Buddhist Questions

[originofopinion]

1. What's the MAIN difference between Zen and Theravada?

2. Can Buddhists and Communists be in a belief loadout without Contradiction?

3. How can Buddhists live in a world of Consumerism without material getting shoved into them all the time?

4. Was Buddha Atheist?

5. How do you deal with discrimination against Buddhists?

6. Which category does Buddhism fit? Materialism, Idealism or Dualism?

7. It it true that Buddhists can't be Marxists?

8. Is it possible to help a revolution without killing anyone? Like Fighting with a Pen?

Any Answers are welcome.

[Holden Caulfield]

This answers no questions, but I want to post it again :)


"Western Buddhism” is just such a fetish: it enables you to fully participate in the frantic capitalist game while sustaining the perception that you are not really in it, that you are well aware how worthless the whole spectacle is, since what really matters is the peace of the inner Self to which you know you can always withdraw [...] unaware that the “truth” of his existence lies in the very social relations he tends to dismiss as a mere game

[Weezer]

1. What's the MAIN difference between Zen and Theravada?

Zen Buddhism has little to no focus on the Buddha himself. Zen heavily relies on meditating on philosophical questions and texts, and 'it de-emphasizes theoretical knowledge in favor of direct, experiential realization through meditation and dharma practice.'

Theravada is the oldest school of Buddhism, and is very orthodox when it comes to the Buddha and his teachings. Theravada believes that only you can find Enlightenment by yourself, but through following Buddha's teachings, and as opposed to Zen, Buddha-nature is not something inside us, but it is outside of our minds, and something we must find.


2. Can Buddhists and Communists be in a belief loadout without Contradiction?

I don't see why not. Buddha spoke of the Middle Way(To Nirvana), a way between starving yourself as a poor monk, and being a bourgeois pigging out 24/7.


3. How can Buddhists live in a world of Consumerism without material getting shoved into them all the time?
Isolate yourself from consumerism.


4. Was Buddha Atheist?

Buddha preached against blindly worshiping gods, and I believe he was an agnostic.


5. How do you deal with discrimination against Buddhists?

We can't really do much besides protest against it. The Samsara is a cruel thing, suffering is natural.


6. Which category does Buddhism fit? Materialism, Idealism or Dualism?

Possibly all three.


7. It it true that Buddhists can't be Marxists?

This is false. The Dalai Lama is a Marxist. And I quote:

Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilisation of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is, the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism (though disapproving of it on the whole).

As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.

I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is not much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.


8. Is it possible to help a revolution without killing anyone? Like Fighting with a Pen?

Peaceful revolution and civil disobedience, Buddhists could take part in a violent revolution, but I doubt it would bring any good karma, unless you didn't kill or injure anyone.

Useful links: http://www.suanmokkh.org/ds/what_ds1.htm#Why DS

[Holden Caulfield]

The Dalai Lama is a Marxist. And I quote:

Anybody who wants to be at the head of a theocracy is not a marxist.

[The New Consciousness]

At its pure core Buddhism, like all other religions, is nothing more than simple self-knowledge, which is wisdom. I'm quite sure that if you were to ask a truly wise person he would elect Marxism above any other ideology because it is the greatest ideal. When one experiences the true self one's potential as a human being is maximised: the possibilities for altruism and enlightened social behaviour are quite real. Such a being would be a true 'communist'; an individual willing to live according to the noble maxim of 'from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs'. All the greed of capitalism is the result of a lack of self-knowledge or wisdom. The capitalist hunger for profit is the result of a limited object-obsessed consciousness (in this case profits). The capitalist, due to his limited consciousness, is unable to even conceive of compassion and understanding towards the workers and must continue blindly in his destructive pursuit of material gain. He is never at peace for his fulfilment is constantly abstracted into the future. Many are just as miserable as the workers labouring under their oppression. And so we have this system of misery where people turn to all kinds of madness to escape their pain, spreading more pain and suffering around them in the process. If only they actually endeavoured to understand the self they would bring an end to this unjust system.

[Weezer]

Anybody who wants to be at the head of a theocracy is not a marxist.

If you would make you feel any better, the Dalai Lama could choose not to be a Marxist.

The fact that after years of him, his religion, and his country being oppressed by Mao and later leaders of the People's Republic of China, he could be anti-communist, and be intolerable of socialism in all forms and variants.

So, do you want a high religious figure identify himself as a Marxist, or be fiercely opposed to a variant of an ideology that has oppressed him?

