Buddhism and Anarchism

[t.crow]

I have personally found that Buddhist doctrines on inter-connectedness, karma (action) and suffering (as well as its cessation) meld almost perfectly with Anarchist theories. If a Shambhala-like society were to exist, a truly enlightened, advanced civilization, then it appears that they would have no need for a governing body, since each citizen would understand their action's impact on each other and the environment as well as the beneficial effects of such a cooperative "nation".

Modern science has shown that meditative techniques can heal our bodies of disease, and train our minds to incredible levels of awareness, that there is a "code", if you will, in our method of mental activity that can actually adjust our DNA. Anarchism could potentially be the result of this awareness; when a group of people are so in touch with themselves and their world, that they automatically lean towards an anarchist blueprint for their relationships and organization as it has been the natural method for most of mankind's existence.

"Mutual aid" ties in nicely with this idea, in that groups of this mindset would be driven to help each other, not only for their own benefit, but also for the benefit of all sentient life, knowing that their neighbor's well being is related to that of their own. A theoretical anarchist society, I believe, would have a difficult time surviving in a world where nations and groups of people of deeply rooted opposing ideologies exist, thus requiring some kind of natural, cultural upheaval to a mindset of peaceful, cooperative existence, such as that found in Buddhism.

So I suppose Im just curious if anybody else finds a connection with Buddhism and Anarchism, or with any other religion, way of life or path and Anarchy for that matter. Also, how do you think a revolution of this sort would translate to the modern public, so dead set in their ways? Would it be a long, difficult transition or could it potentially just ignite and spread seeing as how we all seem to share the same "Buddha Nature"?

[bcbm]

i think most people project their politics and values onto their religion rather than any religion having 'anarchist' tendencies. in the case of buddhism i dont think it has much in common with anarchism as it is accepts all suffering and attempts to overcome it through personal means, a disconnection with the world, rather than social means. i also dont think having a 'buddhist consciousness' would be better or more conducive to a cooperative society than the realization of our species being, which has no mystical trappings

[t.crow]

in the case of buddhism i dont think it has much in common with anarchism as it is accepts all suffering and attempts to overcome it through personal means, a disconnection with the world, rather than social means.
This isnt entirely true. Buddhism does suggest that there is a path from our own suffering through personal effort, but it also states that there is no difference between you or I, since "You" and "i" dont really exist, that we are basically the same, and that "my" enlightenment can also depend on and influence "your" enlightenment. The focus is basically that we need each other, that everything at every level is connected. This suggests the importance of cooperation and mutual benefit since we are in fact so deeply connected. In Buddhism, a Bodhisattva is a "mostly" awakened being who postpones his own enlightenment and transcendence past this realm of suffering so that he can stay in this world of pain and pleasure for the benefit all sentient life. I dont think this is a "disconnection from the world" at all. If anything, all of this points to a broader view of how we treat each other, with compassion and "loving-kindness" and how that can create a more equal, efficient society. I also dont think there is anything "mystical" about Buddhism at all, that its various deities and gods are simply a reflection of our mental states as expressed by different cultures, like Tibetan or Cambodian Buddhism. Various techniques have been studied and proven to have solid, concrete physical results, which is more than many other "religions" can show. Personally, I dont even classify Buddhism as a religion, or as "buddhism" at all, but a marker pointing in the direction of a universal way of life that is common in us all, existing in our potential as human beings, and is/can be perfectly aligned with our physical/mental environment given the opportunity. This "universal" doctrine is hinted at in many religions but focused on more honestly in Buddhism.

[Zealot]

I honestly don't see the attraction. Many people have tried to resurrect a "pure" form of Buddhism with all the superstitious bunk thrown out. Buddhism is an established religion so I don't see a point in reinventing it and then still calling it "Buddhism". You could even do this with Christianity but, at the end of the day, why still call yourself a Christian? All you're left with is a personal philosophy to which you adhere. A Bodhisattva is a nice idea but rebirths can't really be proven and thus the idea of one sacrificing this birth for the greater good isn't something that I would consider to be a coherent concept.

