Freedomain Radio

I feel like straight up, from-the-Pali-cannon Buddhism is very compatible with libertarian and voluntaryist ideals. It highlights the individual, encourages the pursuit of knowledge, and places people on the path toward personal freedom. Furthermore, it compliments these ideas because it encourages personal internal liberation that can help everybody, whereas anarcho-libertarianism only applies to external liberation from political forces.

Buddhism is such a vast field that it can't really be usefully summarised. For some it is more a philosophy of life, for others it can be quite a dogmatic religion.

Many of the central ideas seem to be dogma, rather than based on observable facts, reason and logic, yet at the same time it claims to be non-dogmatic and allow for personal interpretation.

However, I do get what you are saying with the similarities you highlight.

The question is - should we consider everything on that vast field as buddhism? Truth is that buddhism in west became popular in the second half of the 20th century. From its beginnings in India and through more than 2000 years of expansion to China and later Japan it was really a dogmatic religion. Indeed it evolved into many different forms, but there was no room for such loose interpretation that came from people who discovered buddhism for our west civilization. But because they were interested only in some aspects of buddhism, we have today so much confusion about it. If we could take from christianity some aspects like New Testament's commandment to love each other and that christians forbid killing and stealing, we could say that what comes from it looks like it's also very compatible with libertarian and voluntaryist ideals. But that's not enought to be considered a christian, right? You need to blindly belive in so many irrational things, you have to go to church to participate in irrational activities, etc. so at the moment when you can consider yourself as christian, you're no longer freedom loving libertarian at all. Although there were academic researchers of buddhism even in 19th century, it wasn't till 1960s (70s and 80s in Europe) that buddhism became popular. But those who were looking for an alternative in their spiritual life were already disappointed with dogmatic religions (christianity), so naturally, what they took from buddhism was only that part that allowed them to express their "spiritual freedom" (btw, it's quite sad to be that close to rationality and truth and to choose just a different "lie", isn't it?). That is why in our culture buddhism is such a vast term that two people stating totally different things consider themselves as buddhists. But for me it's the same situation like with the example I gave above - if you don't really belive in karma and 'wandering of soul' (my own translation, sorry - maybe it's callend differently in english), if thinking about nirvana is just an intelectual play for you, you shoudn't consider yourself buddhist. But at the moment when you can finally consider yourself as buddhist, you're no longer close to libertarian and voluntaryist ideals.

I would also like to add, that I totally disagree with the statement that: "anarcho-libertarianism only applies to external liberation from political forces". For me - thanks to Stefan's podcasts - anarcho-libertarianism is mostly about my personal, internal freedom, and free society is just a natural effect of it.

Stoyan, that was awesome

[Edit] - just wanted to add that there are people who pick-and-choose with Christianity and they'll classify themselves as "unitarian" or "spiritual but not religious" or some sort of "Christianity Lite," but their picking-and-choosing has nothing to do with objective values or philosophy because they cannot back up their beliefs with reason and evidence.

JamesP:

Stoyan, that was awesome

+1, from an ex-buddhist.

Buddhism has become synonymous with being happy and peaceful in the West.  I prefer to just be happy and peaceful, minus the hokus pokus.

stoyan:

The question is - should we consider everything on that vast field as buddhism?

Theravada is apparantly the oldest school of Buddhism and this is what wikipedia says about it:

Theravada promotes the concept of Vibhajjavada (Pali), literally "Teaching of Analysis." This doctrine says that insight must come from the aspirant's experience, critical investigation, and reasoning instead of by blind faith; however, the scriptures of the Theravadan tradition also emphasize heeding the advice of the wise, considering such advice and evaluation of one's own experiences to be the two tests by which practices should be judged.

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

Of course the originators didn't have the same exposure to Western scientific thought, but the parallel in principles is obvious. Coming to ones own conclusions based on looking at the evidence has always been a principle in Buddhism. This teaching was also brought up on in the Kung Fu TV series BTW.

stoyan:

Truth is that buddhism in west became popular in the second half of the 20th century. From its beginnings in India and through more than 2000 years of expansion to China and later Japan it was really a dogmatic religion.

Please see the citation above. Dogmatism is a form of attachment or craving and as such cannot be a part of Buddhism. If people engage in dogmatism and blind faith, and call themselves Buddhists they are simply dilluded.

I'll grant you that Buddhists have irrational beliefs, but then so did early Western scientists with their ideas about "ether". That doesn't invalidate Western scientific principles though.

stoyan:

Indeed it evolved into many different forms, but there was no room for such loose interpretation that came from people who discovered buddhism for our west civilization.

