[allmyflights]

Hi everyone.
I have just picked up a book from L.L entitled Modern Buddhism by Donald Lopez.

While I am not familiar with all of the authors, some names are familiar from other sources
and may be a bit sus?

For example H.P Blavatsky, co founder of Theosophy was soundly criticized by B.W.B.
Other writers with whom I am familiar,, but not in a Buddhist context include Alan Watts, Allen Ginsberg, D.T.Suzuki, Henry Steel Olcott another Theosophist, et al.

All of the articles are very short. Some writers who I had not heard of include....R.H. Blyth, T'ai Hsu,Buddhadasa,Fritjof Capra, Jack Kerouac among others.

While I believe it is possible to learn from "bad stuff" as well as good I imagine the term "Vulgar Marxism" also applies to Buddhism

Any tips? Thanks.

[HarryMet]

My take? Blyth is gold. His four-volume series on Haiku brought this art form to the attention of the West and also introduced many to Zen teachings. I would gladly take these books to any desert island I might be consigned to.

I'd steer clear of Blavatsky and so on, unless you are interested in Theosophy for historical reasons.

[Ruiptuptubre]

I imagine the term "Vulgar Marxism" also applies to Buddhism

Can you elaborate please?

[Katrinsitter]

Can you elaborate please?

Hi Deshy.
I take 'vulgar Marxism' to refer mainly to revolutionary activities rather than Marx's more sophisticated economic theories.

I used this as a rough analogy to many writings on Buddhism that seem overly concerned with mythology and metaphysics.

Can you reccommend any more serious Buddhist philosophers. Thanks.

[averkif]

Thanks Lazy Eye. I have read a little of R.H. Blyth; seems quite heavy into poetry and such, and could be interesting.

As for Theosophy, I have been involved tepidly for many years; they seem to grab bits and pieces from all over the place.

I find their 7 root races theory extemely weird.

[Effofqueeno]

Can you reccommend any more serious Buddhist philosophers.

I'm sorry I don't know any. As far as I can tell, Buddhism is not a philosophy. The dhamma is just verifiable facts.

However, Karl Marx was a materialist who philosophized that matter was primary rather than the ideal, a common debate around philosophical circles. I think the view that matter is primary sits well with the Buddha's teachings, which seem to suggest that rupa is primary and rupa can exist independent of the perception of it. Just my 2 cents.

[AdSuiteAdobe]

I hope you see the interesting similarities to the Buddha's teachings here. If not I will quote for you.

Materialism asserts the primacy of the material world: in short, matter precedes thought. Materialism is a realist philosophy of science which holds that the world is material ... wherein all things are interdependent and interconnected and develop according to natural law; that the world exists outside us and independently of our perception of it; that thought is a reflection of the material world in the brain...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism The ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought - Marx

[D6b2v1HA]

If you read for Dhamma, you may read any book, if it:
- helps you to hold precepts more firmly
- helps you to do merits more often
- helps you to get away from anger, greed and muddled
- helps you to develop your mindfulness
- helps you to understand and more diligent to practice following Buddha's teaching, etc.

It does not matter who wrote it. The contents therein do.