The Endgame is not the Goal

The Endgame is not the Goal

The desire to win any challenge, say in a sport, is what exactly motivates every competitor to train really hard. Coaches will demand that every member of their teams must give all what they got at every practice. Setting an objective lesser than winning the top spot is not a good way to start. Winning the top, knocking all the rest who once coveted the same, is what matters most.

However, if winning is calculably impossible, the competitor is expected to give a good fight so that in the end when he look back, though lost the fight, is still considered a winner in a different sense apart from that of the one holding the winning bag.

Looking at it in subtlety, there lies the intent to reach the goal or the endgame not just merely to win it rather more importantly to reach the finish line with high spirit intact knowing there is contentment as to how ample effort has been well executed.

Apparently, the only reason to fight is to be fulfilled. That is the apparent goal, is it not? To be fulfilled. Not necessarily winning it though winning it may come as a big bonus in itself. The closest motivation is to have that sense of fulfillment at the end.

But there is a problem. If the goal is expected to be found at the endgame, why is it still necessary to spend an effort in competing while under the regulation of time, ie. 4 ten-minute quarters for basketball? Why not just use the classic head and tail game to determine the winner? The reason is perfectly simple that the Endgame is not really the Goal. Much like in an orchestra which is not aimed at banging the last note but rather playing the entire music beautifully, the goal is not found at the end of the game rather the goal is the game while it is being played.

In all wisdom, there is no goal at the end of every challenge. The goal is itself to remain playing as long it is required to go on playing. And because playing is itself the goal, the execution is always perfectly fulfilling because it comes as it is so spontaneously.  That is when the true winner emerges. The dance didn't aim for the last step. The dance number is aimed at the dance itself.

Same thing is true with Life. That is why the Buddha emphasized his teachings not on desires and goals rather on the present play of the moment That is the beauty of realizing that the goal of life is never at the end of the tunnel; never when men will find out where they came from or where they are headed; never when Higgs-Boson particle confirms the Creation or Big Bang; or never when String Theory of Everything  is confirmed to be true.

Now is the Goal. Now is the Endgame. Nothing else.

The Buddhist and Libertarian Connection

The Buddhist and Libertarian Connection

What do libertarians and Buddhist have in common?

My conversion to libertarian values was a smooth ride. But if there is a word that's more appropriate, I can't really call it as a conversion. I can't recall a time wherein I was following a different set of social values apart from what I already now know as libertarianism. I know I am already a libertarian since the beginning, only that knowing it as such came a little late.

As to the Buddha part, I am no Buddhist like the skinhead monks following a strict regimen. I am more of a free-style Buddhist. I used the term Buddhist for no other reason but to convey easily what kind of spirituality, if it is to be called as a kind, I have. People are familiar with the word "Buddha" or "Buddhist" that is why I found it beneficial to use it. It would me much more cumbersome to relate my message if I am going to use the terms like Advaita Vedanta, Self, Now-ness, etc. or perhaps the more mind-intriguing concept of Non-duality. So, for the sake of easy conversation, the title Libertarian Buddhist is adapted for me to use more often.

Why Am I Libertarian? 

My understanding is that all men are equal. Individual freedom or liberty makes it so. For if it is not, it would be a contradiction to my own intuition. The intuition of this self-owned freedom must also be existing in others. Self-ownership must be a common feeling among individuals. In freedom, everybody must be seen as equal. But self-ownership which entails the freedom to do whatever I pleases to do doesn't come without the inseparable pair of my personal responsibility. Since the sense of self-ownership is also the same with every person and out of this feeling arises the need of self-protection, therefore everybody must be accorded with respect as  the same as the respect I want others accord to me. No man, group or government shall violate my liberty instead everyone must move to protect this freedom.

There can only be either liberty for everybody or no liberty at all. Libertarians cherish the idea that every man has his own liberty, thus the name. Libertarians appreciates the morality of individual freedom.

Why Am I Buddhist?

I have been a spiritual seeker for several years. And I came to understand the essence of Golden Rule. At first Golden Rule may necessarily be fulfilled through an effort by having the self-restraint from doing untoward actions to others. I call it "through an effort" for it is indeed an effort to constantly remind the mind not to be reckless. But beyond making an effort there is an understanding. When that kind of understanding comes, the effort to constantly remind the self of Golden Rule is no longer necessary. Everything would be spontaneous. However, I will not expand this discussion on that respect.

Spiritual seekers, which I may call Buddhists for the sake of discussion, eventually come to the realization  that compassion and love is all there is. The understanding that everyone is part of everything will forever diminish the seemingly powerful motivation to advance one's own self-interest at the expense of others. Abiding as the wholeness itself will render each man as not existentially separate from anything. There is only one existence and it is called in popular term, Oneness.

