Buddhism?

[originofopinion]

What do Buddhists believe?
Do Buddhists believe in God and Afterlife?

Was Buddha a God or a Philosophy?

What would Buddhism be under? Philosophy or Religion?

What is Nirvana (not the fucking awesome band)?

Was Karma a term used by Buddha himself?

Any "Holy Writings?

Can Atheists be buddhists?

Any Famous Buddhists?

Sorry if I offended anyone with my lack of knowledge on the topic.:confused:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This should be in Religion, I think.

[RedAnarchist]

Moved.

[originofopinion]

anyone reply?

[F9]

With not been sure, i think nirvana is the phase were your soul and body completes its mission and its the highest soul phase a Buddhist can be.Its almost like paradise, meaning that people are acting to reach Nirvana.

No, you cant be an atheist Buddhist.

I can only answer those two questions and im quite sure there arent 100% correct.I have never studied anything on this, and the nirvana thing its just something i happened to hear from a secondary source, and that Buddhism is a religion, and thats why you cant be an atheist buddhist.

[mikelepore]

Was Buddha a God or a Philosophy?

"The buddha" means the enlightened person. It refers to Gautama Siddhartha, who lived 25 centuries ago. He was a young person in a wealthy and powerful family. He was prohibited to go outside because his parents didn't want him to know that suffering exists. He sneaked outside and saw poor people and sick people and a dead body. Because of the shock of learning that suffering exists, he sat under a tree and said he would refuse to get up until he figured out why suffering exists and how to get rid of it. You can search online for the phrases "four noble truths" and "eightfold path" to see what conclusions he came to.

[Random Precision]

What do Buddhists believe?
Do Buddhists believe in God and Afterlife?

Depends on which Buddhists you are talking about. Mahayana Buddhism, the most prominent school of Buddhism, puts the Buddha, his previous incarnations, and bodhissattvas (other enlightened individuals) in the status of gods and accords worship, offerings etc. to them. Therevada Buddhism, or Southern Buddhism, focuses more on individual salvation and the Buddha's ethical doctrine, and is sort of opaque as to its stance on deities. Hence it has been called an atheistic religion by some, which is true in the strictest sense of the word.

As for an afterlife, Buddhists generally believe in the wheel of samsara (reincarnation) that returns all beings to new physical bodies after their death in accordance with their actions in previous lives, or karma. They generally believe that by following "the middle way" between asceticism and embracing wordly pleasure, and the Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path, that one can attain nirvana or "release" from the cycle of rebirth. I have heard nirvana variously described as a state of nothingness or nonbeing, peace, or even bliss. I won't speak as to which one is true. Opinions among Buddhists differ as to how long one takes to reach nirvana- though IIRC at least some Theravada Buddhists believe that it can be reached in one lifetime.


Was Buddha a God or a Philosophy?

As explained above, opinions differ. It is agreed that he is the most prominent individual of our "age" to attain enlightenment, and the only one to teach others how it could be attained.


What would Buddhism be under? Philosophy or Religion?

Depends on what you mean by those words.


What is Nirvana (not the fucking awesome band)?

Explained above.


Was Karma a term used by Buddha himself?

Yes. It was quite a common concept in the society that he lived in, although when he lived it was most commonly believed that karma was a physical substance that was attracted by misdeeds; these days only Jainism has held on to that belief.


Any "Holy Writings?

The substance of Gautama Siddhartha's teachings are found in the Pali Canon/Tripitaka. It is disagreed on whether that scripture preserves his actual words. There are also the Mahayana sutras, which do not date from the time of the Buddha and are more in line with creating a popular religion, so to speak.


Can Atheists be buddhists?

Depends on what you mean by those words. Certainly atheists can follow some of the meditation practices, but I think it would be hard for an atheist in the sense that we usually think of it to accept doctrines such as the wheel of samsara, if you're a strict materialist. And of course we have to take into account that in fact most people hold contradictory belief systems, I mean, I've met a man who is both a Jesuit priest and a Zen Buddhist monk (one of two in the world I think) who was quite forthcoming that it was a contradiction to be both those things. So I guess it's up to the individual.


Any Famous Buddhists?

The Dalai Lama, Aung San Suu Kyi, Jack Kerouac, Thich Nhat Hanh...