Whatever sounds good to you, man.

[mikelepore]

1. What's the MAIN difference between Zen and Theravada?

Zen believes that Enlightenment is a way of perceiving ordinary experiences and chores. They often repeat a 9th century quotation, "How miraculous, I draw water, I carry fuel." The focus on a spirit world is absent.

[Holden Caulfield]

So, do you want a high religious figure identify himself as a Marxist, or be fiercely opposed to a variant of an ideology that has oppressed him?

I think it might be to do with making him seem more of a martyr and being do with ideas of anti-imperialism, Mugable also claims to be a marxists sometimes...

[scarletghoul]

I've said this to you before, originofopinion, but yeah buddhism is really lame.

[the last donut of the night]

Anybody who wants to be at the head of a theocracy is not a marxist.

Agreed.

Also:


I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion.In fact, it seems the opposite is true: these so-called Marxist regimes did not go far enough to destroy the ruling classes; they themselves became the ruling classes.

Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is not much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. If the Dalai Lama were really a Marxist, he would know that destroying the bourgeoisie does not lead to poverty; the bourgeoisie has nothing to offer but its exploitation. The riches lie in the hands of the working classes -- they produce everything. And the aim of every revolutionary is not to become poor, but to institute a system which will provide infinite abundance in material wealth.

I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.

Socialism is not everybody being friends. Sorry, Dalai Lama.

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

Congrats to Mr. Lama for picking up the meaningless term of "totalitarianism" and for believing that there is such a thing as a half-Marxist.

[The New Consciousness]

In fact, it seems the opposite is true: these so-called Marxist regimes did not go far enough to destroy the ruling classes; they themselves became the ruling classes.

Indeed. They were not Marxist 'regimes', such a thing cannot exist; they were personal regimes that betrayed the working classes pretty much as soon as they came to power and have sadly given Marxism a bad name; defaming that great man's reputation.

Socialism is not everybody being friends. Sorry, Dalai Lama.

On the contrary these qualities are highly essential. Altruism as a prime social value is the key requisite. How else will there be solidarity and brotherhood between the workers? While grubby self-interest persists the potential for tyranny is worryingly latent, even in a workers'-state.

Congrats to Mr. Lama for picking up the meaningless term of "totalitarianism" and for believing that there is such a thing as a half-Marxist.

Half-Marxist may mean someone who agrees with some of Marx's opus not all. Marx himself famously advised his readers to doubt everything including his work. To take one body of work as dogma displays a total lack of imagination and intellectual rigor.

As for totalitarianism you cannot possibly deny that the Bolsheviks, Stalin and all the other dictators of the USSR were anything other than that.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Anybody who wants to be at the head of a theocracy is not a marxist.
I don't particularly like the Dalai Lama, but... since when does he want to rule in a theocracy? You seem to be confusing him with some of his followers. As far as I'm aware he doesn't even want full independence for Tibet - he only wants greater autonomy.

Yes, Tibet was an oppressive, reactionary feudal society before 1950. But the current Dalai Lama was a young boy at the time, and little more than a political figurehead.

[the last donut of the night]

...as soon as they came to power and have sadly given Marxism a bad name; defaming that great man's reputation.

What great man? Marx was just a guy that correctly analyzed capitalism, with the help of various authors. He even said that he shouldn't be applauded for discovering class-struggle; many bourgeois historians did that before him. My point is that he wasn't that great, aside from making these correct observations.


On the contrary these qualities are highly essential. Altruism as a prime social value is the key requisite. How else will there be solidarity and brotherhood between the workers? While grubby self-interest persists the potential for tyranny is worryingly latent, even in a workers'-state.

The Dalai Lama was showing an utopian form of socialism: he expressed his wish for all people, regardless of class, to somehow come together to bring about socialism. Class-collaborationism means bowing down to the bourgeoisie. It will not lead to socialism. Worker solidarity is something very different.

Furthermore, tyranny and the rise of ruling classes do not come out of "grubby self-interest", but out material conditions.


Half-Marxist may mean someone who agrees with some of Marx's opus not all. Marx himself famously advised his readers to doubt everything including his work. To take one body of work as dogma displays a total lack of imagination and intellectual rigor.

Well, to be a proper revolutionary, you must believe in the sole power of the working class, something which the Dalai is not doing.


As for totalitarianism you cannot possibly deny that the Bolsheviks, Stalin and all the other dictators of the USSR were anything other than that.

