It seems that in the above discussion there some confusion with regard to the teachings on anatta or not-self. When the Buddha was asked whether or not there was such a thing as a self, he responded by saying that such a question can’t be answered in a meaningful way because it presupposes the validity of the concept of “self.” He said that it is not really true to say there is a self. It is also inaccurate to say there is no self. Nor can you say that there is and there isn’t a self. And finally, it’s also incorrect to say there is neither a self nor a not-self.

The Buddha suggested that we reflect on what is “not self” – body, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness – as a practice to uproot the delusion inherent in thinking in terms of the self/not-self dualit, rather than making a philosophical assertion about absolute reality.

On the concept of “absolute reality” – Nowhere that I know of did the Buddha ever suggest that his teachings themselves were to be understood as Absolute Reality itself. Rather, they are skillful constructs which can provide a realiable guide to the realization of that very truth. Perhaps this appears to be a fine distinction, but it is, in my opinion, critical to understand when approaching the Buddha’s teachings. Instead of thinking about the teachings in terms of philosophy versus psychological insights, I would suggest holding them as extremely beautiful and sophisticated tools – both practical excercises and conceptual tools – that can support waking up to, or perhaps, put in another way, realizing by direct experience, that ultimate Buddha Nature which is already who and what we are. To think of Buddhism as a philosophy leads to all kinds of vexation and painful confusion.

I hope you find these comments helpful. If I’ve misunderstood the above discussion, I beg your pardon in advance.

And, I think, very well-said.

I’m happy to amplify on my thoughts.

With regard to ethics, I was indeed thinking of the Noble Eightfold Path.

For those readers who aren’t familiar with it, the Eightfold Path is basically a list of eight virtues:

1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration

I find this list quite compatible with Rand’s ethics, in which the proposed virtues include rationality, integrity, honesty, independence, productivity, and pride. To wit:

Right View speaks to the importance of understanding how the world works in a conceptually clear way. Right Intention, Speech, and Action relate to the virtues of honesty and integrity. Right Livelihood is analogous to the virtue of productivity. Right Effort can be likened to Rand’s virtue of “pride,” (which means, for Rand, “doing one’s best”), while Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration are akin to the basic Randian virtue of choosing to focus our minds in ways that are appropriate to the contexts in which we operate.

And, as with Rand, for whom virtue is a means to happiness, Buddhist virtues also have a pragmatic flavor: students are not pushed to practice virtues in order to avoid God’s punishment; rather, the virtues are recommended as strategies for living a happy and peaceful life.

On the other hand, though I think there is value in philosophic Buddhism, I would not hold up Buddhism as an optimal philosophy for our age, all things considered.

For example, I agree with you that essencelessness is often taken to mean we cannot say anything about anything in the regular world — so why even try for knowledge? … and that no-self is often taken to mean there is no self in any way shape or form — so why even try for self-actualization?

I think Buddhism’s philosophic advocacy of the Middle Way and its pragmatic this-worldliness mitigates somewhat against these away-from-the-world tendencies of Buddhism — and yet, the philosophy does not, as far as I know, have a coherent framework for understanding the real differentiated self that ~does~ exist, or for understanding the nature of conceptual knowledge and objectivity.

This is why I think any insights gained from engagement with Buddhist philosophy can be put to use most profitably in today’s world if they are integrated with modern Western psychological and philosophical understandings. These include:

1. Understandings of

-how the human organism functions as a self in relation to its environment

-how the ~sense~ of self arises developmentally and can arise in both healthy and unhealthy ways, and

-how various methods and life-strategies can lead to the most healthy flowering of the self.

For these issues, one can study Reich, Perls, Freud, Feldenkrais — and ~Branden~, whose work on self-esteem is, I think, significant in this regard, in as-yet-unrecognized ways.

2. Understandings of the nature of concepts and objectivity. This would include an understanding of objectivity as a quality of conceptual behavior that includes, essentially, an appreciation for and specification of ~context~.

For these issues, I think ~Rand~ is very significant, again in as-yet-unrecognized ways.

(I also think it it will help when someone, perhaps myself, does the work to situate Rand’s epistemological contributions in a more integral context than she did.)

Anyhow, I know that’s a lot of info.

Does it clarify my perspective in a helpful way?

Andrew

Thanks for leaving these comments. I think you do a good job of identifying some aspects of Buddhist philosophy that are indeed good.

I would be interested in hearing you elaborate more, if you’re so inclined.

For example, what aspects of Buddhist ethics do you see as “quite Randian”? Are you referring to the 5 Precepts? The 4 Noble Truths? The Noble Eightfold Path? Or all of them?

Speaking for myself, I’m reminded that Rand says somewhere (VOS, I think) that the basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is the view that every man is an end in himself.

I usually find Buddhist ethical teachings to be compatible with this principle. The one Buddhist scholar I’ve spoken with about it, however, militated against it, pointing out instead that “Buddhism says there is no self, so how can a man be an end in himself?”

I tend think there’s a basic misunderstanding, there, of what it means to be an end in oneself and what implications it has for ethics.

Also, while I find ideas such as essencelessness to be good, I usually find that the ways they’re applied in context (e.g., any knowledge other than the Buddha’s teaching is merely a relative truth) tend to be harder to swallow.

But perhaps I’m unduly influenced by Brasington’s lectures.

In any case, I think it would be valuable to explore some of the areas of Buddhist philosophy that are particularly good, and I’m grateful for your comments.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts in greater detail, if you have time.

Joshua

I appreciate some of the specific points you are making, yet I have a more favorable view of Buddhist philosophy as a whole.

When I think of Buddhist philosophy, I think of its ethics, its doctrine of no-self, and its doctrine of emptiness or “essencelessness.”

The ethics, of course, is in many ways quite Randian, and I think it does a good job of pointing out the various facets of life that we can profitably bring consciousness and effort to.

The doctrine of essencelessness also mirrors a profound and powerful Randian philosophical insight: that at a basic ontological level, there are no “essences.” (A point of view which, I think, tends to free consciousness from an arbitrary weight.)

Finally, the doctrine of no-self is, contextually understood, a provocative correlary of essencelessness in the realm of human nature, and is particularly useful if one integrates it with the insights of Western psychology.

For these reasons, I’d tend to argue that Buddhism does have something to offer at a philosophical level in addition to the level of practice.

best,
Andrew