[scarletghoul]

Do Buddhists believe in God and Afterlife?
I think all buddhists believe in reincarnation, rather than the heaven/hell style afterlife. As for God, that varies among the various branches of Buddhism. Most Buddhists don't believe in a supreme god being, but then there is for example Tibetan Buddhism, where the Dalai Lama is God incarnate.


Was Buddha a God or a Philosophy?
Again, this varies between types of Buddhists. Some seem to think of him as a god, some just as a correct philosopher


What would Buddhism be under? Philosophy or Religion?
Religion, as its a way of life that relies on faith. But there is of course a philosophical side to it, as there is to all religions.


What is Nirvana (not the fucking awesome band)?
The state of complete enlightenment, I think. My knowledge is limited though, so maybe I'm wrong. And maybe various sects have their own definition


Can Atheists be buddhists?
Yes, as Buddhism doesn't necessarily involve God.


Any Famous Buddhists?
Yeah.

[New Tet]

What do Buddhists believe?
Do Buddhists believe in God and Afterlife?

Was Buddha a God or a Philosophy?

What would Buddhism be under? Philosophy or Religion?
[...]

It's the religion of compassion and transcendence.

[mikelepore]

Can Atheists be buddhists?

Buddhists don't believe in a creator, but they believe that people have individual spirits or souls which are reincarnated. Some Buddhists also believe that rituals have magical powers. Many people who call themselves atheists would deny that believers in reincarnation or magic should be counted as atheists, even if they don't believe in a creator.

However the Japanese Zen denomination of Buddhism, and the older Chinese Ch'an Buddhism that Zen originally developed out of, don't believe in magic or reincarnation. Their way of life consists of philosophical outlooks, and some habits and daily procedures, that they believe form a wise and happy way to live. That is the denomination of Buddhism that is most often described as a philosophy and not a religion.

[Orange Juche]

With not been sure, i think nirvana is the phase were your soul and body completes its mission and its the highest soul phase a Buddhist can be.Its almost like paradise, meaning that people are acting to reach Nirvana.

No, you cant be an atheist Buddhist.

I can only answer those two questions and im quite sure there arent 100% correct.I have never studied anything on this, and the nirvana thing its just something i happened to hear from a secondary source, and that Buddhism is a religion, and thats why you cant be an atheist buddhist.

I'll respond in points. I'd like to note that I refer to Buddhism in it's basic form, the buddha-dharma, the teachings of Siddartha Gautama (the Buddha). I am not referring to sects created based on this, which chose to add things as they wanted. I am referring to Buddhism in it's basic, most pure, original form.

1) Nirvana has nothing to do with a "spirit." It is a state of being. A state of "enlightenment."

2) Not only can you be an atheist Buddhist, but I could make a rather good argument that one cannot truly follow the teachings of Buddhism and not be an atheist. Buddhism teaches to see things as they are, and not as we want them to be. It asks us to see. It, essentially, requires logical evaluation and reason over belief based on nothing (wishful thinking). God is not only illogical, but is nothing but wishful thinking. It is my thought that deity is antithetical to the teachings of the Buddha. The two are not compatible.

3) You are right that Buddhism is termed a religion. But it is not a religion in any traditional sense, and really, calling it one is misleading. To put it simply - Buddhism is a guide to enlightenment, to freeing the mind of all the problems it creates for itself. It's like an instruction booklet. You can choose to follow it, you can choose not to. It makes no demands, only offers solutions. And even the Buddha himself said that, if anything he says or teaches goes against one's instinct or common sense, then you should surely follow your instinct or common sense.

[Orange Juche]

What do Buddhists believe?
Do Buddhists believe in God and Afterlife?

Was Buddha a God or a Philosophy?

What would Buddhism be under? Philosophy or Religion?

What is Nirvana (not the fucking awesome band)?

Was Karma a term used by Buddha himself?

Any "Holy Writings?

Can Atheists be buddhists?

Any Famous Buddhists?

Sorry if I offended anyone with my lack of knowledge on the topic.:confused:

What do Buddhists believe?

My simple explanation.

It's summed up in the four noble truths:

1) Life is suffering.
2) The origin of suffering is attachment.
3) The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4) One can overcome suffering by following the eightfold path (which is a way of living). This includes right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. I recommend you google "the eightfold path."

