Buddhism and Socialism. [Archive]

View Full Version : Buddhism and Socialism.

eric922

25th March 2011, 05:03

TheGodlessUtopian

25th March 2011, 05:17

Sinister Cultural Marxist

25th March 2011, 05:19

Astarte

25th March 2011, 05:27

I took a class once called "Meditation and Enlightenment" and it was taught by this old Korean guy, over 70, and he spoke about how he was a monk at one point in his life and a communist at others.

Besides that, Buddhism and Marxism can get along fairly well.

Lenina Rosenweg

25th March 2011, 05:29

Buddhism taken as a philosophy and not a religion has a lot to offer.At one time I actually thought "spirituality coyuld save the world". If people only meditsated and got in harmony with nature, things would be better.Now I know this isn't true. Cultures where meditation and other "spiritual paths" are cultivated can be and have been brutally oppressive. During the "Rape of Nanjing", the writer Iris Chang mentions that Japanese Zen priests, including several who were supposed to be "enlightened masters" were cheering on Japanese troops in their genocide.

In Sri Lanka, since the 1940s, Buddhist monks have been instrumental in whipping up anti-Tamil racism among the dominant Sinhalese.

There could be some fusion of spirituality and revolutionary politics but to liberate humanity ultimately requires a materialist analysis.

eric922

25th March 2011, 05:29

I didn't know Albert Einstein was a communist.Is there any works on the subject which delve into his "conversation"? I find this really interesting.

Other than that off course subject I don't know anything about Buddhism....sorry. Google "Why Socialism." It is an article he wrote for Monthly Review criticizing Capitalism. He perfectly lays out the flaws of capitalism and also warns against the rise of a powerful bureaucracy as happened in the USSR. Here is a Wikipedia article that talks about his political views and socialism. Here is a quote from Why Socialism:

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."

Lenina Rosenweg

25th March 2011, 05:33

The New Buddhism by David Brazier theorizes that Buddhism evolved, and was meant to be a revolutionary ideology. I'm not quite sure what to make of this, it was controversial in the Western Buddhist movement when it came out. I don't think its historically accurate. It does point out some of the logical fallacies in Buddhist philosophy. It makes an interesting read.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Buddhism-David-Brazier/dp/0312295189

B5C

25th March 2011, 05:57

I guess I should have to say because I am an Buddhist.

Buddhism and Marxism can work together. Since both ideals were based on the idea of serving others and ending exploitations. Heck even the 14th Dalai Lama consider himself an Marxist.

"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."
—Dalai Lama
http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes1.html

If you want a good read:
Marxism in a Buddhist Perspective

by V.A.Gunasekara
[First Published in Vîmamsâ July 1984]
http://uqconnect.net/slsoc/bsq/marxbud.htm

Public Domain

25th March 2011, 05:58

Google "Why Socialism." It is an article he wrote for Monthly Review criticizing Capitalism. He perfectly lays out the flaws of capitalism and also warns against the rise of a powerful bureaucracy as happened in the USSR. Here is a Wikipedia article that talks about his political views and socialism. Here is a quote from Why Socialism:

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."
Einstein was an admitted socialist, and an accused communist. He had been hassled during the Red Scare. But I don't believe he was a revolutionary communist, at least not in public. /offtopic

eric922

25th March 2011, 06:08

I could well be wrong about that then, I do know he was a member of the U.S. Communist Party, which I assume was a revolutionary movement. Like I said though, I am not sure.

B5C

25th March 2011, 06:09

I could well be wrong about that then, I do know he was a member of the U.S. Communist Party, which I assume was a revolutionary movement. Like I said though, I am not sure.

I don't believe he was a member of the Communist Party. During that time he was living during the Red Scare. People lives were destroyed just for being a member.

B5C

25th March 2011, 06:13

Found this:

Marxism and Buddhism

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/picture/upload/marx-bud.jpg

Colombo, Sri lanka -- The two scholars who wrote on the comparisons between Marxism and Buddhism were Dr. Ambedkar and Dr Victor Gunasekara of Queensland University Australia. Dr. Ambedkar saw a very few similarities between Marxism and Buddhism.Dr Victor Gunasekara in his scientific article Marxism in a Buddhist Perspective states that Marx wrote extensively on religion but not on Buddhism which he did not really encounter.

Dr .Gunasekara further says , “When we leave the critique of religion and God, where Buddhism and Marxism have something in common, and consider ether aspects, the differences in the two systems begin to emerge. These differences exist and are real; but they should neither be exaggerated nor minimized. We may commence by considering to what extent the three signata discovered by the Buddha could be traced in Marx's writings. The three fundamental laws discovered by the Buddha are that all phenomena are characterized by Impermanence (anicca), unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) and insubstantiality (anatta).

The proximity of any philosophical system to Buddhism could be gauged by the extent to which it affirms the existence of these three slignata" in phenomena. To apply this test to Marxism we have to identify the basic categories which Marxism uses in the analysis of phenomena, and see how far they are related to the signata of Buddhism. ”

As Dr. Victor Gunasekara points out both Marxism and Buddhism are humanistic philosophies. Both Marxism and Buddhism are philosophies of action. Because of their different perspectives on humanism the action which Marx recommended is social and political action. Now while the Buddha does not necessarily decry this kind of action where it leads to human betterment, the Buddha points to a higher ideal, and to a more fundamental kind of happiness.
Karl Marx and His View on Religion

Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848 explained how religion affected the society and how it was an institution that was not actually necessary to exist. Marx thought that religion was contagious on society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were able to gather diminutive information about Buddhism via some articles which were published by Nietzsche and Arthur Schopenhauer. Marx considered Buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion. Engels unmasks the true nature of theistic religion in an utspoken and forceful language.

Marx was an atheist .A different interpretation of Marx's atheism is given by Erich Fromm. In his Marx's Concept of Man writes: Marx's atheism is the most advanced form of rational mysticism. Marx's atheism is based on rationalism, not mysticism. Similarly the Buddha did not lay the foundation of his religion either on god, or on soul, or anything supernatural.

Karl Marx and Das Kapital

Karl Marx was an economist and a philosopher. Karl Marx, was an influential socialist thinker to emerge in the 19th century. Das Kapital is his major work on political conomy, capital, property, the state, wage labor, foreign trade and the world market. He described the economic law of motion of modern society. Das Kapital is a critical analysis of capitalism and its practical economic application. The central driving force of capitalism, according to Marx, was in the exploitation and alienation of labour.

Human society

The world passes through alternating cycles of evolution and dissolution. According to Buddhism everything changes in nature and nothing remains static so as the society. Max Weber says that all communities are arranged in a manner that goods, tangible and intangible, symbolic and material are distributed. Such a distribution is always unequal and necessarily involves power. ''Classes, status groups and parties are phenomena of the distribution of power within a community.

Marx had a special interest in philosophy of history and the social sciences. Marx's contribution to understanding of human society has been significant. He showed how economic factor affect the society. Marx’s theory of history * is centered on the idea that forms of society rise and falls as they further and then impede the development of human productive power. Marx' made a complex analysis of history and society in terms of class relations.

Buddhism is a democratic system. Buddha admired the democratic and the republican of Government of Vajis in the state of Kuru. Buddha further mentioned that until Vajis were following their system, they would not be conquered.

Capitalistic Economy and Karl Marx

Capitalism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a free market f . It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods , labor, land and money . The defining characteristic of capitalism is its usage of capital. Capital is currency, a method of representing the sum of one’s material property for use in trade.

Capitalist democracy divides the population into two or three classes. The highest social class consists of the fewest people. The lowest social class consists of the most people.