I do know of their anti-working-class policies, which hurt numerous people. However, the term 'totalitarianism' is meaningless because it was created by bourgeois historians that tried to draw similar qualities between the USSR under Stalin and Nazi Germany. Both states were very different; it is a common propaganda move by capitalists to describe communism and fascism as the same thing.

[The New Consciousness]

What great man? Marx was just a guy that correctly analyzed capitalism, with the help of various authors. He even said that he shouldn't be applauded for discovering class-struggle; many bourgeois historians did that before him. My point is that he wasn't that great, aside from making these correct observations.

Anyone who challenges an oppressive system and devotes his life to understanding it and finding alternatives is great in my opinion, regardless of how creative or novel his work may be. That's just my opinion though.

The Dalai Lama was showing an utopian form of socialism: he expressed his wish for all people, regardless of class, to somehow come together to bring about socialism. Class-collaborationism means bowing down to the bourgeoisie. It will not lead to socialism. Worker solidarity is something very different.

We need a total collaboration of mankind regardless of class or any other divisions if we are to move forward. Otherwise there will always be war.

Furthermore, tyranny and the rise of ruling classes do not come out of "grubby self-interest", but out material conditions.

Explain to me then how material conditions will bring an end to capitalism and oppression. It doesn't seem to be pointing that way. The last two hundred years haven't seen much change.

Grubby self-interest arises out of material conditions but can it be ended by them? I can't see it myself.

Well, to be a proper revolutionary, you must believe in the sole power of the working class, something which the Dalai is not doing.

Wrong. To be a proper revolutionary there must be total anarchy of the mind and a constant striving for objectivity in thought, speech and hehaviour. It's the only way to transcend grubby self-interest. Grubby self-interest is what maintains oppressive systems. Altruism is the solution. You dismiss too easily its value.

[originofopinion]

So Does Buddhism contradict Marxism or Communism for that matter?

[VientoLibre]

So Does Buddhism contradict Marxism or Communism for that matter?

No. Buddhism is apolitical.

[The New Consciousness]

Buddhism is concerned with freedom from suffering. At its core, like all other religions, the message is very simple: be here and now for there resides your true self which is simply consciousness. It teaches us not to lose ourselves in the objects of our consciousness and to remain in the source - that which is always present, the Self, consciousness itself - some call it God. Consciousness is pure and free from suffering.

Now bearing that in mind, any '-ist' - including a Buddhist - that is to say any individual who labels himself and derives identity from any external source (in this case a religion or ideology) is not really a Buddhist. A truly enlightened man sees the folly of such labels. The real Self is awareness and thus cannot be labelled for it is empty of qualities, unlike the objects that manifest themselves in its pure experience.

However one can, from this privileged perspective of clarity and greater objectivity decide on a path, the only path anyone who has experienced the bliss of pure consciousness and emptiness inevitably takes: the path of altruism, the path of helping others to end their suffering. Whether this is seen as more practical in leading satsangs, working for charities, participating in revolutions or becoming a school teacher is up to the individual and the experience and knowledge he can call upon to guide himself.

[Daz]

Buddhism is a relic from the past.. it's just useless navel gazing.

[the last donut of the night]

Anyone who challenges an oppressive system and devotes his life to understanding it and finding alternatives is great in my opinion, regardless of how creative or novel his work may be. That's just my opinion though.

True.


We need a total collaboration of mankind regardless of class or any other divisions if we are to move forward. Otherwise there will always be war.

What?!

I'm sorry, but this is batshit crazy. How can a communist be calling for class collaboration? It is not in the bourgeoisie's interest to fight for socialism. It is in their interest to oppress us all. So how can you be calling for the proletariat to bow down to its oppressor?



Explain to me then how material conditions will bring an end to capitalism and oppression. It doesn't seem to be pointing that way. The last two hundred years haven't seen much change.

Material conditions pushed the creation of the proletariat and they will ultimately push its end when communism comes.

There hasn't been much change in the 200 years? Well, since 1809 (almost 1810) there have been workers' revolutions all over the world. Yes, we still live in capitalism, but the past 200 years have shown us the power of the proletariat. Also, note the reforms brought on by the workers and their unions. Again, note that you are probably not working at a factory for 14 hours per day.



Wrong. To be a proper revolutionary there must be total anarchy of the mind and a constant striving for objectivity in thought, speech and hehaviour. It's the only way to transcend grubby self-interest. Grubby self-interest is what maintains oppressive systems. Altruism is the solution. You dismiss too easily its value.