With reference to above citation, what exactly is a loose interpretation of Buddhism? Do you believe that the early Buddhists had no idea that their present knowledge might be wrong and subject to change through later learnings?

The Kalama Sutta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html) is another ancient Buddhist text, and is the source of this rather popular quote:

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

It paints a pretty clear picture of a non-dogmatic philosophy.

stoyan:

That is why in our culture buddhism is such a vast term that two people stating totally different things consider themselves as buddhists. But for me it's the same situation like with the example I gave above - if you don't really belive in karma and 'wandering of soul' (my own translation, sorry - maybe it's callend differently in english), if thinking about nirvana is just an intelectual play for you, you shoudn't consider yourself buddhist.

You seem to have an idea that there is some criteria for validating whether a person is truly Buddhist based on accepting some ancient beliefs. Yet ancient Buddhist texts, which I have cited above, clearly say that traditions and the teachings of others are not to be taken at face value.

No doubt, as with other religions, Buddhism has had to adapt and bolt on to local superstitions and build on the limited knowledge and beliefs of the time. But that doesn't change the fundamental principles I have identified here.

SimonF:

I'll grant you that Buddhists have irrational beliefs, but then so did early Western scientists with their ideas about "ether". That doesn't invalidate Western scientific principles though.

Ether was a reasonable hypothesis at the time, it was not an irrational belief.

I do agree that we can say that buddhism is considered by many as a vast spectrum of ideas, beliefs, concepts etc. What I'm trying to defend is my opinion, that this approach is wrong. Wrong, because it makes difficult to discuss about the subject. If one is stretching the meaning of word 'buddhism' (or anything else) to the point where it can mean many different things, how can we really know what we are talking about? So can we assume that what we should call buddhism are all ideas, beliefs and concepts that have origin in Buddha's teachings but also that they should share some similarity with his words? I do agree that there is no clear line that can divide what belongs to buddhism and what doesn't, but at least that can give us some guidelines. According to them, we can be sure that zen is a form of buddhism as well as mentioned theravada, and yet my friend, who recently discovered buddhism and does not know much about Buddha, didn't change her way of living, her habits, views karma as something like experince points in rpg game and treats meditation like a yoga class - should not be called buddhist at all (and her view could be called very loose interpretation of buddhism).

Now, I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I see many similarities between Buddha and Jesus Christ. Both had followers and they initiated movements that quickly became religions. One was considered as a enlighted being, the other as a son of god - yet in their words they lacked integrity and had strange tendency to believe many superstitions and myths popular in theit times (shouldn't they be above them?). For Buddha a good example could be his relation to women - he didn't like the idea of women followers (he agreed eventually but gave them much more strict rules than for men) and he thought that they should focus on becoming a men in next life first (source - 'Buddha - Die Wege des Erleuchteten' by Helmut Uhlig, 1994). Boddha's as well as Jesus' philosophies and teachings laid the grounds for religions - that were organized and dogmatic. What I think is important to observe about any religion is that the actual teachings, 'words of wisdom' usually sound great and beatiful, but it has not much to do with reality of the organization. Let's look at Pali doctrine and concept of relying on own experinces. Sounds great! But according to the linked article, Theravada originated from Sthaviravada, other old school of buddhism in the times of Third Buddhist council (250BC) which was convened "to rid the Sangha of corruption and bogus monks who held heretical views" and "to ensure the Dhamma was kept pure". I can't see that much of philosophical freedom in this, can you?

And this goes on and on for centuries - they have holy books, teachers who know better, they build monasteries, go along with monarchs, they even go as far as to constitute buddhism as national religion and enjoy theocracy (vide buddhism in Tibet). Zen buddhists in Japan consider themselves as those who got Buddha's ideas very clearly, yet during 2nd world war their most esteemed teachers were able to convince their followers that (!) war and killing Chinese people is a good thing! ('Zen at War' - Brian Daizen Victoria, 1997) So yes, maybe in "theory" there is a room for personal experince and research, but in practice there are some concepts (like reincarnation, heaven and hell) that you can't debate or discuss. So yes, for more than 2000 years buddhism was a dogmatic religion. Maybe not to the degree like we see it in christianity, but it doesn't mean we can call it free from dogma in my opinion.

