The Dalai Lama thinks humans should abandon religion?

[Red Rabbit]

https://twitter.com/DalaiLama/status/212834857208905729

Thoughts?

This doesn't really surprise me considering the Dalai Lama has never put much emphasis on religion, but rather on kindness and compassion towards others.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

The statement he makes is, in my opinion, already caught in a contradiction. He speaks of "going beyond" religion, but still advocates thinking about "spirituality". Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the statement, but I was always thought that religion and spirituality went hand in hand.

[eric922]

The statement he makes is, in my opinion, already caught in a contradiction. He speaks of "going beyond" religion, but still advocates thinking about "spirituality". Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the statement, but I was always thought that religion and spirituality went hand in hand.
He may be talking about trying to move beyond organized religion to a more individual, less institutionalized system of beliefs. At least that is what is normally meant by the contrast between religion and spirituality.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Reading crap the Dalai Lamer spouts is so boring, he's awfully predictable.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

He may be talking about trying to move beyond organized religion to a more individual, less institutionalized system of beliefs. At least that is what is normally meant by the contrast between religion and spirituality.
If that is what he means, it is not very comforting, considering the Dalai Lama himself is an institutional figure. The pope could say the same thing and it would be just as useless.

[Krano]

but rather on kindness and compassion towards others.
What a load of.. his nothing but a Feudal lord who thinks his God and keeps crying about how he doesn't have power anymore.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

If the pope said this it would be the end of the Catholic church.I'm not a huge fan of the Dalai L.ma, but I think there is a big difference between religion-a set of dogmas based ob scripture, usually over a thousand years old and interpreted, in most cases, by elderly men, and spirituality, which is a feeling of connectedness with the universe.

[Red Rabbit]

If that is what he means, it is not very comforting, considering the Dalai Lama himself is an institutional figure. The pope could say the same thing and it would be just as useless.

From my understanding, the Dalai Lama doesn't have as much power as the Pope. If the Pope said to abandon organized religion, then the Catholic church would be disbanded. If the Dalai Lama says to, not much will happen.


What a load of.. his nothing but a Feudal lord who thinks his God and keeps crying about how he doesn't have power anymore.

...No? He was in the process of disbanding the theocratic feudal system Tibet had right before China invaded. The only thing I see him "cry" about is the Chinese government acting like assholes.

People seem to forget this Dalai Lama isn't like the previous ones, he doesn't condone theocracy, feudalism or even organized religion.

And he doesn't "think he's god". Buddhism is an atheistic religion. (One could argue bodhisattvas are similar to gods, but thats a debate for another thread.)

[eric922]

If that is what he means, it is not very comforting, considering the Dalai Lama himself is an institutional figure. The pope could say the same thing and it would be just as useless.
He has also said that he may be the last Dalai Lama. He's said that the role might have outlived it's usefulness.

Furthermore there is a lot of difference in terms of the importance of institution between Buddhism and Catholicism. The Church is the vehicle by which souls are saved, whereas Buddhism is much more left up to the individual to do the work.

[Ocean Seal]

From my understanding, the Dalai Lama doesn't have as much power as the Pope. If the Pope said to abandon organized religion, then the Catholic church would be disbanded. If the Dalai Lama says to, not much will happen.

Yes, he can say that but ultimately it doesn't mean much. He still retains power in Tibet.





...No? He was in the process of disbanding the theocratic feudal system Tibet had right before China invaded. The only thing I see him "cry" about is the Chinese government acting like assholes.

Kind of like how Hitler/pretty much everyone and their mum said that they would dismantle the inequality in capitalism?


People seem to forget this Dalai Lama isn't like the previous ones, he doesn't condone theocracy, feudalism or even organized religion.
Pope John Paul II seemed like a cool guy until you looked at the details.



And he doesn't "think he's god". Buddhism is an atheistic religion. (One could argue bodhisattvas are similar to gods, but thats a debate for another thread.)
No its not, and he is still an institutional religious leader regardless of what he believes.

[NGNM85]

Every time this comes up, I can't help but notice the striking similarity between the apologetics for the PRC in Tibet, and, say, the rationalizations of British control over India, or the US presence in Iraq, etc. I think it was Borz who said, a while back, that a lot of the folks around here aren't really anti-imperialists, but merely, as he phrased it; 'vulgar anti-Americanists.'

[Red Rabbit]

Yes, he can say that but ultimately it doesn't mean much. He still retains power in Tibet.





Kind of like how Hitler/pretty much everyone and their mum said that they would dismantle the inequality in capitalism?


Pope John Paul II seemed like a cool guy until you looked at the details.



No its not, and he is still an institutional religious leader regardless of what he believes.

