Taoism

[Revy]

Most people are familiar with the tai chi, yin yang symbol or divination and some people even know the creation myth (http://people.howstuffworks.com/meaning-of-taoism1.htm). However, the core philosophy is what interests me.

Beliefnet (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Taoists-Believe.aspx)talks about Taoist beliefs, which are vague. However, one gets a hint of how their philosophy might impact political thinking.


Taoists believe that nature is a continual balance between yin and yang, and that any attempt to go toward one extreme or the other will be ineffective, self-defeating, and short-lived. When people interfere with the natural balance by trying to impose their egoistic plans, they will not succeed; rather, the non-egoistic person allows nature to unfold, watching it ebb and flow from good to bad and back again.This is confirmed by How Stuff Works on Taoist philosophy (http://people.howstuffworks.com/taoist-philosophy.htm), it goes into more detail (excerpts I collected and put together).


Our mission, according to Taoist philosophy, is to return to a natural way of life, unencumbered by complicated social institutions and intellectual ideas. Doing so, Taoism suggests, will return us to a state of natural grace -- Tao.

Chuang Tzu also tells us how to identify those who exemplify the life of one who seeks the Tao. "The wise," he said, "are charitable, not from a sense of duty but because it is The Way. They do not acquire debt nor place others under obliga*tion to them. They take their food where they may find it and they ramble carefree through the world."

The wise in Taoist philosophy are those who realize that nature and destiny cannot be changed. And they know that by virtue of being human, we, too, are part of nature.

A central concept in Taoist philosophy is this theme of seeking the Tao by renouncing society, and this theme is revisited often in Taoist poetry and art.

Chi K'ang tells us that what we commonly think of as knowledge and wisdom are obstacles in his path. What he has learned, he realizes, will not help him in his contemplation of Tao. Furthermore, spending his time in regret and reflecting on the sins of his past will bring him neither peace nor enlightenment.

In Taoist philosophy, an enlightened mind is a mind unencumbered with the intellectual constructions of society. Enlightenment is a state of mind in which the universal principles that govern nature are reflected without effort.

Religions, legal systems, and rituals are all examples of the contrived systems that serve the private interests of certain groups. When we adopt the ideas they propound, we also adopt their interests and ways of thinking. By doing so, we lose sight of the true nature of things.

How best to rid ourselves of these misconceptions and flawed logic, how to go about renouncing society, is the Taoist problem.

The Way tells us to direct attention away from the overwhelming flood of ideas produced in our interaction with the everyday world. By doing so, it is possible to gain a measure of control over our emotions, since we no longer need to respond to the world.
If we can accomplish this, then the messages we receive from the world, although endless in their scope, can no longer influence us in the same manner, nor can they determine our outlook.

In this way, Taoists believe our inner world will gradually be purified and liberated from both the tyranny of the senses and the radical swings of emotion they invoke. Freedom from the boundaries imposed by daily life now becomes possible.

This would seem to be in contradiction to revolutionary principles. There should be more critical rebuttal to the idea that the core principles of every religion are compatible with revolutionary socialism. Comrades tend to take that for granted, so as to not appear excessively anti-theist.

[KarlMarx1989]

Wow, thanks for that. I knew next to nothing about Taoism before.

[spiltteeth]

Both Taoism and American Buddhism reinforce ones indifference to social change, and also inscribes one further into the capitalist system.

[Revy]

Both Taoism and American Buddhism reinforce ones indifference to social change, and also inscribes one further into the capitalist system.

Let me guess, Christianity is different?:rolleyes:

Romans 13:1-7
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Pretty radical stuff.:D

[VientoLibre]

Both Taoism and American Buddhism reinforce ones indifference to social change, and also inscribes one further into the capitalist system.

This statement contains so many logical fallacies that it almost hurts my head to read. First of all, can you explain exactly what "American Buddhism" is? Second of all, how do Taoism and "American Buddhism" reinforce ones indifference to social change?

I'm going to warn you that I actually study these subjects, so if you're response is as incoherent as your original post, I'm just going to laugh at you.

:laugh:

[spiltteeth]

It looks like yr already laughing...