Let me repeat that again - today buddhism is considered by many as a vast spectrum of ideas, beliefs, concepts (especially by our west culture). But my point is that half of the Asia for 2k years did not share the same definition for 'buddhism'. So we can't just ignore that. Especially if we look into the reasons for such 'skewed' view in our eyes. I think it was Kappleu in 'Three Pillars of Zen' who wrote about why in 19th and 20th century academic researchers were interested in buddhism. Not because they were convinced that it could be really possible that we all are born again and again untill we can finally achieve nirvana or that they were looking for evidence where exactly heaven and hell are located. What was interesting for them were ascpects of buddhism that were similar to discoveries of our sience - in our psychology for example (ego, true self) or physics (quantum theory). For all these people who were (and are) disappointed by christianity, those were very interesting findings: "Yeah, looks like what our priests say about reality is not even close to the true, but hey, those monks in China and/or Japan, they say same things (at least it looks like) as our scientists. Maybe we don't have to throw away that spiritual irrational bullsh*t we believe in, we just have to pick a different one". I know I'm a little sarcastic here, but I really belive that was the spark that started the fire. So they stripped buddhism from things they didn't like and brought it to west culture - but as an intellectual play, not as a religion. Then people got hooked (can I say that? sorry me english bad), and discovered another 'magnet' - that buddhism offers a path, a way to spiritual enlightment in your own life, by your own experience. That's something really great in comparison to christianity ("wait till you die, and then you'll see we were right"). And I have to admit - it worked for me and pushed me toward buddhism. So the second wave of popularity was created by people who found in buddhism a way to spiritual development that is not restricted by some rules, so they can negotiate with dogma, follow their own experiences. And again - they had to strip anything that was against this ideal view. And then there was a third wave, when people were seeking "truth" from the source, so religious centers in Asia were accepting them as novices in their temples, so they could bring buddhism as religion to our culture. And they were sending their own teachers. Those three different views mixed with themselves and thats why - I believe - today there is so many different views on buddhism.

But I would like to focus on that personal development aspect, that SimonF considers similar to libertarian ideas. The way to discover the truth in buddism is a way through practice. Practice of meditiation, practice of zazen etc. Theravada says: "insight must come from the aspirant's experience, critical investigation, and reasoning instead of by blind faith". Key thing is that this experience, reason you can use in relation to your practice - not to the reality. In other words - you're free to rely on your experince regarding the practice, but it doesn't mean that by using the same principles outside the practice, you can still discover truth. So when by using logic, senses and reason you say that you don't remember your previous life and that proves there is no reincarnation, buddhists say: you're wrong cause you live in a illusion. But when you're meditating and suddenly have a real feeling, that you were a Russian soldier in WW2 fighting at Siege of Leningrad - then you're right and no one can argue that in fact you were a German.

But this way to serach for truth have some (obvious) flaws. Buddhist's practices are similar to those in other religions. Except some minor changes, buddhist monks are in many ways following the same path as catholic monks. They just have different names for similar procedures. And there was no single catholic monk, that during his stay in solitude or during long prayers suddenly discovered that true nature of reality is that we need to reborn again. How is that possible? Well, because there is no room for reason, logic when you're trying to discover truth about something not by researching it, but by looking for answer in some state of your own mind! So, in the absence of some kind of dogma, people tend to find ridicoulus answers (vide hundreds of strange sects that are based on practises like meditation, reading dreams, astral journeys etc) and that is why dogma is preferred by majority - so in case of some strange experinces during 8 hour of sitting in zazen, you will know how to interpret it correctly.

That is why I don't see parrarel principles and I don't belive Buddhism is very compatible with libertarian and voluntaryist ideals.

PS: Sorry, I guess it's way too long to read, but I tried to explain my views, reply as good as I can and it looks like I've lost control. Sorry for mistakes in english, im Polish and have to polish my english ;)

I enjoyed reading the responses. Anyone who wrote more than one sentence taught me something, so thank you.'

To clarify, the type of buddhism I meant is the kind that doesn't believe in dogma like reincarnation but emphasizes a concept of "rebirth" ~ i.e. you are always changing; your brain chemistry is changing just by reading this. I mean, no gods, demons, spirits...it's just the Buddhist dharma, and reason/evidence. Remember, the only 100% buddhist thing is dharma, which I define as "buddha self-help", or a method rather than a fairy tale as the sutras and other conventions outside the very strctly secular pages of the pali cannon are.

other forms of buddhism are junk to me; i will not believe in a god or demon or spirit unless someone either rewrites the dictionary, gets me hopped up on LSD (acid will get you some gods and demons!), or...well I made my point methinks. I mean: a sophisticated view of psychological transcendence via the buddhist dharma.

