Buddhist Romanticism

fact that one’s drives are not really one’s own denies any independent
freedom of choice.
For the purpose of Dhamma practice, this difficulty is fatal. To be able to
choose skillful over unskillful actions, you first have to be free to choose
your actions. Otherwise, the whole notion of a path of practice is
meaningless.
So the basic question posed by Buddhist Romanticism and the answer it
provides to that question impose, all in all, at least four severe limitations
on the possibility of a path to the end of suffering.
The first limitation is that, by identifying a conditioned experience of
Oneness as the goal of spiritual practice, Buddhist Romanticism encourages
people to satisfy themselves with experiences falling far short of an
unconditioned end to suffering and stress.
The second limitation is that, by defining individuals as organic parts of
an organic whole, Buddhist Romanticism—implicitly or explicitly—defines
their purpose in life: They are here to serve the purposes of the whole.
When this is the case, that larger purpose overrides every person’s desire to
put an end to his or her own suffering. People are here to further the goal of
the earthlife, and should bear their sufferings with equanimity and joy,
happy in the knowledge that they are advancing the goal of earthlife,
whatever it is. Thus the Buddhist Romantic answer to the value question
implicit in the four noble truths—Is the end of suffering a worthwhile goal?
—is clearly a No.
The third limitation is that by defining the primary spiritual issue in
terms of becoming—a self in relationship to a world—Buddhist
Romanticism closes the door to any notion of a dimension beyond
becoming. And because every state of becoming involves suffering, this
closes off the possibility that suffering can be totally brought to an end.
Thus the Buddhist Romantic answer to the question that set the Buddha-tobe
on his quest—Is it possible to find a happiness free from aging, illness,
and death?—is another clear No.
The fourth limitation is an even more basic restriction on the possibility
of freedom, one that applies even if you don’t aim at ultimate release in this
lifetime. In a world where you are an integral part of a larger whole,
freedom of choice even in simple matters is impossible. Not only is the idea
of a path of practice meaningless; so is the act of teaching any path—or
anything—at all. If people have no choice in what they do, why bother to
297