What does Holla Forums think of the Buddha?

Gautama was the good kind of class traitor I guess but Buddhism is used to be oppressive.

Not all religions are created equal. Buddhism is fundamentally non theistic and emphasizes philosophy rather than faith. It has issues sure but it certainly isn't as bad as something like Christianity.

Come on. COME on.

Quintessential protestant poster.

The Abrahamic religions are probably the worst thing humans have invented. That said, religion is shit, period.

Look, you don't have to go to church if you don't like it.

Didn't the Buddha claim that women were the source of all evil because they birthed more humans into a broken world of suffering?

Really? Because in my experience, church does its damnedest to come to me.

You should move out. Or just go and give your mom and pops a good time.

I strongly dislike the buddhist notion of anatman (nonexistence of the soul). While on the surface the line of thought inspired by the Buddha appears to reveal some great truth about our being (dukkha, i think its called), in my eyes it rather obstructs it.
I look at it from the phenomenological perspective. In teaching people to let go of their desires in order to attain a sort of higher being on earth before ending the cycle of rebirth (samsara) and achieving nirvana, the passions of countless people - the driving force of history - is extinguished. People's being in the world is removed from them, as they anticipate the removal of themselves as subjects in the world.

A lot better than that faggot jesus

I'd argue that the implications of truth doesn't stop it from being any less true nor should it be pursued any less vigorously. From a Buddhist prospective those passions are nothing more than worldly desires, sure they might temporarily satiate you but it's just a distraction from final enlightenment, like playing video games to put off studying for a test. Nothing we do really matters: the point is to reach nirvana.

Here's Zizek on Buddhism for those who weren't aware.
youtube.com/watch?v=s3DAMI_WeM4

But you demonstrate exactly my point. What is this "final enlightenment?" Why all these mysterious concepts, inconceivable yet to the living person - truths beyond us? It seems to me that Buddhism mystifies reality and brings people away from a consciousness of who they are in the world. Ironically, it is the ideas of the Buddha and others that need to be bracketed in order to live authentically (so to say).

Buddhism is arguably worse than Christianity as far as oppressive potential.

Because they are alien too us, untranslatable, conceived through a different sphere.

How often have they abused their power over their followers?

Tibet.

Dont you know? Holla Forums only likes obscure theorists like Stirner not meme "zealots" like Buddha who essentially came up with the same idea more than a millenia ago.

Not fundamentally different from the constant pursuit of satisfaction of desires (a satisfied desire = a desire that's gone), just more direct and honest. Going towards the goal rather than running away from the opposite of this goal (unhappiness from unsatisfied desires).

I got into Buddhism slightly before getting into leftist thought, and it's often been a struggle to reconcile the two. Figuring out how they come together for me is a long-term goal. I think that, although some effects of Buddhist practice (pacifism, acceptance, giving up material goals) sometimes work to the advantage of oppressive structures, anti-egoism is fundamentally anti-capitalist. When you are content, you can't be sold to, you can't be led somewhere. You can be forced to work, of course, but not more than necessary for your own maintenance, and this need ceases to be a struggle. I haven't read the major leftist psychoanalysts, but essays from more minor psychologists/-analysts seem to point to the root of capitalism being the, in buddhist terms false, sense of "I".

In any case, I've found meditation practice to be extremely rewarding, and would recommend any buddhist skeptics to give it an earnest go for a month. "Mindfulness in Plain English" and "The Mind Illuminated" have been my major guides, in that order. "Food for the Heart" is also a good little collection, but you should consider it purely motivational/ornamental. Whatever mysticism you read, whatever "prominent Buddhists" say, all of it can be safely ignored. A little reading of the Theravada texts can help guide your daily life if you feel you want to deepen your practice (accesstoinsight.org has a good summary/introduction type thing), but again, your own conscious experience is all you need to investigate, and the fewer preconceived notions you have the better.

what's with the constant religion shitposting lately

btw i don't give a shit about it until some guy in a gown goes around crying that the big bad commies took his feudal state and are teaching his serfs how to read.

He was right about life being suffering, but everything else is pure spookery that makes Abrahamic religion seem rational.

...

I've always wondered how a Buddhist, or a Stoic for that matter, could reconcile trying to eliminate desire, eschewing things out of their control, and focusing on their own self-improvement with trying to change the world and help others.

The Dalai Lama considers himself a Marxist. China isn't and never was Socialist and them invading Tibet was just pure expansionism.

The way I see it, the healthier I am (mentally), the more effective my attempts to help others will be. A calm mind can do everything better, from firing a gun (if you were so inclined) to calling your mother.

But you're right, a big question for me was/continues to be, if the enlightened being has eliminated desire, why wouldn't he simply allow himself to die by not eating/drinking/etc.? Where does compassion come from? I think an easy answer is in the direction of "compassion is the base nature of things" or something like that, but that's not very satisfying. But I've also read that the hidden part of every question is "why is such and such so for me?" In that sense, I'm worrying about not worrying instead of being present and content. The answer to that question would be irrelevant/is irrelevant for my personal, subjective progress.