Spiritual wellness is important, too. I want to healthy and well-off. You know?

I like your take on Buddhism. I think you hit the nail on the head when you called the Darma a Buddha self-help. To me Buddhism is more of a way of life than an religion. As you know, theres is no one to pray to in Buddhism. The bacis teachings of Buddhism seem to go hand-in-hand with the non agression principle, universally preferable behavior, and respect for property rights. 

I suppose I practice zen buddhism. I don't consider myself a buddhist, though I do zazen every day and often go to the local "temple"(a warehouse/aikido dojo) to sit with a group. I find it to be a very useful practice. It's improved my health through my breathing and posture as well as improved my concentration. On top of this it forces you to face your own demons in a way. If you spend enough time sitting there in silence you start to notice the ways that your own anger and greed cause you suffering. In my opinion introspection of some kind is essential.

From what I've experienced zen teachings are more focused on compassion and understanding of the self than any kind of hocus pocus. Even in the chanting, the point is mainly the sound of the words. It's a practice of awareness.

While some(maybe even most, I don't know) buddhists may hold irrational beliefs about karma and reincarnation, not all do. It is not a part of the religions dogma since it has no established dogma. Even without this some of the followers certainly are dogmatic.

And karma really isn't irrational, it's just completely misunderstood. Karma is determinism, it's cause and effect. It doesn't mean if you do something good for someone someone will [in every case] do something good for you. It means if stub your toe it will hurt. It's just a way of talking about the tendancies that things have. If you act virtously people will have a tendancy to see that and appreciate it, (possibly)creating a better future for you.

Same with reincarnation. At least as I've learned about it it's not about any kind of dualism where "you", the soul, keeps coming back. It's about how different actions create different mental states.

Stoyan, what is it about Buddhism that is incompatible with voluntarism? The only thing I saw in your posts was stuff about believing in this or that. But you do not have to conform to any kind of belief structure in order to be a buddhist . There are plenty of buddhist atheists, even in places like ancient japan.

Really enjoyed this little conversation. I have a long and varied history of American "new age" upbringing, being heavily exposed to particularly Hindu and Buddhist (what I would now call) mysticism (as opposed to the formal dogmatic versions, which I also have a lot of experience around). Since becoming conscious of philosophy and freedom, I have often pondered on peoplespublic initial question: it seems like a lot of these people I grew up with should easily be swayed by the non-aggression principle and other basic points around freedom. Unfortunately, that has not been my experience when I interact with these folks (and I interact with a HUGE array of them), and I think Stoyan hit the nail on the head in explaining that:

stoyan:

Well, because there is no room for reason, logic when you're trying to discover truth about something not by researching it, but by looking for answer in some state of your own mind!

One of the most intelligent guys I know--a family friend for decades--has pretty much given his life over to the Vedas, Yoga and sanskrit scholarship. He has a very technical mind, lots of experience in the computer industry as an entrepreneur and other rational sciences and earlier in his life had a more rigorous intellectual practice outside religious works. While I still enjoy talking with him, he completely discounts any logic when it comes to the tricky areas of ethics and social organization and such and I get the friendly and humorous (though increasingly irritating) indian head wag, knowing smile and repartee akin to "There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio..." I can tell it pains him to watch me "waste" my life by trying to come to knowledge through pure reason, and I suspect he thinks (due to my family history) that I will someday leave "the world" to its devices and focus on yoga and meditation more fully. I pretty much stopped talking to him about liberty in any significant context when he couldn't agree that large national militaries may be unnecessary. 

I've pretty much written off these new age folks (the informal Buddhists we're talking about here) because of interactions like this. Even if they do acknowledge the evil of the state and the importance of the NAP, they don't carry that knowledge into the future or let it influence their lives--after all, why would they? Just as Stoyan pointed out--their determinism tells them that the world is hopeless outside of personal "enlightenment" and while my political discussions might interest them, they are sure that their evening meditation practice is infinitely more important than not voting for Obama. My experience has been that for these folks, the world is psychicly f**ked and it is pretty much a race to the divine consciousness before all hell boils over; the material world is a lost cause. I don't think these people who I once respected or enjoyed the company of realize how depressing they have become.

I think there has been some positive influences of Eastern philosophy on Western culture, and I think I was more open to a personal evolution because of this non-standard upbringing. But the further I come, the more I think that the unintended negative influences of that philosophy far outweigh the benefits.