i recently learned about the buddhist concent of dependent origination, which states that all phenomena arise in dependence with other phenomena. this was surprisingly similar to my idea of dialectical materialism, and it got me thinking about how buddhism could be reconciled/combined with a marxist world view. has anybody here read books or articles on this topic?
obviously not everything buddhists believe (reincarnation is an obvious example) is going to jive with marxism but that doesn’t mean it’s worthless to try to analyze one in terms of the other
Death to America
Ask Mach, Bogdanov and Avenarius.
what does this mean
Death to America
Those are the philosophers that tried to merge materialist and idealist philosophy. As Lenin explained, this can only led away from materialism.
On paper there are some philosophical similarities but I ended up having a negative experience and impression of Buddhism after being a serious practitioner for almost 4 years and started training to be a priest. Imo it’s ultimately very idealistic and I personally wouldn’t be able to reconcile the two without discarding enough of the practice that it didn’t resemble Buddhism much anymore.
But my experience with it was as an authentic imported organized religion. As part of training to be a priest I was taught secret mudras, mantras, and visualizations that I’m supposed to keep secret because they’re considered dangerous for people who aren’t ready, for example.
I also witnessed all of the non first year attendees perform a devotional practice of doing 1,000 full body prostrations a day (in a row with basically no breaks) for three days in a row. People’s knees were bleeding through their robes. There was a lot of stuff like that which ultimately really turned me off from Buddhism. This was all Tendai Buddhism by the way.
The training was very much like boot camp and designed to break you down and mold you differently. Sometimes when I’m drunk I still feel like I need to return to it and will start reciting sutras and wanting to reach out to the temple, even though it was 14 years ago, then wonder wtf I was thinking the next morning. Luckily that almost never happens now.
I guess I’m writing this because most people’s experiences with Buddhism in Western countries was very different than mine. Many people see it as a secular practice but that was not at all my experience.
thank you for sharing this, your experience with buddhism is much deeper than i could possibly have hoped for when i asked this question! i think this confirms what i already thought about organized religion, having been raised catholic. if i were to explore buddhism more fully, it would definitely be on my own, rather than in association with any particular sect or practicing group. thank you again
Death to America
You’re welcome.
if i were to explore buddhism more fully, it would definitely be on my own, rather than in association with any particular sect or practicing group
That seems reasonable to me. Keep in mind my experience may not be representative. I will also say my experience as a lay temple member vs. the priesthood training were almost opposite and I was caught very off guard. From what I remember, Tendai is dying off in Japan. CIA-pedia says 2.8 million practitioners in Japan, 5.3 million for Zen, vs 22 million for Pure Land and 10 million for Nichiren. My point being that although Tendai is a significant sect that incorporates practices from the others, it’s one small slice of Buddhist traditions. I know basically nothing about Theravada or Tibetan Buddhism.
It’s definitely a religion and most religious institutions are going to have some problematic aspects. Not that I know more than you, but I think there’s some value and hopefully it will adopt a more proletarian character. Many people just want something to put all their trust in to make them feel safe and promise to relieve their suffering. As Marxists we should maintain a critical attitude and investigate things for ourselves through practice (something which the dharma is hypothetically compatible with). Maybe it’s just me being a westoid, but I see Buddhism as a critical way to understand your own mind and experience.
I understand. I think there is value in some of the practices like mindfulness meditation, and some of the teachings. It’s just for me those on their own aren’t Buddhism anymore. For example, breath awareness meditation was the most basic meditation to develop the attention required to sustain the more advanced meditations in Tendai. But maybe other people have different experiences - I know Tendai incorporates a lot of esoteric practices, which were the main thing I struggled with accepting, and I am honestly not sure the extent those are prevalent in other traditions even within Mahayana. I know many of them are still part of Zen practice for the priesthood/monks but 90% of my experience and study was Tendai. I have no experience with Theravada traditions and only some with Tibetan, which I know is very esoteric.
YES, Buddhism and Marxism are very fun to mix. They both point to similar fundamental truths about reality. Highly recommend all of revolutionary left radio’s stuff on dialectics and Buddhism. Breht makes a lot of connections explicitly. With a good grasp of diamat I find parallels in Buddhist stuff on my own too. He’s not a Marxist but I value the perspective of the theory of samsara. In addition, the Zen Studies Podcast (recommended by comrade Elliot Sang).
