buddhist communist - hmmm [Archive]

SonofRage

10th November 2003, 19:10

The Dalai Lama on Marxism

"I was very young when I first heard the word communist. The 13th Dalai Lama had left a testament that I read. Also, some of the monks who were helping my studies had been in monasteries with Mongolians. They had talked about the destruction that had taken place since the communists came to Mongolia. We did not know anything about Marxist ideology. But we all feared destruction and thought of communists with terror. It was only when I went to China in 1954-55 that I actually studied Marxist ideology and learned the history of the Chinese revolution. Once I understood Marxism, my attitude change completely. I was so attracted to Marxism, I even expressed my wish to become a Communist Party member."

"Tibet at that time was very, very backward. The ruling class did not seem to care, and there was much inequality. Marxism talked about an equal and just distribution of wealth. I was very much in favor of this. Then there was the concept of self-creation. Marxism talked about self-reliance, without depending on a creator or a God. That was very attractive. I had tried to some things for my people, but I did not have enough time. I still think that if a genuine communist movement had come to Tibet, there would have been much benefit to the people."

Jesus Christ

10th November 2003, 19:18

bravo

Saint-Just

10th November 2003, 19:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 12:22 PM
Chairman Mao (the guy who post here) is a Buddhist, correct?
I think you are most likely mistaking me for someone else. I have posted about Buddhism a number of times, on Tibet and of the Chinese treatment of Buddhists in the 1950's. There is a buddhist member on Che-Lives, I believe that is IHP, and I think he follows Zen Buddhism.

marxstudent

11th November 2003, 04:02

Yes I believe so. Buddhism is way more liberal than what most Christian churches follow.

Also, there's a difference between having faith in something and actually going out and applying it to politics. Although I am an Orthodox Christian and have certain beliefs, I also believe in total seperation of church and state and so my political views are radically different from other Protestants around me.

I don't know anything about Zen Buddhism but the practice of Zen itself is harmless. They believe in some powerful force as opposed to the big bang theory, etc but unlike other religions, they don't follow a set of established rules.

BuyOurEverything

11th November 2003, 04:43

Hmm, Buddhism debate number 374.

i dont see any difference between honoring a bust of Lenin and honoring a statue of Buddha

There is a difference between honouring and worshipping. Also, Lenin actually did something good for the people rather than sit under a tree and mumble a bunch of philisophical bullshit that at best wastes people's time.

Alejandro C

11th November 2003, 04:55

yes but would lenin have done anything if it hadn't been for someone sitting in a library writing a bunch of philosophical bullshit that wastes people's time in the late 1800's?

redstar2000

11th November 2003, 11:09

I do not understand why it is that people want to try and combine Marxism--a rational system of ideas--with any form of irrational superstition.

What is the point of such attempts?

Are people trying to "hedge their bets"? It's as if they are saying "Well, Marxism makes sense for this world but I better cover my ass in case there's a next world."

I find this attitude incomprehensible.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

RedAnarchist

11th November 2003, 11:16

Prev Discussion Next Discussion Send Replies to My Inbox

Reply
Recommend Delete Message 1 of 6 in Discussion

From: Left_Wing_XPhile2868 (Original Message) Sent: 06/11/2003 10:20
Hi,
I'm 17 male and from Lancashire. I am politically a Marxist. Would Marxism be compatible with Buddhism?

Also, i have just been learning about Buddhism in RE (at our college - Cardinal Newman - we all do RE) and in the hour and a quarter i was amazed. I would like to learn more about Buddhism.

First Previous 2-6 of 6 Next Last

Reply
Recommend Message 2 of 6 in Discussion

From: karmatogdral Sent: 06/11/2003 13:36
--- Left_Wing_XPhile2868 <[email protected]>
wrote: > We attempted to deliver this message to you
with
> HTML formatting. However, your e-mail program does
> not support HTML-enhanced messages. Please go to
> your E-mail Settings for this group and change your
> E-mail Preference to "Text only".
>
http://groups.msn.com/AryaTaraTibetanBuddh...ilsettings.msnw (http://groups.msn.com/AryaTaraTibetanBuddhismUK/_emailsettings.msnw)
>
> MSN Groups
>
>
Buddhism is a spiritual practice, it is a way to gain
awareness of the causes and conditions of one's
experiences of mental process. For example, mental
events like the thoughts, ideas, and feelings of
emotions, everyone's experiences would depend on one's
own tendency caused and conditioned through the mental
process in the past,and such tendency which determine
one's perception over a certain occurrence forms
attachment.
For example,if one is experiencing the mental events
while a certain sensory experience is felt,such mental
process is at the same time associating the linguistic
expression to the notion of a certain thought
experienced after the impact of the sensory experience
which at first appear to be abstract. And when one has
been participating with the mental process for awhile,
the attachment is formed in terms of a certain notion
is provoked by a certain sensory experience. For
example, when one physically seeing a table, if the
notion of a "table" subsequently experienced, then
what happen is this person had no awareness during the
mental process which develops from the abstract
sensory experience to something meaningful.
So the Buddha's teaching is to examine one's own mind
in order to realise that the origin of the experience
of mental process as a whole is not from the
occurrence or the object but the concept of "self" or
"I", the subject which determine one's understanding
of the reality. The practice of letting go of this
concept of "I" is especially important in order to
experience the nirvana. Thus Buddhism is compatible to
benefiting others, when one finally realises that all
beings are equal in terms of everyone would want to be
free from suffering, of course this suffering is not a
political one, it has a specific meaning. It means
that anyone who reborn in this case, a human
existence, can be all traced back to the belief of
"I", so called "ego". Of course there are exceptions,
some buddhist masters come back as human beings to
continue benefitting others.
So it does not matter what ethnic backgroud, political
belief, and so forth,it is a way to see the true
suffering, and maybe it is not what you were taught in
the class, but the historical aspect of Buddhism is
not all there is.
Good luck & take care
yours

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

Reply
Recommend Delete Message 3 of 6 in Discussion

From: Left_Wing_XPhile2868 Sent: 06/11/2003 13:51
thanks for your answer.

Reply
Recommend Message 4 of 6 in Discussion

From: Pilgrim Sent: 07/11/2003 09:28
Hi Left (may I call you 'Left'?)

It is so good to hear that there are still some Marxists around. I thought that I was the last one left alive in the UK. LOL

As your study of Buddhism continues (as I hope it will) and you take up a practice under (if possible) the direction of an enlightened teacher, you may well be surprised to find that your Marxist training in dialectics will connect with a similar dialectic within Buddhist philosophy. You come to the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path with useful equipment.

Your college's name suggests that it may be Catholic: no better preparation for Marxist, non-theist Buddhism IMHO!

Metta and best wishes,
Simon

This is a thread from the MSN group Arya Tara -Tibetan Buddhism UK - [email protected]

RED CHARO

11th November 2003, 12:38

On the topic of different styles of Buddism,
Chinese history is littered with religios up rising, of most memorabule to me is the 'Boxer rebelion', where the religios fanatical boxers attaced foreign troops, beliveing bullets couldn't harm them.....
I'm sure warlords in pre- revolutionary China used these supertions to further there gains,... I don't think China , with its bloody history would want a return to wars against fundamental Buddhisim.....

Dr. Rosenpenis

11th November 2003, 16:27

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc11.jpg

BuyOurEverything

11th November 2003, 22:38

yes but would lenin have done anything if it hadn't been for someone sitting in a library writing a bunch of philosophical bullshit that wastes people's time in the late 1800's?

Marx's writings are not philisophical. Neither the Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital discuss karma, enlightenment or other supersticions. Marx's writing was helpful in the establishment of many socialist governments and educated many people about the benefits of communism. Siddhartha promoted supersticion. I don't see how you can compare the two.