If I give up the body as "mine" and under "my control", it looks after itself. Hunger, thirst, their satiation, all of it happens without me, I just get to watch so long as I'm aware.

Sorry for the blog post, but this was enjoyable for me.

I'm sympathetic to anatman conceptually. It does cohere in an odd way with false consciousness: what you desire is a function of ideology and, fundamentally, what you believe yourself to be is often also a function of that ideology.

huh, have we reached apocalypse yet?

Self sacrifice! World is suffering! Meditate 'til you hit a world worth living! Look at me I'm supremely enlightened so follow my every word! Also I'm royalty so that kind of doubles my authority!
Self-interest! World is mine! Do whatever you want! Look at me I'm supremely enlightened but don't take my word for it if you don't agree with me actually don't follow me ideologically you fuck make your own theory! I came from the working class!

i'll write that down, thanks.

agreed

perhaps. doesn't change the fact that tibet isn't a feudal state with monks raping people anymore.

t. Someone who has no idea what Buddhism is.

le opiate of the masses XD

You haven't learned much about Buddhism if this is still a question for you.

The monks were raping people?

By definition he is not a theocrat since he has no formal power, never ruled, and does advocate for a return to the theocracy. It's intellectually shallow to say he's spooked just because he's a Buddhist. For him to be spooked he'd have to believe in Buddhism against his own self-interest, which you have no way of knowing.

The synthesis of letting everything go to break the cycle of rebirth yet striving to make the world better is the Mahayana ideal of the Bodhisattva: a being who has cut attachment to everything but one vow, namely to help every other living being attain enlightenment. They postpone reaching Nirvana indefinitely out of compassion for the world.

I too have been striving to reconciliate Buddhism and Socialism, but I think there is potential for both to help each other. I see both as complementary ways to alleviate suffering, the first within our minds, the second within our societies. The first against the psychological basis, the second against the material basis for our suffering.

Buddhism is, in some traditions, a major despooker that pulls out the big three mind poisons capitalism thrives on (hate, greed, delusion). It can make us see capitalism for the absurdity it is. From there on, Socialism kicks in as a way to help the world at large.

I think it's a lot more comfortable to be a Buddhist monk chilling out in the lotus position and observing your thoughts n' stuff than being a peasant farmer doing backbreaking labor all day to give the monks food.

possibly the most reasonable of all major religious groups in terms of ideological and philosophical content, but as we materialists know the ideological underpinnings of a specific religion have little to do with how they function as religions

As an organised mass religion it is utilised just like christianity in the west or islam in the islamic world, fulfilling a cultural need for superstition

this is how we get ideological contradictions like supply-side jesus in america or nationalist buddhism in thailand or sri lanka

Buddhist monks worked.

Please elaborate.

Well put. Buddhism at its core and in its early form was anarchistic - each community of monks was independent, self-managed by its members during a monthly or two-week meeting with self-criticism sessions.

Functionally, in their home countries, most Buddhist traditions are heavily hierarchical institutions giving the people their ideological opium. They still have subversive potential insofar as beneath the rituals, organizational power levels and whatnot, there is a practice that - as far as I believe myself - can make one break free from delusion.

The work depends on the tradition. The Mahayana ones had monasteries that were partly or entirely self-sufficient and their monks had to work on growing their own food, chopping their own wood, and so on. Other traditions including the Theravada ones had AFAIK a much stricter set of rules and forced monks to live from the alms of the laity. In return, they worked by being pretty much the community's religious/psychological/marriage counsellors, life coaches, and whatnot. That might sound rather comfy, but the rules were strict enough to ensure that life as a monk was very severe - 120% celibacy, four hours of sleep at night, no food after noon, many hours of meditation per day, no distractions, no idle chatter. The idea was that if you get to live from the work of others because you devote your entire life to attaining enlightenment, you must walk the walk.

Classical Antiquity was so neat

ikr
The Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms were peak antiquity.

That was some good stuff. Early Buddhists got a lot of their iconography from the Greeks.

Pic related, the Buddha being protected by Heracles.

Its remarkable that Hellenic culture spread as far as Japan with the Greek Boreas becoming the Japanese Fujin.
The extent of exchange between east and west is far greater than the common notion of the clash of cultures in the 16th and 17th centuries implies.

...

Burn Buddha!

Zen monasteries in China were more communist than the so-called communism there.
Honestly, they are proof that communism and even anarcho-communism can actually work.

Monasteries in Europe were pretty communist too.

Anarcho-Monastacism when

ok

Zen or Ch'an Buddhism focused a lot on the experience of enlightenment, not doctrine or theory. You can't theory or doctrine your way to enlightenment.

Explain?

Dependent coarising. When you realize that everything is interdependent, you see that you don't exist as separate from the universe and feel the pain of anyone trying to live their lives hustling this idea or that idea and tying their egos to it, because if everything is interdependent, the idea of a self becomes a fiction. It's just like how Marxists say that they are history examining themselves, but the Buddhists say that they are interdependent coarising examining themselves.

