A Buddhist Walks Into a Bank

There are a lot of -isms in the East. The typical factory there makes 100,000 a day. They don't just make iPads and t-shirts. They also make -isms. One of the best known Eastern -isms is Buddhism. The Buddha (563-483 BC) was a fat Chinese guy who happened to be thin and not Chinese. He was born to a very wealthy family--but at the age of 29, he left all material comforts and devoted himself to self-discipline and the religious life. Which is something that a lot of people in India and the surrounding regions did back then, and still do today. The Buddha's father was as wealthy as the Monopoly guy--and the Buddha left a Boardwalk hotel to become a homeless beggar on Baltic Avenue. For a few years, he lived a life of extreme discipline and self-denial, and almost ended up dying because of it. Then he abandoned that path, in favor of one that satisfies the necessities of life--no more, no less. According to Buddhist teachings, the Buddha told us to vote Yes on Proposition 1: Doing Good; he told us to vote No on Proposition 2: Selfish or Excessive Desires; and he didn't tell us how to vote on Proposition 3: Religious Beliefs. He said that our selfish or excessive desires appear pleasant on the surface, and bait us into living in a hell that we make. And once we stop following those desires, our self-created hell will disappear. Now, when the Buddha said vote Yes on this or No on that, he didn't mean just vote. He meant put on your gloves, get on your knees, uproot your selfish or excessive desires now, follow the Middle Path, do good, remain ever awake and vigilant, and always set your thoughts on the Way. Nowadays, most Buddhists are really into meditation. The Buddha himself is said to have meditated for 49 straight days at one point, which led to his enlightenment at the age of 35. It's a good thing he wasn't Jewish. Otherwise

his mother wouldn't have been too happy with him during his meditation binge. "My son sits under a tree all day! What kind of a life is that?" And even after Buddhism became popular, she might've only been moderately pleased with him. "Well, he's not a doctor--but at least he started a religion. But it's more a philosophy than a religion. He's like the chiropractor of religious founders. He could've been a doctor. Why didn't he become a doctor?!" But again, Buddhism focuses a lot on meditation. Almost any time a Buddhist walks by a bank, he goes in and waits in line--just to test his patience. When he gets to the front and the teller says, "What can I help you with?," the Buddhist replies, "Nothing. I'm free of all craving." I like to wait in line, too. And while I'm in one, I also like to guess what the other people in line are thinking. That's part of my meditative practice. I usually guess that they're thinking about why I'm doing yoga. "This guy's nuts. He's doing yoga in a bank line." If you're not into waiting in line for no reason, you might want to try out another Eastern -ism. Like Taoism. Unlike Buddhism, it's associated with many people. The Yellow Emperor, Chuang Tzu, Lieh Tzu, Gary Busey Tzu, and most notably, Lao Tzu (604-531 BC). Lao Tzu said, "Id like to show you the Way. Only I cant. Why? Because if I showed it to you, it wouldnt be the actual Way. After all, the Way isn't something you can actually show to others. But by telling you that I cant show you the Way, I am in fact showing you the Way. In a way." Are you with him so far? OK. He also added, "But don't take my word for it. Find the Way yourself. How? By doing absolutely nothing. Don't go out the door or even look out the window. By not looking, you'll know everything. And by not doing, you'll do everything, and nothing will remain undone." Lao Tzu was for doing everything by not doing anything. So the next time someone sees you sitting on the couch doing nothing, calmly explain that you're getting everything done. Taoism also teaches that we can't have or pursue everything. And if we overvalue and chase things that are less important, they'll crowd out what we really need and what we should value more.

If I were to offer someone an incredible amount of money and fame in exchange for his health, he'd choose to keep his health. But in life, people are sometimes found risking or sacrificing a lot just to get a little money or empty glory. Using a trillion dollar bait to catch a million dollar fish is a $999,999,000,000 mistake. A conventional life chasing money and glory is like living in prison, aside from the fact that you don't have to use the toilet in front of others. As you might imagine, Taoists tend to be somewhat or very removed from society, and aren't that into its system of positions, honors, etc. Confucianism, on the other hand, has a different message. Confucius (551479 BC) told us we can be part of society and live in harmony with others, while also maintaining good values, and being broadminded, and fully human. We should love everyone in a certain sense, while also liking some people and disliking others, learning a lot from some people and a little from others, and being open with some people and closed to others. On the last point, Confucius said, "Speaking of high subjects to low men is like feeding a dead man lo mein." Confucius also told us that although we need other people's influences and the Sages' teachings, we also need to look within and personally seek the Way. He said that "A person makes the Way great; the Way doesn't make the person great." He told us that "You become a complete person through yourself, and not through Confucius. Unless of course, you are Confucius. Which is pretty unlikely considering how I'm Confucius." And he also added that "Although even Brad Pitt's girlfriend can be stolen, there isn't a single individual who's free will can be stolen." Confucius also had a lot to say about government. For instance, "Hire and promote the upright, fire and demote crooked, put the right person in the right position, don't expect one person to be fit for everything, ask advice from a variety of people who think for themselves, and don't forget to pick up your sister from the mall."