Alejandro C

18th November 2003, 05:37

marx's writing not philosophical, you've got to be shitting me.

marxism is based on philosophy

"feuerbach resolves the essence of religion into the essence of man. but the essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual. the real nature of man is the totality of social relations"

"the chief defect of all previous materialism is that things, reality, the sensible, world, are conceived only in the form of objects of observation, but not as human sense activity, not as practical activity, not subjectively."

marx was not a philosoher, but i believe he only seperated himself from philosophers through a conscious effort. believing that philophers only interpret the world, the point is to try and change it. but the interpretation is a very neccesary part of marx's contribution.

"my OWN existence IS a social activity."

i believe that the basis of both marx and buddhism is that man is not defined by the society around them. that we should all seek ourselves and we will find that we love ourselves and love others. shiiiiiitttttt that sounded stupid. oh well, i'm gonna start a topic on art and the revolution that you should comment on, it'll help clear somethings up (maybe)

Hiero

25th November 2003, 10:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 11:38 PM

yes but would lenin have done anything if it hadn't been for someone sitting in a library writing a bunch of philosophical bullshit that wastes people's time in the late 1800's?

Marx's writings are not philisophical. Neither the Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital discuss karma, enlightenment or other supersticions. Marx's writing was helpful in the establishment of many socialist governments and educated many people about the benefits of communism. Siddhartha promoted supersticion. I don't see how you can compare the two.
The buddha (Sidhartha) didnt promote supersticion. I tired to look for the quote on http://www.buddhanet.net but i couldnt find it. The wuote im looking for was from the buddha dn went somthing like this "dont follow in tradition nor in suppistion nor in fear".

iloveatomickitten

25th November 2003, 11:45

Communism is as much a moral subject as it is an economic subject these morals are based on the ethics which have become a central part of society for the religious none religious alike. These ethics are (I assume) the main reason that someone would grow to dislike capitalism and favor the left wing views. The very nature of buddhism is that it promotes the lack of greed and other such "evils."
A society of buddhist would perhaps already in a way become a communsim without intervention (an anarchy).

Bolshevika

25th November 2003, 20:17

I do not understand why it is that people want to try and combine Marxism--a rational system of ideas--with any form of irrational superstition.

I agree RedStar.

Philosophically, Marxist theory in many ways is nihilist. Marx and especially Engels emphasized on reason and materialism and opposes superstition and all its aspects (including Buddhism). It is impossible to be a Marxist and religious, religion is another form of feudalism.

Marxist philosophy is just as important as economics.

IHP

26th November 2003, 00:47

I think I have read about two rational thoughts posted on Buddhism so far. Clearly Buddhism is not particularly understood.

Firstly calling yourself "Buddhist" is like calling yourself a "left-winger," It hints at particular beliefs, but there are many schools of Buddhism to which you could practice. Just as you can go from moderate to radical on a political compass, and still be considered on the left. So you should understand that being a "Buddhist" is not clear at all. Therefore asking, 'does Buddhism and Marxism combine' is not at all apt. For example, I see Tibetan Buddhism to be on par with Catholicism, and thus opposed to an ideolody such as communism

Chairman Mao is correct. I practice Zen Buddhism, which does not view Buddha or his teachings as divine in any way. This is a whole different argument.

However, I believe that (due to the fact that I know a lot more about it than other Buddhist schools) Zen Buddhism and communism would not be particularly opposed, ideologically. But, as I'm not a communist I wouldn't see the sense in corrupting the beauty of Zen.

Clear all that up. I believe it would be possible to practice Zen and be a communist. But in a communist society, zen wouldn't be allowed due to this paranoia that surrounds a lot of communists in regards to "religion."

Zorio

26th November 2003, 16:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 01:47 AM
I think I have read about two rational thoughts posted on Buddhism so far. Clearly Buddhism is not particularly understood.

Firstly calling yourself "Buddhist" is like calling yourself a "left-winger," It hints at particular beliefs, but there are many schools of Buddhism to which you could practice. Just as you can go from moderate to radical on a political compass, and still be considered on the left. So you should understand that being a "Buddhist" is not clear at all. Therefore asking, 'does Buddhism and Marxism combine' is not at all apt. For example, I see Tibetan Buddhism to be on par with Catholicism, and thus opposed to an ideolody such as communism

Chairman Mao is correct. I practice Zen Buddhism, which does not view Buddha or his teachings as divine in any way. This is a whole different argument.

However, I believe that (due to the fact that I know a lot more about it than other Buddhist schools) Zen Buddhism and communism would not be particularly opposed, ideologically. But, as I'm not a communist I wouldn't see the sense in corrupting the beauty of Zen.

Clear all that up. I believe it would be possible to practice Zen and be a communist. But in a communist society, zen wouldn't be allowed due to this paranoia that surrounds a lot of communists in regards to "religion."
Thank you for posting that IHP.

I have been a Socialist for some time, as well as a Buddhist. I practice my own variation of Mahayana Buddhism, therefore I don't subscribe to any particular school.

I don't see any way that Communism and certain schools of Buddhism contradict. Buddhism is merely a path of self-discovery and understanding. When you read the teachings of the Buddha, he never tells you that you myst follow everything he says to the letter, merely to take in what he believes to be true, examine it and make your own decisions. It is possible to be a Buddhist and not believe in karma, it is possible to be a Buddhist and not believe in rebirth, it is even possible to be a Buddhist and not believe in Enlightenment.

To understand Buddhism, you must read what the Buddha says and make your own version to fit your life. Meditating will not make you a Capitalist, it is merely a way of examining yourself more closely. Following the Four Noble Truths will not make you any less of a Socialists.

The goals of Socialism and Buddhism are virtually identical, equality for all. They also aim to better society as well as the individuals. Those of you who are opposed to Buddhism without really understanding it need to realise that Buddhism is like no other faith, like no other philosophy. That it is about bettering the self. You do not need Sutras or Mantras to be a Buddhist, that you do not need a Dharma wheel or to read the Pali Cannon all the way through. All it means to be a Buddhist is to strive to be a better person and to help others.

Eastside Revolt

26th November 2003, 19:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 12:09 PM
I do not understand why it is that people want to try and combine Marxism--a rational system of ideas--with any form of irrational superstition.

What is the point of such attempts?

Are people trying to "hedge their bets"? It's as if they are saying "Well, Marxism makes sense for this world but I better cover my ass in case there's a next world."

I find this attitude incomprehensible.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
I don't understand how bhudism makes any less sense than, just assuming there is no "next world". What than is the point in existing? May aswell just not exist now as not exist later...

IHP

27th November 2003, 00:49

Zorio,

Thanks in return. I'm glad that someone else understands the diversity of Buddhism.

S.B.

27th November 2003, 02:15

Comrades

The initial explorations into socialism came by way of religious communes.

K.S.B.

Chewillneverdie

28th November 2003, 06:18

Im Buddhist and get a bunch of shit for it, and the biggest thing i ever hear is that how can i be marxist and Buddhist. Well the Buddha said quite often he wasnt a god. Arent the Chinese treating Tibetan Buddhist's like shit? wouldnt suprise me. I donate money to Tibetan schools and stuff, but im not sure the ordeal. From what i heard its going pretty bad, and even tho im Buddhist i would support a revolution in Tibet. Anone have any details i should know?

redstar2000

28th November 2003, 14:58

I believe it would be possible to practice Zen and be a communist. But in a communist society, zen wouldn't be allowed due to this paranoia that surrounds a lot of communists in regards to "religion."

Nonsense.

What "wouldn't be allowed" is the public paraphenalia...temples, statues, etc.

Someone who wished to privately practice zen buddhism would no more be persecuted than someone who wished to privately practice astrology or vegetarianism.

