Buddhist Socialism - proving that Buddhism is socialist move

[ID2002]

I have studied Buddhism now for 6 yrs, and I have come to the conclusion that Buddhism refutes the "right wing" ideology. Buddhism teaches that the good of the people come before he individual. If you have ever been to a Buddhist temple and seen monks in training you will see what I mean.

[man in the red suit]

yeah i agree with you 100%

[ID2002]

anyone else have anything to add?

[Borincano]

I am a Buddhist, and I agree, that there are many similarities betweem the basic elements of Buddhism and Socialism.

I once posted a topic on it on a Buddhist forum and I received many mixed reviews. Some believed that they were similar and others (Who were capitalists.) disagreed with it, and claimed the murder of Buddhist monks by Communists in China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and N. Korea was proof. I think that is nonsense, because there's a difference between Communism and Socialism. You just need to study the hardcore basics of Buddhism that you will see it's very liberal, except for it's pro-life (Abortion.) anti-drugs, and masturbation stances, but it is liberal with love and sex before marriage and homosexuality.

Just as they're right-wing capitalist Buddhists, there are child-molesting Catholic priests. lol! :)

(Edited by Borincano at 2:41 am on June 9, 2002)

[oki]

I like to believe that buddism stands above politics,but I guess you're right.but I guess it allso cant be linked with (extreme) leftists.
I am into zen buddism,and zen doesn't say anything about abortion,masturbation and so on.individual zen masters do.but there have been great masters,that loved boose,hookers and sex,and kill all bugs they come across.in some monestarys all monks are addicted to heroin.traditional zenbuddist meals involve uge ammounts of liquor.but they all fight against shortminded thinkng,powerabuse,stupidity,and seek a state that equals the buddah.in zen buddah is not a god,but nearly the first to reach the goal.

[Supermodel]

Well, I can't agree.

First of all, a religion is not a political point of view, one is spiritual the other not. You cannot follow a religion without being spiritual, but you can be doggedly political without being spiritual.

Buddhism (OK so I only know a little bit about it) preaches extreme elitism (higher levels of enlightenment etc).

Buddhism requires sacrificial practices. This is not egalitarian.

Buddhism is not egalitarian on sexism.

Buddhism is biog on vegetarianism and not squashing bugs. Try that one in Cuba or Argentina.

[Fires of History]

Also:

Buddhism is a culmination of hearsay and rumor to Supermodel.

Can you explain more fully any of the things you just said please?

[Supermodel]

Well I did study buddhism for a while and I found several things about it that just did not fit with my beliefs, that's all. Religion and politics are two very different things. Some political groups pose as religions.

Anyway, my buddhist teachers tried to push vegetarianism and I got in trouble for squashing a bug (and it was one of the biting kind) in class. I was instructed in the proper way to catch it in the hands and usher it outside where, presumably, it can bite some non-buddhist instead.

To be honest, all organized religion is a fraud and a distraction from true human spirituality. Nevertheless, I will die defending anyone's right to practice the religion of their choice.

[ID2002]

Supermodel, I'm going to disagree with you.

If you have ever read "Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai" you'll understand what I am talking about. Please also keep in mind that their is a BIG differance between Southern and North Buddhisms. The Hinayana "lesser vehicle" (Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, Cambodia...SE Asia) are very much "self oriented". It is an older idea of enlightenment.
The Mahayana "great vehicle" (Vietnam, China, Tibet, Mongolia, Korea, and Japan) are very much group oriented, and the people come before the individual. It is more than simple religion, it is an actual way of life. Speaking of Cuba...there are a number of Buddhist group which have been state approved in Cuba. They are tollerated. Where do you get you facts from supermodel?

by the way real Buddhism doesn't push vegetarianism on anyone! You need to do some reading** Supermodel

[deadpool 52]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Buddha or other zen masters said nothing about the workers taking the jobs for themselves!

PLEASE EXPLICATE!

[Supermodel]

Facts? What?

Are there any facts in religion?

All I know is my own experience.

Like I said, I would fight to defend your right to practice the religion of your choice.

Geez, if I'd known we needed facts to post here, a lot of us would be in trouble......

