Anti-materialism in eastern philosophy

[the Left™]

I had always wondered what leftists thought about things like Buddhist doctrine who essentially advocate mental and physical emancipation from materialism and desire. Does the idea that removing oneself from worldly struggle in Buddhism make it impossible for Buddhists and the chic hippie version that exists in urban U.S. enclaves to be revolutionary leftists? Is buddhism a form of nihlism and anti-communism? Or can these philosophical currents be absorbed into the left because of their anti-capitalist/consumerist ideologies?:confused:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Looking at the social roles Buddhism has historically played in society would probably give you the answers you're looking for.

I'm expecting it to be mostly reactionary, as is the usual for entrenched religion. But maybe someone with more familiarity can enlighten us?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

In North America, I'm pretty sure "The Middle Road" almost always translates to "The Middle Class". Though, that said, I did know somebody who convinced their parole officer they were a devout Buddhist, and was able to twist that in to "Therefore, I shouldn't have to pay this fine, for religious reasons."

[Yuppie Grinder]

In North America, I'm pretty sure "The Middle Road" almost always translates to "The Middle Class". Though, that said, I did know somebody who convinced their parole officer they were a devout Buddhist, and was able to twist that in to "Therefore, I shouldn't have to pay this fine, for religious reasons."

Swag. I knew a kid who got out of gym class for religious reasons. They asked him what religion he was and he told them they weren't legally allowed to ask a student that in this state.

[Manic Impressive]

Looking at the social roles Buddhism has historically played in society would probably give you the answers you're looking for.

I'm expecting it to be mostly reactionary, as is the usual for entrenched religion. But maybe someone with more familiarity can enlighten us?
Well even this current Dalai Lama when he was in power in Tibet ruled a feudal theocracy where debt slavery was common place. Where monks used to rape the slaves, which says that homosexual relations are unnatural, believes women are inferior to men (can't achieve enlightenment) and plenty of nasty shit. Westerners tend to cherry pick the "nice" bits of Buddhism.

[Rafiq]

I had always wondered what leftists thought about things like Buddhist doctrine who essentially advocate mental and physical emancipation from materialism and desire. Does the idea that removing oneself from worldly struggle in Buddhism make it impossible for Buddhists and the chic hippie version that exists in urban U.S. enclaves to be revolutionary leftists? Is buddhism a form of nihlism and anti-communism? Or can these philosophical currents be absorbed into the left because of their anti-capitalist/consumerist ideologies?:confused:

Disgusting shit is what it is. Even worse than that abrahamic shit.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[skitty]

I had always wondered what leftists thought about things like Buddhist doctrine who essentially advocate mental and physical emancipation from materialism and desire. Does the idea that removing oneself from worldly struggle in Buddhism make it impossible for Buddhists and the chic hippie version that exists in urban U.S. enclaves to be revolutionary leftists? Is buddhism a form of nihlism and anti-communism? Or can these philosophical currents be absorbed into the left because of their anti-capitalist/consumerist ideologies?:confused:
I believe nihilism is a pitfall that one is taught to avoid in Buddhism. You may want to check out Thich Nhat Hanh:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Nhat_Hanh

[Yuppie Grinder]

There are Nihilist Buddhists I'm pretty sure.

[skitty]

There are Nihilist Buddhists I'm pretty sure. If they're like Protestants you'll probably find a little bit of everything in there!
http://www.buddhanet.net/

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I had always wondered what leftists thought about things like Buddhist doctrine who essentially advocate mental and physical emancipation from materialism and desire. Does the idea that removing oneself from worldly struggle in Buddhism make it impossible for Buddhists and the chic hippie version that exists in urban U.S. enclaves to be revolutionary leftists? Is buddhism a form of nihlism and anti-communism? Or can these philosophical currents be absorbed into the left because of their anti-capitalist/consumerist ideologies?:confused:

Buddhism can easily be interpreted in an anti-capitalist fashion. Capitalism is based on property rights and the increase of wealth, both of which are forms of personal attachment to the world. There is also an implicit critique of class, in that class is the entrenchment of people in a certain social status when Buddhism argues that all people are potentially the same, especially if attachment to property is done away with (hence the reason monks were supposed to have vows of poverty)

That said, religious institutions ultimately reflect the material realities of their society. To gain a substantial following as well as the economic resources to thrive they need their religion to be "relatable" to the ruling class.


