[rionetrozasa]

From the Nepal 'People's Review.'.......do you agree?


Buddhism is Close to Marxist Ideology

UCPN-Maoist Vice-chairman Dr. Baburam Bhattarai has said that Buddhism and Marxism are close to each other.

"Buddhist philosophy is very much similar to Marxist ideology", he said.

"Lord Buddha had very progressive view during his time and his philosophy and teachings are not so far removed Marxist ideology", he said during a book launching ceremony organized by Nepal-China Society in the capital.

At the programme, Dr. Bhattarai also stressed on the need to expand Buddhist philosophy across the world.

~People’s News/C.P. Munikar


http://peoplesreview.com.np/index.ph...ly-update&Item


ANY COMMENTS ?

[slimsex]

I've read somewhere a story from the suttas that the Buddha encouraged a king to be generous to his people and allocate the wealth justly in order to prevent the conditions for thievery and political discontent. I don't know the exact reference, though. I'll have to look.

[diegogo]

At the programme, Dr. Bhattarai also stressed on the need to expand Buddhist philosophy across the world.

How something that is not an ideology can be taken as such?

Where at the Pali Canon teachings is an ideology expoused?

Personally I can't agree with such totalitarian ideas as imposing an understanding to the whole world. Why?

The teachings of the historical Buddha are about understanding. Until that understanding is not there there can not be such a practice. This happens when what the historical Buddha taught is taken as a religion, as a philosophy or as a ideology which as any of these ends in political control over humankind by means of religion, ideology or philosophy.

[TineSeign]

Could say the same about Christianity, as Jesus seriously told people to get rid of all their property and make sure they were never wealthier than their neighbors (or else they were going to face that whole "camel through the eye of the needle" problem where rich people don't go to heaven).

Just because a religion has a core teaching that sounds good to Marxists doesn't mean it's a Marxist tradition.

[Thomas12400]

I would suggest that (Theravada) Buddhism is about as far from Marxism as possible.
I can say this because we are encouraged to question everything,don't believe a teacher just because they are teachers.
This sounds more like an flaky ideology trying to attach themselves to a philosophy that works.

[feannigvogten]

ideology

An Ideology, in my view, is often a system of concepts/practices developed for the purpose of manipulating/controlling entities or people, not always for the benefit of all, and often developed and driven by a few. Perhaps this is a restricted view of the term, but I can't fit Buddhism into this definition. Hence I would have difficulty seeing any relationship between Marxism and Buddhism.

[IACJdKfU]

An Ideology, in my view, is often a system of concepts/practices developed for the purpose of manipulating/controlling entities or people, not always for the benefit of all, and often developed and driven by a few. Perhaps this is a restricted view of the term, but I can't fit Buddhism into this definition. Hence I would have difficulty seeing any relationship between Marxism and Buddhism.

True plogsties...

[UvjqTVVC]

Buddhism is about treating all people equally - in Marxism some people are more equal than others, e.g. rule of the proletariat or rule by the party. Buddhism is also not so interested in materialism but sees suffering in addition to the suffering of poverty or of the exploited. Buddhism teaches tolerance, respect, compassion - Marxism talks about class warfare and purges.

It is true that both philosophies have as an objective to end suffering but the means are very different and hence the results.

[ChicasCams]

(Let me preface this by saying that I've been impressed by some -far from all- of Marx's observations, but not by any state that has tried to put them into practice. I don't have anything for or against Marxist ideology; it just doesn't interest me as its concept of liberation is different from mine.)


There are age and gender heirarchies built into the Sangha system described in the Pali Canon, and though a limited number and type of personal possessions are allowed for monks/nuns, other property is held in common.

Even so, I can't see off the top of my head how the similarities would go much further than that. It sounds like a false analogy, in that Buddhism and Marxism are vastly more different than similar.

Marxism is a mixture of theories about history and economics, not personal liberation. The individual is irrelevant in Marxism, the subjective perspective is absolute in Buddhism. One pledges unwavering loyalty to the State or the Party in Marxism for the welfare of the State/Party, one takes refuge in the Triple Gem as an aid to one's own development and the general welfare.

It seems to me that if I kept going, I could easily come up with a longer list of dissimilarities, but am hard-pressed to come up with more similarities.

That's a problem with letting one's bias color one's rationality. One is tempted to rely on logical fallacies and nice-sounding rhetoric, rather than meticulous analysis of data or phenomena. That is, a biased person starts with the favored conclusion and then works backwards to come up with supporting arguments, often cobbling together unrelated facts.

A careful thinker would start with a question, much like Siddhartha did, and accept whatever best answered the question or best solved the problem, building supporting arguments step-by-step along the way to the conclusion. The conclusion is then well defended by a coherent argument instead of merely convincing, feel-good rhetoric.

