Communism and Buddhism

[insurgency03]

Communism and Bhuddism share common goals in ideals, the equel treatment of mankind, the denouncement of material goods and slefish desires, and the urge for humanity to work toghther. The question I have is why it has been so downtrodden in the last 60 years by china, who could found a great ally in bhuddists to help spread their cause. And its not even a religion, its a philosophy, so its no opposition to communism, at leat to my knowledge anyways.

[Meursault]

I have read some of the teachings of Buddha, and I must agree. In many ways Buddhism is more of a way of life than a religion. It's all about conquering the mind :

Though he should conquer a thousand men in the battlefield a thousand times, yet he, indeed, who would conquer himself is the noblest victor.

[Dhammapada, The Teachings of Buddha.]

However, it is very difficult to conquer the mind, making Buddhism a challenging way of life to follow :

Hard is birth as man, Hard is the life of mortals, Hard is the hearing of the Sublime Truth, Hard is the appearance of a Buddha.

[Dhammapada, The Teachings of Buddha.]

As for the Chinese thing, I suggest you examine Mao's domestic policies.

[ComradeRed]

I know MysticArcher practices Buddhism, and I must agree. Nichiren Buddhism is all about peace and happiness, namely happiness. That you make yourself happy, it is not materials that make you happy, that type of happiness is called 'rapture and hunger'. It is a good philosophy.

[Wenty]

In many ways Buddhism is more of a way of life than a religion

As opposed to Islam or Christianity where religion is just a hobby. Maybe you meant something different.

[insurgency03]

Bhuddism is not a religion at all, its a philosophy, the bhudda has been diefied in some forms of Bhuddism thoughm but it is not the correct interpreation, at least in my opinion anyways. Bhudda never advocated a diety, nor de he claim himself 2 b a God

[Wenty]

Bhuddism is not a religion at all, its a philosophy

Interesting, this view depends much on your definition of both.

[redstar2000]

Communism and Buddhism share common goals in ideals, the equal treatment of mankind, the denouncement of material goods and selfish desires, and the urge for humanity to work together.

No, I don't think so. I don't see much in common there at all, actually.

If you want to provide some real evidence, I'm certainly willing to listen.

But Buddhism (in various forms) has been around even longer than Christianity...with no suggestion of communism or anything even remotely resembling communism as a consequence.

If you want to be a Buddhist (of some sort), go right ahead. But don't kid yourself that you picked out the "communist religion".

There's no such thing.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Severian]

AFAIK, Buddhism says:

Life is suffering. Suffering is caused by wanting and trying to get what you want.

When you die, you will be reincarnated. If you are good and follow the eightfold path, you may be reincarnated as a higher-class individual, and suffer a little less. Conversely, if you are a lower-class individual or a woman, it is because you were sinful in past lives (bad karma).

Perfect for telling peasants to endure suffering in silence.

And, of course, the upper classes are happy to have priests telling the peasants that material goods are not important. You should concentrate on your spiritual life, not your empty stomach! Stop wanting and grasping! Only nirvana can end your suffering!

On the other hand, there is stuff against India's caste system, etc., which may be interpreted as a progressive side of early Buddhism. Like Christianity, it may have initially reflected the discontent of the oppressed.

However, Buddhism has developed a professional priesthood, like other religions, which tends to defend the status quo and the upper classes. For example, in Sri Lanka, Buddhist clergy are involved in whipping up pogroms against Tamils.

And don't get me started on Tibet and that serfowning theocrat called the Dalai Lama. (http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/3.1_freetibet.html)

As in Tibet, so elsewhere in China: the Buddhist clergy didn't act like a potential ally of communism, but as a part of the privileged classes. Which it is. By their fruits ye shall know them.

Buddhism is probably no better and no worse than other religions. And yes, it is a religion. What's the difference between a boddhisatva and a god, in practice? And of course the belief in a supernatural afterlife. Most of all...it's a system of faith-based beliefs preached by a clergy.

Unlike Redstar, I don't think religion is the root of all evil or that it's useful to incessently denounce, much less ban, religion. Rather, religion is a symptom of the problems of class society, and will disappear only when its social roots are removed, i.e. class society is overthrown.

But religion - any religion - ain't the solution in the modern world, either.

BTW, did you know Steven Seagal has been officially declared a reincarnate lama? :lol:

[SittingBull47]

buddhism accepts all religious ideas and believes in a sort of passive existence. It's the most open minded philosophy the world has ever known, and thats why i'm proud to take part in it.

[Guest1]

Meh, I had some more respect for Buddhism than I did any other religions. Then I started reading a book about it, and was told that if I am a good Buddhist, I would be reincarnated into a rich and powerful family.

Pulled out my zippo and was ready to use it before my friend reminded me it was his book <_<

[insurgency03]

Good point, despite it can be used as a force of manipulation(all faiths can, but that is not the true purpose of they&#39;re creators) it can also be used as a force pf hope and unity, and endurence. I have no love for theocrats, dont get me worng there(one of my life goals os to shove that stupid hat up John Pauls ass b4 he dies). I merely think the persecution of the people is wrong, they did the Tibetens somewhat of a service driving out the Dali Lama My philosophy on religion is that even though it has been used for so much evil and so much control, it has its place in the world, and Bhuddism seems to drown quite a bit on capatilism( more than christianity and its many paradoxs) and it does not endorse personal gain. I&#39;m not saying theres such thing as a communist religion, i&#39;m just saying that it shares some common philososphy&#39;s, so why should china hate it so much.

[Meursault]

I think that Buddhism is more of a way of life than Christianity and Islam in that it does not involve the worshipping of a supreme being, and is therefore more flexible and less clogged up with mumbo jumbo.

[redstar2000]

Unlike Redstar, I don&#39;t think religion is the root of all evil or that it&#39;s useful to incessantly denounce, much less ban, religion. Rather, religion is a symptom of the problems of class society, and will disappear only when its social roots are removed, i.e. class society is overthrown.

Indeed.

Can class society be overthrown and stay overthrown by a "pious proletariat"?

If the social role of superstition is always reactionary, then do we as communists not have the obligation to "incessantly denounce it" and, if the working class agrees, to "ban" its public manifestations?

It&#39;s common enough in the history of the left for people to say "oh, first we&#39;ll overthrow capitalism and then we&#39;ll take care of all that other stuff...or it will all just go away by itself".

Yeah, sure. :huh:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Wenty]

I think that Buddhism is more of a way of life than Christianity and Islam in that it does not involve the worshipping of a supreme being

To my knowledge it still involves worshipping of some sorts. Besides this my point was that all the other religions are a way of life too.

