\u00a0 Buddhism is one of the largest organized religions on the planet, based off of 2,500 years of history<\/a>\u00a0. By contemporary standards, it has over 700 million<\/a> individual believers around the globe, making it the fourth largest religion. Although there are three main branches of Buddhist beliefs, they all respect the same principles: the Three Universal Seals (premise of existence), the Four Noble Truths (philosophical enlightenment), the 12 Links of Dependent Origination (laws of existence) and the Eight-Fold Path (guide to enlightenment). All of these principles stem from the \u201cMiddle Way\u201d<\/a>, which rejects extremes and finds the satisfactions of life from \u00ad\u00adtaking neither the \u201chigh\u201d nor \u201clow\u201d road.\u00a0The sixth-century Buddhist scholar Chih-I proposed this as a \u201cthird truth\u201d, in which \u201cthere is a middle way between the extremes of indulgence and self-denial, free from sorrow and suffering. This is the way to peace and liberation in this very life\u201d (Jack Kornfield<\/a>).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I however, find all of this to be symptomatic of the \u201cCult of Moral Grayness\u201d I defined in my piece, The Virtue of Selfishness<\/em>. According to Buddhism, there is never a \u201cblack\u201d or \u201cwhite\u201d answer, one cannot choose along the polarity lines. This denial of the reality is the problem. Buddhists believe, as I do, in fleshing out all the details prior to reaching to a conclusion, but they also believe in compromise, and area of \u201cgrayness\u201d. What Buddhists seek is \u201cnot amorality, but something more profoundly irrational a nonabsolute, fluid, elastic, middle-of-the-road morality\u201d (74).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Buddhism and I are at an impasse. However, I recently discovered Morgan Rosenberg\u2019s new synthesized religion: Dark Buddhism <\/a>. It is a fusion of Objectivism, meditation, and psychology. As an Objectivist, he also rejected some of Buddha\u2019s tenants, mostly selflessness. By fusing the pacifism and respect of Zen Buddhism and the discipline of Objectivism, he realizes a \u201clogically consistent whole\u201d of personal principles to live by. As Rosenberg says in his manifesto, Dark Buddhism<\/em>:<\/p>\n The most important aspect of the self in Dark Buddhism and even in the traditional Buddhist dharma is that your practice requires a conscious<\/em> choice, and the consciousness is the key part of the self<\/em>. You must make a conscious choice to step onto the path and you must exercise conscious decision-making and a conscious sense of self-responsibility to remain on the path.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Therefore, one can infer that the middle path in Dark Buddhism is no longer the middle. Buddhism opens your mind to the choices and the consciousness<\/em> of the issues, but one eventually must make a choice that revolves around the self<\/em>, another major pillar of Dark Buddhism. Rosenberg says that Buddhism can be interpreted by self-interest and choice, but the choices must be conscious and not fall into a \u201cgray\u201d area. For example, he says that the choices one makes on a daily basis \u201care not only discipline choices, such as whether to eat that Big Mac or not, but fundamental choices\u201d. Buddhism, in Rosenberg\u2019s eyes, and my own,\u00a0is flawed, but can be fixed by making solid \u201cblack\u201d or \u201cwhite\u201d selfish choices.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cThere are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil\u2026 In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise … Continue reading ![\"ayn-randbuddha\"](\"https:\/\/sites.dwrl.utexas.edu\/liberrimus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2016\/11\/ayn-randbuddha-300x159.jpg\")
<\/em><\/p>\n