[Vide]

Buddhism is not socialist. It's a religion, not a political ideology. Supermodel is right on.

[IzmSchism]

I was just reading shumacher, Small is Beautiful, and he talks about Buddhist Economics, for it could have been Hindu or Christian economics. Basically talked about the 8 fold path and the path to right livelihood, he postulates that many economists believe that their area of study is a science with principles that are applicable to any time, any place type deal. Basically free of any metaphysical connection. He goes on about a fundamentl wealth we have is labour and ties it back into right livelihood and gaining spiritual growth from your work as well as material growth. All this is independent by country and culture. Really interesting I thought.

(Edited by IzmSchism at 9:22 pm on June 17, 2002)

[Gergely]

I think none of you understand Buddhism in its whole, you would need to study and practice it for your whole life to make a suitable statement about Buddhism. Fact is that there are a few common things between b. and socialism but there are also a few differences. Marx and Lenin (or even Che Guevara) supported the idea of violence as a matter of gaining power. Buddhism (especially Mahayana buddhism in Tibet) teaches absolute non-violence no matter in what case (maybe selfdefence is an exception).
That is just one difference but in my eyes a huge one. Besides buddhism has no explanation about the best type of economical system (if for sure denies capitalism) and socialism mainly deals with this.
The communists in the far east (Vietnam,...) made a big mistake to pursue buddhists. They could have learned many things from them (in China they still should learn from them and maybe vice versa too) instead of fighting them.
So that's my opinion.

[ID2002]

...excuse me...

I just thought I should clear up a few things: Buddhism is not a passive belief as it would most definately support action against those who would terrorise/ hurt others. It is socialist in its view towards human welfare, and world issues....
The JSP (Japanese Socialist Party) is made up of many strongly traditional Buddhists, who are trying to change Japanese "right" wing systems and privatisation acts.

[BIG GABE]

Well Let me add something to this discussion. Buddhism has a teaching of the observing self. That is to always be observing oneself. Its a program of self scruntiny. This isnt to make harsh judgements about oneself leading to depression rather it is useful to gain understanding as to know what to change. This buddhist teaching of the observing self is found in Marxism. Marxism has the "self-criticism" or as the bolsheviks called it, soma-kritika. Unfortunately Communists have forgotten the humanism of Marxism and have used the soma-kritika as a means of humbling on for the benefit of the cult of personality. I believe that the soma kritika and the observing self are necessary as a tool for inner liberation. Critical scrunity deserves an outer destination as well. Society as a whole should be critized as the self is, this will lead to societal liberation.

This is only one parallel teaching, I am looking and finding more all the time

[Gergely]

Although Lenin said that religion is an opium for the people (in a way he is right - if he refers to the dogmatism of religions, yeah then he is absolutely right), we could learn very much from buddhism. If you accept the basics things of buddhism you could establish a socialist society. That would be a perfect mix: buddhism and socialism!!!
Just think about it!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originaly Buddhism may have made some rather Communistic refferences, (though I doubt they were legitimately Communist) but today Buddhists are Capitalists and opportunists. They use the fact that Americans already hate Communism to better suit Americans for Buddhism by using the , "Oh, yeah, we hate Commies, they persecuted our fellow moks in Tibet, Save Tibet from the evil Chinese fascist, commies!!"

Buddhism does support somewhat of a hierarchy with the Dalai Lama, the lamas, the monks, wahtever I don't really know so much regarding the religion. I don't support the idea of anyone fooling themselves with tales of 'higher enlightenment' and 'reincarnation' and other religious crap.


(Edited by Victorcommie at 5:39 am on Dec. 18, 2002)

[redstar2000]

"I will die defending anyone's right to practice the religion of their choice."--Supermodel

PLEASE reconsider; is not your LIFE worth more than the right of some poor sucker to delude themselves with some gross superstition?

If one MUST make some sacrifice on behalf of "freedom of religion", surely a broken fingernail or stubbed toe would be sufficient? :cheesy:

[nz revolution]

Hear hear.

hmmm tibet was lovely... serfs, slaves and murder

[Behind enemy lines]

You three are so vigorously attacking something which from what I have gathered from previous threads,you know nothing of.

Why?


