“None the less, from Hannibal Lecter to Morgan, Dexter: etcetera… nada… formalis.” JR

Psychopath/Buddha

1. Abundant glib superficial charm/Love for all things.

2. Poverty of emotions, flat affect/Let it go, all is as it should be.

3. Unable to form strong emotional bonds/ ‘Spiritual detachment’.

4. Impulsive/Live for this moment.

5. Less fear, guilt, remorse/ ‘At peace’

6. Manipulative, change story to fit situation/ ‘Zen’.

7. Usually men/ Buddhas’ can only be men. Bodhisattva and higher ranks for females are a late edition. Oh yeah. Put that in your spiritual pipe.

8. Grandiose, arrogant, narcissistic/ ‘Enlightenment’, svakkhatdo (excellent beginning, middle and end; ‘Higher’ mind, wisdom and virtue ect).

9. Use others to feel powerful/ ‘Holy’. (also temples, progressive rank hierarchy ect)

10. Behaviourally prone to violate social norms/ Orange robes with sandals, a shaved head and extensive wooden beads: yeah that’ll about do it at most clubs. Especially after 6pm.

11. Parasitic lifestyle/ ‘Monk’.

12. Lacks realistic long term goals/ ‘Monk’.

13. Failure to accept responsibilities/ ‘Monk’.

14. Decreased startle response/ Meditation.

15. Shallow or flat affect/ Balance, centred.

16. Lacks true empathy, self serving/ reincarnation and Karma.

Introduction

CONSIDER if you will the power of stillness. The gift that mastery of the detached self can bring over the waking mind. Ceaseless tides quelled. Over reaction reined in. All spiritual masters talk of this. Even in spiritual teachings it is called ‘detachment’. But do you know where emotional detachment is frowned upon?

That’s right. The law courts. And in the consultation clinic of the prison psychologist or psychiatrist.

Buddha was a psychopath. And Buddhism is nothing but an ancient path to breed sociopathy.

Section1 Teachings of the Dharma and Psychopathogenesis

I was raised next to a Buddhist temple with a prominent spiritualist for a mother. Add to this a bit of a background in psychology and you are left with someone in a unique place to comment on this very topic.

The author thinks in pictures. Just some trivia there. But was this born or bred? Is it not possibly so that early exposure to intense meditation training is akin to producing Hares’ absence of “inner speech”: a missing requirement crucial for the development of conscience?

If any language or instrumental education holds more lifelong gravity when begun before age 7, is the power of non-speach not then equally likely to carry such power? Well, one could argue. And one does.

Section 2 From Hervey to Hare: the Psychopathy checklist

Hervey Cleckley, unbeknownst to most, was one of the first to coin the term ‘psychopath’ in a diagnostic sense. Taken from his now out of print 1940’s book ‘Mask of Sanity’, ‘psychopath’ was the resurrection of the old German word for people who B. Rush suggested b-rush emotion aside by natural tendency.

It was to be replaced by the term ‘sociopath’ in the 1930’s by Partridge. All are adapted from Pinels’ manie sans delire (insane without insanity) and both terms sociopath and psychopath are unequivocal historically; despite the abundance of those all too happy to muddy the waters, from academia to the Hollywood walk, they are in fact identical in meaning. Point of fact; psychopath was chosen to be less stigmatising. Interesting huh?

In any case, the more contemporarily famous Hare merely provided the checklist revision to move away from the analytic flavour which was no longer in favour; with DSM (diagnostic/statistical manual for mental disorder) leading the way on this point. That being said: I know of nowhere where psychopathy is considered a formal diagnosis per se. At all. Anywhere. Ever.

Yes, despite the volumes of supposed research which extend from your boss when he is driven but you don’t like him to the partialpath, the path-next-door, the threefourthspath with a cherry on top: (with Anti Social Personality Disorder a distinct condition) nowhere is being a ‘psychopath’ an illness in any recognised manual. Sorry.

The funding is real enough. Thanks to Law and Order, CSI and the like. The 1-3% of the population claims, the nonviolent, the violent, the in-between, the only on Thursday-path, the once a monthopath, the postnatalpath, the not-now-not-during-glee-its-my-show-and-you-know-that-you-freakin-know-that-its-my-show-yes-you-do-yes-you-do-I-told-you-can’t-this-wait-till-the-adds-what-is-it-no-I’m-not-snapping-at-you-but-you-know-this-is-my-show-I-told-you-this-is-my-show-yes-I-did-um-excuse-me-yes-I-did-a-path… well, I don’t have to tell you. Not twice. Certainly not 3 times. Certainly not again.

