Eastern religions are as bad

[Elysian]

... as western religions. Hinduism - caste oppression, Buddhism - pacifism, New age - liberal as opposed to radical politics.

What's common is that all religions promote blind loyalty to some book or leader, encouraging no free or clear thinking, reasoning. No religion encourages sensitivity or compassion, it's all about attacking other people in the name of morality.

No good comes out of religion.

[manic expression]

The caste system is a function of perpetuated feudal social structures by the Raj, combined with a reaction to the domination of various empires that drew their strongest cultural influences from outside of India. Hinduism in many countries has absolutely nothing to do with caste and non-Hindu religions in India display caste discrimination, so it's obviously not a question of the religion but the society in which it exists.

[Yefim Zverev]

Religions are bad in common. Our approach to each religion should be equal as a communist. Neither favor one nor hate other should we. Keep same distance to all. All religions are obstacles against communism and movements.

Like most beloved Gandhi for example being against class-war as an example.

Believe if you must but in your own room and never show out that you are a believer. Never build churches or mosques and gather there. That is not belief. That is after all something else.

[roy]

Maybe when you had 'faith', like, a month or so ago, you thought it was all about attacking people. Whatever, that's what you took away from it. Don't go generalising about other people's faith though. It's extremely personal stuff and to say that religion, as an abstract concept, is bad, full stop, is thoroughly anti-Marxist. Don't look at religion as the cause of some problem: examine how it's manipulated by different groups at different times under different circumstances for different purposes.

[Franz Fanonipants]

op is pretty much a pot stirrer

[hatzel]

New age

That's some seriously non-western stuff, yeah...

[Franz Fanonipants]

anyways blind loyalty owns

[A Revolutionary Tool]

... as western religions. Hinduism - caste oppression, Buddhism - pacifism, New age - liberal as opposed to radical politics.

What's common is that all religions promote blind loyalty to some book or leader, encouraging no free or clear thinking, reasoning. No religion encourages sensitivity or compassion, it's all about attacking other people in the name of morality.

No good comes out of religion.
Good, you've come to realize religion sucks and that you don't need it. Now please go read the texts of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Luxembourg, Gramsci, etc, so you can better be prepared for battle against the enemies!

[bcbm]

ditch one set of cult worship and adopt another for a new holy war

[bcbm]

No religion encourages sensitivity or compassion, it's all about attacking other people in the name of morality.


'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'
'turn the other cheek'

etc...

i think a lot of religions encourage compassion actually.

[dodger]

ditch one set of cult worship and adopt another for a new holy war

At this very moment I am silently....praying it wont.:closedeyes:


Though I have thrown the accusation at Elysian 6 times to my memory


I N C O R R I G I B L E !!:blushing::blushing::cursing::cursing::cursing:


Optimism is not my middle name, none the less I should be a very happy bunny ,to be shown, my fears were completely misplaced.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Red Rabbit]

Good, you've come to realize religion sucks and that you don't need it. Now please go read the texts of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Luxembourg, Gramsci, etc, so you can better be prepared for battle against the enemies!

This is probably the attitude I despise the most. "All religions are terrible, now go worship Marx, Lenin, Stalin, etc."

It's one thing to encourage someone to learn more about Communism, it's another to insult someone's faith only to try to convert them to your own pseudo-religion.

[Rafiq]

There is a reason the likes of Hitler were so fond of Eastern Spiritualism. It's 100% reactionary. At least christianity brought about this abolishment of notions of "destiny" and was universalized. Eastern Spiritualism comes directly from the Land owners.

[bcbm]

i like when people paint a wide range of beliefs with different practices within them with one brush. bringing the nazis in is even better.

[Ostrinski]

How did this fucker go from "anarcho-calvinist" to the board's most militant anti-theist in the blink of an eye

[dodger]

How did this fucker go from "anarcho-calvinist" to the board's most militant anti-theist in the blink of an eye

oneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofuso neofusoneofusoneofuson
oneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofuso neofusoneofusoneofuson
oneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofuso neofusoneofusoneofuson
oneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofuso neofusoneofusoneofuson
oneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofuso neofusoneofusoneofuson
oneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofuso neofusoneofusoneofuson
oneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofuso neofusoneofusoneofuson
oneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofuso neofusoneofusoneofuson
oneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofuso neofusoneofusoneofuson
oneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofuso neofusoneofusoneofuson

Look at the Avatar--look at the eyes-look at the eyes-just the eyes-feeling drowsy-look at the eyes-your brain is shrinking-it's the size of a pea-these people are not your friends-the eyes-they banned you- the eyes-they infracted you- they must all die-wake up- wake up-wake up-wake-up------
oneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofuso neofusoneofusoneofusononeofusoneofusoneofusoneofus oneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusononeofu soneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofus oneofusoneofusononeofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofu soneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofuson

[Ostrinski]

what the fuck

[Red Rabbit]

what the fuck

My exact thoughts.

[Nicolai]

fusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusononeofusoneofusone ofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneo fusononeofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusoneofusone ofusoneofusoneofusoneofuson

Yeeeeeeesssss maaaasterrrr...

[l'Enfermé]

There is a reason the likes of Hitler were so fond of Eastern Spiritualism. It's 100% reactionary. At least christianity brought about this abolishment of notions of "destiny" and was universalized. Eastern Spiritualism comes directly from the Land owners.
I am in full agreement.

[CommunityBeliever]

Buddhism - pacifismThat is not a legitimate criticism with Buddhism. We communists are pseudo-pacifists, we only pick up the gun because it is necessary: "in order to put down the gun, we must first pick up the gun" - comrade Mao Zedong.