My Feud with Immanuel Kant

Let's talk about Western philosophy. I'm going to provide some commentary on it. Wait. Am I allowed to do that? Do I need to add a footnote somewhere in this first? I think I do. That's a rule. If you want to offer commentary on Western philosophy, you need a footnote. So here it is. [1] One thing I find interesting is that Western philosophical works are usually hard to understand. You have to reread some things a few times to make sense of them. And even then, you still might not be able to figure out what's going on. In a lot of cases, a philosopher's hardest to understand book is also considered his best one. And sometimes the book is so confusing that even the author himself doesn't understand it. In fact, one of the most highly regarded philosophy books of all time starts off with a preface where the author says, "To be perfectly honest, I really can't make heads or tails out of this one. But I'm pretty sure it's a philosophical work. I mean, it's thick, boring, and hard to understand. All signs point to philosophy. If any of you find out what it's about, be sure to let me know, because I'm kind of curious myself." That's the main goal in philosophy. Write a two thousand page book that even you yourself can't understand. That's one reason why a lot of great philosophers are considered great philosophers. They don't know what they're saying, others don't know what they're saying--but we can all agree that their books are thick, boring, and hard to understand. In fact, the world philosophy is Latin for "thick, boring, and hard to understand." One of the best known Western philosophers is Socrates (469-399 BC). He was into pondering things and using logic. Most notably, any time anyone said anything, Socrates told them they were wrong. And that led to his arrest, and a trial where he delivered his now legendary apology: "I'm sorry you guys are such assholes. All I did was spread the idea that 'I don't know anything, and you don't anything.' That's what I told people. And I ended up with some

followers and some enemies--including some powerful enemies who want me to be punished. What everyone needs to realize is that without guys like me constantly agitating others, most people would be as lazy as a pot smoker who just won the lottery." The jury didn't agree with Socrates, and they asked what he thought he deserved as a punishment. And he told them, "How about you kiss my Greek ass, or just give me some sort of fine?" But the jury sentenced him to death. And he said, "Good. Now my immortal soul will finally be free from my mortal body and its needs." While on death row, he was presented with an opportunity to escape and leave town--but he chose to go with the jury's decision. Another philosopher who liked to tell us what we don't know is Rene Descartes (1596-1650). He said that for all we know, everything our senses know might be wrong. If we can imagine gloves that don't exist, then maybe the "real" gloves we can see and feel on our hands are also imaginary. And maybe our hands themselves are imaginary. According to Descartes, our senses can't realiably give us knowledge. Only pure reason can do that. So I guess we can reason our way to proving the gloves exist. "I have a receipt, therefore I have gloves." Is that Cartesian logic? I'm not sure. And what about our hands? How can we prove that they exist? No receipt, no proof. I don't think Descartes cared that much about hands and gloves. But he did say something about human existence. He said that our thoughts must have a source--and since we think, we must also exist. I mean, think about it. There you go. You just proved that you exist. At least according to Descartes. You can use his "I think, therefore I am" logic to prove that you exist. And if you have a receipt for your existence, that helps, too. Descartes told us that if we really want to know anything, we need to start from the fact that we exist, and then work our way from there using thought and reason.

