Any marxist-buddhists here?

Any marxist-buddhists here?

Other urls found in this thread:

endnotes.org.uk/other_texts/en/friends-of-the-classless-society-on-communisation-and-its-theorists
dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/whither.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Not a Marxist but I heavily sympathize with Buddhism.

there is some good similarities:

- interbeing
- everything is a process
- guide to diminish suffering on earth


the big difference is that buddhism is individual (maybe why neo-liberal culture has recently embraced it), and marxism is societal

Buddhism seems to have great similarities with psychoanalysis as well.

...

i like it better than atheism. the buddhists don't believe in god, but they take it to where atheists should: they don't believe in themselves either.

altho, like any ideology, it was used to create a male priest class hold peasants illiterate and in a lot of ways Mao was right to liberate the peasants from it

I'm a Buddhist, not sure where I fall on the political spectrum (of course left, but within that I do not know). I'll give you some information on my views.

I'm reading on Marxian economics, at least. I don't think Buddhism and socialism are incompatible, despite what people in either category say. I think that although suffering originates due to clinging and attachment, a large contributor to the situations that cause suffering is capitalism.

I don't think that Buddhism should be fetishised and a couple ideas co-opted, but I don't get offended when people do that. I wouldn't be a good Buddhist if I did, after all.

I think Buddhism can range from being apathetic to indeed supportive of the socialist cause.

I do not think religious people should be persecuted, nor do I think the religious should be trying to convert people. There is an obvious component of faith that some people want to have and others not. That's perfectly fine, as we all have our assumptions about the nature of reality.

I think people should be less dogmatic about materialism, but that's just my view, I don't think people should be indoctrinated or forced to believe certain things, without evidence for example. We should set our own standards for belief.

Zizek is wrong on some points of Buddhism. I do not think it is compatible with neither the letter nor the spirit of Buddhism, considering the Early Buddhist texts and tipitaka (preserved in Mahayana as the Agamas) are against violence and killing. It is also incompatible with nationalism. I have no respect for those Buddhists in Myanmar who kill or encourage violence or even stand by idly while Muslims are slaughtered.

I don't agree with the Dalai Lama on everything, nor do I have any obligation to.

I would rather people just live their lives better by any ideology (or none at all) than to "embrace spiritualism" or whatever is being pushed these days.

There are even "secular" lessons we can draw from Buddhist texts, to help us be calm, avoid anger and irritation and a range of suffering. I think the life of a monk is a noble one, dedicated to the cultivation of dispassion, non-attachment and freedom from suffering. But one doesn't need to be a monk to cultivate that, no matter what dogma some people come out with.

2 of the most slave morality and coward ideologies, ew.

That one poster from Mexico is one, I suspect. He knows the most about Buddhism than anybody here.

i think you should read what nietzsche said about it

how are these things compatible

who cares, it should become a meme.

As the Dalai Lama said, "be a half-buddhist half-marxistt

You don't have to believe those things to be Buddhist.

actually, you do

Does marxist-stirnerist count?

It stems from Victorian orientalism; many Westerners desire to review Buddhism in a manner that would be from the "superstition and dogma" of ignorant Asian cultures, though not many people will admit that outright. Which is funny, because a separate and contemporary group in India called the Charvaka had metaphysical views that were more in line with the modern secular atheist.

Sage, because this thread will get nowhere again, considering that few people on this board possess an in-depth knowledge of Buddhism.

Taoism >>>>>> Buddhism

This subject seems to resurface occasionally on this board. It has been appearing on 4/lit/ as well, every other day.

Why?

Take your pick

...

I thought karma revolved around rebirth, not actually having to do with events occurring during life.

zizek is a fan of zen Buddhism tho

Kamma is created during the course of life (in each rebirth; there is no rebirth that does not accumulate kamma), and affects both (1) our future actions, mental states and perceptioins and thus fate in this life and (2) future rebirths (3) future happenings in future rebirths.
An enlightened person stops accumulating kamma, and they are no longer reborn because of that fact.


There's an increasing number of Westerners who are getting into Buddhist practices, but not necessarily Buddhism outright. It's a contemporary "issue" I suppose. It's a shame most people will only read about it from other sources rather than studying the text themselves.
I probably wouldn't have become a Buddhist if I hadn't started reading the texts rather than just listening to what people on halfchan say about it. Actually, that's true for most ideologies.

Uphold marxism-stirnerism-buddhism

OP here. I just wanted an excuse to post that image. Found in this article endnotes.org.uk/other_texts/en/friends-of-the-classless-society-on-communisation-and-its-theorists
No idea why they put that image in there.

I've noticed these threads never go anywhere too, just people making general sweeping statements and contradicting each other on the most foundational levels.

But… it's funny

It would be nice if people learned more about Buddhism though. The threads could be used to inform people and discuss Buddhist ideas.

Yeah fam.
Leftism for material liberation.
Nembutsu for liberation of the soul.

this. after ppl are no longer economically burdened, the next step is to liberate the self

"All religions by definition rest on faith rather than reason–that is, they appeal to the least critical faculties of their disciples and commonly reduce them to acquiescence to the ruling classes. Hence any religion may have reactionary social consequences. By no means did Lao-Tzu provide his followers with a theory that could be remotely called explanatory, still less rational. Instead, the Tao Te Ching is a deliberately cryptic, mystical behavioral guide that could readily be used as a tool for fostering passivity in a supine peasantry. Its message of quietism served the interests of Chinese ruling classes for thousands of years, while its allusions to ecological themes are incidental, except as part of the overall message that individual human beings should submit to the world at large." - Bookchin

dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/whither.html

REALLY made me think