They might be thought a bit wacko, though. :blink:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

synthesis

28th November 2003, 17:51

Buddhist Communism:

IHP

29th November 2003, 05:33

Redstar,

So you're saying that religious worship is "allowed" in a communist society, if it's confined to the household?

And who's wacko? The practicer of Zen, or the vegetarian?

Iron Star

29th November 2003, 05:48

Buddhism is still a religion regardless of how "free" and "open minded" and "tolerant" it may be. Irrational, illogical, and idealistic religious "philosophies", regardless of how similar they are to Marxism, are ALWAYS and INHERENTLY incompatible with it. Religion has no place in a society based upon Materialistic principles.

suffianr

29th November 2003, 06:05

Buddhism is still a religion regardless of how "free" and "open minded" and "tolerant" it may be.

It isn't, mate. A lot of Buddhists I know would say that it's more of a way of life, a way of doing things, than a strict adherence to rules like in, say, Christianity. It's not a religion, in the physical sense.

S.B.

29th November 2003, 06:08

Comrades

Religion in general is an expression of mans impotence to deal with phenomena he cannot understand,its the ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system.

Times of hardship,peril and national calamity often leads to mass conversion displaying the essence of fear that is of such importance within the religious framework.

Its a carry-over from the infancy of mans initial intelligence that will in time whither away once humanity has reached full maturity.

Religion is hope and fear explaining to ignorance the nature of the unknown,and it serves as the means for lazy-wealth gained by charlatans who assure the ignorant that they will be saved from a non-existent hell.

Religion is nothing more than the expression of hopelessness and depression.Men write,fight and grow wealthy based on religion,indeed ... kings,prophets and priests were given their offices by sanction of this peculiar speculation.

Lonliness,poverty and misery tend to give rise to the thought of religion and people seldom call upon God except for those times when they find themselves in a situation they arrived at without him.

Religion for the most part is morality in principle,whereas for me personally,socialism is morality in practice.

K.S.B.

redstar2000

29th November 2003, 13:22

So you're saying that religious worship is "allowed" in a communist society, if it's confined to the household?

Well, that seems like the sensible way to go...at least to me.

Without any kind of public reinforcement, I expect most people to "lose interest" in the matter. There's no Temple of Zeus in your neighborhood, right? Mine doesn't have one either.

When religious architecture has vanished from the public landscape, when "holy books" are found only in the reference section of the public library, when even place names have been secularized (goodbye San Francisco; hello Yerba Buena)...what's the point in harassing some poor sod because he has an icon in the corner of his living room?

One problem that will be difficult: stopping religious parents from indoctrinating their children. At some point, that's going to have to be considered child abuse...but introducing such measures will be "tricky" and require a "delicate touch".

Children have no intellectual "defenses" against such indoctrination and the community must protect them while they are vulnerable.

And who's wacko? The practicer of Zen, or the vegetarian?

My sense is that people will come to see believers as distinctly eccentric...or "wacko".

You know, where one murmurs politely "oh, really?" followed quickly by "excuse me, there's someone over there that I need to speak to right away"...and you cross to the other side of the room with as much dispatch as you can summon while retaining your dignity.

Later, you might ask the host why a believer was invited to the party...?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

IHP

29th November 2003, 19:01

"Buddhism is still a religion regardless of how "free" and "open minded" and "tolerant" it may be. Irrational, illogical, and idealistic religious "philosophies", regardless of how similar they are to Marxism, are ALWAYS and INHERENTLY incompatible with it. Religion has no place in a society based upon Materialistic principles."

How little you actually understand, Iron Star. Tell me how much you know about any school of Buddhism. It is not materialistic. I can't be bothered with you dogmatic communists. As I practice a form of Buddhism, I know what you're saying is rhetoric and not actuall based on any knowledge of the way of life.

Suffian,

Right on the money mate. There are no "rules" and it is, indeed, simply a way of life. I'm glad that someone else realizes this.

Redstar,

But Zen is practiced at home. Monastries only exist for life-time monks, which, comparitvely in Zen, there are very few. Are you granting an allowance for Zen here?

As for the "believer." Zen has no belief, only meditation. Again I fail to see why the practicer of Zen is a "wacko."

S.B.

29th November 2003, 19:26

Comrades

In regards to religion and those who wish to intermingle it with the communist ideology there can be no alternative other than the adherence to a faith in one universal God as expressive of the internationalist spirit which drives communalist thought.

The god of organized religion is none other than an exaggerated expression of the selfish ego,such a deity is conceived out of the desire to perpetuate oneself,family,community and nation ... its merely a cultish-god by which one people strive to promote self interest without concern for the rest of humanity.

I once considered the Vedic concept of Brahman as an impersonal god to be a sincere approach to the spiritual realm by which all people are recognized as belonging to a common humanity under equal protection and provision of the one God.

However,Brahman is presented as an essence,power or energy(life-force)which pervades and encompasses all that is in the cosmos,in the deepest aspects of Vedism,Brahman is the cosmos,both the universe which surrounds us and the universe which exists within us.

To many this is not enough due to the struggle of the ego wishing to be recognized and acknowledged as a separate entity,thus by the nature of this selfish tendency in man various gods were bound to arise.

The idea of a personal god is a hard matter for true socialists who by their realization of the one commonwealth of man by nature shun aspects of the human psyche which are yet to be emancipated from all notions of separatism.

Ones faith,as ones sexual orientation,is a personal matter that shouldnt be discussed in a public forum,and those which do seek to express either subject openly are merely attempting to stir public controversy.

It is as irrational to discuss matters of religious faith as it is to express such faith,for in declaring ones faith in their own personal god is to promote the idea that they are in effect set apart from others and that because of this faith of theirs they stand justified to advance their own interests above the rest of mankind,this in turn ultimately leads to contentions and war.

Having stated these things I see no reason that I should comment on religion hereafter at this site.

K.S.B.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

3rd December 2003, 00:29

I feel that ALL religion should be banned outright, and people found practicing religion should be admitted to a mental institution for manditory psychiatric rehablitation. Religion is nothing more than psychological masterbation and the suppression of logical human thought for some oppressive "divine will". I feel it is the duty of society to create an intelligent, logical, and morally upright population as possible. (Not morals as in religious morals obviously, but morals such as not selling out to capitalists, place society before yourself, etc) I feel that this is not possible with a superstitious society that tries to decieve people into joining their reactionary cults. Besides, you cannot legalize only one religion without the rest, or the result would be the creation of a theocratic state, which as I see it, is the worst possible political system, (right above Fascism and right-wing libertarianism).

IHP

3rd December 2003, 00:53

Midnight Marauder,

Tell me how much of Zen thought you understand. I'm guessing from your post that it's very little. Is that correct?

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

3rd December 2003, 10:43

From what I hear, its the belief that religions are all right, and people are equal (short of women, who were treated as demons in Tibet). However, you cannot sell off the idea as your religion as right, and everyone else's is wrong, just as the state cannot favor Buddism over any other religion, or we would be just as bad as traditional religious right-wing conservatives. Religion is 100% irrational thought, regardless of the underlying dogma.

IHP

3rd December 2003, 22:28

What has Tibet got to do with anything? Zen (Japan), Son (Korea) and Ch'an (China) have nothing to do with Tibetan Buddhism. I'm guessing based on this response that in fact, no, you have no knowledge of the practices involved.

"dogma"

Dogma? Show me a single command or affirmation in Zen scripture. I dare ya.

Irrational thought? You really don't have clue about this do you? It's considered irrational if you agree with existing Zen work. Quite obviously you stick to labels and total material.

Furthermore, Zen has never boasted to be "right" and has not ever said that other religions are "wrong." Zen thought sees these religions stuck in old ideas and staked totally within superstition.

Learn some more before you try again.