The actual problem with Buddhism is that it is outdated. In the modern world biotechnology is a better solution to the problem of suffering then the noble eightfold path and modern biological science explains the cycle of life and death better the primitive superstitions like reincarnation. However, Buddhism and other Eastern religions are not "as bad" as the Western religions for several reasons:


A common theme in Eastern religions is the liberation of sentient life from suffering and exploitation. This lead millions of practitioners of Eastern religions to become vegetarian. This alone demonstrates the relative superiority of Eastern religions.
The Abrahamic religions are based upon monotheism. On the other hand, Buddhism is an atheist religion which is a significant advantage over theistic religions. The Eastern religions which are theistic often allude to pantheism which is far more sensible the Abrahamic monotheism.
The Abrahamic religions are based upon the old testament which goes so far as to state that the universe was created 6,000 years ago which completely contradicts evolution and our modern scientific understanding. On the other hand, Buddhism does not teach anything that contradicts evolution or any important scientific theory. In fact, some Buddhists believe that we are all part of a process of spiritual evolution tending towards enlightenment.

The people's republic of China contains hundreds of millions of atheists and many other Eastern countries such as the DPRK, Laos, and Vietnam are largely atheist. This is a positive development because the role of religion in society has been completely replaced by science and technology. However, where Eastern religions still play a role, such as in India, they are certainly not as bad as their Western counterparts.

[Rafiq]

i like when people paint a wide range of beliefs with different practices within them with one brush. bringing the nazis in is even better.

They very ideological structure of this "Western Fascination of Eastern Spiritualism" (And, this is from Zizek, not me) is reactionary in nature.



What I like is to see the emancipatory potential in institutionalized Christianity. Of course, I don’t mean state religion, but I mean the moment of St. Paul. I find a couple of things in it. The idea of the Gospel, or good news, was a totally different logic of emancipation, of justice, of freedom. For example, within a pagan attitude, injustice means a disturbance of the natural order. In ancient Hinduism, or even with Plato, justice was defined in what today we would call almost fascistic terms, each in his or her place in a just order. Man is the benevolent father of the family, women do their job taking care of the family, worker does his work and so on. Each at his post; then injustice means this hubris when one of the elements wants to be born, i.e. instead of in a paternal way, taking care of his population, the king just thinks about his power and how to exploit it. And then in a violent way, balance should be reestablished, or to put it in more abstract cosmological terms, you have cosmic principles like yin and yang. Again, it is the imbalance that needs to establish organic unities. Connected with this is the idea of justice as paying the price as the preexisting established order is balanced.

But the message that the Gospel sends is precisely the radical abandonment of this idea of some kind of natural balance; the idea of Gospels and the part of sins is that freedom is zero. We begin from the zero point, which is at least originally the point of radical equality. Look at what St. Paul is writing and the metaphors he used. It is messianic, the end of time, differences are suspended. It’s a totally different world whose formal structure is that of radical revolution. Even in ancient Greece, you don’t find that—this idea that the world can be turned on its head, that we are not irreducibly bound by the chains of our past. The past can be erased; we can start from the zero point and establish radical justice, so this logic is basically the logic of emancipation. Which is again why I find any flirting with so-called new-age spiritualities extremely dangerous. It is good to know the other side of the story, at least, when you speak about Buddhism and all of these spiritualities. I am sorry, but Nazis did it all. For Hitler, the Bhagavad Gita was a sacred book; he carried it in his pocket all the time. In Nazi Germany there were three institutes for Tibetan studies and five for the study of different sects of Buddhism.


Of course, I take absolutely no credit and I'm just broadcasting someone else's opinion. But it's very interesting none the less.

[manic expression]

There is a reason the likes of Hitler were so fond of Eastern Spiritualism. It's 100% reactionary.
Hitler rarely had a conception of anything that wasn't completely false. "Eastern Spiritualism" (the fact that you even capitalize this exposes a misunderstanding on your part) was no exception, and it's 100% insane for you to assert that Hitler, of all people, really understood what "Eastern Spirituality" was about. Hitler was fond of himself and his racist delusions, nothing more and nothing less.


At least christianity brought about this abolishment of notions of "destiny" and was universalized. Eastern Spiritualism comes directly from the Land owners.No "destiny"? Um, ever heard of predestination?

"Eastern Spirituality" isn't a religion or any actual category. It's something you made up out of complete ignorance, so I suggest cracking open a book or two about the religions you can't properly categorize and starting from scratch. But who knows...maybe you were predestined to be wrong about this subject.

[bcbm]

They very ideological structure of this "Western Fascination of Eastern Spiritualism" (And, this is from Zizek, not me) is reactionary in nature.

first eastern spiritualism was reactionary, now it is the western fascination with it?

[Rafiq]

first eastern spiritualism was reactionary, now it is the western fascination with it?

Which is what I meant from start.

My point is, these insecure "Just off the Boat" irreligious types in the Western world who are moving to Eastern Spirituality is a dangerous and reactionary move.

[Rafiq]

Hitler rarely had a conception of anything that wasn't completely false. "Eastern Spiritualism" (the fact that you even capitalize this exposes a misunderstanding on your part) was no exception, and it's 100% insane for you to assert that Hitler, of all people, really understood what "Eastern Spirituality" was about. Hitler was fond of himself and his racist delusions, nothing more and nothing less.

There's much more too it than that.


No "destiny"? Um, ever heard of predestination?


What Zizek meant was that Christianity did away with the notion of "Bad = a disturbance in the natural order". Christianity did away with the very concept of a "Natural order" (But substituted it with something absurd, none the less) and that is the positive aspect he is referring to (As in, we all are born from a zero level equal point). The point is not to rehabilitate or "Bring back" Christianity. The point is not to abandon certain radical notions that came with it, as such are essential to the understanding of Materialist-dialectical thought and Communist ideology. By being an insecure "right off the boat" irreligious and moving toward Eastern Spiritualism because you want to have an "Open mind" is a mentally dangerous move, for a radical at least. Because in doing so such radical emancipatory notions brought about through the course of history are abandoned and substituted with the same old reactionary shit. It's like this: Liberalism brought about notions and debunked several fallacies of the old religious world. But Liberalism is still to be abolished and destroyed, however, this doesn't mean we should seek a return to the Old Feudal-Style thought, or "Enhance" Liberalism.