[bcbm]

This isnt entirely true. Buddhism does . . . doctrine is hinted at in many religions but focused on more honestly in Buddhism.

if buddhism works for you great but i dont see it as a vehicle for liberation for most people or some kind of prerequisite to a communist world. being determines consciousness i think and so the 'communist consciousness' or whatever the fuck you want to call it will be forged through the class struggle not meditation. i also have trouble with the assertion of some 'common to us all' life lying in wait in our genes, i think it is markedly clear we are a very flexible species and while we evolved in certain lifestyles i don't think there is some hidden key to unlocking their secrets

[black magick hustla]

once upon a time, when atheism didn't really exist, religion did produce some fine revolutionaries. Taoism produced the yellow turbans, and christianity produced the anabaptists, diggers, free spirits, taborites, etc. however i think that period already closed and "religious revolutionaries" today tend to be intellectuals and synthesists rather than organic revolutionaries

[eric922]

To answer your question about religious groups that tie in with anarchism, I can think of one. Wicca. It is a very anti-hierarchical religion all the way through. Covens are ran by a high priest and priestess, but you are automatically made a priest or priestess after a year and a day. After three years you are able to split off from the coven you were initiated in and start your own. Furthermore, the Reclaiming tradition founded by Starhawk is an anarchist movement. Wicca as a whole is also very feminist and natural oriented and those two things tie into how so many oppose capitalism and the state. They view them as oppressive to women and destructive to the environment. Occult traditions in general tend to have an anti-authoritative stance to them, of which Wicca is but one of many.

Now on to Buddhism. It is a very very adaptable religion, if you want to call it a religion at all. There is some debate. It could tie in with anarchism. The Sanga seems to operate on a communal basis. As to the argument that someone mentioned that Buddhism leads to people ignoring the world, that is untrue. Thich Nhat Hanh a Zen master who some consider to be enlightened has founded a movement known as "Engaged Buddhism" dedicated to dealing with worldly suffering.

[eric922]

I honestly don't see the attraction. Many people have tried to resurrect a "pure" form of Buddhism with all the superstitious bunk thrown out. Buddhism is an established religion so I don't see a point in reinventing it and then still calling it "Buddhism". You could even do this with Christianity but, at the end of the day, why still call yourself a Christian? All you're left with is a personal philosophy to which you adhere. A Bodhisattva is a nice idea but rebirths can't really be proven and thus the idea of one sacrificing this birth for the greater good isn't something that I would consider to be a coherent concept.

To answer how your question about how one could throw out the superstition and still call oneself a Buddhist. I don't think Buddhism and Christianity are accurate comparisons. The basis of Christianity is the resurrection of Christ. Without it as Paul said, the faith is in vain. Christianity is built on superstition or rather a supernatural element. Buddhism isn't.

The core of Buddhism isn't rebirth or karma. In the Kalma Sutra Buddha said this:
'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him. So rebirth and karma, the two "supernatural" elements to Buddhism aren't necessary according to the Buddha himself. So, if those aren't necessary for Buddhism, then what is? The Four Noble Truths:


"This is the noble truth of dukkha: birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, illness is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are dukkha; union with what is displeasing is dukkha; separation from what is pleasing is dukkha; not to get what one wants is dukkha; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha."
"This is the noble truth of the origin of dukkha: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."
"This is the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."
"This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of dukkha: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration." [13][e][f] Now you can agree or not with how accurate those truths are, but they aren't supernaturally based. As the Kalama Sutta points out, beliefs in a hereafter or the law of karma aren't necessary for Buddhism, even if most people in Buddha's time did believe in them, thus he framed his teachings in that context, but he did point out you could benefit and follow without believing those things. Oh, and just to clarify Dukkha is normally translated as suffering, I'm not sure how they just used a transliteration here.

Note: All quotes were taken from Wikipedia.

[Beeth]

^ good post.

Buddhism is a terrific psychological discipline. It helps us be mindful of our thoughts. This in turn develops intelligence, makes the acquisition of knowledge easy. Plus 'metta meditation' also helps in developing empathy for fellow humans. All this is beneficial even in a strictly worldly sense.

[NGNM85]

I tend to agree with Red Godfather. Despite my general contempt for religion, I think a number of religious traditions have within them, beyond all the seperstitious bullshit, etc., some valuable ideas, worthy of serious consideration. If one was so inclined, it would even be possible to separate out these ideas, much like Jefferson's Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, but one can't really honestly describe that as; 'Christianity.'