I started yesterday, and I'm up to ten pieces of real knowledge. They're not that interesting, though. It took me ten minutes to prove that soft tacos are very similar to burritos. I don't think this Cartesian stuff is for me. I mean, what if the receipt for my gloves is also imaginary? Then what? Let's see if I like David Hume's philosophy. Hume (1711-1776) said that we might think we know cause and effectbut that's simply the effect of our extreme delusion. We sometimes assume that A causes Bbut for all we know, B might not even be in the alphabet. For example, when we see a bowling ball roll into a bunch of pins that fall over, we simply assume that the ball knocked down the pinsbut in reality, this book might not even exist! Hume also pointed out that not only are we usually convinced that A causes B, we also think that something like A will cause something like B, and that the existence of A means a thousand other things. Just because bin Laden is nuts, we shouldn't assume that all bearded men are pretty much like him. (But just to be safe, you might want to avoid making direct eye contact with anyone who has more than a stubble.) And just because betting on the Patriots has made money nine straight times, we shouldn't assume it'll make money the tenth time. (Believe meI know. My recently foreclosed home is proof of that theory.) And just because Tuesday has always followed Monday in the past, that doesn't mean it'll continue to do so in the future. (Which is exactly why I don't believe in appointment books). And just because the last three examples have been followed by a parenthetical, there's no guarantee that this one will. (In fact, I'm going to make sure it won'tjust to make a point.) And that does it for Hume. Next up is the man many consider the greatest philosopher ever: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), author of such works as Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason, Critique of Judgement, and Enough Critiques. This Book is About Knitting Scarves. Descartes used reasoning to prove things--but Kant said the only thing he proved was that he was full of shit. According to Kant, our reasoning has major limits. Your mind takes in the world through your sensesand your senses can only know appearances. You only know what your mind makes of the appearance of things. And that could be anything. You can know something. But you don't and can't know what things are, as they are. You can't actually know the "thing-in-itself." Things are what they are--regardless

of what they appear to be and what we think of them. And all in all, your mind has created a real world that may or may not exist in reality. You'll have to live and die without ever knowing the reality behind what your mind makes out of appearances. OK. That's Kant. "You can't know the thing-in-itself." That doesn't really settle matters for me. I still have some questions. Why do we need to know that we can't know the thing-in-itself? And if we can't know the thing-in-itself, then who says Kant's "we can't know the thing-in-itself" idea is something we can know? Maybe it just appears to make sense. And what the hell is a thing-in-itself, anyways? There's the main question. I guess your Honda might seem like a Hondabut for all you know, it might be Mount Kilimanjaro. And the universe might look like a universebut it could just as easily be your ex-girlfriend disguised as a universe. There you go. There's my award winning commentary on Kant. The guy who's telling me I can't know the thing in-itself. I'm offended by that. He's basically saying that "Rodney Ohebsion can't know the thing-itself. So his books are bullshit." Kant's starting to piss me off. I should dig up some dirt on him. I'll find something. I think he hated Jews. Let me Google that. I found a lot. Kant called the Jews non-productive members of society, cheating merchants and moneylanders, and people who have little concept of fairness when it comes to business. Here's my Critique of Kant's Views on the Jews. Plenty of Jews aren't moneylenders or merchants. Not to mention the fact that the world needs moneylenders and merchants. Moneylenders usually give their money to the people and companies that'll do more good with it. Like Google. As opposed to Hippopatamus Shaped Fly Swatters, Inc. Because of moneylenders, Google gets more money to use the

world's labor, land, energy, and raw materials. Without moneylenders, how would the world decide where those resources go? And as for merchants, they distribute goods. Without them, do you think you'd be able to walk into a Wal-Mart full of $8.54 chairs and $0.04 gum? Answer that question, Kant. Stop critiquing reason and listen to me. Wal-Mart saves you time and money. What--you don't like saving time and money? And what about Google? Would you rather have it, or more hippopotamus shaped fly swatters? I'm not saying it's a perfect system. But let me just ask this: After using Google and after shopping at Wal-Mart, does anyone ever think, "You know what? Instead of Google and Wal-Mart, I'd prefer to have hippopotamus shaped fly swatters and Kantian critiques." So that's chapter one of my Critique of Kant's Views on the Jews. And here's chapter two: You can use arguments like Kant's to make any group look bad. Germans, the French, truck drivers, psychologists... and the list goes on. Take your choice. Any group. Kant targeted the Jews. That's why I hate him. No--I'm not going to go that far. I'm not the type to turn completely against someone just because he hates Jews or some other group. I like Henry Ford and Walt Disney--even though I disagree with their views on Jews. So I don't hate Kant just because he was an anti-Semite. But I do hate him for Critique of Pure Reason. I definitely hate him for that whole thing about the "thing-in-itself." One notable fan of Kant's was a philosopher by the name of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). Let's talk about him. When Schopenhauer was thirty, he had philosophy all figured out. He solved all of philosophy's problems. And he gave us the solutions in The World as Will and Representation--a book that has a lot in common with Kant's works and Buddhism. Schopenhauer figured it would become an instant bestseller. "OK," he thought. "The book's out. Now everyone will acknowledge that I'm right. They'll put me in that Oxford book of great Western philosophers. Right ahead of Kant." That's what he expected. Instead, his book sold a few dozen