None the less, from Hannibal Lecter to Morgan, Dexter: etcetera… nada… formalis.

Is it as strong a case as any other disorder actually in the DSM? Probably. Though one could argue that really isn’t saying a great deal. Wait till next May when DSM 5 with its ‘Probably insane later’ pre praecox diagnosis (further investigation suggestion) which rates a mention, pending temporary suspension, hits the press. Yet, still no psychopathy. It’s just not there. Subsumed in ASPD? Kinda, sorta. Not really. In 5 to have its own APSD subtype? Maybe, probably, what does it matter? Point is up until (and including) right now: it’s just not there. Doesn’t exist.

None the less, from amongst all aforementioned the most modern convention conception can be derived. And before I add one more, let us review the Hare low-tech list side by side JR-B-Path-list with a forward-slash betwixt lists function, for comparison in turn:

Psychopath/Buddha

1. Abundant glib superficial charm/Love for all things.

2. Poverty of emotions, flat affect/Let it go, all is as it should be.

3. Unable to form strong emotional bonds/ ‘Spiritual detachment’.

4. Impulsive/Live for this moment.

5. Less fear, guilt, remorse/ ‘At peace’

6. Manipulative, change story to fit situation/ ‘Zen’.

7. Usually men/ Buddhas’ can only be men. Bodhisattva and higher ranks for females are a late edition. Oh yeah. Put that in your spiritual pipe.

8. Grandiose, arrogant, narcissistic/ ‘Enlightenment’, svakkhatdo (excellent beginning, middle and end; ‘Higher’ mind, wisdom and virtue ect).

9. Use others to feel powerful/ ‘Holy’. (also temples, progressive rank hierarchy ect)

10. Behaviourally prone to violate social norms/ Orange robes with sandals, a shaved head and extensive wooden beads: yeah that’ll about do it at most clubs. Especially after 6pm.

11. Parasitic lifestyle/ ‘Monk’.

12. Lacks realistic long term goals/ ‘Monk’.

13. Failure to accept responsibilities/ ‘Monk’.

14. Decreased startle response/ Meditation.

15. Shallow or flat affect/ Balance, centered.

16. Lacks true empathy, self serving/ reincarnation and Karma.

Section 3 What does it all mean?

Buddhists are all psychopaths, that’s what it means.

And Buddhists, like all psychopaths, learn to justify their position as well as mirror the behaviour of those around. All in just the right mix to fit the current social climate. There are examples of this throughout history. It is this that also saves it in some respects from being classified pathological across the board.

This gratitude is more chiefly owed to the weak minded however (ie if practiced properly with true commitment it would not be so flexible and as such persons truly ‘Buddhapathic ’, to use my term, would be more readily discovered).

Thank goodness it has become more of a cultural norm in the west, as a religion I mean, because that means you stop being crazy with exactly the same symptoms. That’s science.

Conclusion

Now I am not commenting on whether this is good or bad. It’s probably good. OK I am commenting. It is good, it’s right. It’s a better way to live. But then I would say that, wouldn’t I? And do I mean it? Do I FEEL it?

How would I know. I just know it’s reasonable on paper and beyond that: you can’t tell the difference anyway. Whoever you are. So who cares (except me, deeply. For all you know).

At best this paper highlights the importance of framing in theory of mind presumption. At worst: you don’t want to fight an army of Buddhists (and of course there have been many such blessed armies through history like any other religion. Look it up.)

Arguably, the only intelligent conclusion one can reach is that if ones’ feelings remain in tact after years of Buddhist or similar meditative training, especially from a young age, then one must not have been doing it with commitment.

Feign compassion for all, for next life self interest, yes, sure, absolutely. Hope for a world with your own personal version of what peace should look like but feel no hypocrisy in doing this: definitely.

Lie to yourself if you like, or find a variant more personally applicable to success in your current situation. Whatever that may be.

But the crux of it is if you genuinely ‘feel’ anything beyond this and think that position to be legitimate: well my friend you just ain’t been doing it right. You are not a Buddhist. You are a poser.

But worry not. There are plenty of other pseudo-pious religious institutions to choose from and each one as full of pretense, narcissistic self involvement posing as charity and righteous power over others, as the last.

But always follow trends and go for what is vastly popular but pretends to be underground or edge. This is by far the best base position for access to across the board mass manipulation to transcend both culture and sub-culture.

For example, maybe you could try atheism next.

JR

Philosophy/BioPsychology/Forensics