There are many more deeper intricacies, but this was a simple layout. I recommend you research it though.



Was Buddha a God or a Philosophy?

If you are referring to "the" Buddha, neither. The Buddha, Siddartha Gautama, was a teacher. He is the one who originally taught of the four noble truths and the eightfold path.

A "buddha" is just an enlightened one. Anyone can be a buddha. And Siddartha Gautama is not viewed as being superior, or a savior. He is just another Buddha. He was not a "God" nor a "Philosophy," just a man.




What would Buddhism be under? Philosophy or Religion?

I would argue neither. It is not a religion in that it does not teach a set of standards by which one must live, it has no commandments. And it doesn't have any "teachings" on God, spirits, or the metaphysical.

It is not a philosophy in that philosophies attemp to propose a paradigm on life - why things are the way they are, and why things work the way they do.

It is simply an instruction guide. It teaches the way to obtain a state of "enlightenment," where the mind is free of the clutter that it pains itself with, where one just sees things as they are.




What is Nirvana (not the fucking awesome band)?

The state of enlightenment, of freedom from suffering. It is simply a state of being, not some kind of metaphysical place.




Was Karma a term used by Buddha himself?

Yes.

In the Buddhist sense, karma is not "I was mean to my friend, so supernatural forces will bring that level of negativity back on me." It is the natural responsive nature of ones output. If I am a mean, negative person to others, it will effect others, and that will come back on me. If I am a nice, helping person, my positive output will naturally come back to me.

It is not metaphysical or magical, just logical. If you're a negative jerk, you're more likely to get negative energy from others. If you're a great person, you're more likely to get positive energy from others.




Any "Holy Writings?

The Sutras are written records of oral teachings given by the Buddha and other lamas, rimpoches or scholars.

The Tipitaka is the holy writing of the Therevada Buddhist tradition. Mind you, this was written 300 years after the death of Siddartha Gautama ("the" buddha).

While it contains the teachings of the Buddha, it also contains rules for monks and nuns, and other things not directly relating to the teachings of the Buddha himself. As far as I'm concerned, it's not needed. Only the teachings of the buddha are relevant. All this other fluff surrounding it is a product of sects which came after him, some of which I have strong disagreements with (look at Tibet prior to being taken over by China. Rather brutal and oppressive. Nonsense which has a very large disconnect with what the teachings of the Buddha are about.)

Above everything, Siddartha Gautama insisted that we should not take ANY of the teachings as truth at face value, but analyze things for ourselves.




Can Atheists be buddhists?

Yes, and I would argue that atheism is naturally a part of Buddhism. Refer to my most recent post in this thread, before this one.




Any Famous Buddhists?

Heres a list: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_buddhist.html

[MarxSchmarx]

Mahayana Buddhism, the most prominent school of Buddhism, puts the Buddha, his previous incarnations, and bodhissattvas (other enlightened individuals) in the status of gods and accords worship, offerings etc. to them. Therevada Buddhism, or Southern Buddhism, focuses more on individual salvation and the Buddha's ethical doctrine, and is sort of opaque as to its stance on deities. Hence it has been called an atheistic religion by some, which is true in the strictest sense of the word.
Yes and no. Although Mahayana adherents appear to have more dieties than thervada adherents, in practice among the layety both traditions have effectively diefied certain figures. Most modern and thoughtful Mahayana and Thervada practitioners shun this diefication, and those of the Mahayana tradition insist that Boddhistvas are inspiring examples to follow, rather than gods. But the line becomes blurry as can be seen in modern attempts to canonize Joseph Stalin.


As for an afterlife, Buddhists generally believe in the wheel of samsara (reincarnation) that returns all beings to new physical bodies after their death in accordance with their actions in previous lives, or karma. They generally believe that by following "the middle way" between asceticism and embracing wordly pleasure, and the Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path, that one can attain nirvana or "release" from the cycle of rebirth. I have heard nirvana variously described as a state of nothingness or nonbeing, peace, or even bliss. I won't speak as to which one is true. Opinions among Buddhists differ as to how long one takes to reach nirvana- though IIRC at least some Theravada Buddhists believe that it can be reached in one lifetime.