Bastardized from Zizek :
Christ himself is the ultimate diabolic figure, insofar as diabolos (to separate, to tear apart the One into Two) is the opposite of symbolos (to gather and unify). He brought the “sword, not peace,” in order to disturb the existing harmonious unity. Or, as Christ told Luke: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and his mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” In order for there to be a properly unified “symbolic” community of believers, Christ had to first come and perform the Holy Spirit’s separating “diabolic” founding gesture.

Thus the Christian stance is radically different from the teachings of paganism. In clear contrast to the pagan wisdom that the universe is the abyss of the primordial Ground in which all “false” opposites—Good and Evil, appearance and reality, folly and wisdom, etc.—coincide, Christianity proclaims as the highest action precisely what paganism condemns as the source of all evil—the gesture of separation, of drawing the line, of clinging to an element that disturbs the balance of All.

What this means is that the Buddhist all-encompassing Compassion has to be opposed to the Christian intolerant, violent Love. The Buddhist stance is ultimately that of indifference, of quenching all passions that strive to establish differences, while the Christian love is a violent passion to introduce a difference, a gap in the order of being, to privilege and elevate some object above others. Love is violence not (only) in the vulgar sense of the Balkan proverb, “If he doesn’t beat me, he doesn’t love me!” The choice of love itself is already violent, as it tears an object out of its context and elevates it to the Thing. In Montenegrin folklore, the origin of Evil is a beautiful woman: She makes men lose their balance, she literally destabilizes the universe, coloring all things with a tone of partiality.
Eastern wisdom, from “Western Buddhism” to Taoism, is establishing itself as the hegemonic ideology of global capitalism. But while Western Buddhism presents itself as the remedy against the stress of capitalism’s dynamics—by allowing us to uncouple and retain some inner peace—it actually functions as the perfect ideological supplement.
Consider the phenomenon of “future shock”—the popular term for how people today can no longer psychologically cope with the dazzling rhythm of technological development and the accompanying social change. Before one can become accustomed to the newest invention, another arrives to take its place, so that increasingly one lacks the most elementary “cognitive mapping.” Eastern thought offers a way out that is far superior to the desperate attempt to escape into old traditions. The way to cope with this dizzying change, such wisdom suggests, is to renounce any attempts to retain control over what goes on, rejecting such efforts as expressions of the modern logic of domination. Instead, one should “let oneself go,” drift along, while retaining an inner distance and indifference toward the mad dance of the accelerated process. Such distance is based on the insight that all of the upheaval is ultimately just a non-substantial proliferation of semblances that do not really concern the innermost kernel of our being.

Here, one is almost tempted to resuscitate the old, infamous Marxist cliché of religion as “the opium of the people,” as the imaginary supplement of real-life misery. The “Western Buddhist” meditative stance is arguably the most efficient way for us to fully participate in the capitalist economy while retaining the appearance of sanity. If Max Weber were alive today, he would definitely write a second, supplementary volume to his Protestant Ethic, titled The Taoist Ethic and the Spirit of Global Capitalism.
Look atAlexander Oey’s 2003 documentary, Sandcastles: Buddhism and Global Finance. A wonderfully ambiguous indication of our present ideological predicament, Sandcastles combines the commentaries of economist Arnoud Boot, sociologist Saskia Sassen and the Tibetan Buddhist teacher Dzongzar Khyentse Rinpoche. Sassen and Boot discuss the gigantic scope and power, as well as social and economic effects, of global finance. Capital markets, now valued at $83 trillion, exist within a system based purely on self-interest, in which herd behavior, often based on rumors, can inflate or destroy the value of companies—or whole economies—in a matter of hours. Khyentse Rinpoche counters them with ruminations about the nature of human perception, illusion and enlightenment. He tries to throw a new light on the mad dance of billion-dollar speculations with his philosophico-ethical statement, “Release your attachment to something that is not there in reality, but is a perception.” Echoing the Buddhist notion that there is no self, only a stream of continuous perceptions, Sassen comments about global capital: “It’s not that there are $83 trillion. It is essentially a continuous set of movements. It disappears and it reappears.”But how are we to read this parallel between the Buddhist ontology and the structure of virtual capitalism’s universe? The documentary tends toward the humanist reading: Seen through a Buddhist lens, the exuberance of global financial wealth is illusory, divorced from the objective reality—the very human suffering caused by deals made on trading floors and in boardrooms invisible to most of us. However, if one accepts the premise that the value of material wealth, and one’s experience of reality, is subjective, and that desire plays a decisive role in both daily life and neoliberal economics, isn’t it also possible to draw the exact opposite conclusion? Perhaps our traditional viewpoint of the world was based on naive notions of a substantial, external reality composed of fixed objects, while the hitherto unknown dynamic of “virtual capitalism” confronts us with the illusory nature of reality. What better proof of the non-substantial nature of reality than a gigantic fortune that can dissolve into nothing in a couple of hours due to a sudden false rumor? Consequently, why complain that financial speculations with futures markets are “divorced from objective reality,” when the basic premise of Buddhist ontology is that there is no “objective reality”?