Did you even read what I said, or do you just enjoy spouting straw man arguments? You're not even going by actual historical facts.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

If the pope said this it would be the end of the Catholic church.
Is that really so? The "end" of the Catholic Church, so to speak, would be its complete and utter destruction as an institutional power. The church cannot bring death upon itself by virtue of whatever the pope simply says, or does not say.

I'm not a huge fan of the Dalai L.ma, but I think there is a big difference between religion-a set of dogmas based ob scripture, usually over a thousand years old and interpreted, in most cases, by elderly men, and spirituality, which is a feeling of connectedness with the universe.
Perhaps there is a difference. Assuming that there is, does it entail that spirituality by itself does not lead one to adopt erroneous beliefs that hold a great deal in common with organized religion? Does it also mean that they are resistant or immune to the influence of the religious institutions? I would personally answer in the negative for both questions. I think religion and spirituality go hand in hand because the religious institutions have so integrated themselves into civil society that one cannot survive without the other. I don't think we should make any concessions on this in the fight against capitalism. This is not to say that what the "spiritual" individual believes is completely meaningless, but this "spirituality" you speak of will likely end up being used to bolster institutions like the Catholic Church and the Dalai Lama in the thick of the class struggle.

He has also said that he may be the last Dalai Lama. He's said that the role might have outlived it's usefulness.
I am not prepared to take the Dalai Lama's word on such a thing. No institution, especially a religious one, should be judged according to what they say, but what they do.

Furthermore there is a lot of difference in terms of the importance of institution between Buddhism and Catholicism. The Church is the vehicle by which souls are saved, whereas Buddhism is much more left up to the individual to do the work.
Doubtless, there are differences between Buddhism and Catholicism. But what do you really mean here by "importance"? That one is less dangerous than the other? Or that we should stress their theological differences? I am not sure if in the grand scheme of things the theological differences are decisive enough to refer to one as water and the other as wine. To paraphrase Marx, in Zur Judenfrage, there is not a specifically Jewish (or Christian, really, pick your poison) question, but a general religious question that is but a reflection of civil society's "secular defect":

We no longer regard religion as the cause, but only as the manifestation of secular narrowness. Therefore we explain the religious limitations of the free citizens by their secular limitations. We do not assert that they must overcome their religious narrowness in order to get rid of their secular restrictions, we assert that they will overcome their religious narrowness once they get rid of their secular restrictions. We do not turn secular questions into theological questions. We turn theological questions into secular ones.
Whether one religion is "different" than the other is beside the point. Their social role, to engender reaction and bourgeois pacifism, is completely uniform. In my opinion this observation should be given primacy.

[eric922]

Every time this comes up, I can't help but notice the striking similarity between the apologetics for the PRC in Tibet, and, say, the rationalizations of British control over India, or the US presence in Iraq, etc. I think it was Borz who said, a while back, that a lot of the folks around here aren't really anti-imperialists, but merely, as he phrased it; 'vulgar anti-Americanists.'
Thank you! This is something I've noticed a lot. Let's assume that Tibet was a horrible brutal theocracy. However, so was Afghanistan, yet most everyone here(rightly) opposes the U.S. action there. However, a lot of people apologize for China, because they claim to be socialist. Really, aside from a coat of red paint, I see little real difference between the two in this regard.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Every time this comes up, I can't help but notice the striking similarity between the apologetics for the PRC in Tibet, and, say, the rationalizations of British control over India, or the US presence in Iraq, etc. I think it was Borz who said, a while back, that a lot of the folks around here aren't really anti-imperialists, but merely, as he phrased it; 'vulgar anti-Americanists.'

Yeah, just as I knew pretty much what Dalai Lamer would say, I knew you would say this. Please stop calling yourself an anarchist sooner rather than later, NGNM. I don't know for sure what kind of confused liberal you are, but an anarchist you are not, it just looks silly.

[NGNM85]

Yeah, just as I knew pretty much what Dalai Lamer would say, I knew you would say this. Please stop calling yourself an anarchist sooner rather than later, NGNM. I don't know for sure what kind of confused liberal you are, but an anarchist you are not, it just looks silly.

You're just pissed that I'm right. You don't give three shits about imperialism. Also; there isn't any branch, or sub-tendency, worthy of being described of Anarchism, that would be compatible with what the PRC has done in Tibet. That is completely antithetical to Anarchism. The suggestion is preposterous.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yeah, just as I knew pretty much what Dalai Lamer would say, I knew you would say this. Please stop calling yourself an anarchist sooner rather than later, NGNM. I don't know for sure what kind of confused liberal you are, but an anarchist you are not, it just looks silly.

Polly want a cracker? :rolleyes:

[DasFapital]

on a side note I wonder what he did with all that CIA money?

[Revolution starts with U]

Yeah, just as I knew pretty much what Dalai Lamer would say, I knew you would say this. Please stop calling yourself an anarchist sooner rather than later, NGNM. I don't know for sure what kind of confused liberal you are, but an anarchist you are not, it just looks silly.

