It has been suggested to me that the Buddha (Gautama Sakyamuni) was the first human being to rise above all distinctions of class, race, creed and so on, and perhaps even all those distinctions that once made humans suppose the Sun revolves around the Earth. In other words, he may even have been one of the great primogenitors of disanthropocentrism. If this was acheived, it was through loss of identity – the 'no-self' that is at the core (I cannot say 'heart') of Buddhism.
Supposing that at least the first part of this claim is true then the Buddha was the first cosmopolitan. Let me stop for a moment and turn over a few items of evidence to support this claim. The Buddha, of course, gave up his rank as a prince, but I doubt he was the first to do so. However, in Buddhist teaching we may find numerous examples of the importance of disregarding social rank. Emperors are to be treated the same as beggars, and beggars the same as emperors. Two Buddhist monks, taking a stroll – if I remember correctly – were about to sit down, but one saw that he was about to sit on a rock in which an image of the Buddha had been inscribed. Out of reverence he sat elsewhere, and his companion mockingly rebuked him for still having 'the fear' and respecting the rank of the Buddha. In China, Buddhism came to be seen as a dangerous and subversive faith because no self-respecting Buddhist would recognise the Emperor's authority over him. All this is at least evidence towards the idea that Gautama, as the fountainhead of such ideas, had risen above the idea of rank. At this moment, not wishing to spend hours poring over books for a simple blog post, I can't give evidence with regard to the other distinctions that Gautama may have risen above. I suppose the fact that there has been little or nothing in the way of Jihad or Crusade in Buddhist history might also be considered as evidence here, though.
Let us grant that Gautama was the first cosmopolitan, if so, he was not the first to be called by that name. The word is Greek. It comes from 'cosmos', meaning 'universe', and 'polis' meaning 'city'. (My Greek is virtually non-existent, but I'm guessing that 'politan' means 'citizen'.) According to tradition, the word 'cosmopolitan' was coined by Diogenes. Upon being asked where he was from (what 'polis'), he replied that he was a 'citizen of the cosmos' – a cosmopolitan (a claim later echoed by the Doctor, who described himself as, "a citizen of the universe and a gentleman to boot."). In doing so he was disavowing all loyalty to the city in which he lived, all patriotism.
Diogenes, of course, is also famed for being the first of the Cynics, or among the first, though this appears to be a very loosely connected group of people, and their formation and development is therefore not entirely clear. One story connected with Diogenes is as follows:
At the Isthmian Games, he lectured to large audiences. It may have been at one of these festivals that he met Alexander the Great. The story goes that while Diogenes was relaxing in the sunlight one morning, Alexander, thrilled to meet the famous philosopher, asked if there was any favour he might do for him. Diogenes replied, "Yes: Stand out of my sunlight." Alexander still declared, "If I were not Alexander, then I should wish to be Diogenes."
Here, of course, is an example of the cosmopolitan refusing to recognise rank. Something else that Diogenes perhaps shares with Gautama is that he appeared less interested in constructing theories that explain the world than in what was the right way to live. The 'philosophy' of Diogenes, if he had any in particular, survives in the form of legend and anecdote; although he apparently wrote a number of texts, none are extant, in original or copy.
The nuance of the word 'cynical' (literally 'dog-like') seems to have changed over the years. These days one can talk of the cynical manipulations of an advertiser or a politician, referring to actions that are performed insincerely. The link with original cynicism seems to be that of misanthropy, but Diogenese was closer to the emo of Bill Hicks than he was to the suave, ambitious opportunism of the advertising executive:
[Diogenes] once masturbated in public, saying "If only I could soothe my hunger by rubbing my belly." He used to stroll about in full daylight with a lamp; when asked what he was doing, he would answer, "I am just looking for a human being." Diogenes looked for a human being but reputedly found nothing but rascals and scoundrels.
Gautama lived slightly before Diogenes. I have recently read speculation that cultural traffic between India and Greece may have brought some influence of Buddhism from the former to the latter. Certainly the reverse influence has been noted – a Greek influence in certain of the early statues of the Buddha:
The origins of Greco-Buddhist art are to be found in the Hellenistic Greco-Bactrian kingdom (250 BCE- 130 BCE), located in today’s Afghanistan, from which Hellenistic culture radiated into the Indian subcontinent with the establishment of the Indo-Greek kingdom (180 BCE-10 BCE).
Afghanistan, of course, being where a number of Buddhist statues were destroyed not long ago by the members of a very UNcosmopolitan faith.
To return to my theme, it is at least possible that Greek Cynicism arose partly or wholly from Indian Buddhism. The 'dog' reference, for instance, in the word 'cynicism' is tradtionally attributed to the fact that Diogenes lived in the street, 'like a dog', a lifestyle that is quite comparable to the asceticism associated with Buddhism.
My own personal sense of conflict when pondering such things lies in the sensation of having to choose between a relatively tolerant no-culture (the no-self cosmopolitanism of Buddhism) and many intolerant cultures, all or most of which seem to want to create their own monoculture. It seems ultimately like a choice between two monocultures (because I beieve that no-culture is just another culture), when monoculture is precisely that which I (for one) wish not to choose.
Many before you have found themselves in similar dilemma as identified in your last paragraph though their complaints are not exactly the same. And they have decided that they do not choose either. They found Chinese philosophy lies in between – less extreme – and makes more sense. I might add that many of these people are Chinese themselves who have studied and made comparisons between religions and faiths. But you yourself also have found Daoism superior to Buddhism. Chinese philosophy is more than Daoism of course.
Yes. I believe I know what you mean. In Chuang-tzu (A.C. Graham’s translation), the “essentials of man” are given as, “Judging ‘That’s it, that’s not'”. In other words, this is the self that makes distinctions, such as those of class, race, creed and so on. The sage is seen as someone who is “without what is essentially man”. However, in the very next chapter, this view is modified:Someone in whom neither Heaven nor man is victor over the other, this is what is meant by the True Man.
I think, so far, Chuang-tzu is possibly my favourite philosopher in the world, but there’s always the chance I’ll discover something better.I mean, there are things that I like better, but not in the realm of philosophy (so far), so it wouldn’t be a fair comparison.
I was reading Sade’s “Juliette” the other day, and one point Saint-Fond is described as something like, “a man in whom passions had eliminated all prejudice”. The Libertines are not racist, or sexist, or classist; they love and kill indiscriminately — their “evil” is all-embracing.
Wasn’t lack of patriotism, though, the one vice that de Sade, or one of his characters, admitted makes a scoundrel of a man?
That’s exactly the sort of thing Sade would say — but only when he was trying to avoid the guillotine!
I can’t remember which work I read it in now. It’s true that it’s not one of his repeated themes, though, or not in what I’ve read. And he does tend to repeat anything he thinks is worth saying, so you may well be right.