The only “critical” lesson to be drawn from Buddhism’s perspective on virtual capitalism is that one should be aware that we are dealing with a mere theater of shadows, with no substantial existence. Thus we need not fully engage ourselves in the capitalist game, but play it with an inner distance. Virtual capitalism could thus act as a first step toward “liberation.” It confronts us with the fact that the cause of our suffering is not objective reality—there is no such thing—but rather our Desire, our craving for material things. All one has to do then, after ridding oneself of the false notion of a substantial reality, is simply renounce desire itself and adopt an attitude of inner peace and distance. No wonder Buddhism can function as the perfect ideological supplement to virtual capitalism: It allows us to participate in it with an inner distance, keeping our fingers crossed, and our hands clean, as it were.

"Western Buddhism" thus fits perfectly the fetishist mode of ideology in our allegedly "post-ideological" era, as opposed to its traditional symptomal mode in which the ideological lie which structures our perception of reality is threatened by symptoms qua "returns of the repressed," cracks in the fabric of the ideological lie. The fetish is effectively a kind of symptom in reverse. That is to say, the symptom is the exception which disturbs the surface of the false appearance, the point at which the repressed Other Scene erupts, while the fetish is the embodiment of the Lie which enables us to sustain the unbearable truth. Let us take the case of the death of a beloved person. In the case of a symptom, I "repress" this death and try not to think about it, but the repressed trauma returns in the symptom. In the case of a fetish, on the contrary, I "rationally" fully accept this death, and yet I cling to the fetish, to some feature that embodies for me the disavowal of this death. In this sense, a fetish can play a very constructive role in allowing us to cope with the harsh reality. Fetishists are not dreamers lost in their private worlds. They are thorough "realists" capable of accepting the way things effectively are, given that they have their fetish to which they can cling in order to cancel the full impact of reality. In Nevil Shute's melodramatic World War II novel Requiem for a WREN, the heroine survives her lover's death without any visible traumas. She goes on with her life and is even able to talk rationally about her lover's death because she still has the dog that was the lover's favored pet. When, some time after, the dog is accidentally run over by a truck, she collapses and her entire world disintegrates.3

Sometimes, the line between fetish and symptom is almost indiscernible. An object can function as the symptom (of a repressed desire) and almost simultaneously as a fetish (embodying the belief which we officially renounce). A leftover of the dead person, a piece of his/her clothes, can function both as a fetish (insofar as the dead person magically continues to live in it) and as a symptom (functioning as the disturbing detail that brings to mind his/her death). Is this ambiguous tension not homologous to that between the phobic and the fetishist object? The structural role is in both cases the same: If this exceptional element is disturbed, the whole system collapses. Not only does the subject's false universe collapse if he is forced to confront the meaning of his symptom; the opposite also holds, insofar as the subject's "rational" acceptance of the way things are dissolves when his fetish is taken away from him.

So, when we are bombarded by claims that in our post-ideological cynical era nobody believes in the proclaimed ideals, when we encounter a person who claims he is cured of any beliefs and accepts social reality the way it really is, one should always counter such claims with the question "OK, but where is the fetish that enables you to (pretend to) accept reality 'the way it is'?" "Western Buddhism" is such a fetish. It enables you to fully participate in the frantic pace of the capitalist game while sustaining the perception that you are not really in it; that you are well aware of how worthless this spectacle is; and that what really matters to you is the peace of the inner Self to which you know you can always with-draw. In a further specification, one should note that the fetish can function in two opposite ways: either its role remains unconscious—as in the case of Shute's heroine who was unaware of the fetish-role of the dog—or you think that the fetish is that which really matters, as in the case of a Western Buddhist unaware that the "truth" of his existence is in fact the social involvement which he tends to dismiss as a mere game.