SonofRage

3rd December 2003, 23:57

I agree with what Albert Einstein had to say about Buddhism:

Originally posted by "Albert Einstein"

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity"

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

4th December 2003, 10:24

Isn't it odd that there is almost unianimous condemnation of Mormonism, but little opposition to the Buddists? If Buddists pray, meditate, believe in afterlife/reincarnation, anything supernatural, e.x. ghosts, demons, or spirits, have shrines and idols, then it is an irrational religion. BTW Tibet was a Buddist theocracy.

Alejandro C

4th December 2003, 16:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 07:29 PM
I feel it is the duty of society to create an intelligent, logical, and morally upright population as possible. (Not morals as in religious morals obviously, but morals such as not selling out to capitalists, place society before yourself, etc)
some religions do just that. for instance if everyone in america truly believed and practiced buddhism there would be no need for a socialist revolution, but the conditions would be ripe for one to happen organically. The goal of some religions is the same goal as socialism- to free the people's minds from the oppression that has come with modern life- be it wage-slavery, the absence of self-exploration, or selfishness. the point is that people's minds are oppressed and we must free their minds by any means neccesary. embracing some religions can be looked at the same way as the old saying- my enemy's enemy is my friend. i believe buddhism is one of those religions that leftist can embrace because they see the brotherhood of ideas in buddhism.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

4th December 2003, 20:11

Since when have you been to a shrine that tought people biology, chemistry, physics, and the rest of the sciences? Regardless, if such a religion did exist, we would call it atheism. :P No religion can create a population of logical, intelligent people. It is of extreme importance for the world to remain secular as possible.

IHP

5th December 2003, 04:05

"Isn't it odd that there is almost unianimous condemnation of Mormonism, but little opposition to the Buddists? If Buddists pray, meditate, believe in afterlife/reincarnation, anything supernatural, e.x. ghosts, demons, or spirits, have shrines and idols, then it is an irrational religion. BTW Tibet was a Buddist theocracy."

Ahh, lad. You're not going to win this one. You really don't have a clue about it.

Tibetan Buddhism is not "Buddhism". It's a "type" of Buddhism. What I would consider to be to equivalent of Catholicism. Zen Buddhism has nothing to do with Tibet.

Let me show you why you are wrong:

"If Buddists pray,"

They don't pray.

"meditate,"

How is meditation "irrational"? Have you ever meditated? I do so everyday for about twenty minutes. Your argument here is like saying that taking your socks off is irrational.

"believe in afterlife/reincarnation,"

There are particular schools that believe this. Show me where any scripture says that to be a Buddhist you must believe in those that you state. Speaking of which, refer to my post a few ago. I believe I asked for even one command or affirmation in Zen Buddhist writings.

"anything supernatural, e.x. ghosts, demons, or spirits

Ahh, how little you know. If you actually knew anything, you would see your mistake and presumption.

"have shrines and idols, then it is an irrational religion"

There are temples that exist where monks live. In Zen, there is a Zendo where you can meet up with others of the same persuasion and do a little Zazen, and discuss things. How is that irrational? In Zen, Buddha isn't seen as anything divine or special at all. He was simply the first to see the world as distorted and not materially.

Do you want to continue this?

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

5th December 2003, 10:31

Hmph, not looking at the world materially? That only proves the point Marx made that Religion is the opium of the people, and leads them to accept their oppression. There is nothing wrong with a materialist world, unless you are want to oppress them of course, and convence them that a frugal life of hard work is a GOOD thing while whoever told you that is laughing all the way to the bank. Shrines? Practicing Zazen? Why don't you instead build a factory, churn out food, and distribute it to the poor, instead of wasting your time on "Zazen"? There are ways to help people you know, and building temples and doing "Zazen" isn't one of them.

IHP

6th December 2003, 01:13

Of course, that 20 minutes a day is so valuable to mankind that I should cease doing it. In fact, showers should stop, meals will only be eaten on the run. I shall no longer catch up with friends, because heck, I've got people to help! Is every waking minute of your day spent "helping people"? That's a terrible stance and you know it.

Why have you put quotation marks around the word Zazen?

"and convence them that a frugal life of hard work is a GOOD thing while whoever told you that is laughing all the way to the bank."

Honestly, you should stop now. It's just embaressing. You don't have a clue about Zen practice, just admit it.

Chewillneverdie

6th December 2003, 02:53

Buddhism basically keeps me from killing people, 20 minutes of meditation does wonders doesnt it IHP. I learned bout helping nature and human rights through Buddhism, and to care about other people. lol to quote R. Williams most religious terrorist blow up eachother while a Buddhist terrorist sets himself on fire, every1 looks at him and yells"what the fuck is the matter with you, what are you doing" "dealing with your shit"

SonofRage

6th December 2003, 03:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 09:53 PM
to quote R. Williams most religious terrorist blow up eachother while a Buddhist terrorist sets himself on fire, every1 looks at him and yells"what the fuck is the matter with you, what are you doing" "dealing with your shit"
I have often made that same argument. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.

IHP

6th December 2003, 17:46

Mr. Neverdie,

That's fantastic. I really enjoy my 20 minutes of meditation. It feels like blissful eternity most of the time. Especially with some problems I'm having at the moment, I feel a lot more secure whilst staring at a dot in the carpet whilst my mind is at ease. A really beautiful thing if you ask me. Do you practice a certain "variety" if you will, of Buddhism?

Same question to Mr. OfRage, actually. You've posted a few postive things about Buddhism. It's quite refreshing, really.

But, then again, clearly those twenty minutes must be used to serve humanity. According to Mr. Marauder, that is.

Alejandro C

6th December 2003, 18:27

the 8 fold path according to Jack Kerouac

1. RIGHT VIEWS- ...correct doctrines, free from superstition or delusion

2. RIGHT ASPIRATIONS- ambition to destroy suffering and ego

3. RIGHT SPEECH ask and answer necessary questions, speak to instruct, radiate mental peace and compassion in silence- inflexible veracity, kindly, open, truthful

4. RIGHT CONDUCT the 4 precepts (dont kill, steal, lust or deceive)-- no sloth and intoxicants- purity of conduct, peaceful, honest, pure.

5. RIGHT LIVELIHOOD- live alone in the open the ascetic life-- beg from the charitable earth-- bringing hurt or danger to no living thin-- a sinless occupation

6. RIGHT ENDEAVOR continual awareness loving all- energetic guard over progress- correct efforts- perseverance in duty- effort in self training and self control

7. RIGHT MINDFULNESS- avoid outgoing projecting multiplicity thoughts- active watchful mind-- holy meditation

8. RIGHT CONTEMPLATION daily practice of dhyana for the attainment of samadhi and samapatti and attainment of highest perfect enlightenmnet for the sake of all sentient life- earnest thoughts on the deep mysteries of life-- mental tranquillity.

-taken from SOME OF THE DHARMA

if you would carefully read the first 7 of these they might be very familiar. Mao borrowed heavily from them in his little red book. they are the most basic guidelines of buddhism. the way of the 8 fold path is the way to enlightenment. if you search the meaning in these 8 aspirations of life you will find that the ideas are not opposed to socialism, but are in harmony or are complementary to socialism. i think Che would particularly agree with point 6. taking the view that all religions are bad and should be done away with is too overly dogmatic. you have to look at the end goal of socialism and communism to appreciate that that goal has been aspired to since bodhidharma (the first buddha) began his teachings.

a simple condemnation without first studying what you're condemning is foolish.

Chewillneverdie

6th December 2003, 23:19

the Buddhism i practice is a mix between Tibetan and Zen, its kinda hard for me to practice for a few reasons, one i live in Oklahoma (redneck town) two my parents have no idea i am. Do you use mala beads? i ordered some, but they screwed up and i never got em grr. Hey midnight you asshole, Buddhism kept me from killing myself literally.