For reading reading, assuming you already understand dialectics, here’s some stuff from my reading list: What the Buddha Taught, The Dhammapada, McMindfulness (critiques capitalism’s cooption of Buddhism and argues for a return to its liberatory center), What Makes You Not a Buddhist, The Ego Tunnel (scientific perspective on no-self). Obviously there is more recommended in the audio recommendations.
It’s not totally Buddhist but a sort of secular enlightenment book, but I’ve been reading Awake by Angelo Dilullo and found it pretty dialectical.
tangential (not recommendations)
Many critics of Buddhism, like Christianity, will point to its idealism and history, and I think applying dialectical materialism to the question is illuminating. The Buddha did grasp truth and enlightenment is a real thing, but the Buddha existed in a historical context where he had to appeal to Hindus and people in power wanted to gain from the teachings. While human society had to continue reproducing itself, only a small amount of surplus was available to enable people to seek the path. Those who accumulated the surplus became or funded monks, who gave treats of small pieces of semi true knowledge to keep the toiling masses happy (opium so to speak). Once socialism is established I pray unnecessary superstitions and beliefs will fall away as it is made materially accessible (once material needs are covered with minimal time). As humans suffer less materially and society lends towards good karma, may the bodhisattva vow come to fruition.
Comrade, this and your other reply to me are good comments, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. You’ve caused me to re-examine some of the core teachings of Buddhism on my own terms. For example, I did not remember that Buddha specifically spoke against self-mortification as a practice. One of my strong memories from trying to enter the priesthood was the temple head (my teacher) speaking reverently of some long dead monk who cut a piece of her own skin off as a devotional practice. I think I might spend some time re-examining core texts and precepts without the colorings of a specific sect. Materially I am still skeptical of Enlightenment, especially given the historical context during which Buddha lived and the other competing groups seeking the same, but I think I’ll give it another critical examination.
I’ve heard from a Tibetan Buddhist regarding bad karma one should simply observe whatever bad happens to them and accept that past karma caused it. While dwelling and judging would only cause more suffering, you should take it as a sign to commit to the path and do a lot of positive actions for others, which would result in less personal suffering. Bad events and hardships are seen as teachers, not punishment. The only time I’ve heard talk of Buddhists hurting themselves is a monk cutting his flesh to save someone else and it was an example of how to see whether one is nondual because the monk was like “welp, I guess I’m not fully enlightened. This kinda hurts.”I’ve never heard of that sect but it sounds pretty sketchy and I’m glad you’re out. I understand and am sorry that dampened your perspective on the dharma. I hope your reconsideration is fruitful.
I’m Buddhiſt. The concept of Paṭicca-samuppāda, or Dependent Origination, is quite ſimilar to the ideas preſented by dialectical materialiſm. I don’t directly know many articles or books that talk about the two, but in learning enough about and practiſing both Marxiſm and Buddhiſm, I have found that a Marxiſt-Lenniniſt world view is compatible with Buddhiſm ; there’s even a ſpecifick kind of Socialiſm, called Dhammick Socialiſm or Buddhiſt Socialiſm, which incorporates elements from both Buddhiſm and Marxiſt theory—we could underſtand it as either as Marxiſm with Buddhiſt Characteriſticks or Buddhiſm with Marxiſt Characteriſticks depending on which element one wants to give more emphaſis.
I ſhould alſo like to note that reincarnation iſn’t a Buddhiſt belief—that’s more of a Hindu concept. In Buddhiſm, we do have the concept of rebirth, but that ties in with the concept of annatā (*anatman in Sanſkrit) or non-ſelf, which itſelf relies on Dependent Origination. Baſically, it ſtates that no conditioned phenomena exiſts independently from other conditioned phenomena ; thus, any notion of a permanent, unchanging, independent ſelf, ſoul, or exiſtence is untenable. For example, a flower is made up entirely of non-flower elements without which it could not exiſt—there is no flowerneſs to be found anywhere in it. The concept of rebirth, when underſtood properly and within its context, actually iſn’t at odds with a Marxiſt view—it’s more a different way of referring to certain phenomena which do have a material baſe. Juſt as a wave exiſts dependent on (or to uſe Marxiſt language, in contradiction with) the ſurrounding ocean and wind, ſo too a perſon exiſts dependent on their material conditions—phyſical, environmental, hiſtorical phenomena which ſhape and maintain them. A perſon is thus a pile of conditions, and there’s not any independent, perſiſtent, unchanging ſelf underlying that to be found.