(Edited by Behind enemy lines at 8:54 pm on Dec. 16, 2002)


(Edited by Behind enemy lines at 3:35 pm on Dec. 17, 2002)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Behind Enemy Lines, who are you reffering to when you say, "You three are so vigorously attacking..."
Do you mean Redstar, NZ rev, and myself?

If I'm among these, I admit, I know little of the teachings of Buddha, yet I oppose, like I said earlier, any superstitous religion that has people fooling themselves with 'higher enlightenment' and other foolish attempts at achieving spirituality.

[Behind enemy lines]

Yes comrade, I am referring to you three. And remember I said 'I gathered'.

If you know nothing about 'higher enlightenment' or 'spirtuality' how can you oppose them?

Don't you wish to know what you hate?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

BEL, I never said I didn't know much about higher enlightenment and spirituality, I said I didn't know much about Buddhism, yes perhaps I should read something reagrding Buddhism, but nevertheless, I oppose it simply because it has followers, as in people who spend time trying to better themselves in inexistant ways.

[Behind enemy lines]

Who are you to decide what is inexistant?
I am a follower of marx's teaching, do you oppose me?

Regarding your knowledge on spirituality, Do you advocate you know something about it?

[KickMcCann]

Another religion, another ignorant group of people criticising it.

It reminds me of foolish westerners how think the Islam teaches suicide bombing and the oppression of women.

First off, attaining spiritual enlightenment has nothing to do with elitism or classism, it is an internal development, not external. Enlightened people do not rule over unenlightened people, because a person who is actually enlightened would care nothing about power over others. Anyone who claims to be enlightened but also hungers for power is a liar, they are simply utilizing the idea of Buddhism as a medium to attain power. Just like all the tyrants, past or present, who have preached the slogans of other religions or social movements in order to attain power. ( European monarchs, Hitler, Stalin, N. Koreas leaders, Osama, Saddam, the Ayatollahs, Pinochet, Ceausescu, the Crusading Popes, plenty of American politicians, Pol Pot, P. Musharraf) The List goes on and on.

Buddhism teaches that the teacher and the student are equal.

Tibet was a feudal dictatorship, no doubt about it; but to claim that all Buddhists follow the Dali Lama is the same as saying that all Christians follow the Pope.

And don't expect to fing quotes from Marx in the Buddha's teachings, he was around about 500 years before Jesus. I know some of you are near obsession when it comes to communism ( thats ok) and you think that only ideas which promote communism directly are good ideas. Buddhism doesn't talk about communism, that doesn't make it "bad" though, many of the teachings can be applied to social progress.

Bottom line is this. Know before you speak. Don't criticise something you know very little or nothing about. Increase you knowledge on the subject, then
feel free to criticise away.

[redstar2000]

The problem with your approach, KM, is that ANY religion by its very nature, CANNOT accept materialist criticism. A real Buddhist would only reject the Buddha if you convinced him that an even BETTER Buddha had appeared. The search for "spiritual enlightenment" can ONLY be criticized (acceptably) towards the aim of even greater "spiritual enlightenment".

In fairness, the same is true of communists--any kind of spiritualist criticism of us is, to us, just meaningless noise. Only if an even "greater" Marx came along would we perk up our ears and seriously listen.

Why do spiritualists and materialists argue then? Because we are both trying very hard to shape the future of the world; because what people think and what people do MATTERS.

There is ONE difference: a truly enlightened spiritualist would ignore the internet, message boards, and, in fact, pretty much everything that is "of the world". Marx and Engels, were they alive today, would be all over the net. (Engels lived long enough to see telephone service introduced in London--he had one of the first phones hooked up.) :cool:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

When I say inexistant I mean whatever omnipotent being the religion is based on worshiping. In Buddhist's case, it would be worshiping the teachings of Buddha, the man who achieved enlightenment under a tree and spent 50 years telling people about and writing stuff on the subject of enlightenment, pretty sad, eh?

[Behind enemy lines]

1. Buddhism is not a reigion, there is no god to worship.
2. Buddhists do not worship the buddha. You are a a marxist; do you worship marx?
I hope that poor example helps you understand that Marx is similar to buddha in that respect. The buddha embodies completeness, so I try emulate him. Marx has wisdom, I try to learn from him.

