Rick Bateman explores the philosophies of The Buddha and Ayn Rand, two revolutionary thinkers whose ends are the same, but whose ways and means differ dramatically.
Why on earth would a Buddhist recommend reading Ayn Rand, whose philosophy expounds the Virtue Of Selfishness, for whom thought is the only tool we possess to know reality, and who views achievement as the sole purpose of our lives? All these, and many more of Rand’s philosophical axioms, are in direct opposition with the teachings of The Buddha.
The answer is that The Buddha and Ayn Rand are the two most revolutionary thinkers I know of and both of them wanted above all for those who heard their message to be free and happy. Their ends are the same; only their ways and means vary. Both thought deeply about the same subjects and both, each in his or her own way, have constructed profound teachings.
I recommend you read Ayn Rand because more than any other author, she will make you think about what really matters: about values, virtue and integrity; about how you live your life and its impact on your own happiness and the happiness of others; about the future of our world. In this century, when the folly of our short-term thinking is becoming glaringly obvious to all, we desperately need to question our personal philosophies and the part we are playing.
If you are a Buddhist, no other books I know of will challenge your beliefs like Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. They will do so because they dig into the very same issues, and, with very persuasive logic and story, argue the opposite of The Buddha’s teachings. Rand chose to convey her philosophy via her novels rather than non-fiction works because of her views on art and romanticism. The worlds and characters of the novels are intentionally stylistic as they are not intended to reflect realistic individuals but rather to symbolize concepts.
“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness
as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity,
and reason as his only absolute.”
— Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
In case you think Ayn Rand is some obscure author who is no longer relevant, consider that sales of Atlas Shrugged exceeded half a million in 2009 and in June of 2010 it was ranked #39 on the Amazon Bestseller List. There are 35 employees who work at the Ayn Rand Institute, her theories are taught at the university level, and the Institute’s essay contest is the largest such educational competition in the United States. Atlas Shrugged is perhaps the most controversial novel in America literature.
I am somewhat qualified, in a non-academic sense, to make this recommendation. I have studied and practiced Buddhism for ten years, I teach an introductory course in historical Buddhism, facilitate a weekly Secular Buddhist practice group and maintain my own daily practice. As the years have gone by, Buddhism has gradually become the central focus of my life; everything else is increasingly being required to be supportive of and in alignment with my practice.
On the Rand side, I have read every book I could acquire by or about Ayn Rand. I have read her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged, which at over 1100 pages is one of the longest novels in English literature, six times and The Fountainhead four times. There is copious underlining in both my copies of each book. I have studied her philosophy of Objectivism in detail as well as her works on art, ethics and politics. Note: I recommend you read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead but I recommend you read Atlas Shrugged first.
I respect Ayn Rand enormously and both agree and disagree with some of her most fundamental points. For example, she holds the individual as the ultimate social unit and his or her own rational self-interest as the purpose of life. Yet humans are social animals and, like lions, wolves and killer whales, are engineered by evolution at the most basic levels to only function optimally, in both the physical and emotional senses, as a group. Secondly, individualism depends on limitless resources. However, on “spaceship earth”, a reality we are currently entering, the good of the many must outweigh the good of the few if we are to survive as a species. Such “thy brother’ keeper” thinking is antithetical to Rand’s philosophy.
How, as a Buddhist, can I embrace any part of Rand’s Objectivism? For children the world is black and white, good and bad, made up of absolutes. Adults accept that the world is rife with paradox, inconsistency and contradiction and that the answer to many questions, often the most important questions, is, “It depends.”
“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Although I have made my choice with regard to who got it right, there is a great deal to be said for Rand’s views and I am open to hearing out more than one teacher. The teachers of my younger days, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Carl Sagan etc., were the first to open my mind to seeing the world in new ways. Over time, I learned that some scientists, like Albert Einstein, embraced a spiritual view of the universe while others including Jacob Bronowski, another of my personal heroes, despised the spiritual.
“I am infinitely saddened to find myself suddenly surrounded in the west by a sense of terrible loss of nerve, a retreat from knowledge into – into what? Into Zen Buddhism; into falsely profound questions about, are we not really just animals at bottom; into extra-sensory perception and mystery. They do not lie along the line of what we are now able to know if we devote ourselves to it: an understanding of man himself.”