To ſomewhat addreſs the queſtion, ſome reſources to look into might be the works of Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu or Han Yong-un ; and though not directly touching on Marxiſm, the works and and talks of Thich Nhat Hanh, Ajahn Brahm, or Ajahn Chah might be good points of inveſtigation—the Suttas themſelves are alſo a good place to look to gain a better underſtanding of Buddhiſt teachings, though it would be wiſe to keep in mind that they are very old and intended for the audience and place at the time ; not all elements are as eaſy to interpret or directly relevant to modern times without underſtanding the context ſurrounding them. The Buddha tended to adapt what he was teaching to the people, their level of underſtanding, and the context of the times. Buddhiſm in general tries to do that.
What symbol are you using instead of S? I’ve never seen that before
It’s the long s, an alternate graph, or ſhape, of the letter s. Much like Greek, with its two forms of the letter Sigma (as ſeen in, for example, the name Ὀδυσσεύς (Odyſſeus) with the variants σ medially and ς finally, the long s is uſed in the Latin alphabet in about the ſame way. Hiſtorically, moſt languages written in the Latin alphabet uſed it ; in Engliſh, it ſtarted to fall out of common uſe throughout the 19th century, but did ſee ſome continued uſe by antiquarians, reprints, ſtyliſtick endeavours, and hiſtorical works, as well as to affect or maintain an older ſtyle or air in printing or writing ; ſome people, myſelf included, ſtill uſe it even now. I conſider it to be a form of living hiſtory, with ſome potential benefits to readability once one is familiar with it.
ſome potential benefits to readability once one is familiar with it.
s: completely unique and distinct, absolutely dissimilar to every single other letter
ſ: easily confused for an f, I, l, i, t, or j.I’m not sure I understand the benefit.
People read by the overall ſhape of words, and given that the long s is an aſcending letter, it gives words a much more varied ſhape than the evenneſs of only uſing the round s, which aids in reading at a glance or taking in lines of text at a time ; and while it is anecdotal, I’ve been told that it helps ſome people with certain reading difficulties ſuch as dyſlexia becauſe of that more varied appearance it gives words and lines. Furthermore, while it doeſn’t really apply to Engliſh, ſome languages uſe word-compound or ſyllable-baſed rules for the long s (an example being German), which can actually help tell ſome words apart from each other ; for example, wachſtube and wachstube (guardhouſe vs tube of wax) or Kreiſchen and Kreischen (ſcream vs ſmall circle) can be eaſily diſtinguiſhed from each other even without context with the long s where they would need more context without.
The german rules around the long-s, like most rules involving german language, are needlessly complex though and I’m pretty sure the complexity is by design to gate-keep and distinguish the educated from the lower class. Your examples are the ones that make sense, but some others are rather exemplary for the average german desire to feel superior by following the most rules (and all of their exceptions) possible.
On another note how do you type the long-s?
I don’t think that that’s true about the German language or people, and could perhaps benefit from more critical material analyſis and inveſtigation regarding the place and function of thoſe rules relative to the language.
As for how I type the long s, I perſonally uſe a keyboard layout of mine own deſign, which can be ſeen in the attached image. I alſo have a keyboard layout for Android, and although I perſonally uſe Linux, I have alſo made a few ſcript-baſed ways of typing it for Windows including an entirely automated ſolution to help people who would want to incorporate it into their own orthography.
Love this layout. I have the open and close ([{< on the same key like you! I don’t know why that wasn’t the default from the start.
You even have the different dashes bound. Be still my heart!
I don’t know if I agree either but I love the energy.
Oh I know this one! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s
Might not be quite what you’re after, but look into the writings of B.R. Ambedkar. He was a contemporary of Gandhi, and a “low-caste” convert to Buddhism. His retellings of Buddhist stories are decidedly communist, and he used them as a liberatory tool for the most oppressed castes in India.
Not reading, but Breht from RevLeft has a bunch of episodes about Buddhism you might want to check out.
If Terry Eagleton can write a book called Materialism and spend 1/3 of it reconciling Marxism with Catholicism a Buddhist version has to exist.
Here’s an article: https://mronline.org/2023/07/24/the-revolutionary-spirit-of-the-buddha/ , which links to https://aeon.co/essays/how-marxism-and-buddhism-complement-each-other
yeah basically a buddhist version of that book is what i’m looking for. i just read that aeon article and it’s fairly interesting, even though it does fall into the same tired trap of “marxism is totalitarian and bad” at the end
Death to America
Look up ‘Buddhist Economics’
