Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivism and Buddhism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Is it possible to be an Objectivist and a Buddhist? 

This earlier topic may be of interest, and this one too.

 

Also, if you want a good answer, it would help if you stated what you consider to be the 2 or 3 main tenets of Buddhism.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so i read both threads. I am now enlightened!!!! LOL!!

 

So here is why I asked this question. I am an alternative healthcare practitioner (Acupuncture and Chiropractic) so I actually have to be both selfish and selfless at the same time. I also want to be the best that I can be, but that means that i have to be selfless to my patients does it not? 

 

Also i believe enlightenment to be a quest for knowledge, ie get out of the woe is me attitude, meaning gaining more knowledge to understand reason and why we all suffer. We all suffer in one way or another. the way i see this is we all have some type of pain or part of our family who is going trough a condition or illness and this in turn causes us some pain as well. The enlightenment here is to acknowledge their pain and do what we can to help them feel better all the while filling our own desires. 

 

I may be wrong on some points about objectivism as i am still learning, but in a way they can fit together albeit within a gray scale that blurs it a little. I wish to not blur objectivism but blur more of buddhism/zen/taoism as it fits into objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By their nature, philosophies are wide-ranging. So, if you pick two philosophies, you would typically find lots of commonality at the lower level of actual, day-to-day advice. For instance, people who focus on the political aspects of philosophy see Marxists and Objectivists as opposites. Yet both claim to be naturalistic as opposed of mystical as a starting point, and thus stress the role of reason. And, when it comes to day-to-day advice,both might advise tackling a practical problem by looking for real-world knowledge, educating oneself, etc. Taking Buddhism, in some ways is a lot like Epicureanism in its broad approach, yet it seems to morph into Stoicism in practice. 

 

That's why I asked what you consider the main tenets of Buddhism. A short list would allow a comparison against Objectivism. Here's a brief description of Obecjtivism by Rand. Perhaps you could see what you think Buddhism would say in each of those categories. 

 

On your specific question re. selfishness and selflessness: helping other people is not always selfless. The key is not to look at the most visible primary recipient of the action, but to look at the motivation of the actor. If I pause from watching TV when my child asks for some help with homework, it is not because I am selfless but because I look to my own selfish values and decide what I want. [As a counter-example, consider someone who is truly doing things for their kids all the time, who is not taking time "for herself", and who consistently and routinely thinks she is sacrificing herself for her kids but feels a sense of obligation. The best advice to her would be to understand her values, figure out what she selfishly wants that would make her happy, and to rearrange her life.]

 

When it comes to obvious trade -- customer and server -- you exchange a product or service for their money. That can hardly be called selfless. If you like your job, then you're also getting the advantage of doing something you like. Also, most people enjoy getting things done: sort of -- it is me against nature. So, creating things, or delivering a service, or fixing a problem can often give one a sense of accomplishment and achievement. Much of the charity that takes place in the world comes from this selfish motivation rather than from a truly selfless motivation (which would require you to be giving time and money even though you do not really think it is a value to you).

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... we all have some type of pain...

On your third point: re pain and its alleviation... the Buddhist way of approaching the topic is too narrow if it starts with pain. A scientist way well study just one species, or perhaps temperatures of one material only in the range of -20 C and below. However, he has to ground it in a broader understanding. Happiness and sadness are consequences. They flow from desire, actions and results. In short: underlying both is the idea of value. [You're probably somewhat familiar with this from the "Objectivist Ethics" essay in "Virtue of Selfishness".] 

 

If one looks at pain, one will find that the person feeling the pain held some value and was disappointed when it was not achieved (or thwarted). The problem is that you will see the same link if you look at happiness: the person feeling it held some value and was all smiles when it was achieved (at least significantly). Both flow from values, and from acting toward them, and at results compared to values. From this we know that values are essential for both pain and happiness. Therefore, any advice that lessens values as such is bad advice. [Excluding specific cases where -- say -- we might tranquilize a person so that they feel no pleasure, because we are about to cut them open and that would cause pain.] If we become completely successful at suppressing values, we won't feel pain, but we won't feel happiness either. What would be the point of being a vegetable. If we're in such a state (generally, across the breadth of our life), why not offer ourselves up as a vegetable to the nearest cannibal... what's the point in remaining a zero for so many more years?

 

The focus on values -- rather than the direct focus on happiness and sorrow -- allows us to choose the right set of values. Understanding the broad framework also allows us to take sadness in our stride. Imagine your child takes part in a singing competition where she has a chance at success and therefore is constantly dreaming of being the winner. She practices her heart out, but in the end she comes fourth. Would anyone say she would be better off not taking part in the first place? The sorrow of a little while, the tears of an hour, are basically confirmations of values that are deeply held. As kids, we get over them. As adults, we realize that the short-lived sorrow is part of the mix without which we cannot achieve longer-term, and far less ephemeral happiness. 