It's not as if, were he a "true" anarchist (according to your [non-existent] standards) you would like him any more.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

You're just pissed that I'm right. You don't give three shits about imperialism. Also; there isn't any branch, or sub-tendency, worthy of being described of Anarchism, that would be compatible with what the PRC has done in Tibet. That is completely antithetical to Anarchism. The suggestion is preposterous.

I haven't said squat on the issue you're on about (and I care about as much to discuss it with you), and frankly, what does the PRC and Tibet have to do with the sort of generic feel-good spiritualist hogwash the Dalai is about these days, and that this topic is about? I hope it has nothing to do with any stupid shit Sam Harris might have said, that silly religious nut.


It's not as if, were he a "true" anarchist (according to your [non-existent] standards) you would like him any more.

Fuck you know about my standards? I don't disagree that much with anarchist as such. What surprises me is that you are defending our resident enlightenment liberal?

[eric922]

I haven't said squat on the issue you're on about (and I care about as much to discuss it with you), and frankly, what does the PRC and Tibet have to do with the sort of generic feel-good spiritualist hogwash the Dalai is about these days, and that this topic is about? I hope it has nothing to do with any stupid shit Sam Harris might have said, that silly religious nut.
Sam Harris, a religious nut. Do you even think before you post? Sam Harris is one of the most outspoken proponents of atheism there is.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm not defending anything. I just grow tired of this parroted response to anything NGM posts with "stop calling yourself an anarchist, you liberal." It's boring, and doesn't address anything he has to say.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Sam Harris, a religious nut. Do you even think before you post? Sam Harris is one of the most outspoken proponents of atheism there is.

He can say what he wants, a man who believes in bloody reincarnation is no better than a Christian, no matter what excuses he might feign. The amusing thing is he derides the latter while still being a religious nut himself (he's a Buddhist, you know? The lack of a clearly defined God doesn't make it less a religion). He also likes to defend torture of terrorism suspects. He's less than virus.

[eric922]

He can say what he wants, a man who believes in bloody reincarnation is no better than a Christian, no matter what excuses he might feign. The amusing thing is he derides the latter while still being a religious nut himself (he's a Buddhist, you know? The lack of a clearly defined God doesn't make it less a religion). He also likes to defend torture of terrorism suspects. He's less than virus.

He doesn't believe in reincarnation. If you have evidence of that, then post it. Otherwise, the only thing I can find is this quote from him, where he basically says he is agnostic on the issue and doesn't really care about it. On the same site he also says he isn't Buddhist and has criticized the religious elements of Buddhism many times in his book. Finally, the very fact that he does not believe in a god makes him an atheist. That is the accepted definition of the word. From Oxford English Dictionary:
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

Here is his quote on reincarnation:

My position on the paranormal is this: While there have been many frauds in the history of parapsychology, I believe that this field of study has been unfairly stigmatized. If some experimental psychologists want to spend their days studying telepathy, or the effects of prayer, I will be interested to know what they find out. And if it is true that toddlers occasionally start speaking in ancient languages (as Ian Stevenson alleges), I would like to know about it. However, I have not spent any time attempting to authenticate the data put forward in books like Dean Radin’s The Conscious Universe or Ian Stevenson’s 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. The fact that I have not spent any time on this should suggest how worthy of my time I think such a project would be. Still, I found these books interesting, and I cannot categorically dismiss their contents in the way that I can dismiss the claims of religious dogmatists. (Here, I am making a point about gradations of certainty: can I say for certain that a century of experimentation proves that telepathy doesn’t exist? No. It seems to me that reasonable people can disagree about the data. Can I say for certain that the Bible and the Koran show every sign of having been written by ignorant mortals? Yes. And this is the only certainty one needs to dismiss the God of Abraham as a creature of fiction.)"
"

[Raúl Duke]

Ehh, does anyone actually clever care what he even says any more? He's basically all "pop-philosophy" now these days it almost seems like he's aiming to appeal towards Westerners' orientalist views on Eastern philosophies/religions rather than speaking to his flock of Tibeten buddhists.

Particularly considering that the Dalai Lama is part of a sect that comes from the Mahayana line which includes all sorts of fantastical stuff (particularly the Pure Land version) relative to the more austere and "atheist" Theravada branch.

[eric922]

Ehh, does anyone actually clever care what he even says any more? He's basically all "pop-philosophy" now these days it almost seems like he's aiming to appeal towards Westerners' orientalist views on Eastern philosophies/religions rather than speaking to his flock of Tibeten buddhists.

Particularly considering that the Dalai Lama is part of a sect that comes from the Mahayana line which includes all sorts of fantastical stuff (particularly the Pure Land version) relative to the more austere and "atheist" Theravada branch.

