virus: The Fall of Buddhism and the Rise of...

David Rosdeitcher (
07 Mar 97 15:56:49 EST

The following is a case of a "mirror image". Both me and James see each other as
being honestly mistaken.

James Wright wrote:
>I did not intend to verbally smack David or anyone else. Flame wars are
>boring by nature, and David is not malicious, dishonest or a negative
>person. I posted to correct his perceptions on Buddhism, and I hope I did
>not offend him by doing so.

Before reading this e-mail, I began to write a post that looks like this:

> I was actually not accusing James of being a dishonest manipulator, nor was I
just trying to be >annoying by using someone as a "bad example" (which I might
sometimes do, nyah, nyah). I was >referring to the people who wrote the Zen
texts. I don't see anything dishonest or manipulative about >James' posts--it's
more like a case of someone honestly holding bad ideas.

Now that it's been established that we're "nice people but wrong" I'd like to
proceed with putting an end to the hoax of Buddhism and explain why Objectivism
will take over planet Earth.

There has been a discussion about the following questions:1) Is Objectivism is
the only valid philosophy for determining objective reality? and 2) If
philosophies such as Buddhism seem to relieve suffering and even lead to higher
understanding, why would they be considered wrong?

Buddhism is a form of pragmatism. Pragmatism is an ideology that "comes to
grips" with certain apparent human limitations, and does "what works" within
those limitations. For instance, once Tad gave an example of how people in
Communist Poland didn't believe in Communism, but joined the Communist Party
because they thought that "I don't aggree with communists, but in
order to do something 'good' I have to be with them, as they are in power,
otherwise I am nobody and I can be eaten by others and not able to do
anything 'good' anyway".They were compromising honesty in favor of "what works".
Buddhism accepts as a given that life is filled with inevitable suffering
and death. They are taking this so-called "given" and developing an ideology and
way of life that pragmatically relieves suffering and makes death easier. The
way Buddhism achieves this is by dishonestly inverting the objectivist 3rd axiom
of identity, by claiming that since everything is changing, things have no

Here are some examples:

James wrote:
>Does the image of the moon on the water in the pail have an existence?
>Should the bottom fail and the water drop out, will the image lose its
>existence? What has been lost?"
(The Western version is: "You can't step in the same river twice".)

James wrote about the Buddhist notion of the illusory self:

>Who is the "I" that is aware? Can you bring forth this "I" and show it to
>me? Do not bring your physical body as evidence. If you should lose an
>arm in an accident, is the "I" you claim awareness for diminished? By how
>much? If you cannot show me an "I" that is aware, how can you claim that
>it exists, let alone possesses awareness?"

To make things even more convincing for the Buddhists, various pragmatic
authors who want to sell stupidness to the public support the notion of illusory
reality with "contradictions" like "light is both a wave and a particle" or
"an atomic particles' position and momentum cannot be measured simultaneously"(
Heisenberg uncertainty principle).
These clever notions suggest that nothing, including the 'self' really
exists and that the world of duality between self and non-self is an illusion.
This "illusion", according to some Buddhists, can be transcended through various
teachings and methods such as practicing meditation or postures with an
experienced "master". The notions of transcending duality are taken beyond the
confines of the 'dojo' (practice hall or monastery) and into daily life as
Buddhists perform many acts of selflessness such as charity. Before going
further, what is wrong with this picture?
The 'law of identity' which is implicit in any statement or action by
anyone, including a Buddhist (even Tim who changes his opinions between
words)states that, that which exists, exists as something and has a specific
nature. For instance, at any given moment, there is a nature of the light from
the moon and a definite relationship between that light to the water in a pail.
And, a river changes from moment to moment, but at any given moment has a
definite nature. (So much for "A is not A" introduced by Heraclitus before
Gautama, the Buddha)
What about that idea about the self being illusory? The 'self' is real and
has been described, accurately or not, in different ways such as an effect of a
'brain organization that generates metaphors such as 'I' ' or an
'electrochemical potential', sort of like a continuous fire. The 'self' or 'I',
like everything else,has a specific nature, but some aspects of this nature are
not yet known. This is a case of having metaphysical certainty, but not
epistemological certainty--certainty that a nature exists but uncertainty of
what that nature exactly is. Other examples of this non-contradictory phenomenon
are: 1) An exact nature of light exists, which is not known, but can be viewed
as either a wave or a particle depending on the model or point of view. 2) A
particle's position and momentum cannot be measured simultaneously (directly),
yet still has a definite position and momentum.
When the brain is infected with contradictions, it has problems
integrating relevant pieces of information. For instance, Buddhism was described
by James as not being a political system. But, there are consequences to a
population of submissive Buddhists searching for a non-duality which they will
never find. Certain people catch on to the hoax and become exploitative rulers
of these submissive people. The Buddhists are all too happy to have a leader,
since they are in a confused "koan-ridden" state of mind and are looking for
guidance. The parasitical monasteries are often soul-mates of big oppressive
The philosophy of objectivism holds that such Buddhist pragmatism of denying
reality to do what "works", is not only dishonest, but does not really work.
Both Buddhism and Objectivism have in common the notion that initiating violence
against someone is evil. But, Buddhism's regard for life is a respect for the
cycle of life and death, while objectivism's regard for life has to do with a
macho taking over and controlling life for an individual's sake. So, what
follows from objectivism is prolonging lives of individuals. The 'self' is real
and will not continue to exist if man lets nature take its course as the body
dies through disease and aging. Meditating, sitting in a posture, and living on
a strict diet, will not do anything to prevent disease, aging, and death.
Objectivism states that you learn by extrospection and that you can actually
*do* things like learn about the body and how to increase longevity. Various
techniques of longevity are becoming conceivable and possible, such as human
cloning, nanotechnology, etc. but the main problem with extending longevity
towards immortality is not technological but philosophical. Most people,
infected with non-Objectivist ideas like Buddhism, would say there are problems
with extending lives such as over-population or taking opportunities away from
younger people. However, objectivism will prevail in the end, because the act of
spreading ideas, like anything else, is based on objectivity.