copies. Hardly anyone noticed it. They were too busy paying attention to Schopnehauer's rival, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. After releasing The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer spent the rest of his life being even more right, and trashing Hegel. He finally attained fame late in life--and nowadays, he's one of the most highly regarded philosophers of all time--somewhere between Kant and Hegel. I won't really get into his whole "world as will and representation" theme. But he had a lot to say about a lot of topics. According to Schopenhauer, life looks like one thing when we think about the past, or future, or something far off--but when real life and its details are right in our face, we see how ridiculous it is. He told us that instead of valuing and chasing life's bullshit and expecting everything from the world, we should take it for what it is and have a different attitude. He also felt that people are usually playing an act, that the world is filled with lies and phoniness, and that the majority of what we see is just a show. Most displays of joy don't come from real joy, most politeness is a mask we use to manipulate and get along with each other, and most friendships are just 10% friendships made to look like 100% friendships. And when everyone's masks are removed and we see people for what they really are, most of mankind is very unpleasant. I'm beginning to get why Schopenhauer became a philosopher, and not a greeter at Wal-Mart. I can't really imagine him smiling at someone and saying, "Hi! Welcome to Wal-Mart." I can't even imagine him being greeted by someone like that. He'd probably punch a Wal-Mart greeter in the face. Anyways, Schopenhauer also said that most people are very self-obsessed and vain--and in their quest to appear important, they'll be more than willing to ignore our very existence. And because of the way people are, it's usually very hard to be real friends with others, but very easy to offend or manipulate them. He also added that since the world won't revolve around us the way we want it to, we settle for blabbing about ourselves to people who usually don't care to listen.

That actually comes as a surprise to me. I figured people were fascinated by my in depth analysis of what I ate for breakfast last Tuesday. But I guess not. Maybe I should talk about what they ate for breakfast last Tuesday. Or maybe I should start talking about my lunches. My lunches are way more interesting than my breakfasts. Anyways, Schopenahuer said we should take people for what they really are-but that we should develop sympathy for our fellow humans, and give them the tolerance, regard, and love that we owe them. He also told us to live a life of self-discipline and self-denial. But he himself didn't even bother to attempt doing that. [Schopenhauer:] "I'm right about how we should live. Discipline. Asceticism. Self-denial." [Other Person:] "OK. Are you going to do that?" [Schopenhauer:] "No. I'm not going to do it. But I'm right. I'll let someone else do it." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) did something like that, too. He told us about how we should be close to nature. But he himself didn't spend time in nature. He spent his entire life in a building. He wouldn't even look out of a window. "No. I'm busy. I'm busy writing about nature. Someone please cover up that window." Which brings up an ancient Chinese folktale. Long ago, someone claimed to know the way of immortality. So a governor said to his people at the royal court, "Some guy's saying he knows how we can live forever. Billy--go to his house and get the information." By the way--Billy's the name of the governor's messenger. I want to make sure you guys know exactly what's going on. So I'm going to give some of these people names. So Billy the Messenger left a few days after the governor told him to. And while he was on his way, the guy who claimed to know the secret of immortality ended up dying. The governor was mad. As was someone else. Let's call him Lance. Lance said, "Darn it. We could've gotten the secret of immortality. If only Billy had made it to that guy's house in time."

Then someone else--let's call him Quincy--replied, "What are you talking about, bro?" Only he said it in Chinese. Because this is all happening in Chinese. So Quincy said, "Ching kao ting tai, bro. (By the way--"bro" is the same in all languages. Just like how "no" is the same in a lot of different languages.) And Quincy continued: "If that guy really knew the secret of immortality, he wouldn't have died. He would've used the secret to live forever." But then someone else--let's call him Jebediah--said, "Hold the phone, Quincy. Sometimes people know something, but don't apply that knowledge. For instance, a master mathematician taught math to his sons. The sons themselves didn't use any of that knowledge. But they passed it along to someone else who did use it. So maybe Beauregard did in fact know the secret of immortality, but he still ended up dying." By the way--Beauregard is the guy who claimed to know how to live forever. I forgot to mention that. Quincy didn't even know his name until Jebediah mentioned it. And as soon as he did, Quincy said, "The guy's name was Beauregard? What kind of name is that? This is ancient China. Around here, we have names like Billy, Lance, Quincy, and Jebediah." And then someone else--let's call him Kant--said, "You can't know the thingin-itself." Even in ancient China, Kant was running his mouth about that. The point is, sometimes people have knowledge and pass it on, even though they don't really apply it. Jesus also said something to that effect when describing the Pharisees and teachers of the Law. "Do what they tell you to do--but don't do what they do, for they don't practice what they preach. They load up demands on people's shoulders--but they themselves won't so much as lift a finger. Everything they do is for the sake of [superficial] appearances." So maybe Schopenhauer, Emerson, etc. were right and had good ideas, but they didn't really apply them or live up to them. But I'm still skeptical of people like that. Unless they're talking about get-richquick schemes.