A lot of the fantastical stuff in Tibetan Buddhism and Mahayana in general isn't as simple as it seems, though. For instance, Tibetan Buddhists have a lot of deities, however according to several Lamas I've spoken with, those deities aren't meant to be understood as real entites, but rather aspects of the practitioners personality to give them something to focus on rather than abstract concepts such as compassion. I haven't studied Pure Land very much at all so I can't speak to that.

[ed miliband]

It's not as if, were he a "true" anarchist (according to your [non-existent] standards) you would like him any more.

huh?

i don't think it's a case of people disliking ngnm85, more being [a]/[be]mused at his claims of being an anarchist (and an "orthodox" one at that). if he was a member of the cpusa, or some weird variant of trot or maoist his line on the democrats, for example, might be somewhat more understandable. if he just came straight out and called himself a radical liberal or democrat socialist i imagine everyone would engage with him normally (and, of course, critically). but the fact he calls himself an anarchist, despite holding positions that have no relation to modern, organised anarchism... it's impossible to ignore.

but that isn't the place to discuss this.

[NGNM85]

I haven't said squat on the issue you're on about (and I care about as much to discuss it with you)

Cut the crap. All I said, all I said, was to point out there’s a lot of hypocrisy going around regarding imperialism. The fact that this set you off either indicates that you are one of the aforementioned hypocrites, and I hit a little too close to home, or that you’re such a child that you have to derail the conversation by launching a completely unprovoked, and totally irrelevent, personal attack, simply because I had the audacity to speak. What’s really amazing, though, is that you have the audacity to claim that what the PRC has done in Tibet is somehow compatible with Anarchism. That’s completely insane.


and frankly, what does the PRC and Tibet have to do with the sort of generic feel-good spiritualist hogwash the Dalai is about these days, and that this topic is about?

It’s relevant because I couldn’t help but notice the venom, and vitriol that always accompanies the mention of the Dalai Lama, etc., which reminded me of the hypocrisy I’ve often observed regarding imperialism. I mean, this isn’t new, I’ve been aware of this phenomenon, for quite some time. It’s not a stretch, by any means.


I hope it has nothing to do with any stupid shit Sam Harris might have said,

I’m not aware of anything that’s particularly relevant.


..that silly religious nut.

He can say what he wants, a man who believes in bloody reincarnation is no better than a Christian, no matter what excuses he might feign. The amusing thing is he derides the latter while still being a religious nut himself (he's a Buddhist, you know? The lack of a clearly defined God doesn't make it less a religion). He also likes to defend torture of terrorism suspects. He's less than virus.

That’s completely inaccurate, what’s’ more; I think you actually know that. I mean I know you’re full of shit, but could you at least come up with something that hasn’t been completely debunked?

[NGNM85]

huh?

i don't think it's a case of people disliking ngnm85,

No, it absolutely is. It's totally personal. I would challenge anyone on the boards to say that they've experienced anything close to the harassment I've received. I'm not crying about it; but let's be fucking honest.


more being [a]/[be]mused at his claims of being an anarchist

(and an "orthodox" one at that).

'..for lack of a better term' I thought most people would be smart enough to understand the context.


if he was a member of the cpusa, or some weird variant of trot or maoist his line on the democrats, for example, might be somewhat more understandable.

You don't even understand what my views are. The fact that you could suggest that I'm, in any way, comperable to a Trotskyist, or, even a Maoist (?!!) proves this.


if he just came straight out and called himself a radical liberal

'Radical Liberal' is an oxymoron. You're only demonstrating you don't understand the terms you are using.


or democrat socialist

I'm actually more 'revolutionary' than Karl Marx, or, at least, the later Marx.


i imagine everyone would engage with him normally (and, of course, critically). but the fact he calls himself an anarchist, despite holding positions that have no relation to modern, organised anarchism... it's impossible to ignore.

but that isn't the place to discuss this.

I don't know where to start with this. First of all; membership in an organization, or organizations is not a sufficient condition of any kind of Anarchism. I don't know what you're referring to as 'modern Anarchism', however I specifically identified myself as being primarily influenced by what, I suppose, you would call the 'classical' Anarchists; Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, and Rudolf Rocker. Although; as I also pointed out, I'm also influenced by more modern Anarchists like Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Daniel Guerin, although; they don't really represent a significant intellectual departure from the former. So, I'm well grounded in the Anarchist tradition. You don't get to just get to redfine over a hundred years of thought on a whim. You don't own Anarchism. You also don't get to sling a massive pile of flaming shit and then end it with this peurile; 'this isn't the time, or the place' horseshit.

[ed miliband]

No, it absolutely is. It's totally personal. I would challenge anyone on the boards to say that they've experienced anything close to the harassment I've received. I'm not crying about it; but let's be fucking honest.

okay, then i'll put it out there: i have been a dickhead to you countless times, but i don't personally dislike you. i think it'd be pretty mental to carry grudges in real life about shit posted on a message board. your tone throughout this post is patronising as fuck, but i'll attempt to respond without trolling.