Sometimes there is also a middle class. Capital is distributed to each class such that each class’s percentage of the capital is inversely proportional to its population size. Karl Marx considered capitalism to be a historically specific mode of production in which capital has become the dominant mode of production. The capitalist stage of development or "bourgeois society," for Marx, represented the most advanced form of social organization to date

Capital according to Marx is created with the purchase of commodities for the purpose of creating new commodities with an exchange value higher than the sum of the original purchases. For Marx, the use of labor power had itself become a commodity under capitalism; the exchange value of labor power, as reflected in the wage, is less than the value it produces for the capitalist. This difference in values, he argues, constitutes surplus value which the capitalists extract and accumulate.

Buddhism and economic aspect of life

Buddhism explains human society like any other phenomenon that changes constantly.

The economic aspect of a community profoundly affects its other aspects. In a Buddhist economic system the people deliberately use the state power to maximize welfare, both economic and social, from a given national income while enhancing the spiritual dimensions. The Buddha mentioned the economic aspect of life, such as: 'Poverty is suffering in this world. '(Anguttara Nikaya ) also he saw hunger is the most severe of all illnesses.

From a Buddhist economic perspective, work is regarded as pure mindful activity which brings economic advancement and social harmony. From a Buddhist economic perspective, human beings should be skilled, efficient, courageous, honest and energetic in their work that brings battement to the society. Buddhist economics regards human work in terms of human fulfillment both in material and spiritual.

The Buddha views life in terms of cause and effect. Buddha's teachings offer a grand insight into the nature of reality including practical aspects of mundane life. Buddha has given sensible guidance for the lay life and recommendations to cope with life's difficulties. Buddhism gives appropriate guidance to combine personal progress in worldly matters with moral principles.

Human equality

Marx believed in human equality. The Buddha was one of the first thinkers in history to teach the doctrine of human equality. Buddhism stands for a society of equals where democracy prevails. Buddha believed in a classless society. In his community the Page 4 Sangha has no class system. For the Buddha, all men are one in that they belong to one species. Social classes and castes are nothing but functional or occupational groupings.

Buddha and Marx on poverty

Poverty is not a virtue. Buddha in Cakkavattisihanada Sutta states that poverty is the cause of immoral behavior, such as theft, falsehood, violence, hatred and cruelty, behavior which often results in crime. The Buddha said, 'Poverty is a suffering in the world for a layman. Modern world suffer from over production, over consumption an eventually global pollution. Buddha said, 'There is no river like craving. Buddha encouraged the use of goods and services to satisfy the desire for true well-being. Buddhism offers man a simple moderate lifestyle avoiding both extremes of self- deprivation and self-indulgence. Buddhism emphasize that it is the duty of the government to see to the needs of the people and to strive to liquidate poverty.

Buddhism is not opposed to the accumulation of wealth – which in is earned in an honest way. Acquisition of wealth by unlawful means is not accepted in Buddhism "....he who seeks after wealth lawfully, not arbitrarily, and in so doing makes himself happy and cheerful, and also shares his wealth with others and further does meritorious deeds therewith, and yet makes use of his wealth without greed and longing, without infatuation, and heedful of the danger or alive to his own salvation. (Anguttara Nikaya)

In 1844 Marx on Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts writes that oneThe worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion to the devaluation of the world of men. Labour produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity – and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally.

Utopia

Utopia is place that does not exist. It is a fictional island with a perfect social, legal, and political system written by Thomas More. The term Utopia was based onPlato 's epublic. In the Utopia the evils of society, eg: poverty and misery, are all removed.

People live in total hapiness. Some belive that the Utopia is the answer to human suffering. The Socialists are under the view that the Communist society can eradicate human suffering.

Human suffering

As Marx explained global capitalism has brought great wealth for a few and misery for the vast majority and it has generated inhuman living conditions for most people. He articulated economic disparity is the main reason for human suffering. But Marx was unable to show the practical way to liberate human free will.

Lenin who was a Page 5 revolutionary thinker masterminded the Bolshevik take-over of power in Russia in 1917.

Based on Marxist philosophy Lenin created the first socialist state in the history. But after 70 years it was proved that the Soviet Union was unable to answer major economic problems which were existed for long years. Eventually the Soviet Union was collapsed.

In 1843 Marx wrote -Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. Marx emphasized mainly on the economic aspects. Hence he missed an important dimension of human existence which is the spiritual aspect. The lord Buddha commented on every human aspects. Over 2,500 years ago, the Buddha articulated ideals of human suffering which has a universal meaning.

The Buddha answered the central problem of human suffering and its ending where Marx addressed a limited area of human suffering which is mainly the mundane life. He missed the spiritual dimension of the human. When Marx stated “religion is the opium of the people” he implied the theistic religions.

Buddha explained about human suffering thus

1.) All human life is suffering

2) Suffering is caused by human desire, particularly the desire that impermanent things be permanent

3) Human suffering can be ended by ending human desire.

4.) Desire can be ended by following the "Eightfold Noble Path": right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.

The nature of suffering is thus described by the Buddha. The eightfold path leads to the extinction of suffering
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,8995,0,0,1,0

t.shonku

25th March 2011, 06:22

I am a Buddhist ! And a Communist too :):):) and I love both !

Buddhism is all about equality ,tollerance and respect towards other and so is Communism, Buddhism teaches things that are very similar to modern Physics , but recently that western puppet Dalai Lama has been polluting our religion .

daleckian

25th March 2011, 06:24

Einstein was an admitted socialist, and an accused communist. He had been hassled during the Red Scare. But I don't believe he was a revolutionary communist, at least not in public. /offtopic

He was a Zionist, even offered the post of being the 1st president of Israel due to his contributions to Zionist colonization. if he was a Revolutionary Communist, I'd disown the entire movement completely.

ComradeMan

25th March 2011, 11:52

He was a Zionist, even offered the post of being the 1st president of Israel due to his contributions to Zionist colonization. if he was a Revolutionary Communist, I'd disown the entire movement completely.

It's a bit unfair to accuse Einstein of being a "Zionist" just like that. The man was Jewish and had fled Nazi Germany and lived through the Second World War with all that went on including the Holocaust etc... Although he congratulated Harry Truman for endorsing the foundation of the state of Israel he also condemned the violence of things like the Irgun. You have to see things in the context of the times.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but do people like Pol Pot, Stalin and Mengitsu Heile Mariam not incline you to disown revolutionary communism?

hatzel

25th March 2011, 12:56

He was a Zionist, even offered the post of being the 1st president of Israel due to his contributions to Zionist colonization. if he was a Revolutionary Communist, I'd disown the entire movement completely.

Hah. That same guy who, a few years before being offered (and refusing, let's remember) the post, had been running around saying stuff like this:

[I do not favour] the creation of a Jewish state. My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain—especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state.