"Eastern Spirituality" isn't a religion or any actual category. It's something you made up out of complete ignorance, so I suggest cracking open a book or two about the religions you can't properly categorize and starting from scratch. But who knows...maybe you were predestined to be wrong about this subject.


It isn't a religion, but, by Eastern Spirituality, what is meant is Dharmic religion s, which is a category that includes Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

It was foolish of me to bunch all of them together, for example, I don't know if Confucianism or Shinto'ism would fall into this category.

[bcbm]

Which is what I meant from start.

okay, i was just trying to clarify.


My point is, these insecure "Just off the Boat" irreligious types in the Western world who are moving to Eastern Spirituality is a dangerous and reactionary move.

could you give some dangerous examples? for the most part i think it just ends being dumb.

[Astarte]

Sorry in advanced to comrades who have heard me bring the revolutionary natures up of the following Chinese spiritual movements... but Damn those reactionary Yellow Turbans... damn the reactionary Boxer Rebellion... Falun Gong is so reactionary even the Communists in China needed to ban them!

How many times do we have to go over this, spirituality is not inherently reactionary, like any other ideology it too can be co-opted for the purposes of reaction ... but guess what, revolutionaries have been spiritual, and used spirituality as well.

Please, since we are talking about "Eastern Religion" look at the history of Imperial China, whenever there was a movement against a decaying and defunct Dynasty it was almost always based on some kind of Taoist or "Folk Religion" - why do you think the PRC "Communist"-Businessman bureaucracy is so afraid of Falun Gong?

[Ocean Seal]

... as western religions. Hinduism - caste oppression, Buddhism - pacifism, New age - liberal as opposed to radical politics.

What's common is that all religions promote blind loyalty to some book or leader, encouraging no free or clear thinking, reasoning. No religion encourages sensitivity or compassion, it's all about attacking other people in the name of morality.

No good comes out of religion.
No good comes out of a critique so bland and blanketing.

[Zostrianos]

Indian Christians also suffer under the caste system. It has nothing to do with Hinduism:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11229170

Many in India have embraced Christianity to escape the age-old caste oppression of the Hindu social order, but Christianity itself in some places is finding it difficult to shrug off the worst of caste discrimination.

In the town of Trichy, situated in the heart of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, a wall built across the Catholic cemetery clearly illustrates how caste-based prejudice persists.

Those who converted to Christianity from the formerly "untouchable" Hindu caste groups known as Dalits are allocated space for burial on one side of the wall, while upper-caste converts are buried on the other side.

The separating wall was built over six decades ago.

The Catholic Church in India says it does not approve of caste discrimination. But it says it is helpless in resolving this issue.

"The burial ground is owned by private individuals, so we are not able to do anything about this. Even the local bishop is not going to the cemetery to perform rituals," says Father Vincent Chinnadurai, chairman of the Tamil Nadu state Commission for Minorities.

He says there is a new cemetery in the town, where bodies are buried without any discrimination.

Yet burials continue to take place in the controversial cemetery, presided over by Catholic priests.

For centuries Hindus from different castes have been cremated or buried in different places, according to their caste.

'Cementing caste'
This practice is fading in the big cities and towns, but in some places in rural Tamil Nadu, caste-based graveyards are still in operation.

Discrimination against Dalits persists in all strata of Indian society
Dalit Christians are demanding more proactive steps from the Church to remove the wall.

Father Lourdunathan Yesumariyan, a Jesuit, practising lawyer and Dalit-Christian activist, says the Church has the legal power to remove the wall.

Even though the cemetery is on privately owned land, he says, a recent high court judgement ruled that the Church has full responsibility as it administers the graveyard.

"The failure to remove the wall only helps cement caste feelings," he adds.

Some years ago two Catholic priests demolished a small part of the wall.

But the influential land-owning upper-caste Christian group rebuilt it.

The Church is meanwhile accused by critics of refusing to give "just representation" for Dalits in its power structure, even while it campaigns for a separate quota for the Dalit Christians in government jobs.

Fr Yesumariyan says: "In Tamil Nadu, over 70% of Catholics are Dalit converts. But only four out of 18 bishops are from the Dalit-Christian community.

"In many places influential caste groups have lobbied and made sure that only the person belonging to their caste is being appointed as bishop in their diocese."

He says that in places where Dalit Christians are the majority, they often struggle to get the top job.

Even though the archbishop of Tamil Nadu region is a Dalit Christian, he has been unable to improve the situation much for other members of his community in the Church.

Untouchablity 'everywhere'
In recent years a fixed number of jobs and seats have been earmarked in Catholic-run schools and colleges for members of the Dalit-Christian community.

There are estimated to be more than 17 million Catholics in India
But this is being challenged in the court on the grounds that "there is no caste in Christianity".

Fr Yesumariyan continues: "The Indian constitution says it has abolished untouchablity. But it is everywhere. In the same way, the Catholic Church says there is no caste bias but caste discrimination is rampant in the Church.

"There are hardly any inter-caste marriages among converted Christians. Until recently, Church-run magazines carried matrimonial advertisements containing specific caste references. Only after our protest they stopped it."

A few churches in Tamil Nadu have even been closed after Dalit Christians demanded a share in the administration.

"We say there is no caste in Christianity," says Fr Chinnadurai. "But in India, Christianity was not able to get rid of caste.

"Those who converted to Christianity brought their caste prejudices with them. We are trying our best to get rid of them."

[x359594]

...What's common is that all religions promote blind loyalty to some book or leader, encouraging no free or clear thinking, reasoning. No religion encourages sensitivity or compassion, it's all about attacking other people in the name of morality...

That description fits any tendency war you can find right here at RevLeft. It would appear that there's a strong inclination to reify ideology into religion and to deify Marx, Lenin, Mao or Trotsky and to regard their writings as holy writ.

[x359594]

First of all, I don't think you can conflate all religions of Asian (or "Eastern") origin into a single entity. I think religion as such should be examined from an historical materialist perspective that takes into consideration its various iterations in different historical moments and different countries. Depending on time and place religion has been progressive and it's been reactionary.

