I'm unequipped to really grapple with the Buddhist side of the point the author is making here without making a fool of myself, but I appreciate the conclusion and I've had similar thoughts...
I'm unequipped to really grapple with the Buddhist side of the point the author is making here without making a fool of myself, but I appreciate the conclusion and I've had similar thoughts floating around in my head lately:
Buddhist practice could help us overcome the evil aspects of our nature and promote the compassionate side within us. The socioeconomic system of Compassionate Marxism could be the breeding ground for compassion, and compassion the motor of a socioeconomic system with low duḥkha. Working on the inner Tyrannosaurus would benefit those suffering from Capitalism, which, according to Marx and Buddha, is everyone. The problem with Left-activists is that they see the evil as being exclusively caused by the socioeconomic system (this was Marx’s problem too), without understanding how these factors operate within us. ‘Social change requires inner change – becoming less selfish,’ says the Dalai Lama. The question is not who we are – we are malevolent creatures, as far as I can tell. The question is who we want to be.
A longstanding attitude toward change and freedom can essentially summed up as "Free Your Mind... and Your Ass Will Follow". The material follows the mental. The hippie model. I've been a Marxist of some kind for years, and that pretty naturally means that I believe the opposite: Free Your Ass... and Your Mind Will Follow. You can get into more academic details of what materialism means and all that, and that's all well and good, but in my mind it's long been reduced to those two options. That range is what's important to me and it's something I keep in mind to guide how I live.
But the thing is...my ass-freeing abilities are limited. I can't always be working to free my ass, and even if I am, there's a long period of time before my ass is free where my mind is similarly not. My ass may never be free, and I've found myself wondering if that's a life sentence for my mind. At least on a macro level, I think it is. We're largely products of our conditions and I firmly believe that changing them—freeing our asses—is the right course of action. Grounding ourselves in reality and not being hippies stuck in our own heads is important. I'd rather have people freeing their asses than their minds. But on a personal level, at least, I can't ignore myself like that seems to imply. So much of life is internal, and I've seen the fruits of being introspective. There's a lot to be done in your mind which makes it a hell of a lot easier to live, makes it richer. To a certain degree, I think the point of living is largely internal. I feel like a lot of the most strict Marxists, often the kind who spout IMMORTAL SCIENCE stuff, miss out on that because they're so preoccupied with not being do-nothing hippies that they forget to live. Does that make sense?
I don't want to make any statements about how that rolls back into political action because I realize my struggle here is somewhat disconnected from Marxism as a concept and is more closely tied to Marxism as it exists in my head and the heads of other Marxists who I've observed. I know there isn't a page in Capital that says "oh btw you can't work on yourself as a person that's not allowed because uhhh materialism and stuff." It's just been something on my mind for a while now as I take a more introspective turn in my life, and I wonder if these Buddhist Marxists have found a way to free their minds while fighting to free their asses. Wouldn't that be great?
I know there's a lot to digest here, but what I keep coming back to is the simple fact that if you free your ass before you free your mind, you're going ass backwards. I know that's a metaphor,...
I know there's a lot to digest here, but what I keep coming back to is the simple fact that if you free your ass before you free your mind, you're going ass backwards. I know that's a metaphor, but people of means who try to "free their minds" are often either writing a book or drunk on their lack of responsibility. And that sounds fantastic to me, a random on the internet, but I don't think I would be in the most disciplined state of mind if I tried to free myself assfirst.
Maybe this is a failing on my understanding of Marx and/or Buddhism, but I was under the impression that followers of Marx was a little more active in fighting the systemic injustices of society,...
Maybe this is a failing on my understanding of Marx and/or Buddhism, but I was under the impression that followers of Marx was a little more active in fighting the systemic injustices of society, where as Buddhism was more about a passive understanding of the circumstances around you, where you do what you can but accept what you can't, and I would imagine that the two philosophies would have some tension on how to handle big picture issues.
That was my biggest struggle with Buddhism. I started off reading about it and liking the concept a lot. I was reading the 4 Nobel Truths and felt like I was seeing a lot of my thoughts and...
That was my biggest struggle with Buddhism. I started off reading about it and liking the concept a lot. I was reading the 4 Nobel Truths and felt like I was seeing a lot of my thoughts and feelings expressed and that doesn't usually happen with religion for me. But the more I read the more it did feel, to me at least, like it was more about accepting that some things are the way they are, and that didn't really jive with me for things like racism and oppression.
That's what I thought too at first, but after reading Seeing That Frees by Rob Burbea I've come to think of it differently. There are other teachings of Buddha that can be misconstrued as a case...