Marx spent 40 years studing capitalism under a roof and went on to write books and give speeches to improve peoples knowledge of capitalism, pretty sad, eh?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

BEL, I specificaly wrote, " worshiping the teachings of Buddha." I wrote nowhere that they have a god, though they are a religion, nevertheless.

Yeah, but Marx was adressing an issue that faced the world.
Buddha was adressing his own thoughts on spirituality, something abstract, un-touchable, and un-definable.

[Behind enemy lines]

To call something a religion you have to have a god or someone to worship.


Marx is addressing the external world, yes?
Buddha is addressing the internal world.
Feelings. I don't know about you, but to me what I feel inside is more important than what is happening externally.

What good is a communist world if we are not happy?

You might respond by saying that if we live in a communist world we would be happy.
Communism only fixes your surroundings, it doesn't make you stop feeling depressed, jealous, angry, etc.
Only dealing with your feelings will fix that.

That is what the buddha teaches. His teachings do not work for everybody, only for some. And by some I don't mean Tibetans, or 'foolish westerners', just people who want to fix themselves by the buddhas methods, some.

Can you touch your feelings?

The important things in life are not what which we can see infront of us.

(Edited by Behind enemy lines at 6:39 pm on Dec. 20, 2002)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Weather it's demi-religious psycology or not, it's still has followers, thus making it a cult if not a religion and is still a bad thing.

[Behind enemy lines]

Ok, so at least we argree now that it is not a reigion, yes?

A cult you say.
It has followers thus making it a cult? Are socialists cult members?
According to you they are because they 'follow marx's, engel's, lenin's, mao's teachings, just like a buddhist follows the buddhas teachings.

Can you still justify calling a cult?

It seems your hatred for buddhism stems from ignorance.
That is ok, still time to learn.

Would you like to ask any questions regarding buddhism to clear up any misunderstandings?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Sure, I guess Socialism could be called a cult, but it sin't blesphamy to be open-minded about it, is it?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

A wealthy prince who throws everything away to dedicate his life on equality for everyone. Can it be more socialistic?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

CCCP, I don't think the the initial actions of Sidhartha were wrong, it simply grew into a religion (cult, for BEL) which, like every religion, is oppressive and imposes outdated, and often wrong morals onto it's followers, then saying that if you don't follow the moral code, it's blesphemous. Not vey Socialistic, eh?

[Behind enemy lines]

Being open-minded means to have a open mind, right?
If you close your mind off and think that you are right, they are wrong, buddhism is bad, marx is good, religion is bad, etc that is not helpful to yourself.

Instead of saying buddhism is crap, trying saying, I disagree with these aspects of buddhism, that is all.

Since you said socialism could be a cult, then there is nothing wrong with a cult(our defination of one anyway).
Do you agree?


......."then saying that if you don't follow the moral code, it's blesphemous. Not vey Socialistic, eh?"

Don't replace christain values with buddhist ones.
Most buddhists, including the Dalia Lama tell people if they are already practcing a religion to stay with it. Buddhism doesn't work for everybody.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm not saying that Buddhism is bad, I'm saying that religion is bad. I couldn't care less what the teachings of the Buddha were.

Doesn't Buddhism have it's rather supertituous views, karma and such?
Is this good? It's deffinitely untrue.
I mean, how can something that you've done have an unrelated consequence? This clearly implies that their is another, stronger force involved, omnipotent maybe, like a god of some sort?
And reincarnation? Their must also be some higher power involved, eh?
So is filling people with untrue fears of inexistent consequences a good thing? I would think not.

(Edited by Victorcommie at 8:21 pm on Dec. 22, 2002)

[pumpkin]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 2:06 pm on Dec. 22, 2002
I'm not saying that Buddhism is bad, I'm saying that religion is bad. I couldn't care less what the teachings of the Buddha were.


Surely to denounce all religion, you have to have at least an idea of the teachings and doctrines of Buddhism, if you beleive it to be a religion...? And dismissing all religion as bad is the same as me saying all blacks are criminals and all texans are redneck racists?