I think all buddhists believe in reincarnation, rather than the heaven/hell style afterlife.Most Buddhist scholars and clergy today, I would wager, do not view reincarnation literally but rather as someone changing their state of being during the current life and upon death.


Most Buddhists don't believe in a supreme god being, but then there is for example Tibetan Buddhism, where the Dalai Lama is God incarnate.Some would argue, with some cogency, that much of Tibetan Buddhism is an eclectic mix of pre-Buddhist animism, sociopolitical doctrine, and early medieval Buddhist mysticism. As such, it probably resembles western religions considerably more than other branches of Buddhism.

There is quite a bit of evidence that the idea of physical reincranation began in India as an allegorical treatise and over time somehow became a literal interpretation.

[Random Precision]

Yes and no. Although Mahayana adherents appear to have more dieties than thervada adherents, in practice among the layety both traditions have effectively diefied certain figures. Most modern and thoughtful Mahayana and Thervada practitioners shun this diefication, and those of the Mahayana tradition insist that Boddhistvas are inspiring examples to follow, rather than gods. But the line becomes blurry as can be seen in modern attempts to canonize Joseph Stalin.

This is why I said they are "accorded the status of gods". Of course they are not gods in theory, but in practice worship of the Buddha and bodhistvas corresponds to worship of the gods in other religions, like Hinduism.

And it is also true that many lay practitioners of Theravada have in practice deified the Buddha and other figures


Most Buddhist scholars and clergy today, I would wager, do not view reincarnation literally but rather as someone changing their state of being during the current life and upon death...

There is quite a bit of evidence that the idea of physical reincranation began in India as an allegorical treatise and over time somehow became a literal interpretation.

Could you talk about this some more?

[red cat]

What do Buddhists believe?

My simple explanation.

It's summed up in the four noble truths:

1) Life is suffering.
2) The origin of suffering is attachment.
3) The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4) One can overcome suffering by following the eightfold path (which is a way of living). This includes right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. I recommend you google "the eightfold path."

There are many more deeper intricacies, but this was a simple layout. I recommend you research it though.



Was Buddha a God or a Philosophy?

If you are referring to "the" Buddha, neither. The Buddha, Siddartha Gautama, was a teacher. He is the one who originally taught of the four noble truths and the eightfold path.

A "buddha" is just an enlightened one. Anyone can be a buddha. And Siddartha Gautama is not viewed as being superior, or a savior. He is just another Buddha. He was not a "God" nor a "Philosophy," just a man.




What would Buddhism be under? Philosophy or Religion?

I would argue neither. It is not a religion in that it does not teach a set of standards by which one must live, it has no commandments. And it doesn't have any "teachings" on God, spirits, or the metaphysical.






Can Atheists be buddhists?

Yes, and I would argue that atheism is naturally a part of Buddhism. Refer to my most recent post in this thread, before this one.




Any Famous Buddhists?

Heres a list: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_buddhist.html

Atheism involves negating any belief in supernatural phenomena. Would you please explain what exactly you mean by enlightenment, and how it should happen? Also, if a person is freed from all attachments, in essence he is being separated from the society, which will result in physical and mental damage over years, instead of ending his sufferings. Is enlightenment somehow linked to this?

[MarxSchmarx]

Quote:
Most Buddhist scholars and clergy today, I would wager, do not view reincarnation literally but rather as someone changing their state of being during the current life and upon death...

There is quite a bit of evidence that the idea of physical reincranation began in India as an allegorical treatise and over time somehow became a literal interpretation.
Could you talk about this some more? Sorry to have left it hanging. It goes back to the Buddhist idea of lack of a concrete "self" and the impermanence of all being. The Buddha was credited with having a view of rebirth quite heretical to existing hindu teachings. As such, the most consistent interpretation is that under buddhist doctrine, rebirth is a continuous process of ambiguous entities. To pin it down as souls entering different physical forms, as would be suggested by the customary interpretation and as is the case in hinduism, would directly contradict many key tenets such as the absolute dissolution of everything and the illusory self.


Atheism involves negating any belief in supernatural phenomena. Would you please explain what exactly you mean by enlightenment, and how it should happen? Also, if a person is freed from all attachments, in essence he is being separated from the society, which will result in physical and mental damage over years, instead of ending his sufferings. Is enlightenment somehow linked to this?In the west, for better or for worse, this is only understood as "death". The link between the two has been made explicit at least a handful of times throughout Buddhist history. For details, I'll refer you to Ueda, Yoshifumi (1984): The Mahāyāna Structure of Shinran's Thought.