It is against such a temptation that we should remain faithful to the Christian legacy of separation, of elevating some principles above others.

So, r u laughing?

[MarxSchmarx]

A handful of "libertarian" capitalists claim the founder of Taoism, Lao-tzu, as one of their own:

http://mises.org/story/1967

While there is little merit to this self-serving revisionism, if there was one school fo contemporary political thought to which Lao-tzu belongs, some variant of either primitivism or individualist anarchism would probably be appropriate. The Tao-te-ching was a product of the most tumultuous time in early Chinese political history, which is saying a lot. Though it is hard to discern whether Lao-tzu had what we would recognize as a coherent "theory of the state", more likely than not he was highly skeptical of the desires of any of the warring and competing political powers of the time, and realized the eventual futility of many of their imperial ambitions. I suspect Lao-tzu probably articulated many of the basic criticisms of the Chinese commoner at the time, who felt that whether this or that noble house came to rule, they would just be the cogs in this machine. Whether this means he saw an endogenous consciousness of the peasantry I suspect. But it is probably fair that he was highly suspect if not pessimistic about the lofty pronouncements of any state authority.

[spiltteeth]

Let me guess, Christianity is different?:rolleyes:

Romans 13:1-7
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Pretty radical stuff.:D

Yea, rightists love to throw that around.
The above is only relevant for authentic authorities (ones established by God), and was meant to calm down christians who were violently anti-government and anti-state.

Anarchy biblical quotes:

My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).
We are to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).
To seek rule by man is to reject the rule of God (1 Samuel 8).
Christians struggle against governments, rulers, and spiritual wickedness (Ephesians 6:12).
Honest people are too busy making an honest living to accept political power, so only the corruptible will accept political power (Judges 9:7-15 The Parable of the Trees).
The devil offers all kingdoms to Jesus in return for worshipping him.(Matthew 4:8-10).
So I saw all this, and applied my heart to every work that has been done under the sun; all the things wherein man has power over man to afflict him. (Ecclesiastes 8:9)
And Jesus called them to him and said to them, "You know that those who are supposed to rule (Gr. archo) over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you...." (Mark 10:42-43a)
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world (Gr. Archos), but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12:2)


Commie biblical quotes :

n the Gospel of Luke (1:49-53), Mary delivered the following description of the works of God:
49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. 51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
One of Jesus' most famous remarks regarding the wealthy can be found in Matthew 19:16-24 (the same event is also described in Mark 10:17-25 and Luke 18:18-25, and the metaphor of a camel going through the eye of a needle is common to both Matthew and Luke).
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why do you ask me about what is good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
However, Jesus Christ goes on to say that what is impossible with men is not impossible with God, implying that the grace of God can save a rich man. See Matthew 19:25-26, Mark 10:26-27 and Luke 18:26-27. For example, Matthew 19:25-26 says:
25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" 26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men it is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Jesus also described "money changers" (i.e. those engaged in currency exchange) as "thieves" and chased them out of the Temple in Jerusalem. This is described in Matthew 21:12-14, Mark 11:15, and John 2:14-16. The text in Matthew reads as follows:
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. 14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
The phrase "love thy neighbor", repeatedly spoken by Jesus, is rather well known. Christian communists point out that Jesus considered this to be the second most important of all moral obligations, after loving God. Thus, they argue, a Christian society should be based first and foremost on these two commandments, and it should uphold them even more than it upholds such things as family values. The relevant Biblical verses are Mark 12:28-31:
28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Finally, Jesus gave an account of the Last Judgment in Matthew 25:31-46, in which he identifies himself with the hungry, the poor and the sick, and states that good or evil done upon "the least of [God's] brethren" will be counted as good or evil done upon God himself. It is argued that Jesus is saying that nations, rather than individuals, would be judged according to the characteristics of their societies. If that is the case, this could imply that political and economic systems were being heavily critiqued as well:
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 36 Naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.
In addition, communist references can be found in Leviticus 25:35-38: "If one [...] becomes poor [...] help him [...] so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God [...] You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God." and Acts 4:32-35, "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had [...] there were no needy persons among them [...] the money [...] was distributed to anyone as he had need." As well as Acts 2:42-47, "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching [...] to the breaking of bread [...] everyone was filled with awe [...] all the believers were together and had everything in common [...] they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they [...] ate together with glad and sincere hearts [...] "

[spiltteeth]

This statement contains so many logical fallacies that it almost hurts my head to read. First of all, can you explain exactly what "American Buddhism" is? Second of all, how do Taoism and "American Buddhism" reinforce ones indifference to social change?