SonofRage

6th December 2003, 23:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 12:46 PM
Mr. Neverdie,

That's fantastic. I really enjoy my 20 minutes of meditation. It feels like blissful eternity most of the time. Especially with some problems I'm having at the moment, I feel a lot more secure whilst staring at a dot in the carpet whilst my mind is at ease. A really beautiful thing if you ask me. Do you practice a certain "variety" if you will, of Buddhism?

Same question to Mr. OfRage, actually. You've posted a few postive things about Buddhism. It's quite refreshing, really.

But, then again, clearly those twenty minutes must be used to serve humanity. According to Mr. Marauder, that is.
It depends on how you look at Buddhism. I generally consider myself to be a Wiccan (http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcra.htm). Wicca is an eclectic faith, and I have adopted many Buddhist principles into my practice. If you look at Buddhism more as a way of life instead of being a religion, then you could consider me to be a Buddhist. This would seem consistant with, for example, Chinese Buddhists who still have their traditional pantheon of gods in addition to their Buddhist practice.

Chewillneverdie

7th December 2003, 01:04

i dont believe in gods, Buddhism gives you lots of leeway to do anything you really feel like.

IHP

7th December 2003, 04:12

CheW,

Mix of Tibetan and Zen? That's about the most bizarre combination Buddhist thought I think that I've ever seen. How do you work it?

I don't use any instruments. I sit and stare at a spot about a metre ahead of me and then seperate my mind from my body.

SonofRage,

Indeed, I do consider Buddhism to be a way of life and not a "religion" in the traditional sense. I don't know too much about Wiccan, but that Paganism right? I will read some of that link. Do you know much about Zen?

SonofRage

7th December 2003, 05:55

Yes, Wicca can be classified as a "Neo-Pagan" faith. No, I don't know much about Zen but I'd love to learn more about it.

Chewillneverdie

7th December 2003, 20:51

Its an odd mixture you could say, hard to explain how they mix. Im happy midnight finally shut the hell up. I use Mala Beads and i meditate often, I thank the Dharma and The Buddha, with a small alter. Ever meditated sitting down in the shower? That is an amazing feeling.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

9th December 2003, 21:46

Gah, theres no point in continuing arguing, the vast majority of the people here are religious fanatics, and for that, there is nothing I can do. Evil Midnight and his godless ways...

Eastside Revolt

9th December 2003, 22:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 10:46 PM
Gah, theres no point in continuing arguing, the vast majority of the people here are religious fanatics, and for that, there is nothing I can do. Evil Midnight and his godless ways...
The majority of people here are not fanatics.

I think the difference between you and them, is that they can see the difference between a belief system, and a sovereign political power like the church. ;)

IHP

9th December 2003, 23:53

Marauder,

"Religious fanatics"?

How do get that? What have any of us shown that indicates that we are "fanatics"? Once again, I have to say, you have absolutely no idea what your talking about.

Also, you do realize that Buddhism is also Godless, just like "Evil Midnight."

Chewillneverdie

11th December 2003, 00:38

Hey dipshit, guess what, Buddhism promotes fucking peace asshole. IHP is right we are godless too. I got enough shit for converting in this redneck state, read about something before you talk shit on it k? (sorry im pissed and want to cuss lol) :blink:

IHP

11th December 2003, 01:09

Don't worry mate. Swear all you want. I try not to a lot of the time, but in my weaker moments, I find myself indulging in some bad language. I think it's clear to most of us that Midnight doesn't really have a clue what he's talking about.

About meditating in the shower. I have never tried it. I usually meditate for about twenty minutes a day, and Australia is still in a long drought. I wouldn't want to waste so much water. I imagine it would be quite calming though.

peaccenicked

11th December 2003, 15:18

Bhuddism, as with christianity promote the vanity of some personal savation as way out of the misery of society. The prioritising of personal behavior and lifestylism in general is about making a precious commodity out of the self.
Marxism on the other hand sees instantly the connection between society and the individual. "The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all". The are no superficial divisions.
We are small and big at the same time.
Solidarity forever!

Zorio

11th December 2003, 16:30

Not all forms of Buddhism are about personal salvation. In Mahayana Buddhism, there's something called the Bodhisattva Ideal, which means basically that your goal is to better yourself in order to help others and serve society.

peaccenicked

11th December 2003, 16:43

Quote from website.
"Finally, the Mahayanists completed the conversion of Buddhism from a philosophy to religion. Therevada Buddhism holds that Buddha was a historical person who, on his death, ceased to exist. There were, however, strong tendencies for Buddhists to worship Buddha as a god of some sort; these tendencies probably began as early as Buddha's lifetime. The Mahayanists developed a theology of Buddha called the doctrine of "The Three Bodies," or Trikaya. The Buddha was not a human being, as he was in Theravada Buddhism, but the manifestation of a universal, spiritual being. This being had three bodies. When it occupied the earth in the form of Siddhartha Gautama, it took on the Body of Magical Transformation (nirmanakaya ). This Body of Magical Transformation was an emanation of the Body of Bliss (sambhogakaya ), which occupies the heavens in the form of a ruling and governing god of the universe. There are many forms of the Body of Bliss, but the one that rules over our world is Amithaba who lives in a paradise in the western heavens called Sukhavati, or "Land of Pure Bliss." Finally, the Body of Bliss is an emanation of the Body of Essence (dharmakaya ), which is the principle underlying the whole of the universe. This Body of Essence, the principle and rule of the universe, became synonymous with Nirvana . It was a kind of universal soul, and Nirvana became the transcendent joining with this universal soul. "

It seems to me that this is self serving mysticism. Life does not need an abstract universal soul. Genuine solidarity is eminently concrete. The injustices are manifest the pain is real and describable. Abstract unity tends to focus on empty spiritual paths which ultimately have only one visible end -personal salvation.

IHP

12th December 2003, 06:50

Peacce,

"Bhuddism, as with christianity promote the vanity of some personal savation as way out of the misery of society."

What is this vanity that you speak of? And what is the second part of that? Are you referring to concepts within Buddhist thought?

"Marxism on the other hand sees instantly the connection between society and the individual."

What a base stance that is. What you dismiss are parallels not so clearly defined. What you seem to think is that there is one "type" of Buddhism. Is that correct? Because that's what you are arguing against.

"The are no superficial divisions."

Superficial? As in being unable to affirm? Do you 100% affirm everything, Peacce? Totally denying or affirming, in Zen thought, is totaly folly.

I expected better from you, Paul.

Hiero

12th December 2003, 09:51

Chewillneverdie what do you use the mala beads for? and how did you learn so much about buddhism being in a redneck state did you use the internet alot? Wheneve i get sent out of class i normaly kick my shoe's off and and sit in the half lotus positions and mediate but never can fully get into it with all the distractions. Meditating in the shower never tried that but i have in the pool and its so wierd because you start to floot around.

RedAnarchist

12th December 2003, 10:31

i myself have seriously considered Buddhism, and find it peaceful, relaxing, calm, and so much better than Western thinking.

peaccenicked

12th December 2003, 15:54

Vanity is all the worse when it includes a false humility. This is at the bottom
of my gripe with all religon that I have came accross. It is more pronounced in bhuddism than any other. All their talk of ignorance and pain is left almost entirely in the abstract. The class question which underlies the social question is all but ommitted.
As to Zen thought it has some wisdom as do most religions. Affirmation and denial are moot points in the midst of a class war. All I affirm is the basic root of all my thinking -an injury to one is an injury to all. This is the root of the workers movement which marxism is the most outstanding champion. Other viewpoints may add different shades of thought to this thinking but independently, they seek an escape for the self. No sophistry can hide that from me. This is my most fundamental conviction and is open to all manner of questioning. I am glad to learn.
Vanity is my personal enemy also.