[Astarte]

once upon a time, when atheism didn't really exist, religion did produce some fine revolutionaries. Taoism produced the yellow turbans, and christianity produced the anabaptists, diggers, free spirits, taborites, etc. however i think that period already closed and "religious revolutionaries" today tend to be intellectuals and synthesists rather than organic revolutionaries

How is it that "'religious revolutionaries' today tend to be intellectuals and synthesists'" more so than atheist revolutionaries exactly...? Marxism itself was created in the 19th century from a synthesis of, as Lenin mentioned, "German philosophy, English political economy and French Socialism". I have met plenty of atheistic armchair "revolutionaries" who base 7/10 of their conception of leftist politics on the intellectual relationship between Dawkins and dialectical materialism, or some who even consider Christopher Hitchen's flirtation with neo-con imperialism only a minor sin against Marxism owing to the fact he remained a tried and true atheist. I don't see how having spiritual tendencies makes one less so of an organic revolutionary.

[Beeth]

Buddhism is a good example of how even a good religion, when organized, goes bad. So the real issue is not religion per se but the dangers of organization with its rigid structure, hierarchy etc.

[Zostrianos]

The best intro to original Buddhism I've read is "What the Buddha taught (http://www.amazon.com/What-Buddha-Taught-Expanded-Dhammapada/dp/0802130313/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344835878&sr=8-1&keywords=what+the+buddha+taught)"
The author (a monk himself) used the Buddhist scriptures in their original form and reveals a religion that was almost devoid of supernatural elements at its onset. Even reincarnation was not seen as the transmigration of one's soul or consciousness, but rather continued life in another form (e.g. our body will nourish different insects and bugs, and so we continue to live in them):

We have seen earlier that a being is nothing but a combination of physical and mental forces or energies. What we call death is the total non-functioning of the physical body. Do all these forces and energies stop altogether with the nonfunctioning of the body? Buddhism says 'No'. Will, volition, desire, thirst to exist, to continue, to become more and more, is a tremendous force that moves whole world lives, whole existences, that even moves the whole world. According to Buddhism, this force does not stop with the non-functioning of the body, which is death; but it continues manifesting itself in another form, producing re-existence which is called rebirth...As there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. So quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next. It is a series that continues unbroken, but changes every moment. The series is, really speaking, nothing but movement. It is like a flame that burns through the night: it is not the same flame nor is it another. A child grows up to be a man of sixty. Certainly the man of sixty is not the same as the child of sixty years ago, nor is he another person.


As for life after death, it was regarded as an unknown in earlier Buddhism. The notion of a soul was also discarded:

Buddhism stands unique in the history of human thought in denying the existence of such a Soul, Self, or Atman. According to the teaching of the Buddha, the idea of self is an imaginary, false belief which has no corresponding, reality, and it produces harmful thoughts of 'me' and 'mine', selfish desire, craving, attachment, hatred, ill will, conceit, pride, egoism, and other defilements, impurities and problems. It is the source of all the troubles in the world from personal conflicts to wars between nations. In short, to this view can be traced all the evil in the world.

There is nothing at odds with modern science in original Buddhism as far as I can remember reading.

[Beeth]

The best intro to original Buddhism I've read is "What the Buddha taught (http://www.amazon.com/What-Buddha-Taught-Expanded-Dhammapada/dp/0802130313/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344835878&sr=8-1&keywords=what+the+buddha+taught)"
The author (a monk himself) used the Buddhist scriptures in their original form and reveals a religion that was almost devoid of supernatural elements at its onset. Even reincarnation was not seen as the transmigration of one's soul or consciousness, but rather continued life in another form (e.g. our body will nourish different insects and bugs, and so we continue to live in them):

We have seen earlier that a being is nothing but a combination of physical and mental forces or energies. What we call death is the total non-functioning of the physical body. Do all these forces and energies stop altogether with the nonfunctioning of the body? Buddhism says 'No'. Will, volition, desire, thirst to exist, to continue, to become more and more, is a tremendous force that moves whole world lives, whole existences, that even moves the whole world. According to Buddhism, this force does not stop with the non-functioning of the body, which is death; but it continues manifesting itself in another form, producing re-existence which is called rebirth...As there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. So quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next. It is a series that continues unbroken, but changes every moment. The series is, really speaking, nothing but movement. It is like a flame that burns through the night: it is not the same flame nor is it another. A child grows up to be a man of sixty. Certainly the man of sixty is not the same as the child of sixty years ago, nor is he another person.