[RedStarOverChina]

Here we go again...

To be fair, Buddha was an extraordinarily "forward thinking" for his time.

Nevertheless, he was superstitious and believed in Gods and reincarnation because people in general were ignorant back then. Remember, that was 2000 years ago.

There's no excuse to be the same today.

Plus, whenever Buddhism is put into practice (or worse, becomes the official religion), it always end up as corrupt and oppressive as any of the other religions.

[red cat]

Here we go again...

To be fair, Buddha was an extraordinarily "forward thinking" for his time.

How are you so sure of this?
Please notice that the theory of reincarnations and holding one's activities in previous lives responsible for his sufferings ultimately leads to the same idealistic point of view that whitewashes the ruling classes who are the real causes of one's sufferings.



Nevertheless, he was superstitious and believed in Gods and reincarnation because people in general were ignorant back then. Remember, that was 2000 years ago.


The Hinayana sect of Buddhism maintains that Buddha remained silent on the existence of God.



There's no excuse to be the same today.

Plus, whenever Buddhism is put into practice (or worse, becomes the official religion), it always end up as corrupt and oppressive as any of the other religions.

Absolutely correct.

[Orange Juche]

Plus, whenever Buddhism is put into practice (or worse, becomes the official religion), it always end up as corrupt and oppressive as any of the other religions.

I could easily make the same argument for Maoism (or Leninist ideologies in general).

[red cat]

I could easily make the same argument for Maoism (or Leninist ideologies in general).

Leninism and Maoism differ from Buddhism in being social sciences, where theory and practice go hand in hand. This is in contrast to Buddhism(and any other religion) where some stupid ideas such as reincarnation are concocted from nowhere and people are asked to shape their lives according to those. So there can be no comparison within the two. Also, Buddhism discourages class struggle and by its definition itself is reactionary.

[RedStarOverChina]

I could easily make the same argument for Maoism (or Leninist ideologies in general).
Why is that any of my concern? It's not like I'm a Maoist or even a Leninist.

But it would be plain untrue to argue that the revolutionary China is as corrupt as any other Capitalist country.



Please notice that the theory of reincarnations and holding one's activities in previous lives responsible for his sufferings ultimately leads to the same idealistic point of view that whitewashes the ruling classes who are the real causes of one's sufferings.
Oh believe me, I know.

It's right that Gautama's ideas on reincarnation were most certainly "opium" in its classical sense.

But that's what everbody believed in back then. At least where Gautama's from. There was no alternative, and not much scientific evidence to prove otherwise. We can cut him some slack there. And I repeat, that's no justification for being a Buddhist today.

Plus, he was against the ultra-reactionary Hindu caste system which gets him brownie points.


The Hinayana sect of Buddhism maintains that Buddha remained silent on the existence of God.
That might be true. But most would agree that he accepted existing Hindu deities rather than rejected them.

[Orange Juche]

Leninism and Maoism differ from Buddhism in being social sciences, where theory and practice go hand in hand.

Leninism is a "social science?" In what way? An ideology, for certain, but are you implying that it is in the league of anthropology or sociology in terms of scientific merit in it's analysis of society? I'd say it's an ideology. Not in a way to deface it, as an anarcho-communist I have my level of agreements. But a social science?

What I infer from what you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, is that Marxist practice is linear... Marx said one thing, and it is put straightforward in to practice. Would you not disagree that Council Communists and Stalinists have very broad differences in ideology and methods of practicing such, though they both retain the term "Marxist?"

And in what way is it somehow immune to becoming "corrupt and oppressive?"




This is in contrast to Buddhism(and any other religion) where some stupid ideas such as reincarnation are concocted from nowhere and people are asked to shape their lives according to those.

There's obviously a lack of complete understanding here.