Looking at the social roles Buddhism has historically played in society would probably give you the answers you're looking for.

I'm expecting it to be mostly reactionary, as is the usual for entrenched religion. But maybe someone with more familiarity can enlighten us?

Looking at the social roles of the religion doesn't tell us a lot about the ideas within the religion because those ideas get increasingly reworked and reinterpreted over time to fit the needs of economic and political power once monastic institutions become patronized by the state.


Well even this current Dalai Lama when he was in power in Tibet ruled a feudal theocracy where debt slavery was common place. Where monks used to rape the slaves, which says that homosexual relations are unnatural, believes women are inferior to men (can't achieve enlightenment) and plenty of nasty shit. Westerners tend to cherry pick the "nice" bits of Buddhism.

What? You're saying Buddhist institutions in a feudal economy and politics end up reflecting those material relations and not the philosophical positions of the founder? :rolleyes: A lot of Zen Buddhists in Japan supported WWII even though the war was against the nation in which the sect of their religion originated. When religion gets involved in politics its always going to take on the worst aspects of the political economy in which it is involved. Feudalism was the mode of production in Tibet at the time for material reasons and as such feudalism was the economic policy of the ruling class, which happened to be monks. That there were extremes and excesses is as unsurprising as the fact that the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Confucians also committed nasty abuses.

Also Tibetan Buddhism doesn't say homosexuality is unnatural, it says all sex is a form of attachment, hence the reason monks are supposed to be celibate in hetero and homosexual relations alike.


Disgusting shit is what it is. Even worse than that abrahamic shit.


Do you know what you're talking about regarding this??? It's also amusing to see you take such a moralistic stance towards a 2600 year old religion. I would recommend reading up on how Buddhism was an important critique of the social control of Brahmins in ancient India as well as the historical conditions which caused Buddhist ideology to degrade over time.

Yeah Buddhists believed some reactionary nonsense, but Aristotle said a lot of reactionary nonsense too ... that's no reason to dismiss everything he said as "disgusting shit" or some nonsense like that. Sometimes you're a really thoughtful poster but other times you just post stuff with no content or understanding of the context.


There are Nihilist Buddhists I'm pretty sure.

There are many sects and interpretations of the religion. There are different types of nihilism too.

[Sea]

I had always wondered what leftists thought about things like Buddhist doctrine who essentially advocate mental and physical emancipation from materialism and desire. Does the idea that removing oneself from worldly struggle in Buddhism make it impossible for Buddhists and the chic hippie version that exists in urban U.S. enclaves to be revolutionary leftists? Is buddhism a form of nihlism and anti-communism? Or can these philosophical currents be absorbed into the left because of their anti-capitalist/consumerist ideologies?:confused:I think you might be confusing historical materialism with commodity fetishism.

[Manic Impressive]

Buddhism can easily be interpreted in an anti-capitalist fashion. Capitalism is based on property rights and the increase of wealth, both of which are forms of personal attachment to the world. There is also an implicit critique of class, in that class is the entrenchment of people in a certain social status when Buddhism argues that all people are potentially the same, especially if attachment to property is done away with (hence the reason monks were supposed to have vows of poverty)
There's also a strong tradition of this within Christianity and yes it can be interpreted as anti capitalist. Almost anything can, I interpret the Rocky films as being anti-capitalist. However they're not (at least not intentionally) and neither is Christianity or Buddhism or any other form of idealistic rubbish.



What? You're saying Buddhist institutions in a feudal economy and politics end up reflecting those material relations and not the philosophical positions of the founder? :rolleyes: A lot of Zen Buddhists in Japan supported WWII even though the war was against the nation in which the sect of their religion originated. When religion gets involved in politics its always going to take on the worst aspects of the political economy in which it is involved. Feudalism was the mode of production in Tibet at the time for material reasons and as such feudalism was the economic policy of the ruling class, which happened to be monks. That there were extremes and excesses is as unsurprising as the fact that the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Confucians also committed nasty abuses.
Obviously, I don't think one religion is better than any other, do you? You seem to think that by pointing out Buddhisms crimes against humanity which were still occurring within the last 100 years that I am somehow condoning those of other religions? I believe slavery is still ok in Buddhism where even the Catholic church has renounced it.