As for life after death, it was regarded as an unknown in earlier Buddhism. The notion of a soul was also discarded:

Buddhism stands unique in the history of human thought in denying the existence of such a Soul, Self, or Atman. According to the teaching of the Buddha, the idea of self is an imaginary, false belief which has no corresponding, reality, and it produces harmful thoughts of 'me' and 'mine', selfish desire, craving, attachment, hatred, ill will, conceit, pride, egoism, and other defilements, impurities and problems. It is the source of all the troubles in the world from personal conflicts to wars between nations. In short, to this view can be traced all the evil in the world.

There is nothing at odds with modern science in original Buddhism as far as I can remember reading.

Could you tell me how Buddhists see rebirth, if not as transmigration? Could there ever be another kind? Just wondering because this is quite interesting.

[Zostrianos]

Could you tell me how Buddhists see rebirth, if not as transmigration? Could there ever be another kind? Just wondering because this is quite interesting.

As far as I know, it's exactly that, i.e., living in another form. Even Nirvana is seen as something you attain in this life, not after death.

[MarxSchmarx]

Most mainstream religions are widespread because they contain a kernel of justice and human decency at their core that appeal to large numbers of people. There are a handful of exceptions like Calvinism and (IMO) Hinduism, but by and large when you get down to it it's about the golden rule and all.

In this sense they are meaningfully compatible with most leftist ideologies, and anarchism probably more than others because it is less tied to materialism than, say, Marxism. Buddhism is no exception. Hell, even Mormonism, GOD-DAMN MORMONISM has been argued to be consistent with, and in fact conducive to, left-wing anarchism:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7216457


"Every Mormon should look forward to the abolition of government," Van Wagenen writes, "and the building of a socialist society based on free association and mutual cooperation."

[Tjis]

Could you tell me how Buddhists see rebirth, if not as transmigration? Could there ever be another kind? Just wondering because this is quite interesting.
This sutta attempts to explain this: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html
Buddhism does not categorically deny the existence of a soul transmigrating from existence to existence, but neither does it affirm it. Rather, it investigates the causal link that leads to the cycle of rebirth, and therefore suffering, in an attempt to break it and escape from it. Questions on the existence of a soul are considered a side track, fit for fun philosophical discussion, but not for finding the path towards the end of suffering. Therefore they are not part of the Buddha's teachings.
On the subject of a soul, the Buddhist teachings only say that such a soul can not be found in one's form, feelings, perceptions, intentions/actions or consciousness, since all these things are impermanent. Since they're impermanent, they're not a stable basis for ones happiness, and therefore they're not the soul or self, since it is considered unfit to call something 'I' or 'mine' when it is out of control.

As for Buddhist's compatibility with anarchism, the Buddha never was a social reformer. He himself came from a royal family, and many of his closest disciples came from such a background as well. He led a large community of monks that was entirely dependent on donations from society for its continued existence, and in practice this primarily meant the patronage of kings and merchants. Though the Buddha taught that Nibbana could be reached by people from all social castes, even though he accepted people from all these castes into the Sangha, and even though he was critical of the Vedic notions of divine origin of the caste system, he never tried to reform it. He couldn't - doing so would have meant an end to his base of support, and with that, the end of the way of practice he founded.

And it doesn't end there. If it hadn't been for King Ashoka deciding that Buddhism would be a cool religion for his freshly-conquered Mauryan empire there's a good chance that the religion would have died out by now. With Ashoka, the concept of the universal monarch was born (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakravartin). Basically, this is the idea that the rule of a king is justified by him protecting the Sangha within the borders of his kingdom. This idea is still around, being used to justify monarchy in Thailand for example.

All this royal patronage has shaped Buddhism, as it does with any religion. In many parts of the world, Buddhism easily matches the abrahamic religions in terms of conservatism, supporting existing ruling institutions (sometimes even actively participating in them, such as in Thailand) and spouting all kinds of racist nonsense, such as the superiority of the (Buddhist) Sinhalese people over the (Hindu) Tamil people in Sri Lanka.