—Jacob Bronowski
I will not however throw the baby out with the bathwater. I still love Jacob Bronowski and agree with much of what he taught. As a Buddhist I remain open to the views of many teachers, including Ayn Rand. I find they often bring new insights to aspects of my Buddhist practice and generally they only help to clarify and deepen my own convictions regarding my chosen path.
If you are a Buddhist, Rand’s novels will challenge your beliefs in a positive way by presenting cogent and appealing arguments. Her novels address the most central issue of Buddhism and perhaps of life itself: what is happiness and what is the way to happiness?
Photo Credits
Ayn Rand, Author and philosopher Ayn Rand. Photograph: Hulton Archive/New York Times Co./Getty
Atlas Shugged, courtesy of Wikipedia
I had no idea that Atlas Shrugged is still so popular. I’m studying Ayn Rand right now in class. I’d love to reach out to an Ayn Rand scholar.
I love Ayn Rands philosophy. People should be free to do as they like as long as it doesn’t infringe on other’s rights. The US was based on this idea, but it’s getting further and further away. Orwell’s 1984 is actually happening now. I hope the trend reverses soon. Ayn’s book “Capitalism the Unknown Ideal” is one of my favorites, but they’re all great. My takeaway is that government has two jobs and only two. 1. Defense so that other countries don’t force their way on us, and 2. To protect us from each other with a strong police force. I would add that some environmental controls are necessary so that large corporate interests can’t pollute, which hurts other people. I feel that many Buddhists are left leaning politically, and see that as a huge mistake. Communist China is the antithesis of freedom and that is the way the Left is headed. They try to destroy Buddhism and free thinking.
What an astonishing comparison. Not in a good way.
Indeed. The comparison is not fair because Rand’s Objectivism is way more applicable in our time. Buddha did not had our views on social living (of course, it was almost 2500 years ago) and the human ambition were just prejudice to the people in their time. But today, because of science, we found a way for dealing with the unpredictability of nature and everyone has a chance to contribute.
I read Ayn Rand’s books nearly 50 years ago, and they influenced me greatly throughout my life. The main concepts I took from her were taking responsibility for one’s self, one’s actions and thoughts, being aware and honest as to one’s motivations either stemming from pure ego and selfishness, or for a higher altruistic purpose. The main thing I got was that my integrity was my most prized possession, that if I could not respect myself, then nor could anyone else.
Sadly, it seems that integrity is not of value to many of today’s politicians, those who have the welfare of our communities and countries in their hands. Self-interest, lying and stealing perpetrated by some leaders, once exposed, is quickly forgotten by the media and seemingly by many in the electorate too, and life goes on.
I lean towards spiritualism, I believe that I am spirit having a physical human experience, that as a soul, am evolving and on a path to rejoin the source. From what I remember of Ayn Rand’s writings, I can see no conflict with what I believe.
My 2 cents… (not a buddhist yet…)
Ayn Rand values = Why (Purpose-Happiness) + What (Reason-tool of knowledge) + How (Self esteem-mind is competent)
Gautam Buddha values = Why (Pradnyan-Higher Knowledge) + What (Sila-Wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome) + How (Samadhi-Excercise, memory & concentration)
Both suggest “life is worth living”
(http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/reason.html)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism)
I don’t have time to respond to this article fully but I want to say as someone deeply interested in rational applations of Buddhism, I have to completely, 100% disagree with your assertion that the Buddha (if there was such a person) had the same “ends” as Ayn Rand. I think you are grasping at straws here..Both were presumably humans, with some intellectual ability, and considerable influence. Other than that, I’m not making the connections. Objectivism is completely amoral, abhorrent and the consequences (karma) of adopting such a philosophy are evident now in much of our political and economic realities. It is a disgusting philosophy which favors the “strong” over the “weak” and gives a pass to anyone who wants to act with narrow sighted self interest (greed). Buddhism is about reducing human suffering and increasing well being. Please go back to the drawing board, and please please, reconsider your current world view.
I study Ayn Rand and I am studying Buddhism. Why can’t you compare the two? Why can’t you see how they would fit together in one’s life? I don’t believe in following any one teacher blindly and completely. You must find what makes you the best human you can be. For me, studying Ayn Rand and Buddhism while believing in a Higher Power makes me a better human.