[che's long lost daughter]

I have always been fascinated with Buddhism. I agree, it&#39;s not a religion but a way of life but if ever it is considered a religion, in my opinion, it is the most un-hypocritical of all religions. The only thing I do not like about the buddhist philosophy is how it tells people to do good things in order to have good karma. It is like saying that people should do good things to be rewarded. For me if you do something good, it must be that you choose to do it and liked doing it, meaning there is sincerity, and not because you&#39;d get rewards.

[Danton]

Right, and you don&#39;t get rewarded or punished until the next life&#33;

It&#39;s another control system albeit with fancy crimson robes and inscense, it teaches you to empty your mind through repetition and simple hypnosis until your a passive unquestioning dullard..

As for mumbo jumbo, Bhuddism is right up there with Hare Kristna, giant cows sitting on the earth and multi armed blue skinned gods&#33;

Enlightenment is another word for mental breakdown..

[Guest1]

Other than a way to calm down in this hectic world, it provides nothing Communists should be looking for.

It definitely is a religion though, because of all the bullshit about reincarnation and the like.

As for it not being contradictory, what about telling people material wealth is undesirable, then telling them they&#39;ll be rewarded with it in their next life?

[Meursault]

Of course Buddhism is a religion. Of course religion is a way of life. Obviously.

However, it has not always been so. For centuries religion has been stamped down on the people. Take for instance Medieval Europe and the Spanish Inquisition. Religion was an instrument of fear. It was used primarily to control the masses. It was a deadly weapon. Believe this, or die. Pay the Church or else. You are exocommunicated, you can expect hordes of Christian madmen to arrive shortly in your country, and rob it blind. The people were too scared to even consider asking questions. They were dark times.

Yet, Christianity also gave the people something to live for. The promise of a better life after death made sure that the masses were devout. If not, they could expect some good old torture.

Buddhism on the other hand, doesn&#39;t involve any of that fanatical &#39;stamping&#39;. Buddhism is a path you can take if you want, it isn&#39;t mandatory. That&#39;s what makes Buddhism more of a &#39;way of life&#39;. The Teachings of Buddha is a handbook to life. It&#39;s recommended reading, nothing more. Free will is the key term here.

I often peruse the Teachings of Buddha for good advice, but I&#39;m not a Buddhist.

[Meursault]

By the way Danton. I suggest you read the Teachings of Buddha before you make any more of those comments.

[Wenty]

For centuries religion has been stamped down on the people

Yes but this doesn&#39;t mean it is a part of what religion, specifically Christianity, fundamentally is as you suggest here:-



Buddhism on the other hand, doesn&#39;t involve any of that fanatical &#39;stamping&#39;

Moreover, I&#39;m sure that Buddhism has been used in the same way Christianity was in Medieval times etc.

[Meursault]

Yes but this doesn&#39;t mean it is a part of what religion, specifically Christianity, fundamentally is as you suggest here:-

I am not defining religion. I am merely explaining how in many ways Buddhism is a more of a way of life than a religion, in that it involves more free will. A way of life is something you choose for yourself, not someone else.


Moreover, I&#39;m sure that Buddhism has been used in the same way Christianity was in Medieval times etc.

I await proof.

[Danton]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 09:52 PM
By the way Danton. I suggest you read the Teachings of Buddha before you make any more of those comments.
I suggest you read the teachings of Marx, Engels,Proudhon, Bakunin, Malatesta..
This is afterall what we are about here..

I did actually dabble in Buddhism several years ago, then I woke up and realized that sitting around in uncomfortable positions shaven headed and pious wasn&#39;t going to change much... And If I thought I needed your permission to comment I would have asked, oh annointed one..

[Snark]

It&#39;s sort of interesting.... I practice my own sort of ad-hoc blend of Buddhism, Taoism, deep Ecology, and Zen, and the practical application of those philosophies have led me to a sort of anarchist, communalist sort of political philosophy. I&#39;m not sure I completely agree with the idea that Communism is compatible in all respects, but they could certainly inform each other.

[Wenty]

I am not defining religion. I am merely explaining how...

This doesn&#39;t answer my objection that you were equating acts done in the name of christianity with what christianity fundamentally is.

[Meursault]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 01:22 PM
I suggest you read the teachings of Marx, Engels,Proudhon, Bakunin, Malatesta..
This is afterall what we are about here..


No? Really? I never knew.

Oh, hold on a minute, isn&#39;t this thread about Buddhism?


I did actually dabble in Buddhism several years ago, then I woke up and realized that sitting around in uncomfortable positions shaven headed and pious wasn&#39;t going to change much... And If I thought I needed your permission to comment I would have asked, oh annointed one..

I&#39;m not a Buddhist, I am not a champion for Buddhism and nor will I be offended in any way if you confuse Buddhism with Hinduism. However, for the sake of people who are, I merely suggest that you actually do some research before typing. This avoids potential conflicts, and keeps the thread nice and calm.


This doesn&#39;t answer my objection that you were equating acts done in the name of christianity with what christianity fundamentally is.

I am not equating acts done in the name of Christianity with what Christianity fundamentally is, although stamping down has happened and continues to happen in many places around the world, both indirectly and directly. I am merely contrasting Buddhism with the rather agressive history of Christianity hence supporting my belief that Buddhism is more liberal and free.

Ideally, one should be able to choose his or her own way of life. That&#39;s what I mean by a way of life.

[Wenty]

it was implied within what you said, never mind.

I remember reading about violence done in the name of Buddhism from somewhere. I would look for evidence on the net but I find the sources dubious sometimes.

[Danton]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 05:51 PM
I am not a champion for Buddhism and nor will I be offended in any way if you confuse Buddhism with Hinduism. .
Easy to do since Buddhism is derived from the Hinduism.. Or had you not researched that?

[Meursault]

Easy to do if you are an imbecile.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 03:50 PM
Buddhism on the other hand, doesn&#39;t involve any of that fanatical &#39;stamping&#39;. Buddhism is a path you can take if you want, it isn&#39;t mandatory. That&#39;s what makes Buddhism more of a &#39;way of life&#39;. The Teachings of Buddha is a handbook to life. It&#39;s recommended reading, nothing more. Free will is the key term here.
That&#39;s simply not true. At various times and places in history, Buddhist priests have persecuted non-Buddhists, just like the Inquisition, etc., you mention in your posts. And, at times, one sect of Buddhists have persecuted another. E.g. the Yellow Hat sect sacking other monasteries to consolidate its hold, after being installed in power by Mongol invaders.

