
What kind of buddhist was Steve Jobs, really? - larve
http://blogs.plos.org/neurotribes/2011/10/28/what-kind-of-buddhist-was-steve-jobs-really/
======
runjake
An imperfect one, like the rest of us.

Edit: since I'm getting downvoted into oblivion, let me elaborate: no Buddhist
is perfect, if they were perfect, they probably wouldn't see a need to study
Buddha's teachings.

It's not like Jobs was out criticizing how people lived their lives in "sin".

~~~
Alex3917
Steve was perfect as he was, he just needed some improvents.

~~~
mechnik
Steve Jobs, imperfect.

His core, perfection itself.

Old pond, droid jumps in.

~~~
da_dude4242
plop!

~~~
da_dude4242
For the silly people downvoting, this is a reference to a Japanese Haiku.

Old pond, frog jumps in \- plop!

------
gwern
Not much of one. I read the bio too, and got a different picture - Jobs used
Buddhism because he had such problems. We'll probably never know what problems
specifically, just like we'll never know what his eating issues were (Isaacson
says Jobs was urged to see a therapist about it, but refused) - narcissism as
one woman speculated? Bi-polar?

To me, the most insightful anecdote was:

> 'Our consumer desires are unhealthy, he told her, and to attain
> enlightenment you need to develop a life of nonattachment and non-
> materialism. He even sent her a tape of Kobun Chino, his Zen teacher,
> lecturing about the problems caused by craving and obtaining things. Egan
> pushed back. Wasn’t he defying that philosophy, she asked, by making
> computers and other products that people coveted? “He was irritated by the
> dichotomy, and we had exuberant debates about it,” Egan recalled.'

Yes, I guess that's one way to describe it...

~~~
Arjuna
_"Wasn't he defying that philosophy, she asked, by making computers and other
products that people coveted?"_

Buddhism expresses a distinction between _a thing in and of itself_ and _an
individual's interpretation of a thing_.

"Computers and other products" are simply things in and of themselves.
However, it is the individual that applies an interpretation to these things,
such that the individual can allow these things to define him or her.

In essence, there is nothing "defying that philosophy", as the question asks.
If an individual covets or self-identifies with a thing, Buddhism says that
this attachment is what ultimately causes suffering. This attachment is the
result of an individual's interpretation of a thing, and not due to a thing in
and of itself.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Err, there isn't just "the thing" but a dedicated and directed marketing
program to make you absolutely covet the product. Everything about capitalism,
marketing, and advertising is about making us covet things so we buy them.
Sorry, but there's no easy cop-out here. 99.9% of what Jobs did was marketing
and its even more important than the product, imho.

~~~
msbarnett
What's your point?

Buddhism is not Christianity. It does not assert that it is the One True Path,
and that it's teachings are the One Size Fits All solution to everybody's
problems.

It does not follow that what Buddhism teaches is bad for Buddhists (attachment
to objects) is therefore bad for everybody, and that if you market something
that someone may allow themselves to form attachments to, you have therefore
harmed them. If a Buddhist allows themselves to become attached to their iPod,
then Buddhism offers them tools to deal with the suffering that might arise
from that; there is no attached 'sin' committed by the marketing team at
Apple.

Jobs didn't fail to meet any standard that Buddhism sets out for Buddhists
(Buddhism sets very few such standards. You can be angry and discompassionate
and attached to worldly things, and be Buddhist. The idea is that Buddhism
helps you deal with the problems you have, not that Buddhism requires you to
be a perfect being or kicks you to the curb).

You're simply inventing your own arbitrarily high standards based on
fundamental misunderstandings of Buddhist concepts.

~~~
muraiki
So if Buddhism does not assert that it is the One True Path, what's the Fourth
Noble Truth?

In America, Buddhism tends to be portrayed in this sort of light: basically,
that Buddhism makes no exclusivist truth claims. But for a Mahayana Buddhist
to make the Bodhisattva Vow in the context of the Four Noble Truths
necessarily entails teaching others about certain things which are True, to
the exclusion of things which are false (belief in Jesus or Allah or Vishnu
etc) Perhaps the missionary form of this is not quite equivalent to, say,
Evangelical Protestantism, but it's there.

One concept within Mahayana Buddhism is that of Skillful Means, the idea that
sometimes a teacher has to use or allow an expedient practice even if it's not
the "highest" truth. So the Zen Buddhists say that all the Shin Buddhists are
ok, because it's just skillful means for them to believe in the salvific power
of Amida Buddha and next life they'll have a better chance at encountering the
fullness of Zen. Or maybe their recitation of the nembutsu is just some sort
of meditative practice that happens to produce desirable Buddhist qualities.
Nevermind that this is totally revisionist to the Shin understanding.

Yes, you can be angry and discompassionate and attached to worldly things and
"be Buddhist." But if you die that way you probably won't be reborn as a
human. Maybe as a hungry ghost or a fighting demon. :)

~~~
danieldk
_So if Buddhism does not assert that it is the One True Path, what's the
Fourth Noble Truth?_

The hand pointing to the moon is not the moon.