Frigging hardcore Zionist scumbag! :cursing: But yeah, he was a Zionist, actually, the above quote coming from one of his more potently Zionist speeches, 'Our debt to Zionism.' Makes all the sense in the world to me! :lol:

To actually address the OP, worried as I am that this whole thread is going to to get sidetracked into a discussion of ol' Bertie (which it shouldn't)...it's always an issue. You'll always get these discussions, as has already been mentioned by Lenina, that it's wrong to say 'oh yeah, Buddhists are all peaceful and loving and nothing to do with violence and oppression and anything' when they have historically been involved in just as much bad shit as the Western religions. Not that I care, I'm not one of those people who likes to fall into arguments like 'you can't be a Christian and a Commies because THE CRUSAAAAADES, BRO!!! CHRISTIANITY IS IMPERIALISM!!!' or whatever, because that's literally the most stupid thing anybody has ever said (and yes, it has been said...I didn't quote it directly, but it seems to pop up every now and then, 'we should get rid of Christianity because Christianity caused the Crusades' :laugh:) As far as I'm concerned the question is less about the Buddhism, and more about the Marxism. C'mon, who'd want to buy into that shit?! :lol:

Yeah, sorry, that wasn't intentionally flaming there, but it always seems to be this question, 'can I reconcile my religion with Marxism because I want to be a communist?' Why bother? Religious communism is much older than Marxism anyway, and there are plenty of other socialist currents, so why bother getting caught up in this idea 'I want to follow everything Marx said, and everything taught be Buddhism, so can I do that?'? With something like Buddhism, I know there are already plenty of texts expounding on it...there are Wikipedia pages about Buddhist socialism and Buddhist anarchism, both of which have a little bit of information, the latter with some interesting looking links to essays and the like. But hey, if you can't find something that talks to you...why not just go all non-doctrinaire about it, form your own ideas based on the synthesis of Buddhism and socialist ideas. That's exactly what I'm doing, in forwarding my ideas of Jewish anarchism :)

So yeah, if you're interested in Buddhism...Wikipedia is always a surprisingly good resource, particularly in it's links to other sites. And I don't know what kind of place you're from...if you're from the city, I'm sure there will be some Buddhist temple near you, you could contact them to ask for advice, suggestions of books to read. As Buddhism's been such a popular religion for converts (or, it was some years ago...the numbers have been dropping off slightly), I'm sure they're totally prepared for this situation. It won't be like you'll be surprising them, catching them off guard, anything like that. They'll be able to point you in the right direction!

Nehru

25th March 2011, 13:02

Buddhism may be compatible with socialism because it doesn't really have any views on the outside world. It's basically about meditation, inner transformation etc. But other religions, I am not sure. They seem to have a view on almost everything in the world, from politics to science to arts to daily life. So there could be a problem.

Amphictyonis

25th March 2011, 13:36

I've always been very interested in Buddhism and I view in a more positive light than Western religions since it seems in my mind less judgmental and less prone to the corruption of western religion. Its emphasis on helping others and opposing materialism and greed seem to me to be a very valid critique of capitalist commercial culture. I know Albert Eienstien spoke rather highly of Buddhism and he was a member of the communist party. So do you all think it is possible to practice Buddhism and apply it to socialist struggle and liberating the working class?

Also anyone have any good recommendations for easy to read sources on Buddhism? I've studied the basics, but would like a bit more in-depth version that is still accessible.
Eienstien was attracted to it because of the way in which they saw the universe/reality. Schopenhauer used some eastern viewpoints in his philosophy and it can be argued that Schopenhauer inpsired the first quantum physicists. When I say eastern views I'm not talking about the moral dogma of the religion (Buddhism) but the manner in which they saw everything as interconnected at the smallest levels. Turns out they were right.

If you ask me though Buddhism is the least worst of the organized religions but I still have a problem with the hierarchical structure. I'm also suspicious of people who try to deny their "bad side" if you will. "Moral superiority" can take negative forms within society. Buddhists aren't exempt from this mind frame although outwardly they're mostly quite humble and harmless. Buddhism is tricky, I almost see it as a philosophy but a very dogmatic one. I prefer it's updated western form (Existentialism). :)

graymouser

25th March 2011, 15:14

Albert Einstein was a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany when he was in that country. After he came to the US there is no evidence that he was a member of any left organizations, although Monthly Review reprints his article "Why Socialism" every few years.

As for Buddhism, well. I personally think that Buddhism's emphasis on nonviolence is impractical and elitist, and for that reason I think it has to be set aside for revolutionaries. Like any religion or philosophy it inevitably has concrete positive and negative features that function relative to other social structures. In a place like Tibet, Buddhism was used for centuries to motivate a theocratic feudalism, and I find the popularity of Tibetan Buddhism in the west somewhat disturbing. Other schools tend to focus too much inward for my taste, whereas I think one has to look outward over the whole society.

Personally, I lost my religion about seven years ago, and in the early months I spent some time studying Buddhism before world events convinced me to become a Marxist instead. I mostly did Vipassana meditation practice, which is part of the Theravadan school of Buddhism and attempts to build insight into the self through sitting and meditating upon the count of breath through your nose. Despite not agreeing with Buddhist dhamma, I find Vipassana quite useful and still sometimes do sitting practice for purely secular reasons - I find it quite pleasant, and it tends to help me deal with stress and anxiety. In that sense, I consider Buddhism's practical side much more useful than all the spirituality and ethics.

B5C

26th March 2011, 00:48

If you ask me though Buddhism is the least worst of the organized religions but I still have a problem with the hierarchical structure. I'm also suspicious of people who try to deny their "bad side" if you will. "Moral superiority" can take negative forms within society. Buddhists aren't exempt from this mind frame although outwardly they're mostly quite humble and harmless. Buddhism is tricky, I almost see it as a philosophy but a very dogmatic one. I prefer it's updated western form (Existentialism). :)

I agree with you. The old hierarchical structures must be removed in order for Buddhism to expand. I don't mind hierarchical structure in a small monastery or temple. We just don't want one group from an different state telling others what to do like Tibetan and Kampada Buddhism.

Like for example:

Bhikkhuni controversy

On October 22, 2009 Brahm facilitated an ordination ceremony for bhikkhunis where four female Buddhists, Venerable Ajahn Vayama, and Venerables Nirodha, Seri and Hasapanna, were ordained into the Western Theravada bhikkhuni sangha. The ordination ceremony took place at Ajahn Brahm's Bodhinyana Monastery at Serpentine (near Perth, WA), Australia. For his actions of October 22, 2009, on November 1, 2009, at a meeting of senior members of the Thai monastic sangha, held at Wat Pah Pong, Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand, Brahm was removed from the Ajahn Chah Forest Sangha lineage and is no longer associated with the main monastery in Thailand, Wat Pah Pong, nor with any of the other Western Forest Sangha branch monasteries of the Ajahn Chah tradition.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhinyana_Monastery

NRAGjvj4xJA

Nehru

26th March 2011, 03:20

One must also add that Buddha's stories are generally very, very inspiring, and one doesn't have to be religious to appreciate them. Anyone can appreciate his teaching on impermanence, compassion, and such - they apply to all people, atheists and religious folks alike. Not so in other religions where belief seems all-important.

Revolution starts with U

26th March 2011, 07:55

ComradeMan

26th March 2011, 11:38

One of my favorite quotes about Sidharta: to paraphrase...

They asked "are you an angel." "No" he replied.
"Are you a demon/devil?" "I am not" he replied.
"Are you a man?" "No I am not" he replied.
"Then what are you?"
"I am awake."

Mark 15: 2 Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" Jesus replied, "You have said it."

The translations vary, and perhaps it's just me, but I see a similarity in this somehow. Some translations have Jesus saying "I am", or "As you say", whereas others have a subtle but important difference in that Jesus turns the question around...

Tjis

26th March 2011, 11:56

B5C

26th March 2011, 16:21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement
Buddhism, breaking caste boundaries since 400BCE.

But as with every religion it has been co-opted by ruling classes to fit their own needs. One of the Vinaya rules is that the sangha (community of monks) can't handle money themselves, and must rely on the community for support. In practice this means that the Sangha will be on the side of whoever is able to support them. And for anything but the bare necessities like food and clothes, that support will come from the rich. This is not without consequences.