This is what Marx and Engels warned when they wrote of bourgeois and utopian socialism. The communist movement is not a religious or mental exercise; we are not here to purify society in order to reach a better world. The communist's job is to crush capitalism, something that only the working class can do. A communist must educate his fellow workers so they become aware of their situation. You are focusing way too much on one particular form of thought for the situation.

[Weezer]

Buddhism is a relic from the past.. it's just useless navel gazing.

A well thought-out and contributing post.

[originofopinion]

A well thought-out and contributing post.

Sarcasm?

So Communists cant be Buddhist?

[Daz]

A well thought-out and contributing post.
I've read a few books on Buddhism and listened to Buddhist teachers in their temples.

Like most religions I can appreciate it from a cultural point of view
but in my opinion Buddhism will just send you on pointless journey
for some undefined "Enlightenment" and many of their "teachers" like
to play mind games with you, all the while pretending to be wise.
They also spend half their time bashing Christianity,
they are competing in the market place of religion.

[Robocommie]

I've read a few books on Buddhism and listened to Buddhist teachers in their temples.

Like most religions I can appreciate it from a cultural point of view
but in my opinion Buddhism will just send you on pointless journey
for some undefined "Enlightenment" and many of their "teachers" like
to play mind games with you, all the while pretending to be wise.
They also spend half their time bashing Christianity,
they are competing in the market place of religion.

Enlightenment isn't really that undefined in Buddhism, it's pretty well mapped out. Buddha even came up with an 8 step program to get there. Funny that. If it strikes you as pointless, and if it all just strikes you as "mind games" then you're probably just not in a place to be receptive to that kind of thing.

And I should note that if bashing Christianity is any kind of disqualifier for an ideology, then a lot of Marxists are also completely out.

[Robocommie]

Sarcasm?

So Communists cant be Buddhist?

They can be. There ARE Buddhist Communists. Anyone who says otherwise is probably a Communist who doesn't like Buddhism or a Buddhist who doesn't like Communism.

The nice thing about ideas is that they can play off each other.

Also, I would like to add that as far as the Dalai Lama's Marxism goes; as many of you know the man met personally with Mao Zedong when China annexed Tibet. He was actually impressed by several aspects of Marxism as presented to him by Mao, and expressed respect and admiration for a number of things about Chinese society, but naturally had severe reservations about other aspects, which really shouldn't be that damn surprising given that China had just conquered and occupied his homeland and the Chinese were beginning to brutally crackdown on Tibetan religion and culture.

So he doesn't like the anger and bloody-mindedness associated with class struggle. How is that surprising? He's committed to non-violence! He would prefer to promote compassion.

I mean, look:

"Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilisation of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is, the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair."

Clearly he recognizes in it the real core of what we all value Marxism for as well, a vision of a better world where people are equal and treated fairly. I think it's a perfect example of what's wrong with the Left in general if people would be so doctrinaire that that doesn't count for something.

[Daz]

Enlightenment isn't really that undefined in Buddhism, it's pretty well mapped out. Buddha even came up with an 8 step program to get there. Funny that. If it strikes you as pointless, and if it all just strikes you as "mind games" then you're probably just not in a place to be receptive to that kind of thing.

And I should note that if bashing Christianity is any kind of disqualifier for an ideology, then a lot of Marxists are also completely out.
A way life is mapped out for you, that is true. Enlightenment seems to be the realization that the self does not really exist and everything is one.

Bashing Christian doctrine (or any other religious belief) is simple. Western Buddhists do alot of it because their followers often come from a Christian background and they want to re-indoctrinate them into a new religion.

I like religion from a cultural perspective ie. stories, art, cathedrals and a sense of community.

[Pawn Power]

Buddhism is a relic from the past.. it's just useless navel gazing.

Navel gazing?

In Buddhism there is no navel becuase there is no self! :lol:

[Die Rote Fahne]

On the can a buddhist be a communist question. Or at least, I think that's what you ask.

The Dalai Lama is a Marxist.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Buddhism is not navel gazing, it's just being.

[Daz]

Buddhism is not navel gazing, it's just being....
...at one with the navel.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

...at one with the navel.

Humorous but incorrect.

[Daz]

Humorous but incorrect.
Well in Zen you are supposed to only be in the moment so if I'm navel gazing then I'm all about the navel.

I read an interesting book about Zen Buddhism once, after I finished it I realized it was really about nothing so I threw it out....it was a very zen like moment for me.

[The New Consciousness]

What?!