Currently, the "Buddhist kingdom" of Bhutan is ethnically cleansing its Hindu minority. Originally from the Washington Post. (http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1994/4/4_1.html)

I think a lot of people in the West consider Buddhism progressive because its new, fashionable, and they really don&#39;t know anything about how it&#39;s been practiced where it&#39;s the majority religion. The Buddhist clergy seems quite willing to say one thing in North America and Europe, and another in Asia.

For example, in India: The Dalai Lama condemns religious conversion, says keep your traditional religion, sides with Muslim-bashing Hindu ultrarightists. (http://http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2001/1/26_2.html)"

While in North America, Tibetan Buddhism seeks converts.

Or: the Dalai Lama forbids Tibetans to worship the deity Dorje Shugden. Those who persist have been targets of violence and intimidation.

But European and North American converts, on the other hand...."As for foreigners, it makes no difference to us if they walk with their feet up and their head down. We have taught Dharma to them, not they to us. " Just lovely how much respect he has for the people who pay his bills, ain&#39;t it? Maybe a carryover from when it was serfs who put food on his table......

[pandora]

As a Buddhist and a Socialist this topic interested me, I&#39;m not a good Buddhist or a good Socialist because i am too rebelious and opinionated, but i do think the idea of using the idea of karma to keep people from wanting to make social change is valid.
Really it&#39;s mostly those whose understanding is at a certain level that accept that poor people are poor from stealing. On a deeper level one realizes every thought we think creates a new reality for ourselves.
This is how Buddhism interacts with a Revolutionary Praxis, we create our own reality or are stuck in the old reality.
It doesn&#39;t matter if you become wealthy in Buddhism because you will eventually get old die and be born poor or as an animal, so blaming people for being stuck in the cycle of suffering is stupid, we&#39;re all stuck.
The two theories coincide with two important ideas:
No rest until liberation
We have to put all our energy towards liberation for all people or beings, we can not allow them to suffer anymore.
For the record many Buddhist Lamas are now making political statements against the greed and oppression in the world in a similar way to MLK and Ghandhi. They see the world in an almost scientific way and see it wrong for so many to suffer for the few, referring to those of us living it up in the 1st world esp. those eating animals. They also are making it clear we are destroying our planet because our philosophy has not kept pace with our technology as far as mental progression towards helping others. Going for a walk with a Buddhist nun tom. I&#39;ll mention these questions here to her.

[Hiero]

I think buddhism went wrong when teh world changed and it didnt, and the buddha practicly said while he didnt say it straight out as his sect or whateve wasnt called buddhsim, but he said that buddhism is mean tot change as time went own and to many monks and what not havent allowed it to change. I also blame governments for not letting it chang

Some things fo buddhims i like, but there is some really shit stuff in there which should of changed as time went on like the employer and worker relationship and job ethic.

[Hiero]

I think the best eachings of the buddha which should be taken serioulsy are the teachings of impermence and some teachings of self control.

[Fidelbrand]

Buddhism (the original version) aims at Nirvana - a phase outside of this world ........where there is no suffering or death, via self-control and good discipline.
Communism aims at a better society in this secular world.

Nietzsche once said that Buddhism is less decandent than Chrsitianity 9as it entails a philosophy to life), but still, it is a decadent religious entity. ;)

In this light, I don&#39;t see the corelation beteen the 2.

[cubist]

i notice an minor arguement about All religions being a way of life,

personally i disagree

I see meursault and wenty having a ickle debate about it.

i personally think that christianity and islam (all though i know little about islam i understand its purpose and concepts are similar to christianity.) are not ways of living as they have an easy route out unlike budhism

buddism from what i have learnt is about inner you and living you life like a man did (buddha) yet christianity has this easy route, the dear jesus i am sorry for my sins which aren&#39;t my fault please forgive me so i can go to heaven, that encourages no change in living structure thus i think that it not a way of life unlike buddhism

[Danton]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 08:58 PM
Easy to do if you are an imbecile.
:lol: Thanks.. I see your fresh out of reasoned argument.. I won&#39;t descend to calling you a fucking plum.. Oh, I just did.. Well karma will take care of me I&#39;m sure, I always fancied being a bumblebee in the next life.. :lol:

[God of Imperia]

Communism is a way of life, but it is also a political system
Buddhism is also a way of life, but it&#39;s goal is reaching the nirvana, a non-earthly thing
Buddhism (or something like it) would fit good in a communistic society ...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by God of [email protected] 28 2004, 06:40 PM
Communism is a way of life, but it is also a political system
Buddhism is also a way of life, but it&#39;s goal is reaching the nirvana, a non-earthly thing
Buddhism (or something like it) would fit good in a communistic society ...
religion or myths have no place in a communist society. They distract people from the truth.

In fact, I do not think that these things will even be thought about in a communist society. People very often use religion as some form of justification for the shit that is happening in their lives. This higher spirit, nirvana, heaven bullshit will have no place, because it will not be needed. People will be able to pput their faith in their communities and their lives on earth, rather than on gods and myths...

[Solace]

People very often use religion as some form of justification for the shit that is happening in their lives.

Exactly.

In Buddhism, it is even more true. People accept their social status as a consequence of their previous life.

A worker will passively accept his situation thinking that he must have been "bad". Furthermore, the highest stage one can aim for in the reincarnation cycle is to be a wealthy man.

EDIT:
*cough* Yeah, I didn&#39;t read the whole thread and this point was already brought up.

[God of Imperia]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 28 2004, 08:46 PM
religion or myths have no place in a communist society. They distract people from the truth.
so, you&#39;re saying that in communism there is no place for a religion? What are you going to do, forbid any kind of it? Will you forbid people to believe in something greater than life?

[God of Imperia]

I know, buddhisme may not be the perfect religion (I guess none is), but it is a step in a good direction, it is the most peaceful and tolerant of these days ...

[Solace]

it is the most peaceful and tolerant of these days

This is not at all about peace or tolerance. All religions advocate peace and tolerance in theory.

No religion can ever be a step in the right direction. They all turn the people&#39;s attention from the blunt reality, blocking the way for any social uprising.

Numerous thread were made on the subject. You might wanna check them.

[Wenty]

yet christianity has this easy route...that encourages no change in living structure thus i think that it not a way of life unlike buddhism

Christianity forces you to change your living structure; basically the whole bible deals with instructions on how you should live your life, so i disagree with this cephas.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 06:55 PM

People very often use religion as some form of justification for the shit that is happening in their lives.

Exactly.

In Buddhism, it is even more true. People accept their social status as a consequence of their previous life.

A worker will passively accept his situation thinking that he must have been "bad". Furthermore, the highest stage one can aim for in the reincarnation cycle is to be a wealthy man.