(Edited by pumpkin at 11:16 pm on Dec. 22, 2002)

[Behind enemy lines]

Things aren't that black or white. Religion isn't bad,it does have positive effects on people (as well as negative).

Can you prove that karma and reincarnation aren't real?
Without proof you can't.
Even if you had proof who is to say that it is truth.

I believe in karma. That doesn't make me scared. It helps me to be more positive and helpful to people as I want the same in return.

I believe no matter what something is, as long as it brings happiness to a person it doesn't matter (as well as not harming others).

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

One could not judge what religions are and are not acceptable, therefore all religions are labeled as bad, in my eyes.

I do have some ideas about the teachings of Buddha by the way.

Yes, some aspects of religion can be positive, but give some better ones. The one you gave about happiness is crap, false hope brings hapiness, yes, but I belive that in the course of human evolution, we are way passed that.

[redstar2000]

RELIGION, noun, 3. a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

---www.dictionary.com

I quoted this because of the misunderstanding in several posts that religion has ONLY to do with the supernatural or with divinities. Buddhism IS A RELIGION.

"Can you prove that karma and reincarnation aren't real?"

Can YOU prove they are? The tradition in scientific thought is that the burden of proof rests with the person who makes the initial assertion.

Positive Assertion: karma & reincarnation exist.

Reply: prove it!

Response: EVIDENCE for the existence of k & r.

In the ABSENCE of evidence for karma and reincarnation, the only reasonable conclusion is that they DO NOT EXIST.

:cool:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

BEL, all I'm saying is that some religions are downright wrong, oppressive, sacraficial, and spreads norrow-mindedness. With this in mind, some religions are bad. But aren't all religions based on false hope and false faith, these religions are also bad. Good aspects, which ones? You still fail to demonstarte any at all.
Since each religion teaches it's followers to accept THEiR teachings and not the teachings of another religion, what religious person is to determine which religions are and which are not bad? Maybe the federal administration turns out to believe in the Aztec religion and deems that it's alright to scacrifice thousands of people, then what? What if the government deems taht it's unconstitutional and barbaric to baptize children, but sacrifing is okay. Who is to judge?? The gods. Whose gods?

[James]

VC, reading your posts over the past pages i have come to the conclusion that you have been, and have succeded - in digging yourself a hole.

Most of the "bad" things you have said about buddhism are easily applied to communism/marxism/socialism etc etc

Hush child... lol, nah but i know what you mean if you are refering to "mass religion" etc. But this isn't really anything to do with buddhism. Buddhism is more for the self.

And in addition, buddhism is counted not only as a religion.

[mentalbunny]

I think Buddhism is pretty like Socialism, but it is by no means perfect. Most religions are in their essence, pretty socialist but they get distorted, that's humans for you!

[Behind enemy lines]

Yep, most religions are oppressive, including buddhism sometimes.
Who decides what is false hope? You? I think not.
I fail to point out good aspects, aye comrade.
I don't think you would understand if I told you. Blind men can't see certain things.
I have already said buddhism doesn't tell you to blindely follow its teaching. The buddha said this. Each to there own comrade.

I'm a buddhist. period. Are you going to judge me?
I am a communist. Judge me not.

People tend to point out imperfections in other people a lot. A mirror to themselves one could say. Does it really matter if one is religious. I still would probably get on with you if we meet.
the only thing that matters is happiness.

Sorry to rave on, It took me 45mins to write this:)






(Edited by Behind enemy lines at 12:34 pm on Dec. 25, 2002)

[redstar2000]

I don't like it when people say "don't judge me"--I think it's intellectually dishonest.

We "judge" ALL the time and our judgments can be rather harsh. If I said to George W. Bush: "YOU are a WAR CRIMINAL" and he responded "don't judge me"--would people find that an ACCEPTABLE reply?

To be sure, different standards apply in different contexts; we often "soften" our criticisms of people that we regard as comrades or potential comrades.

Who decides what is "false hope"? Each and every one of us brings our CRITICAL faculties to that question...or we OUGHT to.

Yes, people sometimes criticize others for faults that they conspiciously display themselves. Yet, a fault is STILL a fault and a criticism may be JUSTIFIED even if the person doing the criticizing is just as guilty.