For an accurate understanding of Asian religions (or any other religion) it's important not to essentialize it but rather to examine how they relate to the given socio-economic conditions in which they function.

[Manic Impressive]

That description fits any tendency war you can find right here at RevLeft. It would appear that there's a strong inclination to reify ideology into religion and to deify Marx, Lenin, Mao or Trotsky and to regard their writings as holy writ.
Yeah man I hate when people do that with like the theory of gravity of the theory of evolution or any scientific analysis of anything. The reason I quote Marx and Engles is because I agree with their conclusions due to the evidence they provide and you would think that anyone else who calls themselves a Marxist would do the same. So it's not considering them holy writ but as scientific fact. There's a big difference. One relies on empirical evidence the other relies on faith and faith is the denial of fact in order to maintain belief.

[x359594]

Yeah man I hate when people do that with like the theory of gravity of the theory of evolution or any scientific analysis of anything...

Especially when the people don't understand the science behind the theories or seem to be aware of modifications in those theories. There's also the problem that they tend to identify the theories with reality itself and not as statements about reality.


...The reason I quote Marx and Engles is because I agree with their conclusions due to the evidence they provide and you would think that anyone else who calls themselves a Marxist would do the same. So it's not considering them holy writ but as scientific fact....

But very often it amounts to little more than "Marx said it, I believe it, that does it." And one often sees a hot emotional response rather than a coolly reasoned refutation.


...There's a big difference. One relies on empirical evidence the other relies on faith and faith is the denial of fact in order to maintain belief.

Well, there's the rub, empirical evidence. Religionists also cite empirical evidence. For example, creationists have their alternate pseudo-scientific theory of geology to account for dating strata, just as a Stalinist will produce empirical evidence that Trotsky was allied with Hitler.

People are as emotionally invested in their ideologies as religionists are in their faiths

[Cirno(9)]

There is a reason the likes of Hitler were so fond of Eastern Spiritualism. It's 100% reactionary. At least christianity brought about this abolishment of notions of "destiny" and was universalized. Eastern Spiritualism comes directly from the Land owners.
Christianity abolished notions of "destiny"? So what is predesination all about then?


Regardless, I think the categorization of "Western" "Eastern" religions is faulty. Christianity was present in India before it was in Scandinavia and to make a claim about "100%" of Eastern Religion is to simply admit ignorance. Look up the Ikko-Ikki Rebellion in Japan. There you had Buddhists priests agitating the peasantry for an anti-feudal uprising against the samurai class.

[Misanthrope]

I'm a Buddhist and am for violent revolution.

[x359594]

I'm a Buddhist and am for violent revolution.

It's worth noting the existence of the "Buddhist Republic" in Japan during the Sengoku Era and that lasted for about 90 years. The Ikko Ikki Jodo Shinshu, a lay (non-monastic) form of Buddhism popular among the peasantry, provided the ideological cohesion for a confederation of villages in eastern Japan that maintained a militia that was able to successfully fight off various attempts by feudal overlords to incorporate them into their domains. In other parts of Japan there were peasant uprisings under the banner of the Ikko Ikki.

[Red Rabbit]

I'm not gonna lie, the Ikko-Ikki are the reason I bought Shogun 2. :D

The Ikko-Ikki rebellion is one of my favorite moments in Japanese history.

[Woodsman]

Alan Watts, though far from being a leftist, wrote some good books on the relationship between Eastern and Western religion. His ideas about Taoism and Zen are interesting.

[x359594]

Alan Watts, though far from being a leftist, wrote some good books on the relationship between Eastern and Western religion...

His thoughtful deconstructions of Christianity are very good, especially Beyond Theology.

[Cirno(9)]

What Zizek meant was that Christianity did away with the notion of "Bad = a disturbance in the natural order". Christianity did away with the very concept of a "Natural order" (But substituted it with something absurd, none the less) and that is the positive aspect he is referring to (As in, we all are born from a zero level equal point).

If this is your reply to the "predesination" thing then I have a few issues. First is that, from my experience, Zizek engages mostly with either Catholic or Orthodox Christianity and not so much Protestant Christianity (especially conservative Protestantism) and those are the people that tend to really embrace fatalism. I don't think this is conscious but it just seems that in the intellectual climate that Zizek is in, you are more likely to find discussion of Catholic theology than Protestant. And while Zizek does probably get this idea of Christianity's relation to freedom from Hegel who was a Lutheran, Hegel also neglects to talk much about Calvinism and acts as if Lutheranism is the only type of Protestantism (and yes Luther did deny free will but for various reasons Lutheranism tolerates dissent on that count more than Calvinism) and regardless Hegel was very far from a typical traditional Protestant regardless of how he wanted the Prussian State to think of him.

Calvinism is even more deterministic about the natural order than most Eastern religions and while Hinduism might view poverty as a symbol of misdeeds in a past life, they nonetheless had a notion of redemption amongst the spiritually degenerate even it was through mysticism whereas much has been written on the Calvinist belief that prosperity in this life is a possible sign of being amongst the elect so those that fail to exhibit those signs are probably irreversibly damned for eternity.

And besides, Catholicism does have an idea of there being a natural order, its just that this natural order is determined by God and the 'fallen world' that humanity lives in might not conform to that. The entire justification that the Popes provide for neurosis-inducing sexual restrictions is that they go against the natural order that is a part of God's design.

[manic expression]

There's much more too it than that.
Not much more.


What Zizek meant was that Christianity did away with the notion of "Bad = a disturbance in the natural order". Christianity did away with the very concept of a "Natural order" (But substituted it with something absurd, none the less)That's your problem right there. Christianity posits a natural order as well, actually, just a sinful order that demands faith for forgiveness.

Hinduism posits...a lot of different ideas, but not that there's a natural order in all things that's unchangeable. Even the gods people have prayed to have changed 100%, so your position is untenable.