Donation from the community is always an important thing. Most monks in training require ONLY to eat what other people put in their bowls. While sitting in the community they are close by. They are suppose to sit there with a bowl in front of them and only eat what other put in the bowl. That is how the Buddha ate most of his meals. All from donations. Heck he even died from it. At old age he died of food poisoning. He was giving bad rice and died. Because that is what a villager gave him.

x359594

26th March 2011, 17:02

Sweeping generalizations about Buddhism (or any other religion) have to be tested against how the beliefs are embodied at any given historical moment. The belief system of anyone religion encompasses a variety of uneven and seemingly incongruous institutional practices, and I think it does a disservice to single out one strand of practice or one particular historical moment to the exclusion of others and declare that one strand or that one moment the defining one, a false metonymy in my view.

Any discussion of Buddhism (or any other religion) has to be grounded in the socio-economic conditions in which it currently exits. Thus, in the West Buddhism appears to be the religion of choice for a particular layer of the bourgeoisie (I exclude Asian expat practice in the West where the religion is part of an inherited cultural pattern) that promises a comfortable and caring lifestyle, a religion that can function as some sort of positive therapeutic way of living in a decaying capitalist society.

In Asia after decolonization "socially engaged Buddhism" made its appearance and played an oppositional role against neocolonialism when the West's chosen compradore class assumed power, down to the present. Sulak Sivaraksa of Thailand has led a Buddhist socialist movement against the Thai ruling class for years (he's been in and out of prison several times); many Japanese communists and socialists came from Jodo Shinshu backgrounds (Jodo Shinshu is a popular school of Buddhism that emerged in the 12th century among the peasantry owing no allegiance to monks, an entirely lay movement that was at the forefront of peasant insurrections and resistance to feudal overlords throughout Japan's history.)

While socially engaged Buddhism is socialist in Asia, its Euro-American version is liberal reformist, reflecting the essentially bourgeois class affiliation of most of Buddhism's adherents in the West. I speak from personal experience of having Japanese Buddhist relatives (my companera is a sansei (third generation Japanese-American) both Buddhist and radical.)

Revolution starts with U

26th March 2011, 21:41

Mark 15: 2 Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" Jesus replied, "You have said it."

The translations vary, and perhaps it's just me, but I see a similarity in this somehow. Some translations have Jesus saying "I am", or "As you say", whereas others have a subtle but important difference in that Jesus turns the question around...

I actually fall into the camp that tends to think the Nazarenes were a buddhist sect of judaism. There is a lot of cursory evidence for this, mostly in certain beleifs and the way certain things are phrased.
I think that scroll about the western guy who came to learn eastern philosophy and then take it back to the west around year 0, if it is true, is either Jesus in his off time, or a very important Nazarene.

eric922

26th March 2011, 22:50

Speaking of stories an quotes, here is one my favorites from Buddha that I really wish more people would follow: Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. "Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

B5C

26th March 2011, 23:58

Robespierre Richard

27th March 2011, 00:10

Octavian

27th March 2011, 00:35

There's actually an ideology combing socialism with Buddhism called "Dhammic Socialism".

I guess I should have to say because I am an Buddhist.

Buddhism and Marxism can work together. Since both ideals were based on the idea of serving others and ending exploitations. Heck even the 14th Dalai Lama consider himself an Marxist.

If you want a good read:
Marxism in a Buddhist Perspective

by V.A.Gunasekara
[First Published in Vîmamsâ July 1984]

Considering he and the rest of his monks make up a very small portion of the Tibetan population and live in lavish living conditions while the rest of the population are reduced to being serfs. I see No reason other than appeasing the Chinese government and trying to appear intellectual for him to embrace Marxism, the dalai lama is a joke.

RÃªve Rouge

27th March 2011, 00:43

Buddhism and socialism? It's a possibility. There's already theories that compromise the two. An example would be "Dhammic Socialism", coined by Buddhadāsa. But it should be noted that this is of the Theravada school. I haven't heard any Buddhist socialists of the Mahayana school.

Buddhism and communism? I wouldn't think so. Communism by definition is the revolutionary form of socialism. I can't really picture Buddhist monks advocating a revolution, fighting alongside with other communists.

I can picture Buddhist monks involved with social activism, polls and such, bringing about socialism in a more progressive manner. So yes, Buddhism and socialism would be compatible (given that socialism is a broad ideology).

x359594

27th March 2011, 00:58

...Considering he [the Dalai Lama] and the rest of his monks make up a very small portion of the Tibetan population and live in lavish living conditions while the rest of the population are reduced to being serfs...

The Dalai Lama's present living conditions in Dharamsala are not particularly lavish. A fair consideration of the Dalai Lama would have to take into account the efforts he's made on behalf of the Tibetan exile community in India which have by and large been for the good.

In recent years the Dalai Lama has served as a figure head for the Tibetan exile community and as a promoter for human rights in occupied Tibet. He's used his influence to prevent an armed insurgency among the Tibetans.

During the period when he resided in Tibet the country was a feudal theocracy with over a third of the male population living as monks, parasites on the mass of Tibetan people. In the beginning, Chinese cadres did much to improve the living conditions of the Tibetan people with little opposition from the Tibetan government.

Up until 1955 the Chinese Communist Party was a force for good in the country, but with the settlement program for Han Chinese the situation began to change, so that the Chinese ceased to be liberators and became a new ruling class; the treatment of the Tibetans at the hands chauvinist commissars, requisition of Tibetan produce, and occupation of Tibetan lands by Chinese settlers eventually led to the 1959 uprising and subsequent repression.

Today Han Chinese outnumber Tibetans who are treated as second class citizens, and reduced to wage slavery by the triumph of the Capitalist Road faction within the Chinese Communist Party (communist in name only as should be apparent to anyone.)

Sinister Cultural Marxist

27th March 2011, 02:29

For those who say Buddhism is necessarily peaceful, or even non-revolutionary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikk%C5%8D-ikki

Ikkō-ikki (一向一揆? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Installing_Japanese_character_sets)), literally "single-minded leagues", were mobs of peasant farmers, Buddhist monks, Shinto priests and local nobles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji-samurai), who rose up against samurai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai) rule in 15th to 16th century Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan). They followed the beliefs of the Jōdo Shinshu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C5%8Ddo_Shinshu) (True Pure Land) sect of Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism) which taught that all believers are equally saved by Amida Buddha's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitabha) grace. They were organized to only a small degree; if any single person could be said to have had any influence over them it was Rennyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rennyo), the leader of the Jōdo Shinshu Hongan-ji (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongan-ji) sect at that time. Rennyo's attitude to the Ikkō-ikki was, however, highly ambivalent and pragmatic. Whilst he may have used the religious fervour of the Ikkō-ikki in the defence of his temple settlements, he was also careful to distance himself from the wider social rebellion of the Ikkō (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikk%C5%8D) movement as a whole, and from offensive violence in particular.

...

Weapons, training, and lifestyle

The Ikkō-ikki bands of the 16th century, due largely to their origins as countryside mobs, used quite varied armor and armament. Many wore the more traditional monk robes, with varying degrees and types of armor. Many wore various sorts of helmets, while many others opted for the straw hat and cloak of a peasant. Naginata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naginata) remained very common, along with a variety of swords and daggers, and a limited number of arquebuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus). Finally, while not truly armor nor armament, a very common item wielded by the mobs of Ikkō-ikki monk warriors was a banner with a Buddhist slogan written upon it. Some of the more common slogans included the nembutsu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nembutsu) chant "Homage to Amida Buddha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitabha)!" (Namu Amida Butsu; 南無阿弥陀仏) and "Renounce this defiled world and attain the Pure Land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land)".
There have definitely been some ... interesting charismatic/revolutionary moments in buddhist history.

