Oriental individualism

[mind]

It's a common place that the Oriental cultures are generally based on collectivism and that their primary values are sociality and benefits of the group rather than individual freedom.

Does anybody know a place or a time in the history of Oriental philosophy when the values of individualism were shared, maybe, by a relatively small social group or a philosophical school?

It seems to me that in principle some Zen schools were inclined to the individual development, but did they care about individual freedom in the way ancient Greeks and Romans did? Hardly, I'd say. Any other ideas?

[Tenzin the Sherpa]

It's a common place that the Oriental cultures are generally based on collectivism and that their primary values are sociality and benefits of the group rather than individual freedom.

Does anybody know a place or a time in the history of Oriental philosophy when the values of individualism were shared, maybe, by a relatively small social group or a philosophical school?

It seems to me that in principle some Zen schools were inclined to the individual development, but did they care about individual freedom in the way ancient Greeks and Romans did? Hardly, I'd say. Any other ideas?

Could you be abit more specific when you used the term Oriental? I mean we are talking about a diverse range of cultures spanning thousands of square kilometres over many countries.

For your information, in Theravada Buddhism mainly practised in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos, one of the main aims of a Theravadin Buddhist is to liberate oneself from the endless cycle of birth and rebirth (Samsara) in order to attain a state of complete liberation called Nibbana(Nirvana in Sanskrit). This ofcourse is completely contradictory to the other branch of Buddhism, Mahayana where the aim of the followers is to focus on helping others attain Nibbana, rather than focusing on oneself. That's why in Mahayana Buddhism, they have Boddhisatvas( or in Tibet, they're called Rinpoche), who are individuals who have already attained the state of Nibbana, but out of compassion and love for others, they've decided to put their attainment on-hole, and come back to life once again as humans in order to help others to be liberated from the cycle of Samsara.

But ofcourse, in Theravada, followers focus on achieving this state of liberation for themselves only, and don't really take much consideration for others to be released like the Mahayana followers.

So in answering your question about individual freedom, Theravada Buddhism is one religion in the Orient, where alot of focus is put on individual freedom rather than on the society as a whole. But ofcourse this doesn't mean followers of Theravada dont care about the well-beings of others. I'm a Theravadan Buddhist, and I deeply care and feel compassionate about the suffering and needs of other people.

[Tenzin the Sherpa]

Oops, I should've written on-hold, instead of on-hole. Stupid me.

[mind]

Could you be abit more specific when you used the term Oriental? I mean we are talking about a diverse range of cultures spanning thousands of square kilometres over many countries.

Hello, Tenzin,

It won't be difficult to define 'Oriental': it's everything to the East from me . More strictly, I'm interested in all Asia, excluding the groups called by Arabs <i>Ahl-al-Qitab</i>, 'People of the Book': Christians, Muslims and Judaists. Moreover, all kinds of Buddhism are of special interest for me, however trite it may seem, considering the hype around Buddhism in the West.

Well, defining 'individualism' would be a bigger problem. It's not caring about oneself more than about others. It's the question of balancing the interests of a social group and the interests of every member of this group. E.g., philosophy of Kung Tze (Confucius) is the extreme superiority of the social above the personal: what is important is not a person, but the person's social role, it's function. Everything besides this function is considered unimportant or even harmful.

On the contrary, for the Greeks the person was more important than the society. Of course, an individual was supposed to act for the best of the society, but it was his own responsibility, his own decision. The decision in favor of the society was appreciated, but it was not the only possible decision, since the individual had freedom to decide. See, e.g. <a href="http://www.gtexts.com/college/papers/s2.html"> Virtue and the Proper Political Individual in Antiquity</a>

Indeed, it seems more probable that I could find such preference of individual freedom in India than in China or Japan, but I'm still searching

And one more question about Theravada: isn't the role of <i>bhikkhu-sangha</i>, the sangha of monks, especially important in this branch of Buddhism? Is it possible for an individual to achieve liberation from sansara without sangha? Obviously, it's possible, taking into accout the existence of Buddhas, but how important is the role of this refuge?

Thank you.

P.S.: How's the weather on Chomolungma?