The point is not to rehabilitate or "Bring back" Christianity. The point is not to abandon certain radical notions that came with it, as such are essential to the understanding of Materialist-dialectical thought and Communist ideology. By being an insecure "right off the boat" irreligious and moving toward Eastern Spiritualism because you want to have an "Open mind" is a mentally dangerous move, for a radical at least. Because in doing so such radical emancipatory notions brought about through the course of history are abandoned and substituted with the same old reactionary shit. It's like this: Liberalism brought about notions and debunked several fallacies of the old religious world. But Liberalism is still to be abolished and destroyed, however, this doesn't mean we should seek a return to the Old Feudal-Style thought, or "Enhance" Liberalism.Please don't patronize people, even if they did step off a boat it wouldn't make a club a spade.

The rest of the above paragraph is aimless and pointless. If you can't figure out which myopic label you're cavalierly assigning the most diverse religion on the planet, it's probably a good sign you're behind the 8-ball.


It isn't a religion, but, by Eastern Spirituality, what is meant is Dharmic religion s, which is a category that includes Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

It was foolish of me to bunch all of them together, for example, I don't know if Confucianism or Shinto'ism would fall into this category.You should keep in mind the fact that within that category you can find pantheism, polytheism, quasi-atheism and something that's arguably not even a religion.


My point is, these insecure "Just off the Boat" irreligious types in the Western world who are moving to Eastern Spirituality is a dangerous and reactionary move.Or, it's a sign of religious eclecticism, which is anything but "dangerous and reactionary".

[Yu Ming Zai]

The actual problem with Buddhism is that it is outdated. In the modern world biotechnology is a better solution to the problem of suffering then the noble eightfold path and modern biological science explains the cycle of life and death better the primitive superstitions like reincarnation.

On the contrary, as a practicing Buddhist myself I find that Buddhism is still pretty relevant in my life and in many others as well despite it being more than 2500 years old. One thing you must realize is that the four noble truths and the eightfold path is only a guideline for one of obtain enlightenment. Everyone's journey for enlightenment is different, thus there is no strict adherence to specific forms of lifestyle or practice that is present.

And also in terms of scientific knowledge that we possess, many discoveries in the scientific community, especially in advanced physics and psychology often reflect what ancient Buddhist masters once knew of the mind and matter. So I wouldn't be so quick to discard such ideas like reincarnation as primitive superstition when there are often scientific theories that regurgitate these old teachings.

[eric922]

I have to say this thread is so full of blanket generalizations that it's hard to comment on. The various religions and philosophies of Asia, which have now spread to the West, are far too complex to lump together. Even within a single one of these religions, Hinduism, you have a wide range of views including polytheism, monotheism, pantheism, and even atheism which is called something like the Path of No Lords and is considered a legitimate view within Hinduism. Once you leave the Indian subcontinent things get even more interesting and confusing.

You could write entire books on just one school of thought in just a single one of these traditions and still have a lot more to say.

[campesino]

On the contrary, as a practicing Buddhist myself I find that Buddhism is still pretty relevant in my life and in many others as well despite it being more than 2500 years old. One thing you must realize is that the four noble truths and the eightfold path is only a guideline for one of obtain enlightenment. Everyone's journey for enlightenment is different, thus there is no strict adherence to specific forms of lifestyle or practice that is present.

And also in terms of scientific knowledge that we possess, many discoveries in the scientific community, especially in advanced physics and psychology often reflect what ancient Buddhist masters once knew of the mind and matter. So I wouldn't be so quick to discard such ideas like reincarnation as primitive superstition when there are often scientific theories that regurgitate these old teachings.

what enlightenment? is it important? I used to believe in reincarnation and souls, and then I asked myself, that the human population of Earth a million years ago was a lot smaller and now there are more people on Earth, the question it begs was where did the new souls for the new humans come from? if souls are created then something(a higher power) is creating souls, I don't believe in higher powers. So, that is not it. so did people go through soul dilution? Of course not. To believe in karma, you have to believe in a higher power managing all souls and what they are being reincarnated into. Which to me is a belief I can not accept.

[TheAltruist]

Is Taoism bad? My question especially refers to its philosophical form, which many consider an early influence on anarchism.

[eric922]

what enlightenment? is it important? I used to believe in reincarnation and souls, and then I asked myself, that the human population of Earth a million years ago was a lot smaller and now there are more people on Earth, the question it begs was where did the new souls for the new humans come from? if souls are created then something(a higher power) is creating souls, I don't believe in higher powers. So, that is not it. so did people go through soul dilution? Of course not. To believe in karma, you have to believe in a higher power managing all souls and what they are being reincarnated into. Which to me is a belief I can not accept.
I'll try and answer some of these, but first let me explain why you should take my answers with a grain of salt. I am not a traditional Buddhist. I am a bit of an agnostic on the issue of rebirth. Now that that is out of the way, I should point out, though you may already know this, that Buddhism doesn't teach the existence of any form of immortal soul. The concept is called Anatta and is one of the three marks of existence along with suffering and impermanence.

Buddhism also does not teach the existence of gods. The gods and various Bodhisattvas are,at least this is how it was explained to me by various practitioners online and offline, are not meant to be viewed as real independent beings. They don't exist outside of the practitioner's mind. However, they serve a useful purpose by give you an object to focus on, since a lot of people have trouble grasping abstract concepts. As an example in order to build compassion for others some people are instructed to mediate on the Bodhisattva of compassion and chant mantras about him. However, it is a psychological thing. By focusing on compassion, you yourself will learn to be more compassionate and develop empathy towards others. It isn't that the deity is helping you be more compassionate, it's simply that you have focused efforts towards becoming more compassionate.

Finally, on the issue of gods I'll quote from a second century scholar,Nagarjuna, some believe to be a Bodhisattva:

"The gods are all eternal scoundrels
Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.
Those who serve them and venerate them
May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.
We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;
Therefore the wise man believes them not
The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions
Therefore the wise man many not rely on gods."

As for the issue of population increase, I have heard some explantions of it before, but honestly I really can't remember them as the issue of rebirth doesn't really matter to me in terms of my personal practice of Buddhism. I'll do some research and get back to you, though.