Also desire is a bad translation bc the first missionaries that came to India to learn Buddhists were Protestants and wanted to use Buddhism to further their Puritianical shiz. The most important thing to keep in mind regarding questions like "how is it possible to keep my desire and still be enlightened" is that the Buddhists think that desire is only desires as long as it maintains the illusion that you are separate from the rest of everything. You can still desire something to eat once you're enlightened, but you aren't pissed if you can't get the flavor you want.

tricycle.org/trikedaily/justifiably-angry-marxist-interview-dalai-lama/

On my first visit to Mongolia, they arranged a tour to various institutions and a museum. At the museum, I saw a drawing of a lama with a huge mouth, eating up the people. This was in 1979, when Mongolia was still a Communist country. The Communists said that religion was a drug, and every religious institution was an exploiter. Even monks were exploiters. Even donations distributed to the monastic community were considered to be a form of exploitation.

When I came to the spot with that picture, the officials were a little bit nervous. I deliberately looked at it and I said, “It’s true.” Of course, I agree. I am not only a socialist but also a bit leftist, a communist. In terms of social economy theory, I am a Marxist. I think I am farther to the left than the Chinese leaders. [Bursts out laughing.] They are capitalists. [Laughs again.]

There's a lot of great work that needs to be done to synthesize Buddhism and Marxism, and it can't come soon enough because Twitter won't let go of its useless, misdirected anger.

PDF is a very nice read. To me, Buddhism is a personal philosophy like existentialism whose primary way is to get you to see how there is no barrier between you and the world. Not only is this a big fuck you to capitalist overhyped individualism, but once you accept that that it automatically leads into outward focused politics. Buddhists say that nothing has its own internal essence, a computer is a computer because of an infinite number of conditions that had to be met. So nothing really exists on its own, meaning that you're a product of society, meaning that if you want to change your own mind be prepared to change society.

Also there's great synergy between Marxism and Buddhism because they both see change as crucial. They live in change based universes.

Finally, I want to add that when I go to Marxist study groups, I'm not there to think rebellious, kill-the-pigs Marxist thoughts, I'm there to think thoughts. And when I go to Buddhist study groups, I'm not there to think vegetarian, pious Buddhist thoughts, I'm there to think thoughts. Once you see that everything is interdependent, labels don't matter, only aggregates of actions and effects matter. The five skandas are just collections, aggregates.

Are you just throwing around words, hoping they make sense? Monasteries were and still are basically outside of the system they exist in. They are intentionally designed to be as closed off as possible, which includes self-sufficiency. They're not churches.

Surely it seems a good advice, let's move out of capitalist country.
Also (not directly at (you) christcuck) I fucking hate this devs vult fedora cringe xdddd le euphoruc meme, literally the best thing about the internet got wiped out and now there is only fucking sam harris followers

He said Buddha not Buddhism

Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu, if you do not mind the expression.

Buddhist monasteries in their original form and e.g. in modern-day Theravada traditions integrate into their communities, even the remote ones. They are not self-sufficient. This is done on purpose.

Sri Lanka, Siam, Burma, Japan etc.

Not any different from schopenhaur then if true

subtle fpbp.

Other thoughts on the intersection of Buddhism and Marxism:

Anger is not useful to a Marxist. Anger is not useful for anyone. You might have heard the phrase "holding on to anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die." The bourgeoise may be your enemy, they may cut your health insurance, they may run you out of your home. When the revolution comes, do whatever you want with them. Kill them, threaten them, even rape them, there are no "ought" restrictions, no laws that if you violate bad things will happen to you. What you do is up to you, but do not hate them, because hate narrows the range of your responses, not expands them. (One would hope that you would not rape the bourgeoise if you were not angry, but the point is to separate your emotions from your tactics so you have more options.)

Being both Marxist and Buddhist requires you to throw away the Marxist claim to know history in its entirety. The Diamond Sutra shows that everything is interdependent, and therefore any attempt to find out a thing's essence results in an endless goosechase through discovering everything else. (What is a computer? It's a device. What's a device? It's a product. What's a product? It's something that's for sale. What do you mean by sale? Etc. In order to know anything you have to know everything else. There is no dead end when something just exists by itself. Everything is alongside everything else.) And because everything is interdependent, the point at which you say "Okay! I get it! I don't want to play this game anymore! A table is a table, goddamnit!", at that moment, whatever you think a table is says more about your limited perspective than the limitless interdependence of the world. Because of this, Marxists cannot claim to know history or anything in its entirety. All knowledge is partial knowledge and it's hubris to claim to know something 100%.

When the revolution happens, it will not be a Marxist revolution, it will not be the property of Marxists, it does not belong to the Marxists. It belongs to the nameless, unceasing transformation of the world, like a muscle twitch like a vomit that happens before you can put a name on it. The way that can be named is not the real way.

Man, how do I wish Marx and Engels Stirner and Siddhartha were friends.