I'm going to warn you that I actually study these subjects, so if you're response is as incoherent as your original post, I'm just going to laugh at you.

:laugh:

I ought to say, I'm merely pointing out how both Taoism and Western Buddhism functions in the West to ultimately serve capitalism, not to say this is its design.

[VientoLibre]

The problem here is the generalization..

Mainstream Taoism and Buddhism serve the needs of the capitalistic establishment just as much as mainstream Christianity. Isn't that basically the point of anything that is mainstream in society? That it serves the society's needs?


A handful of "libertarian" capitalists claim the founder of Taoism, Lao-tzu, as one of their own.

A handful of libertarian capitalists are also Christian and a handful of libertarians also claim to be atheists! :laugh:


I ought to say, I'm merely pointing out how both Taoism and Western Buddhism functions in the West to ultimately serve capitalism, not to say this is its design.

Mainstream Christianity ultimately serves the need of capitalism in the West as-well. Wouldn't you say that mainstream Christianity does nothing more than sedate the masses?

Your defense of Christianity's anarchistic tendencies is your personal interpretation of scripture (which I happen to agree with :)), but the Pope would disagree. In the same way, the Dalai Lama would disagree with a person interpreting Zen Buddhism as a socially anarchistic spiritualism!

So you're not really proving any point (pardon me) by saying Buddhism and Taoism serve capitalistic needs by attacking its mainstream establishments, because this is already implied.

But in reality, the only real purpose of Taoism and Buddhism is to sever the duality between the individual and the collective. The purpose of this way of looking at the world is not to make it enjoyable or to attain inner peace. It has nothing to do with being ingrained into a social system unless the practitioner ultimately chooses to play the roll of a person being ingrained into the social system!

When you really get down to the nitty gritty of Taoism and Buddhism, or Taoism and Buddhism combined (known as Chan or Zen Buddhism), it only serve to teach a person that one can choose to play any role in this social game, whether it be a couch potato, stock investor, or even--yes--an anarchist social commentator!

Essentially, Taoism and Buddhism are nothing but non-dualistic ways of looking at the world!



So, r u laughing?

Yes, comrade, but I'm always laughing! :laugh:

[spiltteeth]

I'm always crying :crying:

Anywho,

But in reality, the only real purpose of Taoism and Buddhism is to sever the duality between the individual and the collective. The purpose of this way of looking at the world is not to make it enjoyable or to attain inner peace. It has nothing to do with being ingrained into a social system unless the practitioner ultimately chooses to play the roll of a person being ingrained into the social system!

When you really get down to the nitty gritty of Taoism and Buddhism, or Taoism and Buddhism combined (known as Chan or Zen Buddhism), it only serve to teach a person that one can choose to play any role in this social game, whether it be a couch potato, stock investor, or even--yes--an anarchist social commentator!

Essentially, Taoism and Buddhism are nothing but non-dualistic ways of looking at the world!

I would say this better serves capitalism than Christianity (Of course I realize Christians rule the world and are assholes, Fascists etc but they are Christians largley in name only -I think)
Look at these highlights from the above post :

Thus the Christian stance is radically different from the teachings of paganism. In clear contrast to the pagan wisdom that the universe is the abyss of the primordial Ground in which all “false” opposites—Good and Evil, appearance and reality, folly and wisdom, etc.—coincide, Christianity proclaims as the highest action precisely what paganism condemns as the source of all evil—the gesture of separation, of drawing the line, of clinging to an element that disturbs the balance of All.

What this means is that the Buddhist all-encompassing Compassion has to be opposed to the Christian intolerant, violent Love. The Buddhist stance is ultimately that of indifference, of quenching all passions that strive to establish differences, while the Christian love is a violent passion to introduce a difference, a gap in the order of being, to privilege and elevate some object above others. Love is violence not (only) in the vulgar sense of the Balkan proverb, “If he doesn’t beat me, he doesn’t love me!” The choice of love itself is already violent, as it tears an object out of its context and elevates it to the Thing.

