can and should live for ourselves, not at the expense of others and as a primary goal.  It is entirely internally consistent and would produce the best lives by measures of happiness and standards of living over any other philosophy.  Except, perhaps, one that combines that with living a good life as long as possible using technology to do it ;)

So perhaps one might say you are either with yourself, or against yourself.  If you set out to define what is best for you, objectively, I think you would end up with a philosophy very much like objectivism or eudaimonia.  From what I have learned of Buddhism, it seems when applied fully to be a philosophy against one's self. 

Regards,

Michael F Dickey