IHP

12th December 2003, 21:49

"Vanity is all the worse when it includes a false humility"

"Other viewpoints may add different shades of thought to this thinking but independently, they seek an escape for the self"

To what, in Zen thought, are you referring in these? I can't say I know of any parallels, and I'm quite well read and experienced in Zen.

Explain what you mean exactly, and how so.

Chewillneverdie

12th December 2003, 23:50

the shower is awesome cus the water is basically pelting ur body and its just so relaxing, and yes the net was the way i learned it. I used to say a mantra before i ate, and got pushed around for it. Fucking preps and jocks. www.dharmashop.com for mala beads

SonofRage

13th December 2003, 00:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 10:54 AM
Vanity is all the worse when it includes a false humility. This is at the bottom of my gripe with all religon that I have came accross. It is more pronounced in bhuddism than any other. All their talk of ignorance and pain is left almost entirely in the abstract. The class question which underlies the social question is all but ommitted.
It sounds like Marxism is your religion

Lardlad95

13th December 2003, 01:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 10:49 PM
"Vanity is all the worse when it includes a false humility"

"Other viewpoints may add different shades of thought to this thinking but independently, they seek an escape for the self"

To what, in Zen thought, are you referring in these? I can't say I know of any parallels, and I'm quite well read and experienced in Zen.

Explain what you mean exactly, and how so.
Zen? you need to do Nicheren Shu my friend

peaccenicked

13th December 2003, 01:22

Religion as such can be defined in many ways. I can identify with none of them, although I am interested in find out as much as I can in the time I have left in this mortal coil, to speak poetically. Dogma is an enemy of questioning.

Here is a quote I found on Zen
"definition of karma
Karma is intentional action, that is, a deed done deliberately through body, speech or mind. Karma means good and bad volition (kusala Akusala Centana). Every volitional action (except that of a Buddha or of an Arahant) is called Karma. The Buddhas and Arahants do not accumulate fresh Karma as they have destroyed all their passions.

In other words, Karma is the law of moral causation. It is action and reaction in the ethical realm. It is natural law that every action produces a certain effect. So if one performs wholesome actions such as donating money to charitable organizations, happiness will ensue. On the other hand, if one performs unwholesome actions, such as killing a living being, the result will be suffering. This is the law of cause and effect at work. In this way, the effect of past karma determines the nature of one's present situation in life.

The Buddha said,

"According to the seed that is sown,
So is the fruit you reap
The door of good of will gather good results
The door of evil reaps evil results.
If you plant a good seed well,
Then you will enjoy the good fruits."
Karma is a law itself. But it does not follow that there should be a lawgiver. The law of Karma, too, demands no lawgiver. It operates in its own field without the intervention of an external, independent agency. "

Here I find the axis centred around personal merit,donating money to me is an 'unwholesome action', it neglects the basic question, Why? It superficially grasps the need but fails to ascertain the source of all contradictions in society. In Christianity we hear the false humility of not interfering in worldly affairs. Here the law of karma appears to supercede practical corporeal law.
What of unjust laws. Is it not unwholesome to do nothing about them?
If "love thy neighbour as thyself" was practised in christianity would not all churches preach out revolution. If the law of Karma was actually held as a serious human conviction. Would not every Bhuddist temple stand boldly out for revolution.
I am not against chilling out,relaxing or meditation but I do not turn issues of good personal health into hypocritical dogmas.

SonofRage

13th December 2003, 01:44

In response to the dogma issue, I again have to go with what Einstein said about Buddhism:

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity"

IHP

13th December 2003, 10:25

Peacce,

I'm confused as to how you equate karma with Zen. Moreso, you cohabitate them. This is a false premise to start with therefore nullifying the rest of your post in regards to Zen. Zen thought does not anywhere include this concept.

What you don't seem to realize is the difference between Eastern culture, and eastern religion. I have already stated, and you appreciated, that Zen does not totally affirm nor totally deny anything. Karma is not a Zen concept. It is a Buddhist concept. You clearly don't see the difference.

Furthermore, I, as well as all other practicers don't see Buddha's word as divine, thus we can then laugh away your quote.

What you seem to think is that if you adopt a Buddhist way of life, then you must believe in such concepts, or will be somehow pressured into believing them in hope of some salvation. Is that correct?

In Buddhist thought (not Zen specifically) you do not have to believe in such concepts as a soul or karma. That's your personal choice, and your culture, not your religion.

Paul, mate, I've seen you do a lot better than this. Stop pulling your punches already.

peaccenicked

13th December 2003, 12:10

IHP.
This discussion is confusing me.
Just a few comments. I do not equate Zen with the Law of karma.
It seems to be that Zen is a bit of a cop out for vain 'intelligent' buddhists, the same way sufism is for Islam. The elite or the esoteric are given glimpses of
the 'divine' in all its flexibility and richness while the punters, so to speak,
are given the dogma. In sufism it is the grape, a kind of allegory. While the wine is for the enlightened.
Karma, to me is not a cultural entity, it is religious dogma that has been
given great cultural significance because of the religious domination of the culture in many regions of the world. It is much better mind you than the burning crosses of the KKK. To me Karma is a scar on human conciousness.
Not to affirm or to deny it is a cop out. Not to oppose is to accept.
I am not out to appease anyone, but express the truth as I see it. (No matter how uncomfortable it is).
Bhuddas word, not being divine, is a another cop out. It is like the advice alcholics are given at the end of their meetings. Take the best and leave the rest. That is ok for personal health reasons but it is red rag to a bull for those of us who wish to see all of humanity free from the mind numbing, brain glogging effects of religion. The inteligensia of the religious establishment and even its iconaclasts are a reactionary presence in every culture. The uphold their superiority of spirituality as a continuation of long bloody line of icons who have held the masses in their place since the dark ages and beyond.

Lardlad95

13th December 2003, 14:31

Peace for the record I think you need to learn this about the Buddha's teachings.

He used Expedients and Parabales in his teachings. Why? Because certain people don't learn the same way. he needed to explain the path to enlightenment in bits and pieces because it was too great for teh average man to understand. So he had to explain partial truth instead of whole truth.

now this seems like a copout, however it's true not everyone has the same capacity for understanding as others.

For example, if you were trying to explain communism to someone who has never read or heard anything about it and you kept trying but they didn't understand, wouldn't you make analogies and try to explain it to them in a way they might understand?

Also Zen buddhism is really considered a watered down version of buddhism by most buddhists or atleast Zen buddhism in america...no offence IHP.

If "love thy neighbour as thyself" was practised in christianity would not all churches preach out revolution. If the law of Karma was actually held as a serious human conviction. Would not every Bhuddist temple stand boldly out for revolution.

Just because people don't follow the messege that doesn't mean the messege is wrong does it?

Look at Communism, lots of people have fucked that up..that doesn't mean communism is wrong now does it?

Also why would a buddhist want revolution? Killing people is a wrong action according to buddhist.

So I think the real question is why don't Buddhist support democratic socialism?

Well I'm a Nichiren Shu buddhist and I'm a democratic socialist so then i suppose I am truly following the law of karma :)

peaccenicked

13th December 2003, 20:25

Lardlad95. I am not to sure about the stages theory of human development. There are three types of people I meet. Those who have an idea what socialism is and are pro or opposed to it. It doesnt work,its against human nature etc. There are those who are not interested, they take in bits of fun but they are mainly hedonist. I get with them that life is too tough for them to handle much else. I teach them nothing because it would be most unwelcome. Then there are those who like the idea of socialism but are defeatist. I offer them knowledge, I think will encourage them give them some hope in this war/poverty stricken world. It is not always easy,in that many of the people I meet are depressed.
I can show them a parable, a short story, more likely a poem. I have found
that at the bottom line, people just want to know what the score is. There is no consideration of partial truth, or whole truths, just getting out as much truth one possibly can in the situation that arises. I dont go off into tangents unless there is a long period of silence and that is almost never.
Revolution is about ending all war forever. It is not about killing people but having so much force that none of our people are killed.
I have met many nice friendly buddhists. One of my live-in lovers was one.
I loved her dearly, but not for her buddhism but for her humanity. The only real difference I could see was that she would go to a concentration camp peacefully and I would fight to close it down, physically.
LL95 if there were more genuine buddhists, and christians,like yourself, sure the world be socialist and democratic.