Sorry, if that didn't answer your questions or if you already knew all of that, but I help it was at least helpful or interesting to someone.

[wsg1991]

religion can be progressive , but that's stops once it reaches power and became tool of the elite ,

[Yu Ming Zai]

what enlightenment? is it important? I used to believe in reincarnation and souls, and then I asked myself, that the human population of Earth a million years ago was a lot smaller and now there are more people on Earth, the question it begs was where did the new souls for the new humans come from? if souls are created then something(a higher power) is creating souls, I don't believe in higher powers. So, that is not it. so did people go through soul dilution? Of course not. To believe in karma, you have to believe in a higher power managing all souls and what they are being reincarnated into. Which to me is a belief I can not accept.

From what I was taught and understand about enlightenment is that enlightenment is a state of mind that is free of desires and attachments which often can cloud one's nature of reality. When one is enlightened or awake, one feels the freedom from human suffering and understands what the world is. Once you are free in this, you live a life of bliss and understanding.

As for the idea of reincarnations, from what I have come to understand is that there is no "higher being" that controls the creation of souls or what I like to call is consciousness. There are two fields of reality, one of matter and one of consciousness. One cannot operate without the other because particles form with consciousness, otherwise it is just pure energy. Quantum physicist, Niels Bohr first came to this conclusion in what is now called the Copenhagen Interpretation. Thus when you die, your consciousness returns to this pool of infinite energy (the field) until what we perceive as reality is able to develop a certain combination of particles to form an organism that has the capacity for the energy of consciousness to inhabit.

So in this sense, there is no generation of "extra" souls or consciousness because consciousness is a pool of infinite energy. We all came from the same consciousness. We are all one with the nature of reality. This is the most simplist I can get in trying to explain the nature of reincarnation from what my interpretation of it is. I hope this is abit enlightening to those that may be skeptical or confused about such concepts.

[campesino]

I do want to know what is the purpose of following Buddhism. My low-level of knowledge of Buddhism, is that it is a movement to help alleviate personal suffering and to achieve Nirvana which is the elimination of suffering and to be in perfect bliss. what is the point of that? to me it seems like a mechanism of escape, the perfect religion to be called the opiate of the masses. Of course like most religions, Buddhism might promote charity and kindness, but that won't overthrow the capitalist system or create class consciousness.

I am virulently anti-religion, I tolerate them. Although I don't approve of them.

[Metacomet]

I think we should worship Comrade Stalin instead.

[eric922]

I do want to know what is the purpose of following Buddhism. My low-level of knowledge of Buddhism, is that it is a movement to help alleviate personal suffering and to achieve Nirvana which is the elimination of suffering and to be in perfect bliss. what is the point of that? to me it seems like a mechanism of escape, the perfect religion to be called the opiate of the masses. Of course like most religions, Buddhism might promote charity and kindness, but that won't overthrow the capitalist system or create class consciousness.

I am virulently anti-religion, I tolerate them. Although I don't approve of them.

I should point out there have been a number of Buddhist movements throughout history that have encouraged political activism and even revolution, some people have given an example of the Iki-Iki rebellion in Japan. There have also been several examples of rebellion against the Chinese dynasties spurred on by Buddhism and other religions.

Even today there are currents within Buddhism that encourage forms of political and social activism. Engaged Buddhism is one example that seeks to to encourage Buddhists to address the political and economic injustices. Granted, I don't know very much about the movement, but I wanted to address it simply because I think your notion of Buddhism being an ideology that encourages people to ignore the problems of the world is a false, but very common one, especially in the western world.

[scarletghoul]

this is why the abrahamic religions are a qualitative improvement on other religions :

Abraham's father, Terach was an idol-manufacturer. Once he had to travel, so he left Abraham to manage the shop. People would come in and ask to buy idols. Abraham would say, "How old are you?" The person would say, "Fifty," or "Sixty". Abraham would say, "Isn't it pathetic that a man of sixty wants to bow down to a one-day-old idol?" The man would feel ashamed and leave.
One time a woman came with a basket of bread. She said to Abraham, "Take this and offer it to the gods".
Abraham got up, took a hammer in his hand, broke all the idols to pieces, and then put the hammer in the hand of the biggest idol among them.
When his father came back and saw the broken idols, he was appalled. "Who did this?" he cried. "How can I hide anything from you?" replied Abraham calmly. "A woman came with a basket of bread and told me to offer it to them. I brought it in front of them, and each one said, "I'm going to eat first." Then the biggest one got up, took the hammer and broke all the others to pieces."
"What are you trying to pull on me?" asked Terach, "Do they have minds?"
Said Abraham: "Listen to what your own mouth is saying? They have no power at all! Why worship idols?"

(Midrash Bereishit 38:13)

abraham trolling nimrod, the pagan king:

Nimrod called Abraham and commanded him to worship Fire.

Abraham said to him, "So let's worship water since water has the power to extinguish fire."

"Right," said Nimrod, "We should worship water."

"In that case, we should worship the clouds, since they carry water."

"Yes, we should worship the clouds."

"Then we should worship the wind, since it drives the clouds across the sky."

"Yes, we should worship the wind (ru'ach) -- air, spirit."

"But," said Abraham, "humans have the power to rule over the spirit. Should we worship human beings?"

"You're playing with words," cried Nimrod. "I worship only fire, and I am going to throw you into a huge furnace. Let the God you worship come along and save you from it!"(Midrash Bereishit )

of course there are good things to learn from most religions, but in terms of consciousness against idolatry the abrahamics are better

[eric922]

this is why the abrahamic religions are a qualitative improvement on other religions :

(Midrash Bereishit 38:13)

abraham trolling nimrod, the pagan king:
(Midrash Bereishit )

of course there are good things to learn from most religions, but in terms of consciousness against idolatry the abrahamics are better
This is something I've never really understood. Why is monotheism considered more progressive than polytheism. Is bowing to a statue really any more foolish than praying to an invisible sky-spirt?