Buddhism, "and any other religion?" Buddhism really isn't a religion, in the traditional sense, and can hardly just be lumped in with the likes of the Abrahamic religions, Hinduism, etc. Buddhism, as Siddartha Gautama (the buddha) taught it, has no gods. It does not have a doctrine in the sense that "you have to do this," it has no commandments. It is a guide to living in a way that you free your mind of the problems it creates. Even the Buddha said that, if something in his teachings goes against one's common sense, follow common sense. It is suggestive, not commanding. It makes no unscientific claims, just evaluates the "ego." It doesn't tell you how things are, it asks you to unbiasedly see reality as it is.

You mention reincarnation. This is not part of the Buddhist doctrine, as the Buddha taught it. It has nothing to do with the four noble truths, or the eightfold path. You can't condemn Buddhism as a whole, because some believe in silly things like reincarnation. Just like you can't condemn Council Communism using an analysis of Stalinism.




Also, Buddhism discourages class struggle and by its definition itself is reactionary.

In what way does it discourage class struggle? Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

[RedStarOverChina]

Unfortunately, the kind of Buddhism you described does not exist, except perhaps in the books written by academics or in the minds of a couple Western admirers.

The kind of Buddhism I suffered through is more or less universal: a corrupt, sanctimonious, self-righteous, fear-mongering organization of greedy, superstitious and often sexually devious monks.

And I don't see the point for any moderner to revisit Gautama for "wisdom". Even his brightest ideas we have long since surpassed. The rest is unsubstantiated, spiritualistic bullcrap.

[Orange Juche]

Unfortunately, the kind of Buddhism you described does not exist, except perhaps in the books written by academics or in the minds of a couple Western admirers.

What do you mean? There are all kinds of Buddhists. Quite a number are atheists.





The kind of Buddhism I suffered through is more or less universal: a corrupt, sanctimonious, self-righteous, fear-mongering organization of greedy, superstitious and often sexually devious monks.

Well that certainly exists, but there are a number of people who consider themselves Buddhists who would be strongly against that.





And I don't see the point for any moderner to revisit Gautama for "wisdom". Even his brightest ideas we have long since surpassed. The rest is unsubstantiated, spiritualistic bullcrap.

How have his "brightest ideas long since surpassed?" In what way are they restricted to that period of time? What makes them anachronistic in a modern setting?

[VientoLibre]

The kind of Buddhism I suffered through is more or less universal: a corrupt, sanctimonious, self-righteous, fear-mongering organization of greedy, superstitious and often sexually devious monks.


I'm sorry to hear that you had to suffer through this. But I wouldn't let any type of institution define something as diverse as Buddhism. Of course it's going to be twisted and warped in order to oppress people in some places, but other schools such as Zen Buddhism aren't superstitious at all, are completely about the process of understanding the self, even to the point of deconstructing religious icons such as Gautama himself.

[Invincible Summer]

I've always seen Buddhism as sort of a selfish belief system - one does all these good deeds in order to find "enlightenment" for oneself. Therefore, the incentive seems to be not to be a good person in general, but to be a good person in order to achieve some sort of personal reward.

[kalu]

I've always seen Buddhism as sort of a selfish belief system - one does all these good deeds in order to find "enlightenment" for oneself. Therefore, the incentive seems to be not to be a good person in general, but to be a good person in order to achieve some sort of personal reward.

There are many schools of Buddhism, most place a strong emphasis on the liberation of all beings from suffering. Mahayana, for example, refers to Bodhisattvas who, though enlightened, remain in the world to help others.

[Invincible Summer]

There are many schools of Buddhism, most place a strong emphasis on the liberation of all beings from suffering. Mahayana, for example, refers to Bodhisattvas who, though enlightened, remain in the world to help others.

Fair enough.

[tellyontellyon]

I've been a Buddhist for over 12 years. It doesn't seem to get in the way of me being a Marxist, in fact I find it inspires me in that direction!

The kind of suffering the Buddha was talking about was the kind we create in our own minds by not seeing things as they are...
I.e. Impermanent/interdependent/no-soul.
THAT IS THE CORE OF BUDDHISM.

Because we don't want to see the undeniable truths of impermanence and interdependence, we end up being addicted to accumulation and egoism in order to 'prop up' a psychological defence against the reality of our vulnerable and temporary existence.
Something that leads to psychological suffering and material selfishness/capitalism.

I don't think being a Buddhist automatically makes somebody 'reactionary', the Dalai Lama himself favours a practical effort to address the material economic imbalance in this world. He isn't specifically advocating Marxism, but then you can't expect him to be keen on what masquerades as Marxism in China.