EDIT:
*cough* Yeah, I didn&#39;t read the whole thread and this point was already brought up.
That a distortion and you know it. The highest stage would be a wealthy man? What the hell are you talking about. Buddhism is the one religion that doesn&#39;t subjegate people. Anyone can reach nirvana, not just the priests, not just the monks, not just the wealthy. Anyone can reach nirvana even in this life time, even under their current conditions.

Also it would do me no good to reborn as a wealthy person. If I was reborn wealthy wouldn&#39;t I be more likely to be clouded from the Buddha&#39;s teachings? I could be elitist, I could be immoral, I could disregard all the knowledge that has propelled me towards enlightenment. However if I am born as someone who has a need to search spiritualley then I&#39;d be more likely to see clearly.

Hinduism is another story, the caste system was based on the process of reincarnation.


Not to mention general Buddhist teachings says that right action is necassary, however it doens&#39;t necassarily define any particular sins, which means that I have to determine for myself what is right and wrong action. It takes deep conteplation tor ealize the right path for yourself.

Right action could be liberating the proletariat...and for me it is.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 08:53 PM

it is the most peaceful and tolerant of these days

This is not at all about peace or tolerance. All religions advocate peace and tolerance in theory.

No religion can ever be a step in the right direction. They all turn the people&#39;s attention from the blunt reality, blocking the way for any social uprising.

Numerous thread were made on the subject. You might wanna check them.
No they turn attention from what you percieve to be reality. Simply because you say that x is true doesn&#39;t mean that x is true and y is false. To me y may be true and x may be false. Reality is a perception, and you cna&#39;t fault different people for having different views of reality. Especially since Buddhism urges people to find their own path.,

[Lardlad95]

I see that most peoplle think that Buddhism is one simple thing, which it isn&#39;t. Just like Christianity isn&#39;t, look at Gnosticism it completely denounnced Clergy, Hierarchy, and Subjegation

Nichiren Buddhists believe that all beings are equal, no matter if you are a woman or a man or white or black or gay or straight or whatever. You will attain enlightenment it&#39;s even possible in this lifetime.

Also Nichiren buddhists believe that all of the buddhas teachings were expedients, ie teachings molded to fit the capacity of the beings that were learning from the buddha at the time.

Not everyone learns the same, so teh Buddha explained it in different ways so that different people could start their path.

[Guest1]

No one is saying Buddhism is particularly bad, simplay that calling Buddhism the most progressive of religions doesn&#39;t say much.

It&#39;s like saying, look at me, I&#39;m the least racist of all the KKK grand dragons&#33;

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 04:28 PM
That a distortion and you know it. The highest stage would be a wealthy man? What the hell are you talking about. Buddhism is the one religion that doesn&#39;t subjegate people. Anyone can reach nirvana, not just the priests, not just the monks, not just the wealthy. Anyone can reach nirvana even in this life time, even under their current conditions.

From Encarta Encyclopedia:(link) (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552895/Buddhism.html#s2)
"In theory, the goal of nirvana is attainable by anyone, although it is a realistic goal only for members of the monastic community."

Some living monks are designated as "enlightened." As you might expect, designating particular people as especially wise results in further hierrarchy.

About this "way of life" stuff: I&#39;ve met plenty of Christians who say that Christianity isn&#39;t a religion, it&#39;s a way of life, or a personal relationship with God, etc. Similarly with Muslims.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 04:35 PM
Nichiren Buddhists believe that all beings are equal, no matter if you are a woman or a man or white or black or gay or straight or whatever. You will attain enlightenment it&#39;s even possible in this lifetime.
Again, from Encarta: "Notable among these is Sôka Gakkai, the Value Creation Society, a lay movement associated with Nichiren Buddhism. It is noted for its effective organization, aggressive conversion techniques, and use of mass media, as well as for its nationalism. It promises material benefit and worldly happiness to its believers. Since 1956 it has been involved in Japanese politics, running candidates for office under the banner of its Kômeitô, or Clean Government Party."

That&#39;s my experience with Nichiren proselytizers I&#39;ve met in the US as well, and the brochures they hand out. They emphasize that by chanting you can get money or whatever you want. It&#39;s like a Buddhist equivalent of a Christian televangelists&#39; "prosperity gospel." (Send me money and the LORD will give you even more money.)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 02:12 AM
For the record many Buddhist Lamas are now making political statements against the greed and oppression in the world in a similar way to MLK and Ghandhi. They see the world in an almost scientific way and see it wrong for so many to suffer for the few, referring to those of us living it up in the 1st world esp. those eating animals. They also are making it clear we are destroying our planet because our philosophy has not kept pace with our technology as far as mental progression towards helping others.
Sure, many Buddhist clergy make vaguely progressive-sounding statements. Most are, at best, liberals.

The Dalai Lama&#39;s huge on this kind of statements, but actions speak louder than words. He didn&#39;t act on any of this progressive-sounding stuff when he was in power.

He&#39;s even been known to say nice things about Marxism. Esp. during the late 70s, after the CIA cut off his support due to the Mao-Nixon pact.

The reason for the DL&#39;s statements: he was trying to get the USSR to be his new sponsor against China.

But I don&#39;t rule out the possibility that some Buddhist clergy could play some politically progressive role. Or clergy of other religions, for that matter.

Certainly many religious working people have taken part in revolutions and other struggles. It&#39;s even possible for a religious person to agree with the political program of communism. I think it&#39;s important for Marxists to be able to work and fight alongside them, without being rude about their sincerely-held beliefs.

Philosophically, religion&#39;s not compatible with Marxism&#39;s world outlook and method of thought. And I think the method is important for clearly understanding the world and figuring out strategy as we go along.

Mostly, I&#39;ve posted in this thread to oppose the idea that Buddhism, in itself, is progressive or similar to communism. I think it&#39;s important for Marxists to be clear about that. And I guess there&#39;s something about the way Buddhism&#39;s so fashionable that bugs me.

I haven&#39;t meant to be rude about it - well, maybe about a certain deposed serfowning theocrat - and if I have been, sorry and y&#39;know how easy it is to do that on the internet.

[redstar2000]

Certainly many religious working people have taken part in revolutions and other struggles. It&#39;s even possible for a religious person to agree with the political program of communism. I think it&#39;s important for Marxists to be able to work and fight alongside them, without being rude about their sincerely-held beliefs.

"Rudeness", however, is in the eye of the beholder...as we&#39;ve often seen on this board.

Marxists can certainly "soft-pedal" our atheism...but our class enemies are not about to pass over the matter in discreet silence. They&#39;ll scream it: "communism will destroy religion&#33;"

They can read just as well as we can...meaning they can locate all the "diabolical" quotations and publicize them at length.