Furthermore, I think modern neo-paganism has some progressive elements. I am currently reading Drawing Down the Moon so my information mostly comes from there. The author mentions that Wicca is currently a very anti-hierarchy religious system since everyone becomes a priest or priesties after their first initiation. She mentions that covens following the tradition founded by Starhawk, Reclaiming I think is the name, hold a radical anarchist view of society. She also talks about the pagan community's role in the feminist and LGBT rights movement.

[campesino]

what is the point of religion?

[eric922]

what is the point of religion?
I'm not trying to be rude or a smartass here at all, so please don't take what I'm about to say that way. However, I think the fact that there are entire libraries full of books dedicated to religion, entire university departments devoted to its study, shows that your question cannot be correctly addressed in a simple internet forum.

Here are just a few of the reasons people join religion, they seek a community, the seek answers about how to deal with death, they seek explanations for the natural world(this one is much less common now though, even neo-Pagans don't really believe the sun is Apollo's chariot), answers to how to deal with personal problems, and others.

Once again, let me say that I think anyone who can give you answer to the question "what is the point of religion" on an internet forum is going to give you the wrong answer.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Anybody still talking about "Eastern Religion" is using an orientalist framework which is much too broad to say anything rational on. Talking of "Eastern Religion" is even less empirical and rational than pretending an ancient Greek worshipper of Zeus, a Celtic druid and a modern protestant have some strong ideological connection via their religious beliefs.


What Zizek meant was that Christianity did away with the notion of "Bad = a disturbance in the natural order". Christianity did away with the very concept of a "Natural order" (But substituted it with something absurd, none the less) and that is the positive aspect he is referring to (As in, we all are born from a zero level equal point). The point is not to rehabilitate or "Bring back" Christianity. The point is not to abandon certain radical notions that came with it, as such are essential to the understanding of Materialist-dialectical thought and Communist ideology. By being an insecure "right off the boat" irreligious and moving toward Eastern Spiritualism because you want to have an "Open mind" is a mentally dangerous move, for a radical at least. Because in doing so such radical emancipatory notions brought about through the course of history are abandoned and substituted with the same old reactionary shit. It's like this: Liberalism brought about notions and debunked several fallacies of the old religious world. But Liberalism is still to be abolished and destroyed, however, this doesn't mean we should seek a return to the Old Feudal-Style thought, or "Enhance" Liberalism.


Yes, and Zizek is using the notions of East and West which are right out of 18th century German philosophy, but don't match up with the internal complexity of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and all these other faiths. The move to spirituality is only dangerous if it is either the new-age or institutionally conservative sense. Reading Buddhist epistemology is not going to make you into a reactionary though, and it should be noted that the assumption that Christianity played an essentially unique role in Western civilization ignores the possibility that other faiths played similar roles in their time. Buddhism, the Upanishads, Taoism and even Confucianism were all revolutionary in their time just as much as Christianity was, and can still be in certain contexts.

I like Zizek, but I think he is still caught up in the same old Eurocentric ideology which came out of the Imperialist era, and which Marx himself fell into when he talked of an "Oriental" Despotism.

[campesino]

you are right, people do go to religion to deal with death. Now I know why some(not you) religious people reject logic with such anger.

the truth is
you or any human cannot know what follows after death. it is a simple as that.

[Revolution starts with U]

Anybody still talking about "Eastern Religion" is using an orientalist framework which is much too broad to say anything rational on. Talking of "Eastern Religion" is even less empirical and rational than pretending an ancient Greek worshipper of Zeus, a Celtic druid and a modern protestant have some strong ideological connection via their religious beliefs.



Yes, and Zizek is using the notions of East and West which are right out of 18th century German philosophy, but don't match up with the internal complexity of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and all these other faiths. The move to spirituality is only dangerous if it is either the new-age or institutionally conservative sense. Reading Buddhist epistemology is not going to make you into a reactionary though, and it should be noted that the assumption that Christianity played an essentially unique role in Western civilization ignores the possibility that other faiths played similar roles in their time. Buddhism, the Upanishads, Taoism and even Confucianism were all revolutionary in their time just as much as Christianity was, and can still be in certain contexts.

I like Zizek, but I think he is still caught up in the same old Eurocentric ideology which came out of the Imperialist era, and which Marx himself fell into when he talked of an "Oriental" Despotism.

Doesn't really matter since Jesus (Isa) was a Buddhist so...

[eric922]

you are right, people do go to religion to deal with death. Now I know why some(not you) religious people reject logic with such anger.

the truth is
you or any human cannot know what follows after death. it is a simple as that.
You can't know what happens after death, but do keep in mind that dealing with death is only one of the many reasons for religion. Like I said, if you really want to know the answer to your question, you'll have to do a lot of reading and you probably still won't come up with one concrete answer.

[Althusser]

How is calling religion bad, anti-marxist? I'm not going to go on some Marx quote frenzy, but faith, or belief without evidence, is not logical. Religion completely goes against marxist materialism and I find it ridiculous that there are so many religion apologetics here.

[eric922]

How is calling religion bad, anti-marxist? I'm not going to go on some Marx quote frenzy, but faith, or belief without evidence, is not logical. Religion completely goes against marxist materialism and I find it ridiculous that there are so many religion apologetics here.
Once again Marx's materialism was the historical materialism, not the same thing as ontological materialism. Marx was an atheist, but the materialism he wrote about was not ontological materialism.

Now, you want to know something it is really illogical? Expecting working people to side with you if you go around talking about how you want to get rid of their religion. The vast majority of working people are religious and you aren't going to change that. As long as they keep it personal, who cares what they believe?

[Yu Ming Zai]

I do want to know what is the purpose of following Buddhism. My low-level of knowledge of Buddhism, is that it is a movement to help alleviate personal suffering and to achieve Nirvana which is the elimination of suffering and to be in perfect bliss. what is the point of that? to me it seems like a mechanism of escape, the perfect religion to be called the opiate of the masses. Of course like most religions, Buddhism might promote charity and kindness, but that won't overthrow the capitalist system or create class consciousness.