Buddhism itself is quite revolutionary, in that it does not view ideas such as private, personal property to be an absolute connection by an individual to an object. There is no need in Buddhism for permanent concepts, or concepts which exist independently of relationships with other types of objects. And as such, there is no need to view "My farm" or "My windmill" as absolutely your own. Most Buddhist monks and nuns don't have much personal property for that very reason. It is seen as a fetter to view property or any object for that matter as something permanent, or something that should be permanent. As such, Buddhism really has no philosophical argument against expropriation wherever expropriation is rational and practical.

Of course, aside from the idealism of philosophy, in real life, where material conditions are involved, Buddhist monastic orders often become beholden to the classes that finance them. But in a working class, socialist society, this means the Buddhist orders would essentially be "owned" by the working class and economic interest would no longer corrupt the agenda of the temple and the monks inside.

Considering he and the rest of his monks make up a very small portion of the Tibetan population and live in lavish living conditions while the rest of the population are reduced to being serfs. I see No reason other than appeasing the Chinese government and trying to appear intellectual for him to embrace Marxism, the dalai lama is a joke.

I'm no apologist for the Lama Feudal order, but the Dalai Lama was still very young when he was kicked from power, and as an older man has always said that the Chinese brought positive forms and that socialism is ideal.

Mark 15: 2 Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" Jesus replied, "You have said it."

The translations vary, and perhaps it's just me, but I see a similarity in this somehow. Some translations have Jesus saying "I am", or "As you say", whereas others have a subtle but important difference in that Jesus turns the question around...

I wonder what would be more profound, that Jesus was influenced by the Buddha, or that they discovered this same existential truth independently of one another?

Viet Minh

27th March 2011, 02:46

Judging by the Buddhist-majority nations that have Socialist Governments (or regimes that call themselves such) then yes, the two are very compatible. It could also be because Buddhism is more pacifist and less political than other religions though. Socialism can exist alongside any religion, but any mix of religion and politics is counter-productive to both, imo..

eric922

27th March 2011, 05:53

I completely agree. As Jefferson said "there must be a wall of separation between Church and State."

B5C

27th March 2011, 06:16

I completely agree. As Jefferson said "there must be a wall of separation between Church and State."

This is what MOST western Buddhists support and some in Asia.

cayVaYJK9ww

t.shonku

31st March 2011, 18:33

I don't know who are western Buddhist :confused::confused::confused:????????

Anyways if they are following Dalai Lama they are being led into the wrong path !!!!!!!

Dalai Lama is a shame in name of Buddhism all he practices in Tantra and follows the orders from white house , he and men like him created a repressive regime in Tibet and feudal system . I am glad that PLA came and liberated Tibet from that tantric Dalai Lama, Buddhism teaches us the motto of " Simple living and high ideological thinking" Buddhism is opposite of materialism actually you may find some simmilarities with Communism which is also anti-materialism. Buddhism is all about helping others not about winning Noble Prize.

Stupid western puppet Dalai Lama ! He is a disgrace to our religion.

Viet Minh

31st March 2011, 20:53

One of my favorite quotes about Sidharta: to paraphrase...

They asked "are you an angel." "No" he replied.
"Are you a demon/devil?" "I am not" he replied.
"Are you a man?" "No I am not" he replied.
"Then what are you?"
"I am awake."

I don't get it.. Is it similar to the philosophy 'I think therefore I am'?

Tibetan Buddhism absorbed too many bullshit animist religions along the way i think, Buddha never said he was a God but later they elevate him to that status, alongside a whole host of demi gods and deities.

Revolution starts with U

31st March 2011, 21:51

No, the Buddha wasn't questioning reality or trying to explain consciousness; i.e, he wasn't playing the skeptic here.
What he was questioning is how does one achieve Buddhahood. Do they do it divinely? No. Do they do it demonically? No. It comes about as a realization of incontrevertable "truths."
Now, I don't believe one iota in englightenment, or "budhahood," but I do read this quote as an anti-labeling statement. How do we learn more about ourselves and the world around us? Stop trying to identify everything, and approach it more from a systems analysis.

B5C

1st April 2011, 03:02

El Chuncho

1st April 2011, 16:41

As a religious philosophy, it is fairly compatible with Communist ideas. However, many "Marxist Leninists" have still taken a somewhat hostile view to it ... I think many view monasticism as a waste of labour. I know Stalin was quite nasty to many Buddhists in Russia. But there's nothing particularly contradictory about the two systems.

Agreed, and I must point out that most Buddhists in countries like Vietnam were not hostile to the revolution nor very rebellious afterwards (some Buddhists were, but many of the leaders if the Vietnamese were still Buddhists. Buddhism isn't like Christianity, it doesn't have a personal god, it teaches that you must work hard and be good. These are good values, ones fully compatible with Communism, and even Marxist-Leninism (and Lenin, though somewhat critical, was not even as harsh on Christianity as he should have been, and in my mind Marx and Lenin are THE most important minds in Communism).

El Chuncho

1st April 2011, 16:44

I think you are really overboard with this.

Agreed. I do not think that the Dalai Lama is right about everything, but he is not a disgrace to Buddhism and he is a Marxist (he said he was 50% Buddhist and 50% Marxist). Maybe the poster agrees more with the Maoists, but you can't just say he is a disgrace to his religion and he is not quite against Maoism or China, he only feels Tibet should have more independence. Mao and the Dalai Lama agreed on a lot of things as the Dalai Lama was Communist-friendly, seeing Marxism as fully compatible with Buddhism (and he is right).

Property Is Robbery

1st April 2011, 16:59

He was a Zionist, even offered the post of being the 1st president of Israel due to his contributions to Zionist colonization. if he was a Revolutionary Communist, I'd disown the entire movement completely.
"who supported the idea of a Jewish homeland, but opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine “with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power.” Instead, he preferred a bi-national state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binational_solution) with “continuously functioning, mixed, administrative, economic, and social organizations.”

ComradeMan

1st April 2011, 19:12

Agreed, and I must point out that most Buddhists in countries like Vietnam were not hostile to the revolution nor very rebellious afterwards (some Buddhists were, but many of the leaders if the Vietnamese were still Buddhists. Buddhism isn't like Christianity, it doesn't have a personal god, it teaches that you must work hard and be good. These are good values, ones fully compatible with Communism, and even Marxist-Leninism (and Lenin, though somewhat critical, was not even as harsh on Christianity as he should have been, and in my mind Marx and Lenin are THE most important minds in Communism).

Funny how Lenin isn't here any more and the churches are as full as they have ever been in Russia.

El Chuncho

1st April 2011, 20:05

Funny how Lenin isn't here any more and the churches are as full as they have ever been in Russia.

Funny how the churches are full but Jesus isn't there either.:laugh:

ComradeMan

2nd April 2011, 10:42

Funny how the churches are full but Jesus isn't there either.:laugh:

LOL!!! False equivalency in a sense, but the difference is in Russia more people are interested in the Russian Orthodox Church than Leninism- that was the point.;)

I'm not taking sides in the argument- but "anti-religionism" always seems to fail and moves against relgiion only ever seem to entrench it further. Ironically, many of the nations with the most tollerant attitude to religion seem to be the ones that are the most secular whereas those former Communist bloc nations where religions was persectuted and frowned on saw a revival after the collapse of "communism".

Revolution starts with U

2nd April 2011, 16:43

Doesn't surprise me... that's how the drug war works.
(psst; religion is a drug)

hatzel

2nd April 2011, 17:27

I'm not taking sides in the argument- but "anti-religionism" always seems to fail and moves against relgiion only ever seem to entrench it further. Ironically, many of the nations with the most tollerant attitude to religion seem to be the ones that are the most secular whereas those former Communist bloc nations were religions was persectuted and frowned on saw a revival after the collapse of "communism".