 _``Come, Salha, do not be satisfied with hearsay or with tradition or with
legendary lore or with what has come down in scriptures or with conjecture or
with logical inference or with weighing evidence or with a liking for a view
after pondering it or with someone else's ability or with the thought 'The
monk is our teacher.' When you know in yourself 'These things are
unprofitable, liable to censure, condemned by the wise, being adopted and put
into effect, they lead to harm and suffering,' then you should abandon
them.''_

AN 3.66

~~~
sambeau
So, Buddhism agrees with Einstein rather than Heisenberg?

Einstein: _The moon is there whether or not anyone is looking at it._

Heisenberg: _The moon may not be there if there isn't anyone looking at it._

Buddhism: _The hand pointing to the moon is not the moon._

~~~
rosser
"The pointing finger is not the moon" has never, IME, been taken to make
ontological claims of any kind about the moon, except that it's not the finger
pointed at it. It means the same thing as, "The map is not the territory," and
not, "Because this map shows rivers and towns in these locations, such rivers
and towns must exist."

Your idea of a thing is simply and solely your idea of the thing; the thing,
itself, is simply and solely the thing, itself. Buddhism just suggests out
that you conflate them at your peril (to the extent, of course, that Buddhism
has a notion of "peril").

~~~
sambeau
Oh. I took it to mean that Buddhism is the quest for truth not _the_ truth.

------
ericmoritz
"There's nothing holy about mindfulness"
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri2hA1TqDT4>

------
bfrs
To me Zen seems like a lot of vague mumbo-jumbo. It can be interpreted any
which way you want, making it sometimes seem wise and profound. The Buddhism I
learned is quite simple and clear. It just boils down to two Golden Rules:

1\. The Golden Rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated. 2\. The Golden
Mean: Everything in moderation, nothing in excess.

and the related commentary as to why these are good policies to follow.

~~~
davidw
Another rule I think makes sense in the world is a sort of temporally shifted
golden rule: try and leave things better than when you found them to do unto
future people what you would wish them to do had they gone before you.

------
mmphosis

      Wake Up!
      Life is transient
      Swiftly passing
      Be aware
      The Great Matter
      Don’t waste time.

------
xavoy
Wow there is a lot of misinformation here, especially about Zen.

If making beautiful things is encouraging attachment then I guess all of the
Zen poets and painters weren't (and aren't) very Zen either. Nor are the
architects, florists or writers.

And to say that he wasn't or couldn't be a Buddhist simply because he had
imperfections and flaws? What?!

Also, look up Vimalakirti. You don't need to renounce the world and material
possessions to be a 'good' Buddhist, whatever that is.

------
mrmasa
Let me clear a couple of basic things related to this issue.

The origin of Zen comes from greater vehicle Buddhism. In Buddhism, we have
two main derivatives: greater vehicle Buddhism and small vehicle Buddhism.

Small vehicle Buddhism devotedly focuses on what Buddha done to reach nilvana.
So, they execute tough ascetic training in shrines.

But, as we know, not everyone can execute such training because of many
reasons. So, greater vehicle Buddhism was born. And Zen was established in
China by indian Buhddist, Daruma because it was heretical in India. After
Confucianism became major religion in China, Japan was the successor of Zen.
This is the history.

This story is pertially closed to the origin of Christianity.

Zen is the practice everyone can do. Controlling anger, relieving oneself from
anxiety, and exploring answers inside, not outside. That's all. The meditation
is one of the methods. We can do it everywhere.

One of the key concept in Buddhism is "changing ever". Everything is unstable.

And, I realize that one of the Jobs's greatest management philosophy is to
release his past. This philosophy is very closed the above concept in
Buddhism. As we get old, we easily stick to our past achievement. But, it
doesn't mean anything, even will be bottleneck for us to step forward simply
because everything changes, which also means everything is imperfect.

I think this is why Jobs used to said "the death is the great invention"
because we are forced to step forward by death.

I think it's not about religious thing, it's about philosophy every one should
have.

For me, it's not important whether Jobs is a kind of Buhddhist or not. He
taught us "to release past". That's a most important thing.

------
rms
The kind that believed meditation was something he did sometimes.

------
johnwahan
It is none of your business, leave him alone. I think he would be sick of that
idolatry.

~~~
noarchy
Would he? His private life was indeed very private while he was alive. But,
the guy sat down for hours of interviews with Isaacson so that a book could be
produced about him. If he didn't to be the centre of any kind of attention, he
choose strange ways of showing it.

------
bobtm
So he was an atheist. It would come as a shock to a number of Apple fanboys in
the US. Edit : so downvoters think a buddhist is not an atheist ? or that it
would not shock anyone in the US ? or what ?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I don't know why people have downvoted you but ... Buddhism doesn't contradict
there being a deity and some Buddhists worship figures as if they were gods
and certainly consider some to have supernatural powers.

So it would seem based on the story here that you've not a strong starting
point. Perhaps he was a deist/agnostic/atheist/apatheist I don't know or
particularly care.

As to your second assertion, how is it relevant to peoples regard for the
devices/software he was party to? How is that line of enquiry pertinent to HN?