 

Also... welcome to the forum.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] why we all suffer. We all suffer in one way or another. the way i see this is we all have some type of pain or part of our family who is going trough a condition or illness and this in turn causes us some pain as well. The enlightenment here is to acknowledge their pain and do what we can to help them feel better all the while filling our own desires. 

 

Firstly, Correct me if I am wrong, but looks like what you are implying is pain and suffering are absolutes and inevitable ? Even if pain is inevitable, it is not the purpose of life. Its exact opposite : (rational) pleasure or rather happiness is. Nevertheless pain has its own purpose.

 

"The best illustration of this can be seen in the rare, freak cases of children who are born without the capacity to experience physical pain; such children do not survive for long; they have no means of discovering what can injure them, no warning signals, and thus a minor cut can develop into a deadly infection, or a major illness can remain undetected until it is too late to fight it." 

 

Also, making life easier for people whom you value is not a 'scarifice'. Seeing them happy in effect, if you value them, has the ability to make you happy. Yet, it is prudent to judge what you hold as values. Not everything that gives you pleasure will give you long term happiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you both for your comments.I realize I need to do more for myself in reading and learning about Objectivism. As I see it from your discussion it is possible to be a modern day buddhist to an extant and also be an Objectivist. I am happy I asked the question and I definitely love the comments made back to my question. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please take this with a grain of salt as it has been 20 years since I did any reading on Buddhism and feel free to correct me.

 

As I understand Buddhism one of the central tenants is the denial of self and the denial to want since both lead to pain of living in a material world, which traps you in the life-cycle of being reborn to the material world.  The goal is to let go so you can become spiritual and break the cycle. In Objectivisist parlance I translate that to one should practice pure altruism and not gain values, which is about at 180 as you can get in those examples at least.   

 

That would tell me there is a lot to consider when trying to reconcile those two ideas on fundamentals and ethics. 

 

Also, you should delve deeper into what selfish and unselfish means from our perspective.  I train people and my personal motto is to add value to others and I hardly consider that altruistic since A)I get paid to do it, B) I enjoy doing it.  Selfishness is a measure of value exchange, not giving up values.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism is a radically rational belief system. It states that one can only obtain knowledge by applying reason to reality (as observed through our senses).

As such, it is directly antithetical to all forms of mysticism, including Buddhism, on an epistemological level (which is more fundamental than Ethics). So, even if you could find some common ground between Buddhism and rational selfishness (Objectivist Ethics), you still couldn't be an Objectivist and a Buddhist at the same time.

But, of course, that doesn't mean that you can't find any use for Objectivism. Understanding Objectivist ideas, even if you don't embrace them on a fundamental level (by rejecting all forms of mysticism), should still be of great value. It will still help you be rational in areas of your life where you wish to be rational, perhaps even when it comes to personal morality.

P.S. I don't think anyone should unconditionally accept any belief system. Not Buddhism, and not Objectivism. I think we should all choose which parts we accept. But, when we don't accept a fundamental aspect of a belief system (and the rejection of faith is a fundamental aspect of Objectivism), we shouldn't claim to ascribe to that belief system. Unless you're willing to give up on religion and mysticism completely, you're just gonna have to pick and choose which ideas in Objectivism are compatible with your faith, and which aren't.

The more elaborate and all encompassing the religion you believe in, the fewer areas are left to be rational about. Someone like the Dalai Lama could find almost nothing in Objectivism that doesn't contradict his beliefs. But it sounds like your version of Buddhism is pretty limited in scope. And who knows: maybe you'll find Objectivist ideas to be a better alternative to it anyway, as you learn about them.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The desire to be the best that you can be is profoundly selfish, regardless of exactly what you're trying to be best at. That's exactly the sort of desire that's considered one of your biggest virtues under Objectivism and one of your biggest vices under Buddhism.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who has more virtue, the bhuddist monk who begs for rice so that he can sit, meditate and achieve enlightenment or the rice farmer whose virtue sustains both? In my book, the bhuddist monk is a parasite. The rice farmer has a better understanding of life's imperatives.

That's a pretty simplistic view of the world you have there. Really, those are the two activities people in Asia have been engaging in over the centuries: farming and begging?

