Marshall Sontag Live!

Ignorance Bad for Objectivity

Capitalism Magazine recently published an article by a little wolf by the name of Wayne Dunn, entitled, "Buddha Bad for Business." In it, he takes an event about the Dalai Lama speaking to businessmen and uses it as an opportunity to attack Buddhism, not even bothering to learn what the Dalai Lama actually said in his speech. His huffing and puffing, however, succeeds only in blowing down a straw man.

Dalai Lama = Buddhism = Anti-Life = Anti-Capitalism = Anti-Business. With his rationalistic formula, Wayne Dunn clearly demonstrates his ignorance about not only the Dalai Lama, but also Buddhism. Perhaps his article might be more aptly titled "Destroying Buddhism with Rationalism in Five Easy Steps." The truth of the matter is that neither the Dalai Lama, nor Buddhism, are anti-life. While Tibetan Buddhists dabble in mysticism (Dunn neglects to distiguish between the different varieties of Buddhism -- likely out of ignorance), their philosophy is largely pro-life and much of it integrates with Objectivism beautifully. To demonstrate, here are a few choice quotes:

"I believe that the very purpose of our life is to seek happiness." -The Dalai Lama

"Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life." -Ayn Rand

Can you see any difference? I certainly can't. Mr. Dunn points out in his essay that the only way to attain "inner peace" (his quotations -- as if inner peace is some ridiculous pseudo-concept), according to the Dalai Lama and his Buddhist cohorts, is by renouncing "ALL desires... Material things then - even food, clothing and other necessities - are viewed as mere allurements." Except, I have a quote here by the Dalai Lama that seems to conflict with that statement:

"Human beings are of such nature that they should have not only material facilities but spiritual sustenance as well. "

There it is: Human beings should have material facilities. While I'm not exactly sure what's encompassed under "material facilities," I would bet the farm that food, clothing and other necesseties are. And doesn't he seem to speak of the same integrated nature of material and spirit that Ayn Rand spoke so frequently about?

The Dalai Lama has also stated that he sees the value in a romantic love relationship. And good health -- must I even address this? The whole purpose of the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path is the attainment of sound mental health. The third noble truth, the assertion that "suffering ceases with the cessation of craving" refers to a certain type of desire. The kind of desire where you just HAVE to have something in order to be happy -- the kind of desire which causes you to be unhappy because you can't satisfy it. This is the statement that Dunn takes at face value, doesn't bother to inquire further into, and then hastily applies a blanket condemnation to all of Buddhism, including the Dalai Lama.

My intent here is not to defend the omniscience of the Dalai Lama -- I certainly don't agree with everything he believes. Neither is it my intent to defend the sound integration of Buddhism and Objectivism -- this task would be far too time-consuming, and rather impossible in my opinion. Rather, my intent is to illuminate Mr. Dunn's blatant lack of objectivity that he displays with his statements of utter ignorance. It is rather ironic (or hypocritical, if you would like) that he concurrently consider himself a defender of objectivity (which I think we can infer from his references to Ayn Rand and The Ayn Rand Institute), and a quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson (misrepresented by Rand herself) comes to mind: "Who you are speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you say." Mr. Dunn applies a similar, albeit twisted version of this: "Who I ignorantly think you are speaks so loudly, I won't even bother trying to hear what you say."

Perhaps I shouldn't be quick to blame, however. Perhaps his problem is that he never learned a philosophy, like Buddhism, that teaches one how to be objective through various practices. Perhaps he never knew about the Mudita Forum in which he could learn how to integrate the valuable aspects of Buddhism with Objectivism. Regardless of the cause, Mr. Dunn remains ignorant of the true nature of Buddhism.

In his essay, he says that according to Buddhism, and the Dalai Lama by implication, "to avoid suffering and discontentment...one must rid oneself of all desires." I would like my guest speaker, Mr. Lama, who is in disagreement with Mr. Dunn, to respond for himself: "I believe all suffering is caused by ignorance." Please, Mr. Dunn, don't make us suffer any longer.

Does Meditation Affect Philosophical Beliefs?

Mike Enright recently asked on the Mudita Forum:

When I started my interest in buddhism I was told that if I meditated regularly I would eventually take on the buddhist philosophical positions. This came about because I was very interested in debating and understanding buddhist ideas say on the self and karma.My basic state of mind was that there was a lot to be said for some of these ideas (i.e. they desirved attention), but also that many of the statements of buddhists were too bizarre to really understand. The response was that the guy could go statement by statement with me, but it would be easier for both of us if I stopped reading and started meditating.

Has anyone found that to be true?

Also, a similar statement was given to me regarding vegitarianism. They said that if I meditated seriously I would become so mindful of the suffering of animals when I ate that I would stop eating meat. Has anyone experienceed this?

To which I responded:

Hey Mike,

Oh, how familiar that argument is. “Once you start meditating, then you’ll agree with me.” I’ve also heard it stated as, “You’ll understand when you’re older – I was once young and idealistic too.”

Oops, wait a second.