I'm sorry, but this is batshit crazy. How can a communist be calling for class collaboration? It is not in the bourgeoisie's interest to fight for socialism. It is in their interest to oppress us all. So how can you be calling for the proletariat to bow down to its oppressor?

Batshit crazy, what a funny term. Mind if I use that with my friends?

Some questions for you to mull on (please do):
Could you define a communist?
and
Where does the bourgeois interest come from?

Now let me give my answers.

Firstly, a communist is an enlightened human being. Enlightened is a much abused word but which essentially denotes a human being freed from their conditioning.

Bourgeois interest comes from a particular type of conditioning, which is widespread in the world today, that channels human beings towards an object-obsessed existence. People are ignorant of their true nature as consciousness and so perceive the world as a huge gordian knot of dualities between subject and objects. The bourgeois object pleasure obsession is riches which as Marx clearly points out they lech after like misers. In fact this obsession, as Marx also indicates, is such that capitalists don't actually have any free-will - they simply become a tool for capital to augment itself. There is a total lack of awareness.

Communism will only be realised when the subject-object split disappears and we all realise our nature as consciousness. Otherwise it is absolutely impossible for humans to live together. If material dialectics brings anything new about it will be this. Otherwise, as J. Krishnamurti so astutely pointed out, we will have the same old systems in slightly modified form going on and on and on - and the basic problems of mankind will not be solved.

I am not saying the proletariat should bow down to the oppressor. I'm saying the duality of victim and oppressor, of pleasure and pain, of subject and object can only be ended when the subject object split is ended in realisation of self - i.e. consciousness, which is often referred to as 'spiritual enlightenment'.

Material conditions pushed the creation of the proletariat and they will ultimately push its end when communism comes.

The proletariat is just another type of slave, as Marx points out in Kapital, essentially the same as the African slave or the earlier slaves of antiquity. The only difference is the sociological presentation of the slavery. In the industrial age it worked out as wage-slavery. But essentially it is the same.

The problem is not of proletarian slaves or caribbean slaves or egyptian slaves - these are just categories of the same problem. The problem is of the enslaved and the enslaver - product of a subject-object split on a macro scale.

There hasn't been much change in the 200 years? Well, since 1809 (almost 1810) there have been workers' revolutions all over the world.

Not really. There have been noble attempts by workers to improve their lot through revolutionary and reformist action - true. Actual working class revolutions however there have been none. There have been many betrayals by unscrupulous middle-class, fellow-travellers like Lenin, Mao and Castro who have conducted revolutions supposedly on behalf of the working class but who then, once in power, proceeded to shit on them from high and give communism a terrible reputation. As bad as the capitalists if you ask me. Just another form of exploitation.

Yes, we still live in capitalism, but the past 200 years have shown us the power of the proletariat. Also, note the reforms brought on by the workers and their unions. Again, note that you are probably not working at a factory for 14 hours per day.

Perhaps not in Europe or the United States but turn your gaze to India, China, Taiwan and a horde of other underdeveloped country and you will see children working in excess of 14 hours a day. This argument is a weak one too and a source of false-optimism (hate to burst your balloon). As Chomsky rightly points out, slave societies showed an improvement in the 200 years or so they were allowed to endure but is that an argument for their existence? The essential degraded structure and twisted morality behind it remained the same - as is wage-slavery in modern-day capitalism. Sure the exploitation is less crude as it was in its barbaric early days but it's still essentially the same. The whole rotten system depends on a horde of exploited people at the base to maintain itself. Income inequality and injustice is as bad if not worse than it was 200 years ago.

This is what Marx and Engels warned when they wrote of bourgeois and utopian socialism. The communist movement is not a religious or mental exercise; we are not here to purify society in order to reach a better world. The communist's job is to crush capitalism, something that only the working class can do. A communist must educate his fellow workers so they become aware of their situation. You are focusing way too much on one particular form of thought for the situation.

I agree with you totally. Capitalism must be crushed. But isn't it a rather gross assumption to say that the working-class that inherits the mantle of control after your imaginary communist movement is successful will be more enlightened than their predecessors? Capitalists aren't a different species to working class people. Capitalists themselves were once proto-proletarians. We're all humans and our suffering is universal. How do you account for self-made men? Once working class now wealthy capitalists? Sure there are few but it just shows that classes aren't as rigid as you believe. What about the labour aristocracy? What about the rise of consumerism and its effect on class consciousness?

The problem isn't that simple. It's actually simpler. It's about an identity-crisis - the subject/object split and the ego.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Buddhists are Atheists.