That's what I thought too at first, but after reading Seeing That Frees by Rob Burbea I've come to think of it differently. There are other teachings of Buddha that can be misconstrued as a case for apathy too, like the constant focus on dispassion, teachings on emptiness and suffering, et cetera. The way I now see those is that they're more about setting up a baseline from where to start your thought process on things, a calm compassionate mind.
I'm not sure if I'd call myself Buddhist but I do call myself an anarchist, and I do see a lot of common ground between Buddha&Bread Santa :)
Maybe we need a bigger picture of "compassion": like, to really feel compassion for other living things, we need to enact policies that encapsulate compassion for those in society who are...
Maybe we need a bigger picture of "compassion": like, to really feel compassion for other living things, we need to enact policies that encapsulate compassion for those in society who are discriminated against. I think maybe the article is trying to connect Marxism as a good way to enact Buddhist teachings. Maybe further reading is in Engaged Buddhism or Revitalized Buddhism?
Marx himself wasn't all that prescriptive in terms of action. Marxists often are revolutionaries or otherwise take active stances like that, but they can just as well be purely academic and just...
Marx himself wasn't all that prescriptive in terms of action. Marxists often are revolutionaries or otherwise take active stances like that, but they can just as well be purely academic and just agree with his analysis of capitalism. Though from the bit of searching I've done since reading this, it seems like many of these Buddhist Marxists are more on that "active" end so the gap in understanding for me (and you too, maybe?) is on the Buddhist end.
I wanted to say that this article seems a bit forced, but their references to some historical Buddhist Marxists makes me really want to dive in. I know enough about Buddhism to know it's not what your generic college stoner treats it to be, but I know there's a hell of a lot I don't know and the references here seem like a good place to start to fill in some gaps. I adore seeing the crossroads between various religions and socialism, it's both really cool and teaches you how much range in belief exists both within political ideologies and within religions.
As a Buddhist and an anarchist I'll try to address some of this. This is a pretty common concern and misconception, so I'm just going to copy and paste from another time I responded to something...
As a Buddhist and an anarchist I'll try to address some of this. This is a pretty common concern and misconception, so I'm just going to copy and paste from another time I responded to something like this. The comment itself pertains particularly to the eco-crisis, but I think it applies equally well to activism and working for change and the easing of suffering of any kind:
"There is an excerpt of Ecodharma: Buddhist Teachings for the Ecological Crisis by David Loy in the current issue of The Wisdom Journal that deals with almost exactly this issue. I'll share a few quotes that I think directly address the criticisms in this article.
...the bodhisattva acts without attachment to the results of the action. Aphorism 28 of the Tibetan lojong training offers a classic formulation: "Abandon any hope of fruition. Don't get caught up in how you will be in the future; stay in the present moment."
I refer to "spiritual activism" rather than Buddhist activism because this principle is also an essential aspect of karma yoga in the most important Hindu text, the Bhagavad Gita: "Your right is to the work, never to the fruits. Be neither motivated by the fruits of action nor inclined to give up action."
Yet acting without attachment is easily misunderstood, suggesting a casual attitude. "Yes, our local power company needs to convert from coal to renewables. We organized and protested for a while, but there was a lot of resistance. It just didn't work. But that's okay because what's important are the intentions behind our actions, not the results."
This is the mistake that arguments like the ones in the article make. But Loy shows that this misses the point:
...consider the difference between a marathon and a 100-meter dash. When you run a 100-meter race, the only thing that matters is sprinting to the goal as quickly as possible... But you can't run a marathon that way, because you'll soon exhaust yourself. Instead, you follow the course without fixating on the goal line somewhere far ahead. If you run in the right direction you will eventually get there...
This is a taste of what Daoists call wei wu wei--literally, "the action of nonaction..." This type of nonaction does not mean doing nothing. The runner does not give up and sit by the side of the road in the belief that there's really no need to go anywhere. Instead, the running is a kind of "nonrunning" inasmuch as one is not rejecting the present moment in favor of a goal that will be achieved sometime in the future. Nonetheless, one is approaching the goal because one is doing what is needed right now: just this!
...
practitioners daily recite the four "bodhisattva vows..." If we really understand what this commitment involves, how can we avoid feeling overwhelmed? We are vowing to do something that cannot possibly be accomplished...
That the vow cannot be fulfilled is not the problem but the very point... what the vow really calls for is reorienting the meaning of one's life, from our usual self-pre-occupation to primary concern for the well-being of everyone... what becomes important is not the unattainable goal but the direction of one's efforts--a direction that in this case orients us without providing an endpoint. What does that imply about how we respond to the eco-crisis? Someone who has already volunteered for a job that is literally impossible is not going to be intimidated by challenges because they sometimes appear hopeless!