'..for lack of a better term' I thought most people would be smart enough to understand the context.

i don't know where "for lack of a better term" is a quote from. i just know that you consider yourself an anarchist and seem to recall you suggesting that you were an "orthodox" one. if you then qualified that, and i've quoted you out of context (by accident), then i'm sorry. no need to try and turn it into a dig at me.


You don't even understand what my views are. The fact that you could suggest that I'm, in any way, comperable to a Trotskyist, or, even a Maoist (?!!) proves this.

read what i wrote again. i said if you were a maoist or trotskyist your soft position on the democrats might make more sense. not that you are a maoist or a trotskyist.


'Radical Liberal' is an oxymoron. You're only demonstrating you don't understand the terms you are using.

nope. 'living corpses' is an oxymoron. it just refers to your position in relation to other liberals.

1. 'radical liberal' has a pretty long history of usage. in particular with reference to the 'radicals' of the british whig party (who later, under the radicals influence, became the liberal party). there was even a 'radical liberal party' in the states in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

2. in the sense that i am using it (and it's not simply a term i've come up with on my own - it's pretty widely used amongst anarchists), it refers to the politics of people like naomi klein and yeah, noam chomsky, who offer a critique of capitalism and the state, and may wish to go beyond it, but either wish to do so through "liberal" means (voting for left-wing candidates, appeals to elected officials, etc), or don't believe it is possible to do so in the present day and instead accommodate themselves - criticially - in the current system.


I'm actually more 'revolutionary' than Karl Marx, or, at least, the later Marx.

btw, i meant to type 'democratic socialist' rather than 'democrat socialist', just to clarify.

i'm not sure what this has to do with what i said, it just seems like some kid on the playground saying 'my dad's bigger than your dad'. you may very well be more revolutionary than marx, although i reckon if marx was around today he'd be more revolutionary than you - i very much doubt he'd have the same line on the democrats.


I don't know where to start with this. First of all; membership in an organization, or organizations is not a sufficient condition of any kind of Anarchism. I don't know what you're referring to as 'modern Anarchism', however I specifically identified myself as being primarily influenced by what, I suppose, you would call the 'classical' Anarchists; Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, and Rudolf Rocker. Although; as I also pointed out, I'm also influenced by more modern Anarchists like Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Daniel Guerin, although; they don't really represent a significant intellectual departure from the former. So, I'm well grounded in the Anarchist tradition. You don't get to just get to redfine over a hundred years of thought on a whim. You don't own Anarchism. You also don't get to sling a massive pile of flaming shit and then end it with this peurile; 'this isn't the time, or the place' horseshit.

and i don't know where to start with this.

my definition of anarchism is the one used by lucien van der walt and michael schmidt in black flame, which is probably one of the most important and respected studies of anarchism in recent history. if you haven't read it i'll sum up there argument: anarchism can't simply be considered opposition to the state or individualism, because then one could argue most intellectual traditions contain 'anarchists'. rather, anarchism refers to a current of the working class movement that emerged from the first international under bakunin, typified by an opposition to reformism and parliamentarianism, internationalism, federalism, mutual aid, and so on.

now of course one needn't be a member of an anarchist organisation to be an anarchist, but if we are to gain an impression of anarchism as it is practiced today then surely we need to study the anarchist organisations that exist and make up the bulk of the anarchist movement? there are three big 'internationals', so to speak: the international workers association, the international of anarchist federations, and the anarkismo network. together these contain groups from across europe, the americas, and parts of africa, consisting of thousands of members altogether. and your position on the democrats, on voting and reforms, would be a complete anomaly in each. that's what i meant when i said your anarchism seems to have very little to do with modern, organised anarchism - it isn't me who is attempting to redefine the word.

[NGNM85]

i don't know where "for lack of a better term" is a quote from.


More than that, I’m actually a very orthodox one, for lack of a better term.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2459071&postcount=149 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2459071&postcount=149)


‘…for lack of a better term.’

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2462630&postcount=176 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2462630&postcount=176)


Modified with; ‘for lack of a better term.’ I thought most people would be smart enough to understand the context.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2460031&postcount=156 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2460031&postcount=156)


…and, for lack of a better term ‘orthodox’ Anarchist.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2340180&postcount=428 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2340180&postcount=428)

Etc., etc.



i just know that you consider yourself an anarchist and seem to recall you suggesting that you were an "orthodox" one. if you then qualified that, and i've quoted you out of context (by accident), then i'm sorry. no need to try and turn it into a dig at me.

Well, it certainly isn’t my fault.


read what i wrote again. i said if you were a maoist or trotskyist your soft position on the democrats might make more sense. not that you are a maoist or a trotskyist.