Joke is in the fact that Rand justify “egoism”, but Buddhism states more or less that ego is an illusion, it doesn’t exist as a real thing, justifying illusion is neither evil nor wrong, it’s just plain stupid, it’s like going to 3D movie and trying to catch all those things coming out of the screen.
I seriously recommend “The Way of Zen” by Alan W. Watts, great book but requires some time to fully comprehend.
I have been in avid student of Buddhism for nearly 50 years. I just discovered Ayn Rand last year, and am most impressed with her work, particularly “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.? I have also read or listened to “The Fountainhead,” “Atlas Shrugged,” and most of her books on philosophy. I find her in accordance with Buddhism in practice, i.e., we are are a result of our own thoughts and actions, and must not judge others on anything other than their virtues, not their heritage, race, or any other characteristic out of their control. Both Buddhism and Ayn Rand deal logically with the visible universe. Logic is what drew me to Buddhism. Budhism is atheistic, as is Rand. A creator god is not logical, at least not to me. As much as I see Ayn Rand perfectly logical in every respect except for how we got here, Buddha, who refused to answer the question specifically, nonetheless, gave a good logical explanation of that.
Where I see Ayn Rand dropping the ball, is in her belief that it all ends at death. Buddha taught that there is no soul in reality. That what we perceive as a self is the 5 schycoscematic constituants: form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. Just like the parts of a car; engine, wheels, battery, etc. each indificually to not make a car, the same goes with the illusion of a soul. When one dies, form rots away while the other parts start the process of creating a new body. I’m in complete disagreement with Ayn regarding abortion, and believe that if she’d thought about it long enough, she’s come to the conclusion that there is consciousness at the time of conception. For me, this is due to my believe that highly competent practioners can remember, but it’s also logical to me, as it’s impossible that anything comes into bing by chance. It appears that Ayn, despite her philosophy of causation, did not want to consider the cause of human, or any other existence. To me, the only explanation that makes sense, is that this world it a lot like a dream. We believe everything is real when we’re dreaming. Diamonds cut glass in a dream, and if you dream about using an electron microscope to look at atoms and molecules, then they all appear to be real. We can discuss in the dream about carbon testing of dinasour bones, but when we wake up, where did it all go. In Buddhism there is relative reality and absolute reality. Ayn got relative reality down pat, but did not consider absolute reality, probably because it is difficult to prove without a lifetime decoded to perfecting the mind through meditiation.
Most important: Ayn Rands political philosophy is most important, and as she says: is the only truly moral philosophy. I highly recommend “Capitalism: The unknown Ideal.” If we don’t have individual freedoms, we may not have the opportunity to practice Buddhism.
I think the story of Ayn Rand is tragic. She was intelligent and a certain literary talent. Her attempt at defending individual rights on the whole is disappointing. She gives us a hero in Roark the architect – creative, generous, and cheerfully indifferent to the mud-slinging of small minds, and then turns him into something petty and vindictive. I would say that a person of goodwill who reads her pro-selfish creed can get useful insights, but I fear that it has also corrupted impressionable minds.
Did Rand find happiness?
Hi Rick
Interesting post. I found this on a Google search about Ayn Rand whom I have only just discovered. I still know too little about her and her ideas to form a judgement although I am currently reading Anthem and enjoying it. I have ordered Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness and am reading all I can find about her online.
I studied Buddhism for several years and share your fascination with the similarities between the two. Buddhism is completely self-interested because only through examining our inner selves, through meditation, can we find the nature of reality. Buddhism urges us not to take anything on faith, as Rand does. What is interesting is those who oppose her ideas also dismiss anyone who seeks to approach them with an open mind.
Nathan. Can you provide a source that shows that Buddhist doctrines were used to justify killings? The state religion of Japan was Shinto during the period you mention. The conflict in Sri Lanka was about ethnicity and language.Can you quote me anyone in Sri Lanka arguing that people of inferior religions are to be killed?
But the point was violence over doctrine. Christians have killed Christian. Muslims have killed other muslims. I am not aware of any war between Mahayana and Hinayana.
George said “I believe Buddhism is the only major world religion with no history of murdering and torturing its own and others over doctrinal issue.” Nope. Dead wrong. Japanese Buddhists during the 19th and 20th centuries used the doctrine of emptiness to justify plenty of killing. Some Sri Lankan Buddhists spent much of the last 30 years thinking that Buddhism is superior to every other path, and used that view to justify suppression and murder opposition groups. Those are just two more recent examples.