Articles such as the above are missing all of this added context that makes mindfulness and Buddhist practice so powerful. However, I do think they are right to an extent if you apply their argument mainly to McMindfulness. I don't think it can be denied that businesses, schools and Capitalism in general have misused mindfulness as a tool to manipulate workers in order to boost productivity. But I think this is a natural result of stripping mindfulness from its spiritual roots in a Capitalist context. For the reasons in Loy's article, I think Buddhism and mindfulness can actually be good models for activism, climate change or otherwise."
My point here is that Buddhism doesn't argue that you should just accept suffering and live with a defeatist attitude. Instead, Buddhism, especially the Mahayana, argues that you need to work to reduce suffering against all odds, no matter how futile it seems. Thus, rather than being passive, Buddhism actually can and should act as the fuel for societal change and the fuel for activism, even when it seems like it doesn't make a difference.
It should be noted that Buddhism doesn't share the materialist perspective of Marxism, and it does propose a broader, more long term perspective. But every Buddhist, particularly those on the Bodhisattva path, vows to end suffereling for all beings, and it can be said emphatically that if that doesn't show up in their own lives, i.e. if the practitioner doesn't actually try to help people, whether it is in their personal lives or broader society through activism and similar things, then that practitioner has magnificiently missed the point.
I think the roots of our social and economic systems can be found looking at the history of social order and resulting compromise. I found an excellent book (though controversial) written by...
I think the roots of our social and economic systems can be found looking at the history of social order and resulting compromise. I found an excellent book (though controversial) written by Robert Wright, Non-Zero:The Logic of Human Destiny. While I don't necessarily agree with his outlook, the history sections were though provoking.
Buddhism seeks to kill desire, attachment and even ego itself. Marxism seeks to better distribute the objects of desire among the working class. They seem antithetical to me.
Buddhism seeks to kill desire, attachment and even ego itself. Marxism seeks to better distribute the objects of desire among the working class. They seem antithetical to me.
I'm unequipped to really grapple with the Buddhist side of the point the author is making here without making a fool of myself, but I appreciate the conclusion and I've had similar thoughts floating around in my head lately:
A longstanding attitude toward change and freedom can essentially summed up as "Free Your Mind... and Your Ass Will Follow". The material follows the mental. The hippie model. I've been a Marxist of some kind for years, and that pretty naturally means that I believe the opposite: Free Your Ass... and Your Mind Will Follow. You can get into more academic details of what materialism means and all that, and that's all well and good, but in my mind it's long been reduced to those two options. That range is what's important to me and it's something I keep in mind to guide how I live.
But the thing is...my ass-freeing abilities are limited. I can't always be working to free my ass, and even if I am, there's a long period of time before my ass is free where my mind is similarly not. My ass may never be free, and I've found myself wondering if that's a life sentence for my mind. At least on a macro level, I think it is. We're largely products of our conditions and I firmly believe that changing them—freeing our asses—is the right course of action. Grounding ourselves in reality and not being hippies stuck in our own heads is important. I'd rather have people freeing their asses than their minds. But on a personal level, at least, I can't ignore myself like that seems to imply. So much of life is internal, and I've seen the fruits of being introspective. There's a lot to be done in your mind which makes it a hell of a lot easier to live, makes it richer. To a certain degree, I think the point of living is largely internal. I feel like a lot of the most strict Marxists, often the kind who spout IMMORTAL SCIENCE stuff, miss out on that because they're so preoccupied with not being do-nothing hippies that they forget to live. Does that make sense?
I don't want to make any statements about how that rolls back into political action because I realize my struggle here is somewhat disconnected from Marxism as a concept and is more closely tied to Marxism as it exists in my head and the heads of other Marxists who I've observed. I know there isn't a page in Capital that says "oh btw you can't work on yourself as a person that's not allowed because uhhh materialism and stuff." It's just been something on my mind for a while now as I take a more introspective turn in my life, and I wonder if these Buddhist Marxists have found a way to free their minds while fighting to free their asses. Wouldn't that be great?
I know there's a lot to digest here, but what I keep coming back to is the simple fact that if you free your ass before you free your mind, you're going ass backwards. I know that's a metaphor, but people of means who try to "free their minds" are often either writing a book or drunk on their lack of responsibility. And that sounds fantastic to me, a random on the internet, but I don't think I would be in the most disciplined state of mind if I tried to free myself assfirst.