That’s….better, but still bogus. I don’t think you understand what my position is, therefore; your judgment is invalid.


nope. 'living corpses' is an oxymoron. it just refers to your position in relation to other liberals.
1.'radical liberal' has a pretty long history of usage. in particular with reference to the 'radicals' of the british whig party (who later, under the radicals influence, became the liberal party). there was even a 'radical liberal party' in the states in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

That doesn’t apply to the context in which you are speaking. ‘Radical’, in the modern parlance, in which you are using it, is shorthand for the far Left, more specifically; the various Socialist tendencies. This is because ‘Radical’ comes from the Latin Radix, for ‘root.’ This is what separates Liberals, Progressives, etc., from Socialists; they want to reform capitalism, to ameliorate the worst aspects of capitalism, as would any Socialist worthy of the name, but they never think of going any further, they never question the legitimacy of capitalism, or, for that matter, nation-states, etc. That’s the difference. So; ‘Radical’, in the modern parlance, and; ‘Liberal’, either modern, or classical, are mutually exclusive.



in the sense that i am using it (and it's not simply a term i've come up with on my own - it's pretty widely used amongst anarchists),

Well, you guys can make a petition, or something, and maybe someday it’ll make it into the lexicon, until then, I’m just going to disregard this.


it refers to the politics of people like naomi klein and yeah, noam chomsky, who offer a critique of capitalism and the state, and may wish to go beyond it, but either wish to do so through "liberal" means (voting for left-wing candidates, appeals to elected officials, etc), or don't believe it is possible to do so in the present day and instead accommodate themselves - criticially - in the current system.

That’s not what Noam Chomsky believes, that’s not what Naomi Klein believes, and, most importantly, that’s not what I believe.

A communist revolution, in the most crude, and vulgar interpretation, something like what happened in Russia, in 1917, is absolutely impossible in the United States, today. That’s just a fact. For starters; the movement doesn’t exist. We’re light years away from that. Second; the masses will only opt for radical change, presuming a significant segment of the working class is educated, organized, etc., (Which, again, is worlds away from where we are, right now.) once the system has been pushed to it’s limit, (Which hasn’t happened, yet.) and only then.


btw, i meant to type 'democratic socialist' rather than 'democrat socialist', just to clarify.
i'm not sure what this has to do with what i said, it just seems like some kid on the playground saying 'my dad's bigger than your dad'. you may very well be more revolutionary than marx, although i reckon if marx was around today he'd be more revolutionary than you - i very much doubt he'd have the same line on the democrats.
and i don't know where to start with this.

Again; I don’t think you understand my politics, so I don’t take this judgment very seriously.

No; it matters because it puts things in perspective. It displays the degree of derangement in the political discourse on this website, and it demonstrates the baselessness of the criticism.

That’s a fact. There’s nothing subjective about it. From the La Liberte Speech, which was printed in the Marx-Engels Reader as; The Possibility of Non-Violent Revolution:

"Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics.
But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same.
You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm)

I wouldn’t dare make an assertion like that. I’m much more (small ‘c’) conservative in my predictions. Presuming we ever get to that stage; I fully concede that political violence may very well be necessary. I just don't get all hot and bothered about 'purging' everyone in sight, like some people.


my definition of anarchism is the one used by lucien van der walt and michael schmidt in black flame, which is probably one of the most important and respected studies of anarchism in recent history.

The best single volume on Anarchism is Peter Marshall’s Demanding the Impossible. (1993)


if you haven't read it i'll sum up there argument: anarchism can't simply be considered opposition to the state or individualism,

Of course not.


because then one could argue most intellectual traditions contain 'anarchists'. rather, anarchism refers to a current of the working class movement that emerged from the first international under bakunin, typified by an opposition to reformism and parliamentarianism, internationalism, federalism, mutual aid, and so on.

This is, perhaps, der Walt’s definition, of Anarchism, or your definition of Anarchism, but not THE definition of Anarchism.


now of course one needn't be a member of an anarchist organisation to be an anarchist,

You said it, not me.


but if we are to gain an impression of anarchism as it is practiced today

That’s not relevant. I’m not contesting that I may be out of step with many, if not most Anarchists, or ‘Anarchists’, today. That’s totally inconsequential. I could go to any Hot Topic and find three or four teenage nimrods calling themselves “Anarchists.' That doesn’t mean crap.


then surely we need to study the anarchist organisations that exist and make up the bulk of the anarchist movement? there are three big 'internationals', so to speak: the international workers association, the international of anarchist federations, and the anarkismo network. together these contain groups from across europe, the americas, and parts of africa, consisting of thousands of members altogether. and your position on the democrats, on voting and reforms, would be a complete anomaly in each. that's what i meant when i said your anarchism seems to have very little to do with modern, organised anarchism - it isn't me who is attempting to redefine the word.