One philosopher who had a lot to say about knowledge and its application was Kierkegaard (1813-1855). Beauregard Kierkegaard. Actually, no. It's S [o with a line through it] ren Kierkegaard. Beauregard is his cousin. S [o with a line through it] ren Kierkegaard ws a devout Christian who told us not to be too focused on and care too much about thought, facts, and objective content. If we want our lives to have higher meaning, we need to live within our truths./p> And we shouldn't just let society make us part of the public, place us in groups, treat us like mere parts of the crowd, reduce our work to money, and dictate what we wear, watch, read, and buy. We also shouldn't deny the fact that we'll die at some unpredictable point in the future. "I shall certainly attend your party, but I must make an exception for the contingency that a roof tile happens to blow down and kill me; for in that case, I cannot attend." That was Kierkegaard's idea of an RSVP. And then there's Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)--someone who had a lot in common with Kierkegaard, depite being anything but a Christian. Nietzsche became an atheist after watching Jingle All the Way, and went to an atheist internet message board--only to find that the people there annoyed him just as much as a Schwarzenegger holiday movie, and that they were replacing religion with a flawed way of finding meaning and value in life. One of Nietzsche's best known ideas is that humans have a natural "will-topower." Some of us direct it towards dominating others. And some of us go with a religious or philosophical path that disregards our will-to-power, and gives up on real life. But Nietzsche suggested an alternative. He told us to use that will to control some of our instincts and impulses, master ourselves, and become higher, life-affirming people who contribute to a higher civilization. And that does it for Nietzsche. I'd get into his ideas more--but that "zsch" block of letters pisses me off too much. The most notable philosopher of recent times is Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). Like the other guys mentioned here, he spent a lot of his time developing a philosophy--and he told everyone it was right. "This is it! This is the truth! Other philosophies are OK. There's some good, some bad. But this is it! My philosophy!"

But then one day, he said, "You know what? My philosophy is bullshit. And all philosophy is bullshit. Even bullshit is bullshit. A true philosophy is one that does away with philosophy. Because philosophical problems themselves are the problem. They just come from confusion. My solution is a non-solution--a non-theory to replace theories, and an activity that eliminates the confusion of philosophy's beliefs, and causes philosophical problems to solve themselves. Philosophy should be an activity. It shouldn't just be about having theories. You have to get rid of the theories, and focus on the activity." What does that mean? I don't know. But I agree with him. Especially when it comes to Kant's philosophy. It needs to be eliminated. We don't need his theories. One thing I find strange about Western philosophy is that it focuses on chains of logic. Sometimes they reach odd conclusions. "There's this. Which means that. And therefore, this is the case. And this must be true. And this, too. And of course, that means this is the case. Therefore, my pancreas is made of gold." Imagine Socrates at a pick up bar. He'd present a chain of logic. And end it with, "Therefore, you should leave this bar with me and get into my car." Is that the Socratic method? I'm pretty sure it is. The girl might not go along with his logic. She might disagree with his conclusion. And of course, Socrates would counter, "You're not being logical." I guess the Socratic method might not work so well at bars. Maybe psychology would work better. Imagine Freud at a pick up bar. "Your id, ego, and superego are all saying that you should go to my apartment." And if that doesn't work, he'll follow it up with, "You want to do some coke?" Is that psychology? I guess so. But back to logic. It has a lot of rules. Like "Don't analyze the person advancing an idea. Focus on the idea itself. Otherwise, you're not being logical." I'm not so sure I like that. If I'm discussing a white supremacist's views on blacks or Jews, should I ignore the fact that he's a white supremacist? I don't think so. When I hear David Duke say that Jews in Iran have it fine, but

Christians in Israel are persecuted, I feel compelled to mention how David Duke is a person who really hates Jews. Just my two cents. Which, by the way, are worth more than two cents. After all, I'm the greatest philosopher ever. If you want me to prove it, I will. Here you go: There's this. Which means that. And therefore, this is the case. And this must be true. And this, too. And of course, that means this is the case. Therefore, I'm the greatest philosopher ever. Which means that Kant isn't.