Dark Buddhism: a mixture of Zen and Ayan Rand.

DaftChris

http://www.darkbuddhism.com/

This is a website with some book snippets, from a guy who has formed something known as "Dark Buddhism"; a mixture between Ayn Rand and Zen Buddhism.

Basically, he claims that Objectivism is a key to ones happiness as it encourages people to use their intellect and will, but he was turned off by how rigid and zealous many Objectivists are. Then, he discovered Buddhism and liked how it claims that there is no rigidity or permanence, but was also turned off by how many Buddhists are rigid and zealous in their practice. That compassion is not meant to be a moral code, but a personal choice.

In a nutshell, he claims that both Zen and Objectivism have "objectivity" to bring people happiness. Together, they bring a middle way that pure Objectivism ("All altruism is evil") and traditional Buddhism ("All Altruism and compassion is good") both lack.

What do you think of this? While I'm all for people finding their own philosophies, I think that Buddhism and Objectivism are at such different ends of the spectrum that, even if you find a compromise between the two, that they are so fundamentally different that they are incompatible.

But then again, if it works, what do I know?

Dakini

I pretty much agree with you. Who wants to live in a world in which altruism is considered "evil", and people are left to their own devices when economic systems collapse (the Depression--no social security, unemployment insurance, people living in tents)? Come to think of it, Lhasa used to be full of homeless people living in tents and drainage tunnels. Even with a Buddhist government, the gov't's ability to provide relief for the poor was dependent on the relative strength of the economy, and gov't priorities.

Buddhism doesn't say "all altruism and compassion is good", the way I understand it. There's the concept of "idiot compassion", meaning enabling self-destructive or disruptive behavior. Though I don't know what the source of that in the scriptures is. But it sounds like maybe the author doesn't have a strong understanding of Buddhism...?

Ayn Rand was an extremist. She was a product of her environment: a Soviet system that was simultaneously socialized but brutally repressive. She ran to the opposite extreme: a raw, unregulated, harsh capitalism.

Takuan

Every time someone says Ayan Rand, I think of this video.

Sile

The tales of alleged homeless "filling" Lhasa pre-1950 come laregely from the current occupational government; the more balanced accounts from early Tibet and other Himalayan cultures found homelessness was not common, due to an incredibly strong sense of familial responsibility (and cultural) responsibility as well.

Chinese and Westerners travelling throughout the Himalayas in the old days often mistook the cultural tendency toward travel for "homelessness," but in pre-invasion Himalayan culture, travel was as normal as staying put, at least for the large percentage of society (then) which was nomadic or semi-nomadic. Even non-nomads -- traders, teachers, craftsmen, etc., were extremely mobile by modern standards. This same phenomenon is seen in old Gaelic culture as well -- seasonal migrations with the cattle herds, for example.

Ayn Rand fits into this story, imo; we assume she (for example) would have been against such subsistence-level lifestyle, but I'm not sure I agree; she's often accused of glorifying wealth, when in fact what she glorifies is excellence (generally excellence at a trade). Closer examination of these migration-oriented cultures would reveal a true excellence of trade--understanding weather patterns, animal habits, using the available resources to the best one's knowledge and ability. Unfortunately, though, she (imo) had an over-fondness for the idea of "bending" the earth to one's will; as if somehow digging holes and piling up earth were inherently more excellent than leaving the earth in place and becoming knowledgeable about the medicines that grow in it.

It is unfortunately often the case that one culture looks at another and presumes it to be somehow lesser than the one looking.

I think Buddhism and Objectivism do share certain ethics - for example the emphasis on taking personal responsibility as opposed to relying on someone else.

As the Dark Buddhism site mentions, Ayn Rand rejected mysticism - but in fact Buddhism at its core is anything but mysticism, and in fact emphasizes the importance of one's own experience and reason as opposed to accepting ill-defined, mystical lore.

I disagree with Dark Buddhism's author's statement that:

"One of the logical flaws of traditional Buddhism is that it denies the existence, or importance of [happiness in one's accomplishments...happiness in the arms of your lover, and....happiness when you get recognition at work for a job well done.]"

My teachers, on the contrary, have said it's perfectly natural and right to feel happiness in such things; however it's important to realize the nature of all experiences, happy or not happy, and that includes the fact that they are impermanent. Impermanent does not mean worthless or nonexistent, just impermanent.

Overall I found the Dark Buddhism site's opening page to be a jumble of interesting concepts as well as things I strongly disagree with, lol. But it does open paths to interesting conversations.

ThePensum

Hello (it's been a while) -

Just having the lay-person's understanding of Ayn Rand, (and a lay-person's understanding of Buddhism for that matter) I would say its difficult to reconcile with Buddhism.

Rand focuses on materialist values, almost a survival of the fittest concept. While for me Buddhism definitely encourages one to strive for the best, I think its idea of compassion for others and letting go of craving don't really suit Rand.

Indeed, Rand for me has as a fundamental tenent of suffering and misunderstood genius industrial-tycoons, who desire greatness and to create greatness and to push mankind forward; there's nothing wrong with that per se, but for the fact that that greatness comes at a price of suffering, craving, "I"-ness, and a distinction between us and them (capital and labor for instance).

Sile

I agree it's very easy to see her message as an emphasis on "I"-ness, though I think actually the emphasis is on the excellence of the creation, not the excellence of the creator. I.e. man is born to create, and must create, and anything that tries to suppress that or dumb it down is inherently anti-human. I could be wrong, and maybe she really is just portraying selfish people obsessed with their own creations; but I know someone in real life who shares this intense belief that man is born to create, and even though many mistake him for being self-focused, I feel he is actually focused on the idea of creation as a sort of sacred human endeavor.

I notice, for example, that there seems to be a reverence in Rand's works for anonymous creators -- even the little bellboy (was it a bellboy, or bellhop or something?) who was doing his job excellently, however low-level a job it was; the idea being that he was a realized individual, i.e. he understood that whatever one does it has to be as excellent as possible.

Where I think she definitely diverges from Buddhist "nowness" though is her unrelenting message that things must become bigger and faster in order to be as excellent as possible, as opposed to being excellent enough as they are. She comes close to it, with the bellboy, but the underlying implication is that he will move on to bigger and better things. And of course in that respect she doesn't differ too much from the average parent, I supposed, lol.

It's hard to know whether that's just her idea of a person's creations necessarily evolving and continuing to be justified as creation, or a mistaken belief that bigger and faster is always more excellent.

BhanteLucky

The author seems to be confused about what Buddhism is... Even to the extent of getting the first noble truth wrong.
I'd stay far away from that messy mashup.

Vindalou

This sounds like the scene in A Fish Called Wanda:

Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.