[red cat]

Does Buddhism ask you to conduct class struggle and overthrow the ruling class?

Are you familiar with Tibet's history?

[MilitantAnarchist]

Buddha sucks

[tellyontellyon]

Not specifically, but then neither do lots of other things!
E.g. I'm a care worker, but being a care worker doesn't get in the way of me being a Marxist. It is possible to be a Marxist and be other things beside.

Just because Buddhism isn't Marxism, that doesn't mean they are completely incompatible.
The only real point of conflict might be the use of violence? Does the overthrow of the ruling class have to be violent?

[Pogue]

yes, it does.

[tellyontellyon]

I don't agree.

[VientoLibre]

I don't understand the fetish that exists on this forum with attacking Buddhism and Taoism. It seems nonsensical given the fact that many people on this forum who are leftists actually practice Buddhism and Taoism and are therefore living proof that these ideas don't stop you from engaging in social struggle. Not to mention all of the Buddhist social activists that come to mind...

Maybe somebody can clear this up for me?

[red cat]

I don't understand the fetish that exists on this forum with attacking Buddhism and Taoism. It seems nonsensical given the fact that many people on this forum who are leftists actually practice Buddhism and Taoism and are therefore living proof that these ideas don't stop you from engaging in social struggle. Not to mention all of the Buddhist social activists that come to mind...

Maybe somebody can clear this up for me?


We recognize a social struggle to be truely beneficial to the oppressed classes only when it attempts the overthrowal of the ruling classes. Never heard of a Buddhist-led struggle doing that. Also, in order to prove that both ideologies are actually compatible, you will have to show us a revolutionary leftist movement in which the majority of the vanguard party are Buddhists.

[VientoLibre]

Oh, ok.

[mikelepore]

Atheism involves negating any belief in supernatural phenomena. Would you please explain what exactly you mean by enlightenment, and how it should happen? Also, if a person is freed from all attachments, in essence he is being separated from the society, which will result in physical and mental damage over years, instead of ending his sufferings. Is enlightenment somehow linked to this?

In Zen, enlightenment means reaching a condition of understanding things intuitively instead of through "discursive reasoning." Emphasis is on the "suchness" or "thusness" of things, the way an artist knows the nature of the materials directly instead of through symbolic description. The koan, which is used mainly in Rinzai Zen, not so much in Soto Zen, is a question to be meditated on, intended to make the student realize that trying to answer it in words is itself the limitation that has to be surpassed. Formore about this, I recommend reading the books by D. T. Suzuki.

Another aspect of enlightenment, in both the Mahayana and the Theravada traditions of Buddhism, is the ability to pay attention to the tasks and sensory inputs in the present moment. Some describe the mind as a "drunken monkey", meaning uncontrollable, in that most people are unable to make the decision to stop worrying about the past and future for a specific number of minutes.

[tellyontellyon]

Buddhism doesn't say, "Go and overthrow capitalism".
But neither it does it say, "Don't overthrow capitalism".

Lets consider this statement by 'redcat':
you will have to show us a revolutionary leftist movement in which the majority of the vanguard party are Buddhists. Today 00:49
you will have to show us a revolutionary leftist movement in which the majority of the vanguard party are Buddhists. Today 00:49
"Also, in order to prove that both ideologies are actually compatible, you will have to show us a revolutionary leftist movement in which the majority of the vanguard party are Buddhists."

It's like you are saying that the only thing in the whole wide world that is compatible with being a Marxist... is being a Marxist and nothing else whatsoever....
....Can't you also be a milkman or something... or a plumber... or a football player... or a singer... or a Buddhist?
... or lots of other activities that are not intrinsically Marxist..but not intrinsicaly against Marxism either?

"...a revolutionary leftist movement in which the majority of the vanguard party are Buddhists..."
... Show me an army of revolutionary milkmen! Swathes of Bolshevik football players coming up the left side!! :lol:

Get a grip!!

Edit:
Just to make the point clear: If a Buddhist feels able to support revolutionary Marxism, if they can stand shoulder to shoulder with you and do what you do to make it happen.. then, ipso facto, that persons beliefs are compatible with Marxism.

