| | First of all, what I am not trying to do: show that Buddhism is synonymous with objectivism; convert anyone to anything; present Buddhism in a necessarily positive light.
What I am trying to do: take similarities between Buddhism and objectivism and, at Kurt’s behest, talk about how I would apply them (oh boy, hope this stays at a reasonable length).
I see connections between the two, which I think is really cool. Not only are they separated by ~2500 years, they are on either side of the east/west divide.
A note to Kurt: I do think that too much argumentation about who said what is bad, but in this case such arguments are important because I am explicitly comparing the two, and to provide only my interpretations without having a foundation of understanding what was said would be useless in a comparison. Then it would be no different from me creating something new and comparing it to objectivism, which wouldn’t be nearly as neat to me.
On that note I would like to clarify one (hopefully) last term: nirvana. The “goal” of Buddhism. Nirvana has been the ammo for attacking Buddhism as a nihilistic philosophy, but the idea isn’t fully understood by most that use it in this manner. Its literal translation is extinction, but without context it has no meaning. It is not the extinction of life or humanity, but “the extinction of greed, the extinction of hate, the extinction of delusion.” (Samyutta Nikaya, 38, 1) I’ll discuss the matter of greed later, but the other two I’ll assume we all agree are negative.
Another note: It is important to keep these ideas in the context of their times. Buddhism was a reaction to the oppressive Hindu caste system. Objectivism was a reaction to the oppressive socialist system. Where objectivism made a point of living for oneself Buddhism did not because the ultimate purpose of social propriety in the Hindu caste system was to end the individual’s cycle of rebirths, a selfish motive if there ever was one.
Yet again, note: When I say Buddhism I will be referring to original Buddhism, i.e. pre-Theravada-Mahayana schism. This is when Buddhism was a philosophy instead of a religion (as I see it at least).
Now to the shared ideas…
Reason:
Both philosophies recognize humans as rational creatures. The application of this recognition is, of course, a philosophy based in reason instead of whim.
Identity, Causality, and Emptiness (Voidness):
The term emptiness, in this context, has seemed backwards to me ever since I learned what it meant. Emptiness does not refute identity, it refutes eternal identities, i.e. it is an expression of causality (as described by this site). A very useful application of this for me is the acceptance of impermanence. Ultimately it is facing one’s mortality and accepting it. After that acceptance, I think, one can stop living terms of “how can I prevent death (or prolong life)?” and begin living in terms of “how can I enjoy my life?” It is the epitome of living life on your own terms.
Individuality, More Causality, and Anatta:
Anatta is literally “no-self.” It is the negative of the Pali word atta, which was used to describe the spiritual, eternal essence which is separate from the body. This is strictly a refusal of mind-body duality. The logical extension of this is that the identity of the individual is constantly changing (causality in action). For every stimulus your brain strengthens or weakens certain connections, thus changing your identity. The application of anatta is the creation of ideas based in this world. No living for the “next life” allowed.
My main criticism of Buddhism, going back to the greed issue, is that it did not distinguish between rational and irrational selfishness. Buddhism only implies irrational selfishness, possibly in response to the corruption of Brahmin (the clergy caste) who exploited their perceived superiority for personal gain at the cost of the lower castes. Rational selfishness is, I think, at the heart of Buddhism. As Charles Wilson said, “What’s good for GM is good for the country.” This applies on the personal level too. Bettering oneself is beneficial to others as well because of the inevitable interaction with others. However strongly the Buddha may have argued for selfless actions, he also encouraged rational selfishness, recognizing the variety of personal preferences in human interaction.
|
|