Also, Buddhist practice includes human reason, respects human reason, but ultimately moves us beyond human reason. Or maybe it’s more appropriate to say that practice places reason back in it’s place as one of our tools for understanding life, but not the only one.
Finally, I agree with Ahmed that Rand is not a revolutionary thinker. Her writing mostly falls apart. I think she’s more interesting to consider as an emblem of how general American culture is. How self-centeredness, individualistim, and materialism are privileged above all else.
At first I thought that this was a joke but then I looked at the calendar and April 1st is actually a couple of months away.
“Why on earth would a Buddhist recommend reading Ayn Rand ——.” More to the point, why would anyone recommend reading Ayn Rand? When I was going to university she was quite popular among the freshmen but as I recall the fascination with her writings pretty well disappeared by the sophomore year through picking her apart in innumerable late night bull sessions. As a result, I have pretty well cast my lot in with those who “dismiss Rand as a shallow thinker appealing only to adolescents”.
“The Buddha and Ayn Rand are two of the most revolutionary thinkers I know of —–.” If you really think that Ayn Rand was a revolutionary thinker then it only shows that you have not done much reading in philosophy. I would suggest an evening course at your nearest community college.
You say that she has “constructed profound teachings”; you could have provided us with at least a couple of examples, could you not? But then, I am supposing that profundity like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
You seem to be sitting on the fence, as it were. Which of her “profound teachings” do you actually agree with and which ones do you not? “Adults accept that the world is rife with paradox, inconsistency and contradiction and that the answer to many questions, often the most important questions, is, ‘it depends’ “. I think that she would have been the first in line to condemn this kind of evasiveness and equivocation. After all the very concept of “objectivism” implies a sort of absolutism, does it not? Maybe a further missive on your part would be in order.
You assert that; “——– sales of Atlas Shrugged exceeded half a million in 2009 ——“. This has nothing to do with the validity of its content. You might be aware that the Bible has probably sold more copies than any other book in history but this still does not mean that the world was created in six days beginning on Oct. 23, 4004 B.C., would you not agree? Speaking for myself, you could not convince me that there was a talking snake in the garden of Eden or indeed that there even was such a place as Eden, no matter how many copies of the Bible you might print and sell. To belabor the point, Hitler sold a lot of copies of Mein Kampf. There was a time when there must have been a copy in every German home but this still would not mean that the content of the book had any kind of legitimacy. Solely following the herd is a poor way to make a judgment about the validity of anything, would you not think?
In recommending Rand’s work you seem to have cast your lot in with the likes of Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbough, and Glen Beck which, I think, says a lot.
Ahmed
Thanks, Ahmed, for the long version of my reaction.. Just want to add that she didn’t have a literary bone in her body.
Thanks Ahmed,
I wish I had read your argument before I wrote my own, because then I might have practiced noble silence.
C
I think that Buddhism IS all about rational self interest. Buddhists realize that it is rational and in their interest of human beings in general to let go of fanaticism, hatred, greed, avarice and other destructive human emotions. Goals and material gain become “preferences” and not of huge consequences should they not manifest despite your best efforts. Nevertheless it is not an ascetic religion which denies the pleasures and benefits of life.
I believe Buddhism is the only major world religion with no history of murdering and torturing its own and others over doctrinal issue. I am not a Buddhist myself, though I’ve studied the teaachings, and believe that crime, warfare and terrorism would no longer exist if everyone practiced its tenets.
That sounds like rational self interest to me…
Well said George. Thank you.
Revised
Yes, this is how Buddhism appears to many at first glance. In fact, this is how the meditations and practices first translate for many Buddhist practitioners, as obsessive self-interest, craving, to get “enlightened”; or at least “liberated” from disturbing emotions. One must honestly begin where one is. Awareness becoming aware of it-self, is there anything more “selfish”?
And yet, here we are. Entering the heart of the paradox.