For example, when it is said that "most religions are in their essence, pretty socialist but they get distorted, that's humans for you", someone has to point out the falsity of that statement. Someone has to make a critical judgment: 1. ALL religions--MAYBE with the exception of a really "pure" Buddhism--posit a cosmic hierarchy that is utterly despotic and horrendously cruel and repressive; 2. there is NO religion WITHOUT humans...religion is a human invention.

Thus, instead of "judge not", I would ask that we judge carefully but critically...and trust that others will do the same. :cool:

[mentalbunny]

You cannot "ban" religion, organised or otherwise. People would just create underground gorups and they would be much more dnagerous as you wouldn't know what they were doing.

A lot of people need spirituality of some sort to be truly happy, even those who aren't religious may practice some kind of meditation and that is spirituality. You cannot make any religion illegal unless it involves killing and other abominations (please not this does not include inquisitions, religious wars, etc).

[redstar2000]

Mentalbunny, who wants to "ban religion"? What people do in the privacy of their own homes is up to them, as far as I'm concerned.

What I personally have advocated is the removal of religion from PUBLIC LIFE...this to be done AFTER wide-spread debate and majority approval.

If the MINORITY of those still under the delusions of religion are unhappy with that, so what? The minority of ex-capitalists will be unhappy, too. If either of these minorities engage in counter-revolutionary violence, they will face severe penalties. If they want to go on line and ***** to one another about "communist tyranny", I don't care.

And if people want to meet in one another's basements (underground) and practice religious rituals...well, as long as they don't disturb their neighbors, I have no problem with that.

:cool:

[Behind enemy lines]

I don't agree that judge someone can bring any good.
Critical analysis is ok to me. I'm just bickering over that word.

"Who decides what is "false hope"? Each and every one of us brings our CRITICAL faculties to that question..."

I agree. But none can preach they are 'right'
It is all just opinons, some more informed than others, but still opinions.

"What I personally have advocated is the removal of religion from PUBLIC LIFE...this to be done AFTER wide-spread debate and majority approval."

For once We agree:) But to what level.
I think total seperation from the state and schools. There can still be churches, temples,etc, but they are to be paid for by the people who wish to practice there.
That is all.

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:18 pm on Dec. 28, 2002
Mentalbunny, who wants to "ban religion"? What people do in the privacy of their own homes is up to them, as far as I'm concerned.

What I personally have advocated is the removal of religion from PUBLIC LIFE...this to be done AFTER wide-spread debate and majority approval.

If the MINORITY of those still under the delusions of religion are unhappy with that, so what? The minority of ex-capitalists will be unhappy, too. If either of these minorities engage in counter-revolutionary violence, they will face severe penalties. If they want to go on line and ***** to one another about "communist tyranny", I don't care.

And if people want to meet in one another's basements (underground) and practice religious rituals...well, as long as they don't disturb their neighbors, I have no problem with that.

:cool:


Once again I find myself disagreeing with you, these people will revolt if their chruches are buldozed and the salvation army disbanded (these are just two examples of what would happen).

[redstar2000]

If ex-capitalists or religious fanatics revolt against the new communist society, they will be crushed! :cool:

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 3:46 am on Dec. 30, 2002
If ex-capitalists or religious fanatics revolt against the new communist society, they will be crushed! :cool:

So when is this society going to come into action?

I don't think you are being realistic, I think you underestimate the capis etc.

[redstar2000]

Mentalbunny, my crystal ball is about on the same level as my dial-up internet service provider...CONSTANTLY DISCONNECTED! :angry:

So, all I can offer is a rough estimate: 50 to 250 years.

Please don't shoot the messenger. :cool:

[Blackberry]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 7:09 pm on Dec. 30, 2002
Mentalbunny, my crystal ball is about on the same level as my dial-up internet service provider...CONSTANTLY DISCONNECTED! :angry:

So, all I can offer is a rough estimate: 50 to 250 years.

Please don't shoot the messenger. :cool:

I'd say 100 - 300. 50 would be too soon, I would think, considering the current state of things. The capitalist elite have been able to quench the working class' thirst just enough for the time being.

That's just my prediction though.

[Behind enemy lines]

Don't worry, I shall take up arms against the oppressors.