So, "sever the duality between the individual and the collective" allows for a place of non-commitment to social struggle as the above post points out. That and non-dualistic conciousness works for capitalism, not (even potentially) against it.


Taoism and Buddhism combined (known as Chan or Zen Buddhism), it only serve to teach a person that one can choose to play any role in this social game, whether it be a couch potato, stock investor, or even--yes--an anarchist social commentator!

Right, this was covered. And christianity was contrasted :
In clear contrast to the pagan wisdom that the universe is the abyss of the primordial Ground in which all “false” opposites—Good and Evil, appearance and reality, folly and wisdom, etc.—coincide, Christianity proclaims as the highest action precisely what paganism condemns as the source of all evil—the gesture of separation, of drawing the line, of clinging to an element that disturbs the balance of All.

Therefore, for a true Christian there isn't the same choice, only a dual one - to act ethically or not. If one chooses the former, one is ethically compelled to fight for social justice. One is compelled to draw a line.

So "Christianity ultimately serves the need of capitalism in the West" but in its social function (not in its essence/ideology), it does not ideologically uphold it. Makes me think of Norman Mailer who had a theory that all those right fundie Christians were such assholes cuz deep down they knew having all that money was anti-christian and so they projected all their guilt on peoples of other cultures (immigrants/Muslims etc)

My criticism stands ! :crying: Although Taoists and Buddhists do seem to be much happier people...

[spiltteeth]

Your defense of Christianity's anarchistic tendencies is your personal interpretation of scripture

Just for clarity sake, I don't have a personal interpretation, I belong to the Orthodox church, i was just showing that one could have a anarchistic interpretation.

Ok, I'm gonna go cry myself to sleep now. G'night!

[ls]

Both Taoism and American Buddhism reinforce ones indifference to social change, and also inscribes one further into the capitalist system.

Yep and so does every other religion.

[spiltteeth]

I'd like to point out that Zizek's conclusion isn't we ought to all become Christians, he is a fervent atheist, rather we ought to affirm duality, drawing a line, and engage in social struggle.


It is against such a temptation that we should remain faithful to the Christian legacy of separation, of elevating some principles above others.

[VientoLibre]

I'd like to point out that Zizek's conclusion isn't we ought to all become Christians, he is a fervent atheist, rather we ought to affirm duality, drawing a line, and engage in social struggle.

It's possible to engage in social struggle with non-dualistic thinking.

[spiltteeth]

It's possible to engage in social struggle with non-dualistic thinking.

Of course, however non-dualistic thought creates the space for the possible indifference to struggle against capitalism, which is in capitalism's favor.

[VientoLibre]

Of course, however non-dualistic thought creates the space for the possible indifference to struggle against capitalism, which is in capitalism's favor.

I honestly think the point that's being argued here is pointless. A non-dualistic thinker is just as likely to be as indifferent to the "struggle against capitalism" as any atheist, Christian, et cet. Non-dualistic thinking doesn't stop a person from understanding social injustice and knowing when something is or isn't fair, and it doesn't stop the person from choosing to ignore it either.

For instance, when I began to understand what non-dualistic thinking meant, I didn't stop recognizing the fact that capitalism is inherently flawed. Non-dualistic thinking is just a different way of looking at the world.

I mean--a handful of people come to mind when I think of Buddhist social commentators and activists... :confused:

[spiltteeth]

I honestly think the point that's being argued here is pointless. A non-dualistic thinker is just as likely to be as indifferent to the "struggle against capitalism" as any atheist, Christian, et cet. Non-dualistic thinking doesn't stop a person from understanding social injustice and knowing when something is or isn't fair, and it doesn't stop the person from choosing to ignore it either.

For instance, when I began to understand what non-dualistic thinking meant, I didn't stop recognizing the fact that capitalism is inherently flawed. Non-dualistic thinking is just a different way of looking at the world.

I mean--a handful of people come to mind when I think of Buddhist social commentators and activists... :confused:

Well, if you read the post, especially the psychological parts, a dualistic understanding compels one to choose a side, unlike non-dualism. This doesn't mean you will fight against capitalism, for instance, many Christians fight FOR capitalism as part of their social struggle.
However, MOST people do not fight a social struggle at all, or else, like western Buddhists, openly disagree with the system while still obeying it, which actually strengthens capitalism by the form in which their anti-capitalist 'protests' take shape. Why? I believe Zizek has answered that quite well.