That was my initial reaction to reading your statements, but the recent habit I’ve developed of examining my mental processes caused me to re-examine what I had written, and I found that in my experience, there is some truth to that statement. I have learned things the more I’ve meditated, or more specifically practiced mindfulness. For example, I have cultivated a greater self-awareness. Can anyone see the irony in this situation? I digress…

A lot of the ideas I’ve come across in my eastern studies initially struck me as confusing, but one characteristic I’ve developed in the last six months as a result of these studies is a much more open mind. As you have seen, my initial reaction was to find some sort of logical fallacy in the statement and then drop it like a hot bowl of potato soup. But what I end up doing is throwing out the potatoes with the soup water, leaving me stuck with convoluted mixed metaphors and nothing to eat. What I mean is, the more I learned to lessen the tendency to judge (partly from cultivating acceptance and mindfulness, and perhaps partly because of Josh Zader’s prodding), the more likely I was to continue pondering something and find meaning in it. For example…

“The self? Of COURSE there’s a self. Who do you think is typing this right now? And who do you think is reading it? My self and Your self! Now remove your self from my self’s presence you whim-worshipping scoundrel!” This was probably somewhat akin to my real sentiment on the matter of no-self when I first heard it, though a bit exaggerated. I have kept my mind open, however, and I can now say I’m very comfortable with the concept. Each moment that goes by, you’re a different person. As Josh once told me, the self is a process and not an actual “thing”. This is clearly a psychological statement, no?

The same is true of Karma. I used to talk about how ridiculous of a concept it was, and I would ask a Buddhist friend if there are little karma fairies that fly around and determine the moral status of our actions, and then add or subtract karma points to/from an account that we could get the balance statement of at Karma.com. I found out later that it was basically (at least in part) a statement of human habituation – the more you do something, the more likely you are to do it again. Like smoking, cheating on a test, misusing metaphors, etc. I know I mentioned that karma partly regarded habituation, because I think there is another aspect to it that’s mystical. Or maybe it’s not, I’m still keeping my mind open.

Anyways, I guess you could say it hasn’t really changed my philosophical views per se, but rather my psychological views. Though, personally I think that one’s psychological beliefs necessarily impact their philosophical beliefs – Ayn Rand didn’t hierarchically place ethics above epistemology for no reason, and spoke very frequently of one’s “psycho-epistemology.” The more I meditate and the less prone I am to judge, the more likely I am to be accepting and compassionate of others wrongful actions – this necessarily affects the ethics I choose to practice, does it not? Anyones thoughts?

Indeed, you may run into an eastern philosophical statement that seems wrong almost immediately. This was probably true of no-self and karma, but what I would advise doing is something extremely helpful I recall Damian Moskovitz saying on this forum a long time ago. It was something along the lines of examining metaphysical statements through a psychological lens. I do admit, though not embarrassingly, that on occasion I have been known to consider some of those statements in a metaphysical sense. “Maybe there is a collective consciousness… but…hmm…. No…..uh, nevermind.” As you can see, I always end up negating the thought. But I think it’s healthy to do this, so that what I believe doesn’t harden into a dogma. I mean, ya never know – one day we may find out that there really is a collective consciousness and….but…hmm… no…uh, nevermind.

Regarding vegetarianism, I like to think of the Buddha. He was most definitely not a vegetarian, though he never accepted meat from an animal that was slaughtered *for* him. Talk about mixed premises, though I think the whole point is the cultivation of good intentions. I brought up this point in my local vipassana group when all the hippies (*ahem* -- sorry, there goes my judging mind again) there were discussing not using hair products tested on animals. I said that when I buy shampoo that was tested on animals, I don’t buy it because I know that some animal suffered because of it -- I buy it because it makes my hair smell fruity. Peter, the group host, said that was a good point, and told a story about a blind enlightened person stepping on and killing a bug in the Buddha’s sangha (meaning, the Buddha’s meeting group of hippies), much to the chagrin of the people witnessing it.

“He killed a bug! That’s doing harm, Buddha! Isn’t it?” they clamored. The Buddha rolled his eyes and said “What’s wrong with you hippies, can’t you see his freakin’ white cane? He didn’t mean to do it, he’s blind!” While maybe it didn’t go exactly like that, the point of the story was that it’s not so much your actions, but your intentions that matter in achieving this awakened state of mind.

I don’t think the story had any effect on the rest of the group though, they still complain about eating animals. As many of us know, eating animals is perfectly natural. When the lion eats the gazelle, his *intention* isn’t to make the gazelle suffer, it’s just to feed himself. The same is true of people – they don’t eat animals for the sake of killing them, they eat them because their body needs those essential amino acids, and of course because it tastes good. In my understanding, it’s all about the intention in Buddhism. I think it’s safe to say that someone who derives great pleasure from torturing animals is not going to make it to nirvana!

Anyways, those are my lengthy thoughts on the matter. In conclusion, I would say that my studies of eastern philosophy *have* necessarily had an impact on my view of ethics through developing the qualities of mind I’ve found to be conducive to my own happiness and success in life, though my metaphysical views haven’t waivered.