I have a lot of personal experience with Ukrainian Christians who are pretty extreme about it, and say to non-religious types who were christened / baptised / whatever as children stuff like 'you got to be christened, and now you don't care about it...I didn't get that privilege! We had to fight to be allowed to get christened!'

...well, that's what living in the Soviet Union does to you. It also seems to have bred a generation of neo-Nazis and mafiosi, but let's not get started on that one...:rolleyes:

Revolution starts with U

2nd April 2011, 17:56

Translation;
"You're parents were crackheads. You're lucky. I had to work for my crack."
:D

Viet Minh

2nd April 2011, 18:02

One of my favourite leftist groups at the moment are the westboro Baptist Church, they have done wonders to dispel myths and prejudice against queer people, and in the process have caused many to question the conservative 'traditionalist' beliefs of Christianity in America, and to actually question those who claim to speak for Christianity and stand up to them. The Bible tells us that the antichrist will pretend to be the messiah, but maybe its actually the messiah pretending to be the antichrist? :D Thought for the day.. :)

hatzel

2nd April 2011, 18:06

...but this is the Buddhism thread...:confused:

Viet Minh

2nd April 2011, 18:10

...but this is the Buddhism thread...:confused:

Sorry I confuddled myself with the ongoing debates. :( I was just taking up on Comrade's point about supression of religion actually fuelling it, which I believe to be generally very true.

hatzel

2nd April 2011, 18:12

Then we're on the same page :) To link it in: don't suppress Buddhism, socialists!

El Chuncho

2nd April 2011, 18:33

LOL!!! False equivalency in a sense, but the difference is in Russia more people are interested in the Russian Orthodox Church than Leninism- that was the point.;)

I know, I know, but I find it amusing that more people are interested in a guy that may not have existed than a guy who did, and freed their country from Imperialism.

I'm not taking sides in the argument- but "anti-religionism" always seems to fail and moves against relgiion only ever seem to entrench it further.

I am actually not anti-religion, I am more just anti-Christian. And I do not think it should be banned, it should just not get any sponsorship from the state, and shouldn't be treated with reverence.

Ironically, many of the nations with the most tollerant attitude to religion seem to be the ones that are the most secular whereas those former Communist bloc nations were religions was persectuted and frowned on saw a revival after the collapse of "communism".

Agreed, and I think that is a sad thing.:(

Revolution starts with U

2nd April 2011, 18:44

You guys can take heart that I would never ban religion, and find doing so counterproductive. But it doesn't make religion, or belief in god, any less hilarious from the outsider's perspective. :laugh:

Tjis

2nd April 2011, 23:36

Revolution starts with U

3rd April 2011, 02:32

I didn't mean to imply Buddhism. Sry :D

Die Rote Fahne

3rd April 2011, 05:07

eric922

3rd April 2011, 05:19

From what I've read he didn't seem to be too big a fan of Zionism, as for him being a communist or not I honestly don't know. I know I've read he was a member of the U.S. communist party, but that could have been made up.

Raubleaux

3rd April 2011, 05:26

Pretty Flaco

3rd April 2011, 05:44

Einstein was a Labour Zionist, not a communist.
"Hey look, a jew! He must be a dirty reactionary zionist!"

Viet Minh

3rd April 2011, 05:48

B5C

3rd April 2011, 06:30

Buddhism does not have a stain free history:

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

Frankly I do not see any reason to be a Buddhist, or any other religion if you are a leftist. It's mystical and unscientific. But I guess if it makes you happy or something knock yourself out.

Were not lying or toneing it down, but Tibet and the Dalai Lama did had a bad history. Also the Dalai Lama does not control all of Buddhism. There are three different schools of Buddhism: Theravada, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna. Dalai lama is part of the Mahāyāna school of Buddhism, so he has no say what does the other two schools do. The other two schools don't have a central authorial figure like the Dalai Lama and the Pope. Buddhism does not have a central structer like the Orthodox, Catholic, Shi'ite Islam churches. Buddhism is taught by the monks who teach other monks or layman. Then it's spread by others.

I don't have an official monastery I go or an official teacher. Well I do watch Ajahn Brahm's videos because he produces great talks.

As for Science.

Buddhism and Science and be together and not fighting each other. Buddhism always wants too understand nature. The Buddha even taught that we should study everything around us. Buddhists LOVE science.

The Dalai Lama is sending monks too American university to learn science, so they in return go back home in India and teach other Buddhists about science.

Tibetan Monks and Nuns Turn Their Minds Toward Science

DHARAMSALA, India — Tibetan monks and nuns spend their lives studying the inner world of the mind rather than the physical world of matter. Yet for one month this spring a group of 91 monastics devoted themselves to the corporeal realm of science.

Instead of delving into Buddhist texts on karma and emptiness, they learned about Galileo’s law of accelerated motion, chromosomes, neurons and the Big Bang, among other far-ranging topics.

Many in the group, whose ages ranged from the 20s to 40s, had never learned science and math. In Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and nunneries, the curriculum has remained unchanged for centuries.

To add to the challenge, some monastics have limited English and relied on Tibetan translators to absorb the four-week crash course in physics, biology, neuroscience and math and logic taught by teachers from Emory University in Atlanta.

But the monastics put morning-to-evening lectures into action. At a Buddhist college campus here in Dharamsala, the exile home of the Dalai Lama in northern India, red-robed monks and nuns experimented with pendulums, gathered plants in the foothills of the Himalayas that showed natural selection and bent their shaved heads over microscopes to view an unseen world.

Tibetan monks and nuns may spend 12 hours a day studying Buddhist philosophy and logic, reciting prayers and debating scriptures. But science has been given a special boost by the Dalai Lama, who has long advocated modern education in Tibetan monasteries and schools in exile, alongside Tibet’s traditions. India is home to at least 120,000 Tibetans, the largest population outside Tibet.

Science may seem at odds with Tibetan religious rituals. Reincarnations of high Tibetan monks are identified through dreams and auspicious signs. The Dalai Lama credits the state oracle with helping him decide to flee Tibet in 1959 as Chinese troops advanced on Lhasa.

Yet the Tibetan spiritual leader views science and Buddhism as complementary “investigative approaches with the same greater goal, of seeking the truth,” he wrote in “The Universe in a Single Atom,” his book on “how science and spirituality can serve our world.” He stresses that science is especially important for monastics who study the nature of the mind and the relationship between mind and brain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/science/30monks.html

Carl Sagan interviews the Dalai Lama on God & Science
g5mQHkiI0U0

Officially I don't belong to any schools. I use a mixture of three schools too help me. I do lean a bit too the Theravada school.

From the Kalama Sutta:

"Yes, Kalamas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, not by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea: 'this is our teacher'. But, O Kalamas, when you know for yourselves that certain things are unwholesome (akusala), and wrong, and bad, then give them up...And when you know for yourselves that certain things are wholesome (kusala) and good, then accept them and follow them."

Basically the Buddha taught us to use evidence than faith and dogma for our answers. Also the Buddha taught that he might be wrong.

Albert Einstein -
The religion of the future will be cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual and a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. . . If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism.

Bertrand Russell
Buddhism is a combination of both speculative and scientific philosophy. It advocates the scientific method and pursues that to a finality that may be called Rationalistic. In it are to be found answers to such questions of interest as: 'What is mind and matter? Of them, which is of greater importance? Is the universe moving towards a goal? What is man's position? Is there living that is noble?' It takes up where science cannot lead because of the limitations of the latter's instruments. Its conquests are those of the mind.