Again, I remind you of the venom being poured on the head of Venezuela&#39;s Chavez (a simple populist reformer) by the Catholic hierarchy there. Poor Chavez can&#39;t make a public appearance any more without his plastic baby Jesus doll now...and it doesn&#39;t help.

That should give you a pretty good idea of what they&#39;ll be saying about us as soon as we appear on their radar.

Consequently, I see nothing to be gained by diplomacy or discretion here. Since we are going to be attacked anyway, why not go ahead and attack them first?

Yes, it may temporarily cost us some "popularity"...maybe quite a bit. But in the long and convoluted history of revolutionary politics, it seems to me that honesty works best...at least in the long run.

If we attempt to pretend a tolerance for that which we really despise, people will find us out.

Betrayal creates worse enemies than honest opposition.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 09:03 PM
If we attempt to pretend a tolerance for that which we really despise, people will find us out.
Good ol&#39; Redstar, constantly seeking to derail all threads into a discussion of his pet hobbyhorses. When it&#39;s not "religion must be banned", it&#39;s "down with Leninism". But what the heck:

I&#39;m certainly not advocating anyone "pretend" anything. Rather that it&#39;s best to be tolerant, even of beliefs we don&#39;t share.

I certainly don&#39;t hide what I think of religion or anything else...unlike you, who, as I&#39;ve pointed out before, seem to be soft-pedaling what you think of Che and the Cuban Revolution in order to fit in on these boards.

The capitalists can scream all they want that communists will destroy religion, as you put it, but in fact it is stone non-believers who can be the greatest enforcers of religious freedom. We simply aim to destroy oppression and exploitation...without which religion cannot survive, but the capitalists and clergy are hardly going to say that.

We can be the most tolerant, because we are not attempting to save anyone&#39;s soul, or protect the faithful from the preachers of heresies or competing religions.

Unless one turns atheism or communism into just another religion...that is, a system of faith-based beliefs preached by a clergy, as I defined it earlier when discussing whether Buddhism&#39;s a religion. Such a religion may well be intolerant of others.


Since we are going to be attacked anyway, why not go ahead and attack them first?

There&#39;s tactics, for starters, the advantage of seeming on the defensive. The same reason you don&#39;t armed struggle while there&#39;s still a modicum of bourgeois democracy. Um. Maybe the Maoists taught you the opposite.

If they clergy go out of their way to attack us, then it&#39;s on them, it&#39;s clear they&#39;re acting as servants and defenders of property. If we start it, they can claim they&#39;re attacking us in defense of religious freedom, not property.

With the right approach, we can say as Rosa Luxemburg did:

The workers can easily satisfy themselves that the struggle of the clergy against the Social-Democrats is in no way provoked by the latter. The Social-Democrats have placed themselves the objective of drawing together and organizing the workers in the struggle against capital, that is to say, against the exploiters who squeeze them down to the last drop of blood, and in the struggle against the Czarist government, which holds the people to ransom. But never do the Social-Democrats drive the workers to fight against clergy, or try to interfere with religious beliefs; not at all&#33;
.....
It is precisely the Social-Democrats who come out most strongly in favour of freedom of conscience. Therefore it would seem as if the clergy ought to lend their to the Social-Democrats who are trying to enlighten the toiling people.
.....
However we see the clergy on the one hand, excommunicating and persecuting the Social-Democrats, and, on the other hand, commanding the workers to suffer in patience, that is, to let themselves patiently be exploited by the capitalists....The bishops and the priests are not the propagators of Christian teaching, but the worshippers of the Golden Calf[5] and of the Knout which whips the poor and defenceless.

From "Socialism and the Churches" by Rosa Luxemburg, an excellent example of how to do antireligious propaganda. (http://www.newyouth.com/archives/classics/luxemburg/socialismandthechurches.html)

As for those "diabolical quotes"....have you looked at the context around Marx&#39;s infamous "opium" quote? link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/law-abs.htm) Taken in context, Marx has a much less one-sided view of religion.

[TC]

Buddhism is an anti-materialist position that tells people to feel okay with any material goods they have and not to desire material things, to be content and eliminate desire. It is a religion of complacenty, of peasents who want to stay peasents so they might drop out of the reincarnation cycle and find enlightnement in Nirvana.

Communism is a materialist position that tells people to take the material goods(capital) they desire, by force. It is a revolutionary position of peasents and workers who want to reclaim what has been taken from them, in this world not in the next.

They are totally incompatable, mutually exclusive, and understandably hostile towards each other. No Communist should have a "free tibet" bumper sticker. The Dalia Lama is not your comrade.

[redstar2000]

I&#39;m certainly not advocating anyone "pretend" anything. Rather that it&#39;s best to be tolerant, even of beliefs we don&#39;t share.

Gee, that&#39;s really swell of you. What a nice guy you are.

But you do draw some lines, don&#39;t you? You&#39;re not tolerant of the class enemy, are you?

Are you???

So there are some "beliefs" that you&#39;re not the least little bit tolerant of...right? In fact, you despise them, right?

So then, we come to the real question: What is to be tolerated and what is not to be tolerated?


The capitalists can scream all they want that communists will destroy religion, as you put it, but in fact it is stone non-believers who can be the greatest enforcers of religious freedom. We simply aim to destroy oppression and exploitation...without which religion cannot survive, but the capitalists and clergy are hardly going to say that.

No, I agree, they&#39;re not going to put things as bluntly as that...and perhaps for good reason. Your assumption that religion will just "fade away" may be unjustified.

It certainly didn&#39;t just "fade away" in the USSR, China, Eastern Europe, etc. It certainly hasn&#39;t just "faded away" in Cuba.

In fact, the counter-revolution was organized under the auspices of the church in Poland and the German Democratic Republic, was it not?

I know, you can say that exploitation and oppression still existed in those places, providing a material basis for religion to continue. And that would be true.

But unless you envision "instantaneous perfect communism" on day one after the revolution (a bit of nonsense that I&#39;m always being accused of) -- then there will continue to be class struggle after the revolution.

Guess who will be our enemies in that situation? Guess who has no plans to "go gently into that good night" but instead intends to rage against the dying of "their light"?

And under such circumstances, what becomes then of your "promises of genuine religious freedom"? When communism is not only the "work of the devil" but even your cherished "transitional workers&#39; state" is "an abomination in the Eyes of the Lord"?

Still going to be tolerant?


There&#39;s tactics, for starters, the advantage of seeming on the defensive.