The role of monks in Asian societies has been to create culture and spread knowledge, not to sit around and beg for food. They have been instrumental in the development of quite a few very impressive Asian civilizations. They've played a prominent role in developing the various SE Asian writing systems for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism is a radically rational belief system. It states that one can only obtain knowledge by applying reason to reality (as observed through our senses).

As such, it is directly antithetical to all forms of mysticism, including Buddhism, on an epistemological level (which is more fundamental than Ethics). So, even if you could find some common ground between Buddhism and rational selfishness (Objectivist Ethics)

Someone like the Dalai Lama could find almost nothing in Objectivism that doesn't contradict his beliefs.

The first sentence is relatively close to Buddhism: you are a part of reality and observe it through your senses, while any sense of knowledge you have cannot be acquired through faith or authority.

The second sentence isn't accurate because epistemology is probably the least mystical part about Buddhism. To be sure, it is wholly wrong on some points, especially pertaining to concepts, as it sees concepts as necessarily absolute and unchanging. But it's also against absolutism of concepts just like Objectivism. Causality is not mystical, not even karma. Some forms of Buddhism are pretty mystical on both, but it's not essential, as in they distort how Buddhism started out by incorporating more of Eastern mysticism. What in particular is mystical about its epistemology?

By the way, the ethics of Buddhism is essentially a form of virtue ethics. Take a look at the noble eightfold path. Are any of these something Objectivism rejects? There is a selflessness streak regarding what the noble eightfold path is meant to help you attain, but it's more like some premises are similar but Buddhism goes a different direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

The Dalai Lama is an example of a pretty non-mystical monk. He'd probably find a lot of points to agree with in Objectivism. Not all, but a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your first post presented a false dichotomy that Nicky challenged in his reply.  Am I missing something?

The error in your thinking is that I ever presented such a false dichotomy. That was his invention and the source of his non sequitur. I never said nor implied that there are only these two categories of people: rice farmers and bhuddist monks. That was purely his invention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who has more virtue, the bhuddist monk who begs for rice so that he can sit, meditate and achieve enlightenment or the rice farmer whose virtue sustains both? In my book, the bhuddist monk is a parasite. The rice farmer has a better understanding of life's imperatives.

 

 

The error in your thinking is that I ever presented such a false dichotomy. That was his invention and the source of his non sequitur. I never said nor implied that there are only these two categories of people: rice farmers and bhuddist monks. That was purely his invention.

 

Re-read your first reply to the thread (which by the way doesn't answer the OP's question.).  You flat out say that a Buddhist monk is a parasite that does nothing but meditate and beg for rice.  You leave zero room for the possibility that a Buddhist monk could be something other than someone who sits around doing nothing but meditating and begging for rice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I refer to those bhuddist monks who do beg for food. Perhaps you should read this http://buddhism.about.com/od/becomingabuddhist/a/foodoffering.htm

There you will read "The first Buddhist monks did not build monasteries. Instead, they were homeless mendicants who begged for all their food. Their only possessions were their robe and begging bowl."

Also, "Today, in many predominately Theravada countries like Thailand, monks still rely on receiving alms for most of their food. The monks leave the monasteries early in the morning. They walk single file, oldest first, carrying their alms bowls in front of them. Laypeople wait for them, sometimes kneeling, and place food, flowers or incense sticks in the bowls. Women must be careful not to touch the monks."

There are many other sources that refer to monks begging, including in reference to Bhudda himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I refer to those bhuddist monks who do beg for food. Perhaps you should read this http://buddhism.about.com/od/becomingabuddhist/a/foodoffering.htm

There you will read "The first Buddhist monks did not build monasteries. Instead, they were homeless mendicants who begged for all their food. Their only possessions were their robe and begging bowl."

That's not a good source. The line about begging should have [citation needed] as Wikipedia would. Don't use about.com, it's not so great. Your consistent misspelling of Buddhism even after reading a page about it suggests you're posting before thinking. Receiving alms isn't really begging at all, it's more like someone offering value in return - even if as I said earlier a selfless streak is there. Most monks, at least respectable ones, want to teach and bring wisdom, so it's not like they're bums. The people giving alms probably regularly sought monks for advice.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, well interesting tangent on the topic I brought up. I was referring to modern day Buddhism as one who lives in the west and is not a monk. Here in the west a person can be a Buddhist while holding down a job and have a family at the same time. There are some parts that are left behind due to the way we are brought up but some of the tenets we can alter to our lives because we live in the west and hold jobs and have families. As I have been looking into Objectivism through Ayn Rands work and the ARI which has great online classes I am seeing that the western Ideal of Buddhism can be altered so that the two can fit together but I am still working on this and seeing where each one covers and doesn't cover.

Edited by David Salkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...