Read this:
http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/VerhoevenBuddhismScience.htm

Arilou Lalee'lay

3rd April 2011, 07:18

Ken Knabb, probably the best known American situationist (or situ influenced, whatever you want to say) widely advocates the benefits of zazen, Zen Buddhist meditation, and I agree with him. He also wrote an open letter, "Strong Lessons for Engaged Buddhists", trying to radicalize Buddhists.

Personally I don't care what Marx had to say on the topic unless he had some good point that I haven't heard before, but I think he mentioned it, specifically, along with other Eastern religions, as being used as opiates of the people. This I also agree with, though I might have dreamed that reference up. I haven't read Marx for a while; I know his main points and it's not a gospel to be memorized. Not that progress isn't made by studying nuances sometimes, just that everyone can't know all the nuances. I digress.

hatzel

3rd April 2011, 11:27

Can we maybe stop talking about Einstein's political ideas on a thread entitled 'Buddhism and Socialism'? :)

Tjis

3rd April 2011, 15:46

Were not lying or toneing it down, but Tibet and the Dalai Lama did had a bad history. Also the Dalai Lama does not control all of Buddhism. There are three different schools of Buddhism: Theravada, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna. Dalai lama is part of the Mahāyāna school of Buddhism, so he has no say what does the other two schools do. The other two schools don't have a central authorial figure like the Dalai Lama and the Pope. Buddhism does not have a central structer like the Orthodox, Catholic, Shi'ite Islam churches. Buddhism is taught by the monks who teach other monks or layman. Then it's spread by others.

Some corrections: the Dalai lama is part of the Vajrayāna branch of buddhism, which itself is part of Mahāyāna. Vajrayāna is further divided in various schools. The Dalai Lama only leads the Gelug school and has no authority over other schools of Vajrayāna, let alone Mahāyāna. Historically this school has had a lot of political control over Tibet though, which is the reason for the central position of the Dalai Lama.

x359594

7th April 2011, 22:36

Ken Knabb, probably the best known American situationist (or situ influenced, whatever you want to say) widely advocates the benefits of zazen, Zen Buddhist meditation, and I agree with him. He also wrote an open letter, "Strong Lessons for Engaged Buddhists", trying to radicalize Buddhists...

His main point in that letter and a follow up to it was that Western engaged Buddhists are ignorant of Marxism in particular and socialism in general. By and large Western engaged Buddhism is reformist and lacks the kind of socialist analysis one finds in Asian engaged Buddhism.

Snacsnoc

23rd April 2011, 05:35

Over the last couple months, I've been studying Buddhism. The main thing that I see incompatible with communism is pacifism in Buddhism. That is, if a revolution were to start, a Buddhist cannot do harm to another. Then again, that's implying that violence will be present. Other than that, everything goes hand in hand.

eric922

23rd April 2011, 05:53

Snacsnoc

23rd April 2011, 06:00

Any good books you'd recommended or should I just pick up a few sutras?

Nothing specifically, I guess. I mainly used books that I picked up at the library and some sites. You could read a few sutras to get a grasp on things. There's a movie, The Buddha (2010) that's not bad but I feel it's a bit too 'Western'.
Even I still have lots of reading to do :rolleyes:

graymouser

23rd April 2011, 07:03

Any good books you'd recommended or should I just pick up a few sutras?
Depending on what you're interested in, the two best books on Buddhism you could read would be Walpola Rahula's What the Buddha Taught which is a classic introduction to the ideas of Theravada Buddhism, and D.T. Suzuki's An Introduction to Zen Buddhism, which is also a classic and looks at Zen ideas. If you are interested in Vipassana meditation practice, read Henepola Gunaratana's Mindfulness in Plain English. Sitting down and reading the suttas from scratch isn't going to get you very far.

The Rahula book is the best single book you can read on Buddhism IMO, and presents the ideas in a clear and frequently de-mystifying way. Suzuki's book on Zen is a classic and supports that school strongly. And if you want to meditate, Gunaratana's book is a great explanation of how to do it. Most of the other books I read back when I was interested in Buddhism were 90% fluff; these were the real deal.

eric922

23rd April 2011, 07:14

Depending on what you're interested in, the two best books on Buddhism you could read would be Walpola Rahula's What the Buddha Taught which is a classic introduction to the ideas of Theravada Buddhism, and D.T. Suzuki's An Introduction to Zen Buddhism, which is also a classic and looks at Zen ideas. If you are interested in Vipassana meditation practice, read Henepola Gunaratana's Mindfulness in Plain English. Sitting down and reading the suttas from scratch isn't going to get you very far.

The Rahula book is the best single book you can read on Buddhism IMO, and presents the ideas in a clear and frequently de-mystifying way. Suzuki's book on Zen is a classic and supports that school strongly. And if you want to meditate, Gunaratana's book is a great explanation of how to do it. Most of the other books I read back when I was interested in Buddhism were 90% fluff; these were the real deal. Thanks! I'll check those out. Do you have any suggestions for Mahayana Buddhism while I'm buying?

graymouser

23rd April 2011, 07:32

Thanks! I'll check those out. Do you have any suggestions for Mahayana Buddhism while I'm buying?
The problem is, Mahayana is a big and wide-ranging topic, with multiple different schools of thought. Zen is by far the most widely studied school of Mahayana in the West. Since there's not a single dominant practice like there is in Theravada, there really isn't an analog to Rahula's book that can give you a very definite overview. For westerners, Zen is the most approachable of its schools but there is an awful lot of nonsense out there about Zen concepts. I'd say start with the stuff on Theravada and Zen, and branch out from there if you're interested in going further in another school of Mahayana like Pure Land or something like that.

Arilou Lalee'lay

25th April 2011, 00:55

Blackscare

25th April 2011, 01:09

What annoys me is that any time this subject comes up, it's not too long before it becomes about Tibet. It's as if some people can't look past the most major 'single' incident where Buddhism and Socialism intersected. I mean, Tibetan Buddhism is pretty separate from other forms, and in fact constitutes it's own major family (along side the two other, more prominent groupings).

Now, obviously Buddhism is not without stains, I don't think it really even has to be mentioned.

I personally see a lot of commonality between DM and the type of view that my grandfather, a monk of the Soto Zen variety, held regarding reality. His conception was that there were no separate, unique "things" in the universe, only one massive whole that is in a constant state of flux, changing do to the interactions between it's many facets.

Tjis

25th April 2011, 01:09

What branch is best to start reading about for someone who is easily irritated by any references to the supernatural, robes and incense, vague unverifiable dogma, etc.? I just want to give it a fair chance, so far most of what I've read makes as much sense to me as Christian preachers do (none).

In my opinion, Theravada is the most no-nonsense branch. It doesn't say much about what enlightenment is supposed to be like, or what the nature of the universe is, or the nature of some hidden 'true self'. In fact dwelling on such things is considered counterproductive towards ones spiritual progress.
Instead, it focuses on the understanding of stress, its causes, and its elimination, providing teachings and practices to help you achieve the complete elimination of all stress and suffering eventuality.
more information here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/

x359594

26th April 2011, 05:56

In my opinion, Theravada is the most no-nonsense branch....it focuses on the understanding of stress, its causes, and its elimination, providing teachings and practices to help you achieve the complete elimination of all stress and suffering eventuality...

Well, part of the discussion here has to with Buddhism as an institution, and Theravada has the same institutional defects as other schools of Buddhism.

Typically, Westerners who import Buddhism try to filter it through the Western liberal sensibility, so that in the case of Theravada its misogyny is not confronted (whereas by contrast Mahayana does at least have a handful of women teachers regarded as the equal of their male counterparts.)