If you want to know my purpose of following Buddhism, I will have to ask you what is the purpose for you of following communism. If the elimination of suffering and living a life of bliss is your definition of Buddhism then I ask you what is the difference then of the goals of communism?

[Revolution starts with U]

Communism is just the recognition of class antagonisms and the dialectic that creates. Other than that, communism really has no goals.

[campesino]

If you want to know my purpose of following Buddhism, I will have to ask you what is the purpose for you of following communism. If the elimination of suffering and living a life of bliss is your definition of Buddhism then I ask you what is the difference then of the goals of communism?

buddhism involves thing that aren't real, souls, spirits and holy men. i don't think any of those things exist. I wouldn't follow a movement that presupposes things that don't exist. lets not pretend that buddhism is communism. at its best buddhism is an idealist philosophy at its worse a religion.

why must you follow religion? live without religion and just accept the world for what it is and not idle in the thoughts of men who have beliefs of a "spiritual" realm, world, dimension.

[eric922]

buddhism involves thing that aren't real, souls, spirits and holy men. i don't think any of those things exist. I wouldn't follow a movement that presupposes things that don't exist. lets not pretend that buddhism is communism. at its best buddhism is an idealist philosophy at its worse a religion.

why must you follow religion? live without religion and just accept the world for what it is and not idle in the thoughts of men who have beliefs of a "spiritual" realm, world, dimension.

It is highly debatable whether Buddhism is a philosophy or a religion. I've even seen some argue it's an early form of psychology. I don't follow it for any reasons dealing with spirits or the afterlife. I follow it because the teachings it contains helps me deal with personal suffering, suffering unrelated to material things like lacking food or shelter. Buddha himself even said that his teachings were beneficial even if there was no life after this one, but stressed that no one should take his word for it. Rather, they should put his teachings into practice and see if they benefited them.

I'm going to be honest, you don't seem to know a lot about Buddhism, you admit as much in your post, so do some research on it. Your statement about Buddhism believing in a soul shows you don't know much about it since the concept of "no-self" which rejects the notion of any eternal soul is a basic cornerstone of Buddhism. You can't form a valid opinion of something without knowing about it. Forming an opinion on Buddhism without studying it is just as bad as when conservatives form opinions on Marxism based on what they hear on Fox News. I'm not trying to attack or insult and I hope you don't take it that way. If you really do want to learn about it, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

[campesino]

It is highly debatable rather Buddhism is a philosophy or a religion. I've even seen some argue it's an early form of psychology. I don't follow it for any reasons dealing with spirits or the afterlife. I follow it because the teachings it contains helps me deal with personal suffering, suffering unrelated to material things like lacking food or shelter. Buddha himself even said that his teachings were beneficial even if there was no life after this one, but stressed that no one should take his word for it. Rather, they should put his teachings into practice and see if they benefited them.

I'm going to be honest, you don't seem to know a lot about Buddhism, you admit as much in your post, so do some research on it. Your statement about Buddhism believing in a soul shows you don't know much about it since the concept of "no-self" which rejects the notion of any eternal soul is a basic cornerstone of Buddhism. You can't form a valid opinion of something without knowing about it. Forming an opinion on Buddhism without studying it is just as bad as when conservatives form opinions on Marxism based on what they hear on Fox News. I'm not trying to attack or insult and I hope you don't take it that way. If you really do want to learn about it, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

true i am horrifically ignorant about buddhism. How does it help you deal with personal suffering? is that coping mechanism necessarily buddhism? are you a philosophical idealist, what is your reasoning for idealism?

[Yu Ming Zai]

buddhism involves thing that aren't real, souls, spirits and holy men. i don't think any of those things exist. I wouldn't follow a movement that presupposes things that don't exist. lets not pretend that buddhism is communism. at its best buddhism is an idealist philosophy at its worse a religion.

why must you follow religion? live without religion and just accept the world for what it is and not idle in the thoughts of men who have beliefs of a "spiritual" realm, world, dimension.

Well I guess its difficult for someone to understand when they are not familiar with the philosophical concepts of Buddhism and its relationship with scientific theories such as of neurobiology, quantum physics, dimensional analysis, and the like. To be honest, my interest in Buddhism only grew once I have studied these forms of science. The way I see it, the discovery and advancement in science is slowly revealing what our ancient masters already knew as said before.

[eric922]

true i am horrifically ignorant about buddhism. How does it help you deal with personal suffering? is that coping mechanism necessarily buddhism? are you a philosophical idealist, what is your reasoning for idealism?
This is a large question that might be better suited to PMs than forum posts, but I'll try and answer as best I can here.

How has Buddhism helped me deal with personal suffering? One thing that has helped me is mediation. I find I am a lot more calm and less prone to making rash decisions based on emotion since I started mediating. I should point out that I am a very emotional person so mediation serves to balance that aspect of my personality.

Furthermore, I used to look to other people for my own happiness. For example, when I was younger me and my best friends for about 5 years had a huge fight, and they all ended up hating me. I was already clinically depressed at that point and did something stupid. However, since I've started studying Buddhism I've began to understand that personal relationships are not permanent, they don't last forever and it's a mistake to trick yourself into thinking that way. I'm learning to be happy regardless of what other people are doing.

I used to get angry, sad (insert other emotion) here a lot based on what other people do. Now, I tend to be a lot more conscious of the fact that the only person whose life I have any control over is my own.

Granted, these insights may not be unique to Buddhism, but that is where I learned them. I hope that helps some. Like I said feel free to ask any questions you'd like.

[Revolution starts with U]

According to the Buddha (and many philosophers such as Seneca), your suffering is caused by your attachments. To release your attachments from your self is to release your suffering. It's about realizing no-self; ie that the self is just an awareness point in which awareness happens, not the things the self thinks it is.

I like a lot of what Buddhism proscribes, I dislike a lot of other stuff. For a good modern interpretation and revision of Buddhism, check out Ekhart Tolle and/or Allan Watts.

[Pretty Flaco]

my religion is marijuana