How can such extreme “self” interest be useful to the masses? Or, in other words, how can extreme self-interest, in fact, be some of the most selfless acts? (Rand’s argument) Climbing the highest mountains, discovering space, architectural masterpieces, studying the nanosphere, studying light and electromagnetism, or meditating on the mind and becoming aware of the transformation of disturbing emotions into virtuous wisdom. Each of these great achievements is the accomplishment of “selfish” experts. And yet through the Buddhist canon, we have accounts of transcending the level of relative awareness into the absolute. Whatever that is. And since, even in Buddhism, so few make this leap, there are not many who can talk about it intelligently. In this confusion, between the relative and the absolute, Rand’s philosophies become palatable, entertaining and appealing to some. Nobody knows what the “absolute” level of experience truly is, so why not equate it with Reason? In doing this, Rand’s philosophy takes the relative and makes it absolute. Pure objectivism or pure materialism; better yet, why not create a philosophy that forges, capitalism, selfishness, objectivity and reason. And anything done in this vein we will label, ‘virtuous’. Sounds very Zen, doesn’t it? If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha, because the Buddha cannot exist outside of your”self”. So I’m not surprised that a Zen practitioner is comparing Rand to Buddha. Thank God there are levels of Buddhism beyond relative Zen (pun intended).
A huge difference between the Buddha and Ayn Rand, is that the Buddha wasn’t trying to “create” the ultimate philosophy for materialists. The Buddha never equated reason with the absolute. The Buddha was trying to put an end to human suffering. Ayn Rand, on the other hand, was busy selling her ideas to anyone who would listen to her, namely Cecil B. De Mille, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan. I bet even they were shocked that someone was willing to eliminate moral ethics and in honor of Self- interest, Reason, Capitalism and Objective Reality. Let’s create the ultimate human materialists. This was her usefulness for these men. And yes they were all men. Greed, in any selfish direction, is good. Remember? Who will ever forget the great Alan Greenspan, a huge Rand follower, having to publicly announce that, ” I WAS WRONG”, when talking about rampant capitalist greed, sick, corporate self interest and the lie that laissez-faire, government is the best and that the “market” will “always” correct itself from self destructive collapse. How timely. Comparing Rand to Buddha may make fun headlines and interesting arguments, but at to end of the day Rand didn’t even make it past three generations, before she was shown to be what she really was, a brilliant, selfish, Russian immigrant who reacted against “communistic altruism”, with a vengeance. Whose opportunistic, objectivist (aka materialist) theories gave the 1950’s Capitalist man exactly what he wanted, a philosophical morphine, for being a greedy selfish bastard. “Every man for himself”, ‘free yourself from Judeo-Christian ethics’, ‘don’t become a sacrificial animal’ – these were Rand slogans. She disagreed with traditional morality and ethics and decided to create her own system of belief. This strategy sounds more like Enron’s plan for changing to, ’mark to market’ accounting, for inflated profits, than it does for a way to advance humanity or to put an end to suffering. If moral ethics, and honesty are getting in the way, get rid of them, and rewrite the definition of ‘virtuous’ in the process. Rand’s objectivist philosophy makes George W. Bush, one of the most ‘virtuous’ presidents we’ve ever had. Sorry this no longer sounds palatable, even on a relative level. So I now have to quote Jack Nicholson and tell you to “Go sell crazy somewhere else, we are all stocked up here”. And as a Buddhist, I have to ask, is this comparison truly helpful?
C
Another huge difference between Ayn Rand and the Buddha is that Rand was a devout atheist. Ironically, atheism is in fact a dogmatic religion. Atheists believe there is no God. But there is no proof for this argument. This leaves the atheist with an unproven dogmatic belief that there is no God. Ayn Rand was specific about relating atheism as a matter of ‘fact’. Yet, there is no ‘fact’ that proves or disproves this argument, which relegates this belief back to a pure faith and a dogmatic ‘religious’ view.
The Buddha himself rejected metaphysical speculation as a matter of principle, and his teachings focused entirely on the practical ways to end suffering.
The famous story of a Hindu man who asked the Buddha, “ Is there a God?” In which case the Buddha answered, ‘you are asking the wrong question’. Incredulously dismayed the man asked, ‘how can that be the wrong question, what is more important than God’? And the Buddha’s famous answer was more or less, ‘you are like a man who has been shot by a poisoned arrow. You are suffering right now. You are dying right now. And the only questions you are asking are, why me, who shot me, instead of, simply pulling the poisoned arrow out and healing yourself’.
Craig Kindel
MR. CRAIGE KINDEL,
Thanks a lot for rightly pointing out ‘Why Compare Buddha and Rand?’. There is no point in comparing them. Buddha was a practical person who did his work without hating the opponents to his views.