Also Tibetan Buddhism doesn't say homosexuality is unnatural, it says all sex is a form of attachment, hence the reason monks are supposed to be celibate in hetero and homosexual relations alike.
I am of course referring to the 1993 Dalai Lama incident where he said;

nature arranged male and female sex organs that is very suitable, same sex organs cannot manage well
This caused a bit of a shitstorm so the Llama clarified by adding

We have to make a distinction between believers and unbelievers. From a Buddhist point of view, men to men and woman to woman is generally considered misconduct
In Theravada Buddhism (South East Asia) Buddha opposed homosexuals or what today we would call Trans people from becoming priests or nuns.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

There's also a strong tradition of this within Christianity and yes it can be interpreted as anti capitalist. Almost anything can, I interpret the Rocky films as being anti-capitalist. However they're not (at least not intentionally) and neither is Christianity or Buddhism or any other form of idealistic rubbish.


A religion is not the same as a rocky film. Within all religions are theories and arguments often as complex as Marxism and Hegelianism (and Hegelianism was based on what you're referring to as "idealistic rubbish" - certain notions of Christianity and the Christian interpretation of history) and those beliefs are designed around certain themes. The theme of critiquing metaphysical detachment has obvious relevance to notions of property rights, as evidenced by the fact that monks must take a vow of poverty to "gain enlightenment".

Every religious institution is a reflection of its material conditions but every religion as a set of theologies and philosophies has certain theoretical approaches to objects in the world, psychology, relations between people, the "perfect society" and claims of metaphysical truth. It's important to understand that religious ideas reflect the time in history in which they arise and that religious institutions reflect the time of history in which they exist but that critical understanding does not mean we write off everything that is said as "idealistic rubbish". That's just ad hominem against religious thinkers and laypeople (and, no offense, it lacks the philosophically interesting aspects of Marx's critique of religion)



Obviously, I don't think one religion is better than any other, do you? You seem to think that by pointing out Buddhisms crimes against humanity which were still occurring within the last 100 years that I am somehow condoning those of other religions? I believe slavery is still ok in Buddhism where even the Catholic church has renounced it.
"Buddhism" never committed crimes against humanity. Saying that is idealism. Buddhists committed abuses because they were a part of a political economy with a limited mode of production (and in the case of Tibet they were in harsh, isolated terrain with no international trade) thus extracting surplus value was not as easy as it was in a Capitalist society with advanced technology, fertile land and an organized system of finance and trade.

I don't know about the issue of slavery but it is illegal in all majority Buddhist countries. Also Buddhism, unlike Catholicism, has no doctrinal authority, so saying "slavery is still ok in Buddhism" is strange. It's not like the Dalai Lama says "Buddha's skin was blue" and every Buddhist around the world must follow him.

Also don't you think that the term "crime against humanity" is necessarily an idealistic concept insofar as it posits some idealistic set of laws which transcend the society in which it is taking place?



I am of course referring to the 1993 Dalai Lama incident where he said;

This caused a bit of a shitstorm so the Llama clarified by adding
(1) Not every Buddhist around the world agrees with his argument regarding this. Tibetan Buddhism is remote and is only a very particular sect of the religion which is grounded on Tantric mysticism and ancient Tibetan shamanism. Even within Tibetan Buddhism there are many factions which do not follow the Dalai Lama or only listen to him contingently.

(2) People say stupid, ignorant, bigoted shit. Karl Marx said some stupid things but one would be a fool to write off everything he said because of it. To take such a moralistic approach to one person's beliefs is kind of the inversion of what the Tibetan Buddhists who follow him do - turning him into a devil instead of a God. The Dalai Lama is just an old monk who has said and done some interesting things and some things which people are rightly critical of.

(3) Castro's regime was throwing gay people in labor camps in the 60s and 70s ... I'm sure you don't excuse that behavior by the Cuban regime but I'm sure you understand that moralistically writing off all Marxist theorists and Cuban Communists due to that fact would be inane and stupid. Or are communist crimes against humanity somehow different?


In Theravada Buddhism (South East Asia) Buddha opposed homosexuals or what today we would call Trans people from becoming priests or nuns.Southeast Asia was also one of the places where, despite severe discrimination, trans people were allowed to be themselves. Buddha also never spoke on transexuality. That Buddhism has it's conservatives shouldn't be a surprise but that doesn't mean that Buddhism is doctrinally opposed to homosexuality.