Lardlad95

13th December 2003, 22:30

Well Peace all I can say is that their are different paths to the same destinatin, it's true for buddhism and it's true for socialism/communism.

Personally I think that as long as you find a way to sucessfully promote socialism/communism it's all good, I may disagree with how you do it but the fact is that you are doing it.

Revolution is about ending all war forever. It is not about killing people but having so much force that none of our people are killed.

I look forward to seeing a revolution run like this, unfortunately I haven't seen or heard of one yet, but I wont count out the possibility.

peaccenicked

13th December 2003, 23:06

Comrade, Lardlad95.
I hear what you are saying. I suppose, I sound rather idealistic. I was really thinking on the long term there. My perspective for the next decade is one of wars, struggles of national liberation, attempted revolutions in the most oppressed countries, Turkey may still yet be the weakest link in the chain of imperialist countries. The prospect of this leads to more counter revolutions.
Marx once wrote to the effect that our first attempts at socialism would be failures even futile but from these and those subsequent we would learn.
One wonders how many batterings we can take. However I predict that someday when we have had basically enough it all, uneven development will become combined development internationally, and that will unleash the most fearsome workers movement ever, at a time when the ruling class itself feels it can rule no more.
I know in someways this might seem overly optimistic.
I can feel it coming in the air, there are some historical indicators. There is only one thing for sure. We aint seen nothing yet.

Lardlad95

13th December 2003, 23:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 12:06 AM
Comrade, Lardlad95.
I hear what you are saying. I suppose, I sound rather idealistic. I was really thinking on the long term there. My perspective for the next decade is one of wars, struggles of national liberation, attempted revolutions in the most oppressed countries, Turkey may still yet be the weakest link in the chain of imperialist countries. The prospect of this leads to more counter revolutions.
Marx once wrote to the effect that our first attempts at socialism would be failures even futile but from these and those subsequent we would learn.
One wonders how many batterings we can take. However I predict that someday when we have had basically enough it all, uneven development will become combined development internationally, and that will unleash the most fearsome workers movement ever, at a time when the ruling class itself feels it can rule no more.
I know in someways this might seem overly optimistic.
I can feel it coming in the air, there are some historical indicators. There is only one thing for sure. We aint seen nothing yet.
Oh yyes I definitely agree.

My only problem is that I've become extremely frustrated with the lack of action.

I'm tired of sitting watching CNN and seeing BUSH influence MY generation.

So many of my peers are believing this Conservative Garbage...the 9/11 generation has been born.

I want to take action, I want to be around more socialists in my community(*i've met few) I want to take action, but I want national action. I"M SO SICK OF THE LEFT TAKING SET BACK AFTER SET BACK.

This is why i'm so sick and tired of all the infighting..I want to be part of a generation that sees the fall of imperialism, the fall of capitalism. And when i come here and I see us bickering I get pissed off.

But i guess this frustration is all stemmed from the fact that i haven't written in so long, i'm in a school i hate, around a bunch of conservatives, and i have no place to be active.

i don't know what I'm saying I'm just ranting now...sorry

peaccenicked

13th December 2003, 23:43

Comrade,
You are not alone. Thank you though. You have helped me realise I am not alone too.
Dont worry too much we shall win. :D :D :D

Lardlad95

13th December 2003, 23:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 12:43 AM
Comrade,
You are not alone. Thank you though. You have helped me realise I am not alone too.
Dont worry too much we shall win. :D :D :D
I sure hope so...cuz I'm getting really sick of not raising class conciousness

:D

peaccenicked

14th December 2003, 00:31

An Ancient Chinese Proverb

Do not despise the snake for having no horns,for who is to say it will not become a dragon

Think about it.

Lardlad95

14th December 2003, 00:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 01:31 AM
An Ancient Chinese Proverb

Do not despise the snake for having no horns,for who is to say it will not become a dragon

Think about it.
I GET IT NOW!!!! I FINALLY GET IT!!! THANKS PEACE, I FINALLY UNDERSTAND!!!!

IF I BUY A POISONIOUS SNAKE AND PUT IT IN BUSH"S BED, ALL OF MY PROBLEMS WILL BE SOLVED

peaccenicked

14th December 2003, 01:22

Man you are quick. :o :o :D :D :blink: :D :D :D :D

IHP

14th December 2003, 03:37

"IHP.
This discussion is confusing me."

Good! :)

"Just a few comments. I do not equate Zen with the Law of karma.
It seems to be that Zen is a bit of a cop out for vain 'intelligent' buddhists, the same way sufism is for Islam."

Not at all. Do you know what Zen is? Zen (Japanese - meditation) and Buddhism are different things. Zen Buddhism is the combination of Zen with elements of Buddhism. Practicing Zen alone is nothing more than meditating daily. I hardly see that as a cop out. It's like saying that brushing your teeth is a cop out. A (more than) daily practice, done so for the betterment of your health. One mental the other dental. Cop out? Where?

"Not to affirm or to deny it is a cop out. Not to oppose is to accept."

Your paradoxical sentence her proves only that affirming or denying is folly. Can you not see that for yourself?

"Bhuddas word, not being divine, is a another cop out."

Sorry, Peacce, you're grasping at straws. Zen does not accept him as anything divine, nor his words. They are considered advice by an enlightened human being. But if you did actually know anything about Zen practice, you would know that even those who have studied for their entire lives can write poems to capture Zen thought etc that totally contradict each other. There is no real thought continuity in relation to the world around us. That's another example of why totally affirming or totally denying anything is quite presumptuous

That is ok for personal health reasons but it is red rag to a bull for those of us who wish to see all of humanity free from the mind numbing, brain glogging effects of religion. The inteligensia of the religious establishment and even its iconaclasts are a reactionary presence in every culture. The uphold their superiority of spirituality as a continuation of long bloody line of icons who have held the masses in their place since the dark ages and beyond."

All together now: "Rhetoric!!"

I could go through this and point out why you are wrong in regards to Zen. Unfortunately your very own mind numbing dogmatism wouldn't allow you to see it. Of course you would say the same to me. All circles baby.

Lardlad. It's not watered down Buddhism. Zen Buddhism is just that. Because it sees having pictures of Buddha around as reiculous. Revering Buddha as the same, it's watered down? No, it just rejects the fanfare and worship that dominates nearly every religion in the world.

peaccenicked

14th December 2003, 03:56

It maybe I dont know what your brand of Zen is but it does not seem to have much in common with the little I have read or possibly misinterpretated. That roughly ammounts to large texts on religion and Alan Watts.
I even have tried to puzzle out a few Zen koans.
Yet my instincts such as they are, perhaps, not completely trustworthy that
if Zen is merely meditation......How can it be classed as a religion?
If you can answer me on this, I think you would lessen my growing confusion.

IHP

14th December 2003, 04:02

Now you've struck on the very question that can't be answered fully.

It is a way of life. It is considered a religion, but it's more of a philosophy that you act out daily.

I spoke about this at length a while ago an Che-Lives. Maybe I can dig it up. :)

If you want to read some competent writers, I highly recommend Daistez Teitaro Suzuki, and Shinryu Suzuki (no relation). They are fantastic writers. They don't say too much, but they give you the basic idea.