Early followers of Rand used objectivism just for a drug-like effect of
being able to destroy any non-Objectivist in a philosophical argument. But, now
there is a life and death incentive to spread objectivism throughout the
population. It is like a Metasystems Transition Theory notion, that the overall
energy or quality of the society is determined by the dominant ideas held by the
population in general. To show an example of how objectivist memes will beat out
all others, let's compare objectivist memes with Buddhist memes and see which
ones you like better.

Some Buddhist memes that are popular and used by Buddhist related movements such
as liberalism are:
'don't increase your possessions, decrease your desires', 'dissolve your ego',
'the sound of one hand clapping', 'become one with the universe', 'relieve human
suffering', 'the 'self' is an illusion' 'transcend this duality', 'Zen and the
Art of Motorcycle Maintenance', 'there is nothing hidden in the closed hand of
the teacher', 'don't learn how to live, learn how to die', 'profound benefits
are achieved by sitting in zazen', 'everything is temporary', 'live simply so
others may simply live', etc.

These are all good memes which catch on through people's altruistic tendencies,
but, they don't compare with the memes of--

Neo-Tech--an improved and corrected version of Rand's philosophy that is being
disseminated all over the world in many languages. If one were to go to a search
engine and look up Neo-Tech, the following highly effective objectivist memes
might be seen:

>Surf the Neo-Tech Matrix
>Your Ride to Prosperity
> New Matrix Search:
> Matrix Search results for: Zon
> 83 matching sections were found. Here are the first 50 matches:
> 1. Zon! Ruler of Universes::Zon! Ruler of Universes
> Zon was his name. Was he born or created? Did he have a
> childhood -- a past? He was first perceived as a man on
> Earth in 1976 -- disguised as a quiet, Clark-Kentish man
> with no outstanding features or obvious powers. Recently
> discovered documents revealed his past as an ever changing
> array of entities, ranging from a crucified political
> prisoner to an eternal Illuminati with vision beyond all
> others on Earth. Because of his changing auras, no one had
> directly ...
> 2. The Bible Decoded::THE BIBLE DECODED
> Zon Association The First Three Chapters of the Bible
> Decoded ...
> 3. Zonpower::You Control Existence
> You are Zon Zon is a citizen of all universes. How would a
> citizen of Earth recognize Zon? How would Zon appear? How
> would Zon think? What would Zon do?
> Zon is the controller of existence. Zon is the past and
> future creator of all universes. Zon is identical to you,
> except he or she acts ...

Which memes do you like better, Buddhist or Objectivist? I'd like to continue
this discussion but my legs are getting tired in this lotus posture. Time for a
bowl of rice.....krispies.