However, I firmly believe that it doesn't have to be that way. The rules laid out by the Buddha for the Sangha (the Vinaya) allow the Sangha to survive and prosper in any form of society, as long as there's people willing and able to support them in their efforts. In a country like Thailand, this is currently largely an affair of the wealthy. Even though all layers of society participate in keeping the monks clothed and fed, it is only the wealthy that can make big donations such as the building of a new monastery or funding publications, and this makeup of the support base is what makes the Sangha conservative.
A socialist/communist/anarchist society would radically change this support base though. Rather than support for the Sangha largely being an affair of the wealthy, this support would be a communal affair of the entire community. This would force the Sangha to be a truly progressive influence, appealing to all people in a community rather than having to appeal to the elite first and foremost.

In short, Anarchism and Buddhism have the potential to be compatible, but they are definitely not inherently so.

[black magick hustla]

How is it that "'religious revolutionaries' today tend to be intellectuals and synthesists'" more so than atheist revolutionaries exactly...? Marxism itself was created in the 19th century from a synthesis of, as Lenin mentioned, "German philosophy, English political economy and French Socialism". I have met plenty of atheistic armchair "revolutionaries" who base 7/10 of their conception of leftist politics on the intellectual relationship between Dawkins and dialectical materialism, or some who even consider Christopher Hitchen's flirtation with neo-con imperialism only a minor sin against Marxism owing to the fact he remained a tried and true atheist. I don't see how having spiritual tendencies makes one less so of an organic revolutionary.

Marxism was simply the intellectual scaffolding given to an organic class struggle. There is no revolutionary impulse from religion today, nein. Whem marx was writing, the bourgeosie had destroyed legitimacy based on religion, and workers where pitching battles in the shopfloor

[Zealot]

To answer how your question about how one could throw out the superstition and still call oneself a Buddhist. I don't think Buddhism and Christianity are accurate comparisons. The basis of Christianity is the resurrection of Christ. Without it as Paul said, the faith is in vain. Christianity is built on superstition or rather a supernatural element. Buddhism isn't.

I could also just as easily claim that the idea of a resurrection was a later development that isn't to be taken seriously. The resurrection is only the basis of Christianity because Paulite Christians happened to advocate such a view, which eventually won out. Despite finding a certain charm in some of the teachings of Jesus, I would never venture so far as to call myself a "Christian".


The core of Buddhism isn't rebirth or karma. In the Kalma Sutra Buddha said this:

...

But it's pretty important. One of the most important goals of Nirvana was to escape the cycle of rebirth. Enlightenment may have been seen as achievable in this life, as is taught in Zen Buddhism, but was later contradicted by the bodhisattva ideal. Furthermore, Nirvana was never actually defined by Śākyamuni himself, which obviously poses further problems. However, I would advise you to read that whole piece in context to see what is being taught since it actually isn't claiming what you think it is at all. In fact, he is merely stating that regardless of your philosophical convictions following the "dharma" will bring solace.


So rebirth and karma, the two "supernatural" elements to Buddhism aren't necessary according to the Buddha himself. So, if those aren't necessary for Buddhism, then what is? The Four Noble Truths

...

Now you can agree or not with how accurate those truths are, but they aren't supernaturally based. As the Kalama Sutta points out, beliefs in a hereafter or the law of karma aren't necessary for Buddhism, even if most people in Buddha's time did believe in them, thus he framed his teachings in that context, but he did point out you could benefit and follow without believing those things. Oh, and just to clarify Dukkha is normally translated as suffering, I'm not sure how they just used a transliteration here.

Note: All quotes were taken from Wikipedia.

I don't object to the Four Noble Truths per se. But this leaves you with quite a plain revisionist form of "Buddhism".

This naive view of Buddhism doesn't really surprise me since that conception is popular in the West. It is an established religion as any complete with festivals, bodhisattva-worship, superstitious doctrine etc. It even has, in the words of my Buddhist lecturer, "one of the most elaborate systems of hell that possibly predates even the Christian version".

[ruskinoman]

Очень интересный ответ, только обоснуйте его пожалуйста.