If that Buddhist was advocating a different kind of workers state or a different approach, you would have an arguement. You would be able to say to Buddhists, as Lenin said in similar circumstances ,"Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands...."

I don't wish to pull Marxists into the marsh, I don't advocate Buddhism for anybody other than myself, or suggest it be blended with Marxism. I only say that this Buddhist feels he can join you on the true path of Marxism. I don't want to change you or convert you, I only ask that you disregard my religion and allow me to join you.

[red cat]

Buddhism doesn't say, "Go and overthrow capitalism".
But neither it does it say, "Don't overthrow capitalism".

Lets consider this statement by 'redcat':
you will have to show us a revolutionary leftist movement in which the majority of the vanguard party are Buddhists. Today 00:49
you will have to show us a revolutionary leftist movement in which the majority of the vanguard party are Buddhists. Today 00:49
"Also, in order to prove that both ideologies are actually compatible, you will have to show us a revolutionary leftist movement in which the majority of the vanguard party are Buddhists."

It's like you are saying that the only thing in the whole wide world that is compatible with being a Marxist... is being a Marxist and nothing else whatsoever....
....Can't you also be a milkman or something... or a plumber... or a football player... or a singer... or a Buddhist?
... or lots of other activities that are not intrinsically Marxist..but not intrinsicaly against Marxism either?

"...a revolutionary leftist movement in which the majority of the vanguard party are Buddhists..."
... Show me an army of revolutionary milkmen! Swathes of Bolshevik football players coming up the left side!! :lol:

Get a grip!!

Capitalism did not exist when Buddhism was founded. But feudal exploitation was everywhere. In such a situation, trying to influence people while keeping silent about the need to overthrow the ruling class is nothing but opportunism.

Being a milkman or a plumber is not equivalent to being a christian or a buddhist.
The first two characterize two occupations. Although these are working-class jobs, professional revolutionaries would never be able to continue with any other job besides making the revolution. However, Buddhism is a ideology. And people can always have ideologies which are compatible to their occupation. Hence my demand.

[tellyontellyon]

Buddhists would argue that Buddhism is not an ideology... but rather an attempt to drop attachment to all ideologies and interpretations and directly observe experience moment by moment.

That doesn't mean that you can't use an ideology, but for Buddhists, you try not to identify with it to the point of not recognising it as an ideology.

So from my point of view, the only difference between be just a Marxist and being a Marxist PLUS being a Buddhist, is that I am supposed to 'consciously be mindful' of the experience of being Marxist.

Strictly speaking, according to Tantra, I need to recognise the 'Non-dual view' of reality....
...Marxists don't go along with a dualistic view of reality, do they?
If they do then I'm knackered! :(

[tellyontellyon]

Having said that, the criticism that Buddhism, is incompatible with Marxism as 'Buddhism is an ideology' could equally be applied to other 'ism's

Is Feminism incompatible with Marxism?

Or Materialism?

[red cat]

Yes.

[tellyontellyon]

yes to what?

[red cat]

Bourgeois feminism is incompatible with Marxism.

[tellyontellyon]

No women in the revolution then... they can stay home and do the ironing!

If non-marxist ideologies are not acceptable... what the hell are you doing by being a Maoist?

If feminism is incompatible with Marxism... how about Capitalism?!

One country-two systems.... crap!

[red cat]

No women in the revolution then... they can stay home and do the ironing!

Bourgeois feminism makes commodities out of women. Proletarian feminism treats both the sexes equally and encourages women to fight alongside men to make revolution. In the Philippines and India, over 40% of Maoist fighters are women.



If non-marxist ideologies are not acceptable... what the hell are you doing by being a Maoist?

If feminism is incompatible with Marxism... how about Capitalism?!

One country-two systems.... crap!

Do I need to answer these?

[Trystan]

Having said that, the criticism that Buddhism, is incompatible with Marxism as 'Buddhism is an ideology' could equally be applied to other 'ism's

Is Feminism incompatible with Marxism?

Or Materialism?

I'd say it is quite compatible with socialism. I don't know about Marxism . . . I don't think it's a particularly important question, though. I mean I don't see why Marxism and Buddhism should or would cross over in 'real life' (i.e a revolutionary situation), so questions of compatability are superfluous in my opinion.