Ah, the sweet scent of victimology. "Have pity on us poor communists...those nasty old godsuckers are attacking us without any provocation from us whatsoever."

Pardon the expression, but Jesus H. Fucking Christ&#33; How in hell is it to our advantage to "be on the defensive"?

Oh, you did say "seeming", didn&#39;t you? Ok, how is it to our advantage to "seem to be on the defensive"? How exactly does seeming to be on the defensive encourage further rebellion? In case you forgot, that is what we&#39;re supposed to be doing, right?

This ought to be simple enough that even a Trotskyist could grasp it: the way to encourage people to rebel is to be rebellious ourselves.

And the way to defeat bad ideas is to attack them&#33;

You had no problem attacking Buddhist ideas in this particular thread, did you? In fact, I copied your posts...so that next month when someone brings that crap up again, I can link people to them.

What then is your difficulty in generalizing what you did quite well in particular?

Want to be voted "Really Nicest User at Che-Lives" next December? :P


If we start it, they can claim they&#39;re attacking us in defense of religious freedom, not property.

They will claim that anyway&#33; They are not obligated to be "honest" or "fair".


The bishops and the priests are not the propagators of Christian teaching, but the worshipers of the Golden Calf and of the Knout which whips the poor and defenseless.

Far from being "an excellent example of how to do anti-religious propaganda", it is a terribly "wimpy" approach...trying to beat the Christians "at their own game".

As if we are "more Christian" than they are.

Not to mention the fact that it implicitly accepts the idea that Christianity is "good"...which it most certainly is not&#33;

In fact, this quote is not really "anti-religious" at all; at best, it simply appeals to godsuckers on the grounds that the present-day church isn&#39;t "living up" to its professed standards.

It&#39;s really the same as if we were to say that American imperialism "violates" the "standards" of "American democracy".

The problem with religion (and imperialism) is not a matter of "intellectual hypocrisy" but rather of social practice&#33;


As for those "diabolical quotes"....have you looked at the context around Marx&#39;s infamous "opium" quote?

Of course. It seems to me that his view is a very straight-forward one...but my opinion is irrelevant. In the eyes of the godsuckers, Marx may just as well have torched the "holiest" sites of Christendom and personally fed martyrs to the lions.

And for all your tolerance, they have the same view of you&#33;

Unlike you, I think we should respond in kind.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Solace]

Lardlad.

You are already in the Nirvana while I am still on the Wheel of Rebirth. If you follow the principles of reincarnation, which I assume are an integral part of Buddhism, being a human is much better than being a worm. The human life was earned in a previous life.

Now what’s better, being born in a wealthy family or being born as a peasant?

Wealthy here is not used in the sense of rich petty bourgeois. That wealth is meant to satisfy basic human needs.

That is the theory.

But, you’ll see in some Buddhist regions of the world that the social order is strongly maintained because of these beliefs.

[elijahcraig]

Communism and Bhuddism share common goals in ideals, the equel treatment of mankind, the denouncement of material goods and slefish desires, and the urge for humanity to work toghther. The question I have is why it has been so downtrodden in the last 60 years by china, who could found a great ally in bhuddists to help spread their cause. And its not even a religion, its a philosophy, so its no opposition to communism, at leat to my knowledge anyways.

The problem is not that the Buddha’s teachings are anti-Communist or anti-Democracy, or whatnot, but that the Buddhism which takes power in the places of worship throughout China (and Burma now) is usually a decadent form which aides the interests in control of the state apparatus (ie, the feudalist or capitalist oppressors).

Communism and Buddhism also diverge on matters of reason, etc. I see no reason to downcast Buddhism. It is one of the most accepting religions. Reminds me of something Toqueville once said of patriotism in America: he sees it in the people, but not in the leaders, they are fraudulent in their “patriotism.”


Bhuddism is not a religion at all, its a philosophy, the bhudda has been diefied in some forms of Bhuddism thoughm but it is not the correct interpreation, at least in my opinion anyways. Bhudda never advocated a diety, nor de he claim himself 2 b a God

This is false. The Buddha was placed in Maya’s whom by the Gods themselves in order to revolt against the Hindu decadence.


Bhuddism is not a religion at all, its a philosophy

This could be said of any religious thought.


If you want to be a Buddhist (of some sort), go right ahead. But don&#39;t kid yourself that you picked out the "communist religion".

I disagree. Communist religion is up and running well.


Perfect for telling peasants to endure suffering in silence.


This is the decayed form of Buddhism obviously. And it is true that reincarnation has been used in such a way. And other religion in Chinese society. Look at the Confucian domination of small villages.


I am not defining religion. I am merely explaining how in many ways Buddhism is a more of a way of life than a religion, in that it involves more free will. A way of life is something you choose for yourself, not someone else.

In Greek society (ancient), “free will” was described as the ability to rule over others. In Christian thought, “free will” is the ability to be ruled by others. It is very hard to pull religion away a “way of life” in any circumstance. Buddhism is not special in this respect.


I await proof.


Burma.


wasn&#39;t going to change much... And If I thought I needed your permission to comment I would have asked, oh annointed one..

The purpose of Buddhism is not to “change much.” The purpose of Buddhism is to escape the world of opposites.


QUOTE (Meursault @ Mar 26 2004, 05:51 PM)
I am not a champion for Buddhism and nor will I be offended in any way if you confuse Buddhism with Hinduism. .

Easy to do since Buddhism is derived from the Hinduism.. Or had you not researched that?

Many concepts overlapped, but there was a clear break with Hindu dogma by the Buddha.


That&#39;s simply not true. At various times and places in history, Buddhist priests have persecuted non-Buddhists, just like the Inquisition, etc., you mention in your posts. And, at times, one sect of Buddhists have persecuted another. E.g. the Yellow Hat sect sacking other monasteries to consolidate its hold, after being installed in power by Mongol invaders.

Currently, the "Buddhist kingdom" of Bhutan is ethnically cleansing its Hindu minority. Originally from the Washington Post.

I think a lot of people in the West consider Buddhism progressive because its new, fashionable, and they really don&#39;t know anything about how it&#39;s been practiced where it&#39;s the majority religion. The Buddhist clergy seems quite willing to say one thing in North America and Europe, and another in Asia.

For example, in India: The Dalai Lama condemns religious conversion, says keep your traditional religion, sides with Muslim-bashing Hindu ultrarightists."

While in North America, Tibetan Buddhism seeks converts.

Or: the Dalai Lama forbids Tibetans to worship the deity Dorje Shugden. Those who persist have been targets of violence and intimidation.