Maybe this is a failing on my understanding of Marx and/or Buddhism, but I was under the impression that followers of Marx was a little more active in fighting the systemic injustices of society, where as Buddhism was more about a passive understanding of the circumstances around you, where you do what you can but accept what you can't, and I would imagine that the two philosophies would have some tension on how to handle big picture issues.
That was my biggest struggle with Buddhism. I started off reading about it and liking the concept a lot. I was reading the 4 Nobel Truths and felt like I was seeing a lot of my thoughts and feelings expressed and that doesn't usually happen with religion for me. But the more I read the more it did feel, to me at least, like it was more about accepting that some things are the way they are, and that didn't really jive with me for things like racism and oppression.
That's what I thought too at first, but after reading Seeing That Frees by Rob Burbea I've come to think of it differently. There are other teachings of Buddha that can be misconstrued as a case for apathy too, like the constant focus on dispassion, teachings on emptiness and suffering, et cetera. The way I now see those is that they're more about setting up a baseline from where to start your thought process on things, a calm compassionate mind.
I'm not sure if I'd call myself Buddhist but I do call myself an anarchist, and I do see a lot of common ground between Buddha&Bread Santa :)
Maybe we need a bigger picture of "compassion": like, to really feel compassion for other living things, we need to enact policies that encapsulate compassion for those in society who are discriminated against. I think maybe the article is trying to connect Marxism as a good way to enact Buddhist teachings. Maybe further reading is in Engaged Buddhism or Revitalized Buddhism?
Marx himself wasn't all that prescriptive in terms of action. Marxists often are revolutionaries or otherwise take active stances like that, but they can just as well be purely academic and just agree with his analysis of capitalism. Though from the bit of searching I've done since reading this, it seems like many of these Buddhist Marxists are more on that "active" end so the gap in understanding for me (and you too, maybe?) is on the Buddhist end.
I wanted to say that this article seems a bit forced, but their references to some historical Buddhist Marxists makes me really want to dive in. I know enough about Buddhism to know it's not what your generic college stoner treats it to be, but I know there's a hell of a lot I don't know and the references here seem like a good place to start to fill in some gaps. I adore seeing the crossroads between various religions and socialism, it's both really cool and teaches you how much range in belief exists both within political ideologies and within religions.
As a Buddhist and an anarchist I'll try to address some of this. This is a pretty common concern and misconception, so I'm just going to copy and paste from another time I responded to something like this. The comment itself pertains particularly to the eco-crisis, but I think it applies equally well to activism and working for change and the easing of suffering of any kind:
"There is an excerpt of Ecodharma: Buddhist Teachings for the Ecological Crisis by David Loy in the current issue of The Wisdom Journal that deals with almost exactly this issue. I'll share a few quotes that I think directly address the criticisms in this article.
This is the mistake that arguments like the ones in the article make. But Loy shows that this misses the point:
Articles such as the above are missing all of this added context that makes mindfulness and Buddhist practice so powerful. However, I do think they are right to an extent if you apply their argument mainly to McMindfulness. I don't think it can be denied that businesses, schools and Capitalism in general have misused mindfulness as a tool to manipulate workers in order to boost productivity. But I think this is a natural result of stripping mindfulness from its spiritual roots in a Capitalist context. For the reasons in Loy's article, I think Buddhism and mindfulness can actually be good models for activism, climate change or otherwise."
My point here is that Buddhism doesn't argue that you should just accept suffering and live with a defeatist attitude. Instead, Buddhism, especially the Mahayana, argues that you need to work to reduce suffering against all odds, no matter how futile it seems. Thus, rather than being passive, Buddhism actually can and should act as the fuel for societal change and the fuel for activism, even when it seems like it doesn't make a difference.
It should be noted that Buddhism doesn't share the materialist perspective of Marxism, and it does propose a broader, more long term perspective. But every Buddhist, particularly those on the Bodhisattva path, vows to end suffereling for all beings, and it can be said emphatically that if that doesn't show up in their own lives, i.e. if the practitioner doesn't actually try to help people, whether it is in their personal lives or broader society through activism and similar things, then that practitioner has magnificiently missed the point.
I think the roots of our social and economic systems can be found looking at the history of social order and resulting compromise. I found an excellent book (though controversial) written by Robert Wright, Non-Zero:The Logic of Human Destiny. While I don't necessarily agree with his outlook, the history sections were though provoking.
You should read Meiksins-Wood's "The Origins of Capitalism"
Buddhism seeks to kill desire, attachment and even ego itself. Marxism seeks to better distribute the objects of desire among the working class. They seem antithetical to me.