Yes, you are. You said that I am not an Anarchist. Leaving aside the fact that you are unqualified to make that determination, so far, this case has rested entirely on my philosophical divergence from ‘modern Anarchists’ and ‘modern Anarchist’ organizations. (Which is especially absurd because I’ve specifically highlighted my ideological pedigree.) Therefore; the only way this is logically coherent is if you coopt , and redefine; ‘Anarchism.’

[ed miliband]

i don't have time to address this all now, so i'll just say: peter marshall's demanding the impossible is subject to a lot of criticism in the volume i mentioned, as any history of 'anarchism' that includes everyone from jesus to che guevara to margaret thatcher should be. it's a good book, don't get me wrong, but it's definitely not the best study of anarchism and the fact you think it is fairly telling.

seriously, i would recommend black flame very highly, here's a review:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/black-flame

[Deicide]

I'd love for religion and other superstitions to disappear. However, It's not even remotely feasible unless poverty disappears.

[Ocean Seal]

Did you even read what I said, or do you just enjoy spouting straw man arguments? You're not even going by actual historical facts.
Claims that his opponent is making straw man arguments.


A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

Pretty sure that's what you just did bro.

And to the claim that I am only an anti-Americanist I suggest you read my posts on China/S.Korea in Africa and Russia in Syria, but hey fuck that. I'm just saying that I don't lend my heart to the Tibetan struggle for national liberation as it is tainted with elements of religious fundamentalism and feudalism. Also imperialism is not a sentiment that people are "taking your country" but rather an economic relationship.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A lot of the fantastical stuff in Tibetan Buddhism and Mahayana in general isn't as simple as it seems, though. For instance, Tibetan Buddhists have a lot of deities, however according to several Lamas I've spoken with, those deities aren't meant to be understood as real entites, but rather aspects of the practitioners personality to give them something to focus on rather than abstract concepts such as compassion. I haven't studied Pure Land very much at all so I can't speak to that.

Elitist esoteric mysticism is just as much a bunch of negative nonsense as outright theism. Who needs the moral support of the Gods when one can simply claim to be more "enlightened" than everyone else, especially those uppity peasants?

[Red Rabbit]

Pretty sure that's what you just did bro.

You might wanna finish reading that, "bro".


1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y.


Yes, he can say that but ultimately it doesn't mean much. He still retains power in Tibet.


Kind of like how Hitler/pretty much everyone and their mum said that they would dismantle the inequality in capitalism?


Pope John Paul II seemed like a cool guy until you looked at the details.

[eric922]

Elitist esoteric mysticism is just as much a bunch of negative nonsense as outright theism. Who needs the moral support of the Gods when one can simply claim to be more "enlightened" than everyone else, especially those uppity peasants?
You completely missed the point of what I said. I'm sure I'm wasting my time here, but I'll try and explain it one more time and then I'm done. The various "deities" are nothing more than archetypes. They are tools used in mediation to give the practitioner something to focus on. A lot of people have a hard time grasping abstract concepts such as compassion, wisdom, etc. so they are personified in deities. They are nothing more than archetypes, tools to be used to help with focus, they aren't even required. If you don't need to focus on deities during mediation,no one will tell you to.

As for your other comments regarding elitism and peasants, other people have already pointed out that this Dalia Lama was in the process of making reforms before the Chinese invasion and his comments throughout the years have shown him rather open to science and progress in general. For example. he has said that if the office of Dalia Lama were to continue, the next one would be a women. Do I agree with everything he says? No,(in fact I'd say I disagree with him on most things) but I think a lot of people on this forum take a negative view towards all religion without bothering to study them in depth. Especially considering the fact that some religions are much more adaptable to modern science and ideas than others. You can't judge every single religion based on fundamentalist Christianity.

[NGNM85]

i don't have time to address this all now, so i'll just say: peter marshall's demanding the impossible is subject to a lot of criticism in the volume i mentioned,..

It's not perfect, there are a number of more minor factual errors, dates, etc. (Which, I would argue, is inevitable in such an ambitious undertaking.)However; again, it's the best single volume on Anarchism ever written. It's significantly more exhaustive, exceeding Black Flame by 300 pages.


as any history of 'anarchism' that includes everyone from jesus to che guevara to margaret thatcher should be.

Marshall never suggests that Jesus, (Who, in all probability, never existed.) Che Guevara, or Margaret Thatcher were Anarchists. Marshall merely traces the origins, and effects of Anarchism throughout history.


it's a good book, don't get me wrong, but it's definitely not the best study of anarchism

I have yet to see anything that exceeds it.


and the fact you think it is fairly telling.