But European and North American converts, on the other hand...."As for foreigners, it makes no difference to us if they walk with their feet up and their head down. We have taught Dharma to them, not they to us. " Just lovely how much respect he has for the people who pay his bills, ain&#39;t it? Maybe a carryover from when it was serfs who put food on his table......

I think we should make a choice on what we are discussing: Buddhist thought or the actions of those who acted as decaying agents on the foundation of the thought.


As a Buddhist and a Socialist this topic interested me, I&#39;m not a good Buddhist or a good Socialist because i am too rebelious and opinionated, but i do think the idea of using the idea of karma to keep people from wanting to make social change is valid.

I don’t see rebellion and opinion as being opposed to either Buddhism or Socialism.


Buddhism (the original version) aims at Nirvana - a phase outside of this world ........where there is no suffering or death, via self-control and good discipline.
Communism aims at a better society in this secular world.

True. We ought to determine if there is actually an outlet in the way the Buddha spoke of. Is it wishful thinking? Communists say “Yes, and the only world is this one. We have to change the world we were handed.” Buddhists say “It doesn’t matter if it is real or not, the escape is what matters.” I won’t comment on which I believe to be true. Both leave marks on an investigation into human nature. And both may be unachievable.


Nietzsche once said that Buddhism is less decandent than Chrsitianity 9as it entails a philosophy to life), but still, it is a decadent religious entity.

I think he said that in the “Antichrist.” He said it was a hundred times better, but still quite nihilist.


religion or myths have no place in a communist society. They distract people from the truth.

What truth are you speaking of?


In fact, I do not think that these things will even be thought about in a communist society.

Utopian.


People very often use religion as some form of justification for the shit that is happening in their lives. This higher spirit, nirvana, heaven bullshit will have no place, because it will not be needed. People will be able to pput their faith in their communities and their lives on earth, rather than on gods and myths...

Have you ever read Ferdinand Pessoa?


A worker will passively accept his situation thinking that he must have been "bad". Furthermore, the highest stage one can aim for in the reincarnation cycle is to be a wealthy man.

Wealthy in what respect? I’m not sure the text you draw this from. Jesus uses “rich,” it does not mean literally.


I know, buddhisme may not be the perfect religion (I guess none is), but it is a step in a good direction, it is the most peaceful and tolerant of these days ...

The only “step in the right direction” is for independent thought to occur within individuals, separate from pre-established religions. As if there were many choices to “choose the right religion from.” I find that idiotic.


This is not at all about peace or tolerance. All religions advocate peace and tolerance in theory.

No religion can ever be a step in the right direction. They all turn the people&#39;s attention from the blunt reality, blocking the way for any social uprising.

Numerous thread were made on the subject. You might wanna check them.

This is why religions in organized form should be left behind, to use a popular phrase from fundamentalists.


Christianity forces you to change your living structure; basically the whole bible deals with instructions on how you should live your life, so i disagree with this cephas.

Most Jewish ritual in the bible was the result of material conditions of the time. Take the issue of not eating pork. It was the result of a plague which swept the pig population (term.) at the time of the emergence of the “belief”.


I see that most peoplle think that Buddhism is one simple thing, which it isn&#39;t. Just like Christianity isn&#39;t, look at Gnosticism it completely denounnced Clergy, Hierarchy, and Subjegation

And was thrown out of the Bible as a consequence. Take Thomas for instance. That’s a good book on Jesus. It isn’t glossed over (as much, as far as I know).


Nichiren Buddhists believe that all beings are equal, no matter if you are a woman or a man or white or black or gay or straight or whatever. You will attain enlightenment it&#39;s even possible in this lifetime.

Also Nichiren buddhists believe that all of the buddhas teachings were expedients, ie teachings molded to fit the capacity of the beings that were learning from the buddha at the time.

Not everyone learns the same, so teh Buddha explained it in different ways so that different people could start their path.

You could probably break that down into regional beliefs if you wanted as well, just as with anything.


From Encarta Encyclopedia:(link)
"In theory, the goal of nirvana is attainable by anyone, although it is a realistic goal only for members of the monastic community."

Some living monks are designated as "enlightened." As you might expect, designating particular people as especially wise results in further hierrarchy.

About this "way of life" stuff: I&#39;ve met plenty of Christians who say that Christianity isn&#39;t a religion, it&#39;s a way of life, or a personal relationship with God, etc. Similarly with Muslims.

I’d like some scripture from the Sage myself, not “Encarta”.


Marxists can certainly "soft-pedal" our atheism...but our class enemies are not about to pass over the matter in discreet silence. They&#39;ll scream it: "communism will destroy religion&#33;"

They can read just as well as we can...meaning they can locate all the "diabolical" quotations and publicize them at length.

Again, I remind you of the venom being poured on the head of Venezuela&#39;s Chavez (a simple populist reformer) by the Catholic hierarchy there. Poor Chavez can&#39;t make a public appearance any more without his plastic baby Jesus doll now...and it doesn&#39;t help.

That should give you a pretty good idea of what they&#39;ll be saying about us as soon as we appear on their radar.

Consequently, I see nothing to be gained by diplomacy or discretion here. Since we are going to be attacked anyway, why not go ahead and attack them first?

Yes, it may temporarily cost us some "popularity"...maybe quite a bit. But in the long and convoluted history of revolutionary politics, it seems to me that honesty works best...at least in the long run.

If we attempt to pretend a tolerance for that which we really despise, people will find us out.

Betrayal creates worse enemies than honest opposition.

I think honest opposition is the best way forward as well (at least when you aren’t a prospect of US Imperial bombs or kidnappings).

Although I do think that the combination of Communism with religion has helped class struggle a great deal in Latin America. Communitarianism isn’t it? And also Liberation Theology.


Communism is a materialist position that tells people to take the material goods(capital) they desire, by force. It is a revolutionary position of peasents and workers who want to reclaim what has been taken from them, in this world not in the next.

I disagree that Communism promotes desire for private wealth.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Severian+Mar 29 2004, 02:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Severian @ Mar 29 2004, 02:16 AM)
[email protected] 28 2004, 04:28 PM
That a distortion and you know it. The highest stage would be a wealthy man? What the hell are you talking about. Buddhism is the one religion that doesn&#39;t subjegate people. Anyone can reach nirvana, not just the priests, not just the monks, not just the wealthy. Anyone can reach nirvana even in this life time, even under their current conditions.

From Encarta Encyclopedia:(link) (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552895/Buddhism.html#s2)
"In theory, the goal of nirvana is attainable by anyone, although it is a realistic goal only for members of the monastic community."

Some living monks are designated as "enlightened." As you might expect, designating particular people as especially wise results in further hierrarchy.