[Tenzin the Sherpa]

[
And one more question about Theravada: isn't the role of <i>bhikkhu-sangha</i>, the sangha of monks, especially important in this branch of Buddhism? Is it possible for an individual to achieve liberation from sansara without sangha? Obviously, it's possible, taking into accout the existence of Buddhas, but how important is the role of this refuge?

Thank you.

P.S.: How's the weather on Chomolungma?

Hey mind,

Yes, the role of the Sangha is a fundamental part of both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. It is one of the so-called three-jewels, which comprise of the Buddha, the Dhamma (teachings), and the Sangha (the Order of monks and nuns). In countries where Theravada Buddhism is practised as a majority of the population such as in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos, every Buddist male is expected to serve as a bhikku (monk) in the Sangha for a couple of weeks atleast once in his lifetime. Where I come from in Burma (Myanmar), the ordination of a young boy into the Sangha is a great occasion where the boy is dressed in elaborate costume being put on a horse and paraded around the town while the relatives and friends celebrate. Then he is taken into the local monastery, where he gets his head shaved and dressed-up to become a novice bhikku.

To answer your question about, whether one can achieve the state of liberation from Samsara without the guidance of the Sangha, yes definitely. This is one of the foundation principles of Theravada where anyone must be able to attain enlightenment without any assistance from anyone, both the Sangha and ordinary people. Another word, the Sangha alone cannot guide you from liberation from Samsara or gaining good Karma. It is up to each individual with self-determination to receive good Karma, and eventually that'll lead oneself to the escape from the cycle of birth and rebirth. This is also very similar to what the Hindus believe.

I hope that answers your question. But I'm only 19 years old, and being new to Theravada myself since I converted to it just a year ago, I can't explain it in full depth and detail. So I've listed good links where you'd be able to find good information on Theravada and other forms of Buddhism.

btw- As you might now know, I'm not a real Nepali, and I've never been to Chomolungma (Mt.Everest). I'm actually from Australia. I'm actually writing posts in this thread with an alias. My real Unilang user name is Raza, and you can send me a PM if you want to know anything from Buddhism to Burma.

http://www.dharmanet.org/infowebt.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/theravada.html

http://www.nibbana.com/

[Nov]

When I read your questions I remembered a neo-materialistic philosophy from Ancient India, called Charvaka. It may isn’t explicit individualism, but it is the closest philosophy I know.
The following information is taken from the book
Hans Joachim Störig: Kleine Weltgeschichte der Philosophie. Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, 1999

The Charvaka are radical materialists. Matter is the only thing which exists. Every process in your mind can be reduced to matter (or so). Thus they mock about any ethics, philosophy, religion or metaphysics.
For them, those things going further than what is provable simply doesn’t exist. EVERYTHING consists of matter. They don’t have any ethic rules. The goal in life is lust.
They mock about people who want to quit lust because it is combined with pain.
They attacked any religious belief. In their opinion, religious rules and obligations are just making people unhappy and priests fat.

The Charvaka belief denied everything which had been thought so far and also everything which will be thought in India.
At their time, the Charvaka had quite some adherents. But they couldn’t survive over the centuries, because their world view is so different from general Indian mentality.
However, the Charvaka is important because it allowed critics and non-conservative ideas: it was followed by Jaina and Buddhism teachings.

[mind]

When I read your questions I remembered a neo-materialistic philosophy from Ancient India, called Charvaka. It may isn’t explicit individualism, but it is the closest philosophy I know.

Thank you. Indeed, this is not exactly what I'm looking for, but it's still very intriguing.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find enough information on Charvaka and Lokayata on the Web. It would be very interesting to find out whether this school was influenced by Epicurus.

For them, those things going further than what is provable simply doesn’t exist. EVERYTHING consists of matter. They don’t have any ethic rules. The goal in life is lust.

I wonder if this is true or this is the same misunderstanding that usually happens with Epicureanism? For Epicureans, indeed, the goal of one's life is in pleasure. But the pleasure is defined primarily as the absence of suffering and αταραξια -- serenity. Moderation was the key.

[Nov]

I'm not informed about Charvaka so well, I just repeated what I read in this book
But I don't think that Indian philosophers had been influenced by any Greek...