Chewillneverdie

14th December 2003, 04:26

me an IHP are FRENZ!!! but tell me, how many Buddhists have harmed people or the cause?

peaccenicked

14th December 2003, 04:57

I am not accusing buddhists as being criminal in any normal sense, no more than christians. Only that there is a tendency in religion in general to neglect social reality.
I can only think of this article just now.
http://www.shambhalasun.com/Archives/Featu...r98/Peskind.htm (http://www.shambhalasun.com/Archives/Features/1998/Mar98/Peskind.htm)
But I have had similar discussions before here and more was raised.

@[email protected]@

14th December 2003, 15:44

Perhaps, we should initiate a movement: Let the American soldiers go home crosses the Christmas day?

IHP

14th December 2003, 22:25

Peacce,

The problem with that article is that it's involving the Dalai Lama. He is Tibetan Buddhist, which as I've compared before, as like the equivalent of Catholicism. There's plenty of dirt of Tibetan Buddhism. But if you want to discuss this, you will have to stop thinking of Tibetan as "Buddhism", it is but one variety, if you will.

peaccenicked

14th December 2003, 23:00

IHP, I am aware of the distinctions you have made, that is as far as you have made them clear. I realise the difficulty in generalising about buddhism, in that, specific varieties may not conform. In such cases it is good scientific practice to point to the exceptions. Yet it is not merely Zen
but a particular variety of zen which you are reppelling my criticism from.
One which I have not found much information on yet.
I have found descriptions of books I can buy, but nothing yet I can cut my teeth on.
Your comparison of Tibetan Bhuddism with Catholicism, has me wondering
about Zen in this matter here.
The following umpteen pages has merely added to my confusion.
www.princeton.edu/~wildberg/Papers/Heine%2520Zen%2520Buddhism.pdf+zen+oppression&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]Repentance (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:21vpJe7s-M8J:[url) and Zen[/url]
Tell me if I am barking up the wrong tree or would you want to state anything, that you feel undermines Zen as you know it. :unsure:

peaccenicked

14th December 2003, 23:14

page 19 contains the following.
''The issue of discrimination is very much related to the problem of nationalism/imperialism in Japan. In both cases, Zen has had a tendency to comply tacitly and at times overtly, or at least to fail to resist and protest, the manipulation and exploitation of minority and stigmatized groups imposed by a hierarchical, authoritarian order. ''

Has this no relevance to the discussion of Zen bhuddism?

IHP

15th December 2003, 23:57

I am not talking about a specific type of Zen....specifically. :)

Of course you are confused about Zen. Someone can study it their enitre lives and not understand any of it. It just one of things that you click with, or you don't. But it's a very interesting path to explore, nonetheless.

That whole criticism of Zen, in that link, contains a number of mistakes, that even I, who's studied ot for no longer than a year and a half, could point out.

Also, it seems to be critisizing the lack of monasterial influence on society. Quite a strange source from a communist. Don't Communists believe that religion plays too much of a part in society, and thus should be shut down? Now, Peacce, you've confused me. Is that your argument?

peaccenicked

16th December 2003, 00:31

Communism does not want to close down religion mechanically or coercively rather communists have declared that the material conditions that give the need for religious comfort shall disappear. Marxists from most of it tendences have spoken of the historical process that leads to the erosion of alienation and self alienation from society. Let me not confuse you here, meditation can be communual and for personal development.
Now where it is communal, it can be for society or for the State.
Communism is for the Seperation of State and Religious establishments.
However, it does not want to keep these establishments quiet on political
matters.
Allthough communists regard religion as a private matter. The historic role of religious establishments is to issue statements on political matters.
According to the latest article linked here, the history of the Zen Establishment has been somewhat reactionary, which you conviently neither confirm or deny, as though Zen should be purely a private matter,
and wash it hands of establishment politics and indeed that is Zen, which you neither confirm or deny has any negative impact on Japanese history.
This smells to me very much of copping out. I have become far less confused now.

IHP

16th December 2003, 23:27

This is one of the most quizzical stance on religion that I have ever seen from a communist.

Zen does not partake in politics outside the home. And? Religion is a private matter, as you say. Why should they partake in anything other than the practice of Zen?

Every communist that I've argued with on Che-Lives who is against religion has many critiques of it. Superstition, etc. Also that the institution of, for example, the Catholic church, weilds power in politics, pushing their ideals into society.

The only critique you supplied me with, was that Zen monastires stays out of politics! How paradoxical!

Rediculous stance at best.

peaccenicked

17th December 2003, 00:55

IHP.
I dont care whether Zen monastries stay out of politics or not, with freedom of speech comes the right to silence, which has to be respected.
What is apparent is that Zen in its history has done both. Unless the proffessor from Fransansisco is wrong. As I have already stated I wish Church to be seperated from State. That includes schools.
Reading over Alan Watts again after a number years, it remaining buried in a box of books. He categorically states that Zen is not a religion. It is a philosophy which does not fit neatly into Western "conventional language". According to him Zen is more experienced than talked.
I can accept this as a category framework.
However, it does not change very much for me in terms of politics.
My criticism that if the Zen establishment has been both tacitly and complicitly supporting with reactionary Japanese policies. Then it is as 'dirty' as Tibetan buddhism. You seem to want to ignore this question entirely. You say Zen takes place entirely inside the home.
There is no public life.
My criticism of all religion is that neglects social reality. Now seeing Zen is a philosophy, it is not competing with other religions. It is competing with other philosophies. Philosophies do have different schools.
One of Marx and Engels efforts was to turn philosophy into science.
They tried to abolish metaphysics in this effort.

Philosophers have had influence on rulers, famously Aristotle on Alexander the Great, Machevelli on almost every ruler that has learned statescraftmanship in the West,possibly futher afield.
Given that Zen is not a religion,merely that it is sometimes described as such. I find it hard to criticise in the same terms I criticise religion.
As it is a philosophy thats priority is experience rather than talk. I find it impossible to address.
However, I can criticise Zen establishment if it has influenced the Japanese State in a negative manner and that is what I am still investigating. You dont seem to be any help to me here.
I do not know or care why but I assume there are reasons or Experience :D
The matter is clear with me now. I know where I stand.
I just hope I have not confused you too much.
How can zen be a superstition? It does not fit into that categorical framework.
As I have said implicity, it is a matter of democracy and political history which seems quite apart from Buddhism in general.
The buddhism term seems quite a misnomer now considering that some elemnts are said to come from Taoism.

IHP

17th December 2003, 01:20

You have no idea the relief I get from seeing this: "How can zen be a superstition? It does not fit into that categorical framework."

Thank you, Peacce!! The first on this site to actually acknowledge the lack of "superstition" in Zen! All too often here I see people throw out rhetoric, like "tool of oppression" far too readily, you are about the first to actually look into. Good show. :)

As for the "experience." I take about twenty minutes a day to meditate. It is the most calming, relxaing thing I have ever partaken in. It's time to look in at myself and think rationally about the day ahead. I have had some troubles recently which I won't go into, but nontheless, my zazen has helped me greatly.

As for that which I haven't assisted in. I'm not going to form your argument for you. Where you paraphrase that site about "tacitly.."et al I believe is still quite an obscure stance, as it has stayed, for the most part, out of the state political arena. I don't see this as a bad thing. Religion or the philosohy doesn't, nor should it hold influence over state politics. You see this as...apathetic perhaps? It's not apathy, it's knowing their place, and the placement of their religion within societal policy.

About the question of Zen: Religion or Philosophy? I can't find the thread I posted it in. I basically paraphrased Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki (and showed my source! :) ) about how it is somewhere between. That's quite a Zen way of describing it actually. It's neither a philosophy or a religion and it's both. I'll try and find it for you.