Why Am I Libertarian Buddhist?

The connection between libertarians and Buddhists can never be simpler. Libertarian values are centered on individual freedom thus the aim is to use freedom to let everyone flourish towards self-perfection. But because this advancement of self-perfection and freedom must not come as such it may lay prejudice and destruction to the same freedom held by others, there must be an unfailing consciousness that such realization can only be maximized when and only when at the same time the inter-wind relationships with everything and everyone is well understood.  Also, while libertarians appreciates equality and freedom in moral perspective, Buddhist comes in terms of spiritual connections. The two can't be separated I believe. Thus, I am a libertarian Buddhist.

Just Leave Socialism to Ants Alone

Just Leave Socialism to Ants Alone

I have yet to find a capitalist ant, a self-proclaimed socialist ant, an ant bureaucrat, or an ant buddha. 

In the sacred unwritten book of Ant's Socialism, the following passage can be found: "For all kinds of ants, the following edict is to be seen as spontaneous: No individual ant or group of ants must utilize, monopolize, or limit in themselves any means of food production in all for the purpose of profit. All activity must be solely for the purpose of fulfilling each colony's survival demands and all of the ants' daily needs."

Humans are really dumbfounded how to achieve that. The ants already did it. I am baffled what kind of social theory might the ants have used to reach their current state of antly affairs. Humans must be envious of the ants, don't you think? Poor intelligent humans.

The Essence of Socialism

Being true to what socialism really means, and I mean the purest form of it, my tongue carries no bud of distaste to it. It is the pro-capitalism fanatics, those with insufficient and dishonest understanding of what they are fighting against, who are the ones who bring bad color to supposedly stain-proof socialism.  Why did I say insufficient and dishonest? Because as opposed to the popular idea that if it is government then it entails socialism. It is not. USSR, though labeled Socialist did not fail because of socialism. It failed because of the stupid and anti-ant idea that  government is the only way to achieve the goal. USSR failed because it tried to utilize the very same strategy which was warned not to be used - the monopoly of control or Government. Socialism can't fail. It's the machinery employed, thought to be the way to achieve the goal, that eventually breaks down.

The rationally ill-equipped capitalism subscribers are not  the only party to blame why socialism seems to be a bad idea. The substantial portion of fault must be put unto the people who were so excited at bringing in the anticipated euphoria of communal harmony as envisioned to be attained through socialism. 

Contrary to popular belief of Marx diehard followers that it was Marx who had ignited socialism to take-off, I suspect Marx himself must be the number one to blame why socialism reached it very much opposed status today. He tried to rush everything, didn't he? What he did is to entice the proletariat, or the working class, to rise in arms against the bourgeois, the middle class and wealthy, by saying they were exploited by the latter and it is the right of the workers, the alleged creators of wealth, to take back what they made believed they own. As a result, those  laborers, who of course majority of them lacked the wisdom Marx might have, can only manage to carry on up to the point of having a trigger-happy mentality. So everyone ended-up choking each other while hypocritically thinking it was all for equality and freedom. 

Ants versus Humans

So what separated the ants from humans? What is the distinctive quality ants have or might not have why they attained the spontaneous order of their society? In comparison, what do humans have and might not have that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to emulate the ants?

I came to see the reason, I believe. But it is a rather partially disinteresting thought. But on the other side, if really sought to attain, would be the key to the promises of socialism. And it is the "elimination of the intellect". Sounds so uninteresting. But wait. Be careful not to impress upon self that such intellect be erased in the literal sense by subjecting each human to some kind of genetic manipulation, a surgery, or anything that could render the intellect incapable of creative activities. 

What does Golden Rule exists for?

What does Golden Rule exists for?

Who needs the Golden Rule? Certainly not everyone. The Buddha or the enlightened one doesn't need one. Golden Rule is only for those in need of a sticky reminder specially at times of almost intolerable situation, wherein one needs to remind own self to try really hard not to cause ruin to others, both in action and intention, except in self-defense. Willful act of injuring other men or retaliation  is a big no if Golden Rule is to be followed devotedly.

The Buddha no longer needs Golden Rule for himself obviously. There is a simple reason for that.  He already realized  the spontaneity of everything including Golden Rule. Having fully understood the truth of his Being, the Buddha is already free from the struggle of making an effort to abide by the Golden Rule. Interestingly, the Buddha is already the embodiment of the Golden Rule. For him, everything flows not by effort or willful exertion or vigilant self-restraint but everything including love, compassion and respect goes on and on so naturally like a breath.