It seems to me that Buddhism can't be reduced to its theoretical propositions, meditation instructions, art, etc. It has to be understood comprehensively in its historical and present social context to arrive at an accurate assessment of its doctrines and its contribution to world civilization.

Arilou Lalee'lay

26th April 2011, 07:44

Typically, Westerners who import Buddhism try to filter it through the Western liberal sensibility, so that in the case of Theravada its misogyny is not confronted (whereas by contrast Mahayana does at least have a handful of women teachers regarded as the equal of their male counterparts.)

It seems to me that Buddhism can't be reduced to its theoretical propositions, meditation instructions, art, etc. It has to be understood comprehensively in its historical and present social context to arrive at an accurate assessment of its doctrines and its contribution to world civilization.

After reading some more I agree with this. The "serious pursuit of happiness" seems more likely to lead one to positive psychology than Buddhism imo.

Theoneontheleft

26th April 2011, 07:55

I've always been very interested in Buddhism and I view in a more positive light than Western religions since it seems in my mind less judgmental and less prone to the corruption of western religion.

Also anyone have any good recommendations for easy to read sources on Buddhism?

You may wish to consult the book "Print and Power: Confucianism, Communism, and Buddhism in the Making of Modern Vietnam" by
Shawn Frederick McHale.

http://sweepingzen.com/2010/11/30/print-and-power-confucianism-communism-and-buddhism-in-the-making-of-modern-vietnam-southeast-asia-politics-meaning-and-memory-by-shawn-frederick-mchale-082483304x/

Tjis

26th April 2011, 11:42

Well, part of the discussion here has to with Buddhism as an institution, and Theravada has the same institutional defects as other schools of Buddhism.

Typically, Westerners who import Buddhism try to filter it through the Western liberal sensibility, so that in the case of Theravada its misogyny is not confronted (whereas by contrast Mahayana does at least have a handful of women teachers regarded as the equal of their male counterparts.)
I was replying to a request about a branch of buddhism without much mystical claims. Theravada certainly fits the bill, moreso than other branches at least. The question was not about which branch was most women-friendly, in which case Theravada would certainly not have been a good pick.
Yes, misogyny is a huge problem within Theravada buddhism. Of the Theravada countries, only Sri Lanka has its original nun order left. In other countries, attempts to re-establish it are met with hostility from the existing (male) order.

It seems to me that Buddhism can't be reduced to its theoretical propositions, meditation instructions, art, etc. It has to be understood comprehensively in its historical and present social context to arrive at an accurate assessment of its doctrines and its contribution to world civilization.
A distinction must be made between Buddhism as a religion and Buddhism as a cultural formation.
Any religion is likely to acquire cultural influences over time that have nothing to do with the religion itself. For example, the christmas tree is an old pagan custom that has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. Nevertheless in many christian (and in fact also secular) households in the west you'll find one during christmas time. But christianity without that tree would still be the same christianity.
Similarily, Buddhism, being over 25 centuries old, has acquired various cultural influences. The usual conversion method was to take the local customs and instead of replacing them, give them a 'Buddhist redirection'. Over time, such customs can become an integral part of many people's practicle. But when importing Buddhism to the west, I see no reason for taking along any of these customs, except for oriental sentimentalism.

But when analyzing the role of Buddhism within historical Buddhist countries, obviously you can not ignore the cultural aspect. But also you can´t speak of just one Buddhism then, as this cultural Buddhism will be different everywhere, having taken on different local customs and having had different patronage. And for that reason, you also can´t extrapolate and say that such a cultural expression is integral to Buddhism itself.

Queercommie Girl

26th April 2011, 12:36

As for Buddhism, well. I personally think that Buddhism's emphasis on nonviolence is impractical and elitist, and for that reason I think it has to be set aside for revolutionaries. Like any religion or philosophy it inevitably has concrete positive and negative features that function relative to other social structures. In a place like Tibet, Buddhism was used for centuries to motivate a theocratic feudalism, and I find the popularity of Tibetan Buddhism in the west somewhat disturbing. Other schools tend to focus too much inward for my taste, whereas I think one has to look outward over the whole society.

What you said about Buddhism being "elitist" isn't really true. I'm not a Buddhist, but generally speaking Buddhism is no more "elitist" than Christianity or Islam. (Of course if you consider all religions to be "elitist" then it's a different matter altogether) Nor is Buddhism absolute pacifist either.

I'm sorry, but your comment here shows that you are relatively ignorant of East Asian history. Messiahnic versions of Buddhism have been used repeatedly by peasant rebels in ancient China and Japan to fight violently against the existing feudal order. One of the most famous messiahnic Buddhist sects in ancient China was the White Lotus sect, who initiated peasant rebellions against both the Mongol Yuan and the Manchu Qing dynasties. Indeed, Buddhism played the same role essentially in the peasant wars of ancient China as Christianity did in the peasant wars of ancient Europe. Just as there are both "elitist" and "populist" versions of Christianity (Catholic Church vs. Thomas Muntzer), there are also both "elitist" and "populist" versions of Buddhism. (Tibetan Lamaism vs. White Lotus)

But I agree with your point about Tibetan Lamaism, only that Lamaism isn't the only form of Tibetan Buddhism, nor was it the original form.

More on the White Lotus sect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Lotus

Viet Minh

26th April 2011, 15:15

What you said about Buddhism being "elitist" isn't really true. I'm not a Buddhist, but generally speaking Buddhism is no more "elitist" than Christianity or Islam. (Of course if you consider all religions to be "elitist" then it's a different matter altogether) Nor is Buddhism absolute pacifist either.

I'm sorry, but your comment here shows that you are relatively ignorant of East Asian history. Messiahnic versions of Buddhism have been used repeatedly by peasant rebels in ancient China and Japan to fight violently against the existing feudal order. One of the most famous messiahnic Buddhist sects in ancient China was the White Lotus sect, who initiated peasant rebellions against both the Mongol Yuan and the Manchu Qing dynasties. Indeed, Buddhism played the same role essentially in the peasant wars of ancient China as Christianity did in the peasant wars of ancient Europe. Just as there are both "elitist" and "populist" versions of Christianity (Catholic Church vs. Thomas Muntzer), there are also both "elitist" and "populist" versions of Buddhism. (Tibetan Lamaism vs. White Lotus)

But I agree with your point about Tibetan Lamaism, only that Lamaism isn't the only form of Tibetan Buddhism, nor was the original form.

More on the White Lotus sect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Lotus

Can I ask do you know about the Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists, and Big Swords Society? Although they were not religious groupings as such I'd imagine they were mainly Buddhist is that right?

Queercommie Girl

26th April 2011, 18:25

Can I ask do you know about the Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists, and Big Swords Society? Although they were not religious groupings as such I'd imagine they were mainly Buddhist is that right?

They were largely based on Traditional Chinese Religion, which is (and has always been) a mixture of Confucianism, Daoism and Mahayana Buddhism.

China's "traditional national religion" isn't a singular religion, but a fusion, or "trinity" of three religions: Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism.

Viet Minh

26th April 2011, 19:45

They were largely based on Traditional Chinese Religion, which is (and has always been) a mixture of Confucianism, Daoism and Mahayana Buddhism.

China's "traditional national religion" isn't a singular religion, but a fusion, or "trinity" of three religions: Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism.

I tried to learn about Daoism a few years ago but I ended up being more 'Confusionist' :lol: But even if I don't fully understand those religions I have a lot of respect for them, they seem to be among the few that actually bring peace and social order in many cases if not all. *coughTIBETcough cough choke*