Please.


seriously, i would recommend black flame very highly, here's a review:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/black-flame


Again; I can't possibly thoroughly evaluate a book I have not read, but the reviews I have read give me pause. Most notably, all of the reviews I've read, including the one you've posted, point to the authors' bad habit of excluding, or marginalizing historical figures they disagree with, or have deemed not to be 'real' Anarchists, including Proudhon. I may read this book, someday, (Presently I'm reading Peter Singer's Marx, Zinn's Passionate Declarations, and Michael Harrington's Twilight of Capitalism.)
but nothing I've seen strikes me as especially impressive. I don't see anything essential that this volume offers, that others do not.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You completely missed the point of what I said. I'm sure I'm wasting my time here, but I'll try and explain it one more time and then I'm done. The various "deities" are nothing more than archetypes. They are tools used in mediation to give the practitioner something to focus on.

I've said nothing to contradict that. I was pointing out that not having deities does nothing to make a religion less wrong.


A lot of people have a hard time grasping abstract concepts such as compassion, wisdom, etc. so they are personified in deities. They are nothing more than archetypes, tools to be used to help with focus, they aren't even required. If you don't need to focus on deities during mediation,no one will tell you to.

You've never thought to wonder why "a lot of people" supposedly need the crutch of imagined deities in order to wrestle with their spiritual concerns?


As for your other comments regarding elitism and peasants, other people have already pointed out that this Dalia Lama was in the process of making reforms before the Chinese invasion and his comments throughout the years have shown him rather open to science and progress in general. For example. he has said that if the office of Dalia Lama were to continue, the next one would be a women.

Somehow I suspect that such decisions are not entirely his to make. Or did you forget that the Dalai Lama isn't just some wise old guy, but the head (or at least the public face) of an organisation which has been around long enough to have its own interests, separate from those of any individual office-holder?

In any case, it's not enough for one top clergyman to get a few progressive-sounding ideas in his head. How many of his successors will think along the same lines? I'm sure there were those who thought John Paul II represented a gentler, more moral approach for the Catholic Church, but then along came Darth Benedict to "set them right".


Do I agree with everything he says? No,(in fact I'd say I disagree with him on most things) but I think a lot of people on this forum take a negative view towards all religion without bothering to study them in depth.

You haven't done much to disabuse us of such notions, beyond mentioning that the Dalai Lama has said a few enlightened-sounding things along the way. But that his job, which leaves me to wonder how you can be remotely impressed by that.


Especially considering the fact that some religions are much more adaptable to modern science and ideas than others. You can't judge every single religion based on fundamentalist Christianity.

What do you mean by "adaptable to modern science"?

I'm sure when you've got entire bookshelves full of enlightened-sounding guff written by supposed sages through the ages, it's easy as pie to pick and choose exactly the kind of things that make one's particular variant of Buddhism sound up-to-date.

[eric922]

Noxion, I'm not trying to be rude here or blow you off, but I'm only going to address part of your post here, because responding to the rest won't do any good. Not, because your opinion is less valid than mine, but simply because I've had debates like this before and they go nowhere and frankly neither of us will change the other person's mind.

However, I am going to address these part:


Especially considering the fact that some religions are much more adaptable to modern science and ideas than others. You can't judge every single religion based on fundamentalist Christianity. The very fact that the Dalia Lama accepts evolution as fact is proof that Buddhism is more compatible with science than some forms of Christianity or Islam. The Dalai Lama has had numerous dialogues with members of the scientific community, mainly physicists and psychologists, comparing western science with Buddhism. The very fact that he has asked for these discussions shows Buddhism to be more open to science. Finally, in one his books he said "If science should prove some part of Buddhism wrong, Buddhism will have to change." He is openly admitting the superiority of science over scripture, show me a Christian that will do that.


Somehow I suspect that such decisions are not entirely his to make. Or did you forget that the Dalai Lama isn't just some wise old guy, but the head (or at least the public face) of an organisation which has been around long enough to have its own interests, separate from those of any individual office-holder?Dealing strictly with the issues of his successor the Dalia Lama has more control over than the Pope has over his or any religious leader I can think, simply because of the belief in reincarnation. If the Dalia Lama, before he dies, says he will not reincarnate again as the Dalia Lama, the Lamas are going to have a hard time justifying a successor since the previous one has said he isn't coming back. The same thing with a women, if he says my successor will be a women, then they can't really pick a male without losing any legitimacy.


Finally, on the topic of Buddhism in general, all I can say for certainty is it works for me. Buddhism seeks to relive emotional suffering and, I, personally have found it more effective for me than simply going to a psychologist or taking anti-depressants. I've tried those as well, seeing as I used to suffer from very sever clinical depression, and they helped with the symptoms, but Buddhism has helped me see things in a different way that has made me a much happier, calmer, and more content person. Some people might see that as crutch, but I honestly don't care. It works for me. It hasn't changed my political views or made me tolerant of capitalism, which I think is a lot leftists main concern with religion.

For some people medicine and going to a counselor might be enough, that's great and I highly recommend anyone who has serious mental health issues to speak to those people.