About this "way of life" stuff: I&#39;ve met plenty of Christians who say that Christianity isn&#39;t a religion, it&#39;s a way of life, or a personal relationship with God, etc. Similarly with Muslims. [/b]
That would me Therevadan Bhuddism, Mahayana buddhists (nichren buddhists includded) Don&#39;t buy into the whole, only monks can attain nirvana. you are taking the exception as the rule.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Severian+Mar 29 2004, 02:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Severian @ Mar 29 2004, 02:19 AM)
[email protected] 28 2004, 04:35 PM
Nichiren Buddhists believe that all beings are equal, no matter if you are a woman or a man or white or black or gay or straight or whatever. You will attain enlightenment it&#39;s even possible in this lifetime.
Again, from Encarta: "Notable among these is Sôka Gakkai, the Value Creation Society, a lay movement associated with Nichiren Buddhism. It is noted for its effective organization, aggressive conversion techniques, and use of mass media, as well as for its nationalism. It promises material benefit and worldly happiness to its believers. Since 1956 it has been involved in Japanese politics, running candidates for office under the banner of its Kômeitô, or Clean Government Party."

That&#39;s my experience with Nichiren proselytizers I&#39;ve met in the US as well, and the brochures they hand out. They emphasize that by chanting you can get money or whatever you want. It&#39;s like a Buddhist equivalent of a Christian televangelists&#39; "prosperity gospel." (Send me money and the LORD will give you even more money.) [/b]
....Soka Gokkai were excomunicated by the Nicheren Sho Shu sect. I know I have Sokka Gokkai relatives.

Also you are taking the exception as the rule. Nicheren Shu people don&#39;t really blieve that chanting is some magic process that gets you money.

You have to stop taking the exception as the rule. Thats like saying because stalinists like stalin, all communists like stalin

[Lardlad95]

From elijahcraig


And was thrown out of the Bible as a consequence. Take Thomas for instance. That’s a good book on Jesus. It isn’t glossed over (as much, as far as I know).

Have you read all teh Nag Hammadi texts? I have a copy of all the books, but if you dont&#39; I know a site that has all of them.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 03:37 AM
Lardlad.

You are already in the Nirvana while I am still on the Wheel of Rebirth. If you follow the principles of reincarnation, which I assume are an integral part of Buddhism, being a human is much better than being a worm. The human life was earned in a previous life.

Now what’s better, being born in a wealthy family or being born as a peasant?

Wealthy here is not used in the sense of rich petty bourgeois. That wealth is meant to satisfy basic human needs.

That is the theory.

But, you’ll see in some Buddhist regions of the world that the social order is strongly maintained because of these beliefs.
Thats one interpretation. I personally take karma to influence the situations that occur regarding our eventual enlightenment. If I do something immoral it would hinder me getting to enlightenment. Anything that isn&#39;t relevant towards enlightenment isn&#39;t a consequence of karma.

Now thats my personal interpretation, the good thing about buddhism is that I&#39;m allowed t have a personal interpretation.

[elijahcraig]

Have you read all teh Nag Hammadi texts? I have a copy of all the books, but if you dont&#39; I know a site that has all of them.

I haven&#39;t read them all, no.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 10:02 PM

Have you read all teh Nag Hammadi texts? I have a copy of all the books, but if you dont&#39; I know a site that has all of them.

I haven&#39;t read them all, no.
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlalpha.html

here&#39;s the site

[elijahcraig]

Thanks.

I&#39;m reading Aquinas right now, on Politics and Ethics.

Augustine also.

Just for a sidenote.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 03:28 PM
That would me Therevadan Bhuddism, Mahayana buddhists (nichren buddhists includded) Don&#39;t buy into the whole, only monks can attain nirvana. you are taking the exception as the rule.

Soka Gokkai were excomunicated by the Nicheren Sho Shu sect. I know I have Sokka Gokkai relatives.

Also you are taking the exception as the rule. Nicheren Shu people don&#39;t really blieve that chanting is some magic process that gets you money.

[two posts combined -S]
OK. That was the only mention of Nichiren in the encyclopedia, and the only Nichiren people I&#39;ve run into.

So let&#39;s see if I understand now:

Your part of the Nichiren part of the Mahayana part of Buddhism is the rule.

All the other parts of Buddhism are the exception.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Severian+Mar 31 2004, 06:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Severian @ Mar 31 2004, 06:28 PM)
[email protected] 30 2004, 03:28 PM
That would me Therevadan Bhuddism, Mahayana buddhists (nichren buddhists includded) Don&#39;t buy into the whole, only monks can attain nirvana. you are taking the exception as the rule.

Soka Gokkai were excomunicated by the Nicheren Sho Shu sect. I know I have Sokka Gokkai relatives.

Also you are taking the exception as the rule. Nicheren Shu people don&#39;t really blieve that chanting is some magic process that gets you money.

[two posts combined -S]
OK. That was the only mention of Nichiren in the encyclopedia, and the only Nichiren people I&#39;ve run into.

So let&#39;s see if I understand now:

Your part of the Nichiren part of the Mahayana part of Buddhism is the rule.

All the other parts of Buddhism are the exception. [/b]
No I was giving an example of a type of Nichiren Buddhism that doesn&#39;t follow the sokka gakai philosophy.

All I was was saying was that you were acting as if Sokka Gokai was the definition of buddhist philosophy when it isn&#39;t.

Hell Sokka Gakkai isn&#39;t even really a sect, it&#39;s a lay organization

[socialistfuture]

i have been to buddhist teachings. I find the monk is very peaceful and happy, he has a translater as he speaks tibetan and his english is not too good.
I like him - he is a kind and caring person. I have met over tibetans and find them similar to him in nature.
Ho Chi Minh was a buddhist.
there are many different types of buddhim - also whatever it meant in the past does not necisarily apply to now. for instance tibet had almost no communication with the outside world. today tibet has been conquered by china and is full of chinese, i have heard the dali lama speak and read his book on.. leaving tibet and the chinese invasion.
i beleive there is much in common with socialism and aspects of buddhism -
for one both advocate peace and an end to suffering.... both should endever to achieve that goal together. i think socialists should have a coice wether they are religious or not.
personally i have no religion but i like to read about different religion and i kinda take the earth mother (mother earth) concert that is previaliant in many pagan mythologies. we must care for nature... there is much that can benefit socialists in native american indian beliefs and pagan and buddhist belifs. pick what you like.. you do not have to like it all.

the buddhist teacher himself said oyu do not have to be buddhist take what you want the teachings. also i belive being calm and meditation if helpful for ppl who stress to much.

socialista......... to victory&#33;