Of course, I could be wrong. ^^

[allaboutauto.us]

I must agree that (Theravada) Buddhism is about as far from Marxism as possible.

The Buddha's economic teachings to laypeople are about self-reliance, prudence & wealth accumulation.

Buddha taught a layperson spends 1/4, saves 1/4 and invests 1/2 of their wealth.

Buddha taught material happiness for laypeople is 1. owing wealth or property; 2. having money to spend; 3. being free from debt; and 4. having a blameless livelihood.

Socially, Buddha taught there are employers and employees; that employers occassionally share 'special profits'.

Buddhist cosmology is about climbing the ladder.

For me, Buddha would never embrace Marxism because (Theravada) Buddhism is about the evolution of the individual (which requires the development of personal intiative).

[Keeriewof]

Of course, I could be wrong

I think you're right on.

[Accor$314]

Originally Posted by Former Buddhist Monk Of course, I could be wrong

I think you're right on. Thanks. I haven't given it that much thought, to be honest, but seems that a disclaimer like that is always in order. All things change, whether concrete or abstract, so what seems so right now may very well seem to be equally wrong at some point.

[SarkisPioute]

I will be against any kind of totalitarian imposed system to force humankind to fit into a personal idea, even if this idea seems to be noble and kind as it could have been in the case of Marxism.

To see similarities between historical Buddha teachings and, as in the case of Marxism, any kind of totalitarian system hidden in a philosophy, in a religious system or behind an beautiful ideal, indicates a complete lack of understanding of those teachings.

I think that humankind has to experience many kind of forms of dukkha before the understanding of the Four Noble Truths. Even, a true awakened mind will have an absolute respect for human condition and will never intend to adopt an ideal, a philosophy or a religious system so to be imposed to others.

There are age and gender heirarchies built into the Sangha system described in the Pali Canon, and though a limited number and type of personal possessions are allowed for monks/nuns, other property is held in common.

Yes. To reach this state of art is a personal decision that has grown and rippen through a deep understanding about the need to live this way... nobody can force anybody to adopt this way of life. It is freely chosen.

Marxism is a mixture of theories about history and economics, not personal liberation. The individual is irrelevant in Marxism, the subjective perspective is absolute in Buddhism. One pledges unwavering loyalty to the State or the Party in Marxism for the welfare of the State/Party, one takes refuge in the Triple Gem as an aid to one's own development and the general welfare.

Absolutely true...

[HoniSoniproca]

I agree that Marxism is not about personal liberation so it is meaningless to compare any socio-political view with the Buddha's teachings of not-self. Marxism (or any economic theory for that matter) is about a social order in which people live in harmony under the slogan "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs".

I think the Buddha taught the lay people of his time how to live a good lay life according to the social order that prevailed at that time. He did not try to disturb the socio-economic environment. That was not what he wanted to teach. Thus he taught them compassion, encouraged charity and equality. He also explicitly criticized the cast/creed separation of the ancient society. So it is not completely wrong to say the Buddha's views of a good lay life is somewhat close to socialism. However, the core message the Buddha wanted to pass around was about personal liberation.

Karl Marx on the other hand explained a social order and an economic theory which discourage the private ownership of the means of production. He did not say one should not accumulate wealth or live a good life.

[TughEmotteTug]

The problem with those sort of idealisms including marxisims, socialisms, capitalisms or any "ism" is when they are put into practice; the greatness of historical Buddha teachings are when they are put into practice.

[boizzones]

The outcome of anything, even Buddhist practice depends on how you practice. Just because a country failed to instill some economic theory right does not mean it is useless. Just because some Buddhists don't become enlightened does not mean Buddha was wrong.

[mirzaterak]

Just because some Buddhists don't become enlightened does not mean Buddha was wrong.

There is no need to be worried about enlightenment or about who or who is not enlightened. Understanding, the practice of it and the discern of the result or outcome is.

Just because a country failed to instill some economic theory right does not mean it is useless.

Any kind of imposed system, ideal, philosophy or religion is destined to fail; and it fails because it was imposed by others how thought that the way they understand reality was the correct and only one.

[PilotJargon]

There is no need to be worried about enlightenment or about who or who is not enlightened. Understanding, the practice of it and the discern of the result or outcome is.

Not sure what you are trying to say here or how it is relevant to what I said

Any kind of imposed system, ideal, philosophy or religion is destined to fail; and it fails because it was imposed by others how thought that the way they understand reality was the correct and only one.

Once again, your answer is not clear. To begin with, can you please elaborate what you mean by "fail"?

[Grieryaliny]

Quote from: Kaarine Alejandra on Today at 04:40:53 PM
There is no need to be worried about enlightenment or about who or who is not enlightened. Understanding, the practice of it and the discern of the result or outcome is.

Not sure what you are trying to say here or how it is relevant to what I said

OK, I was just elaborating from what you wrote here:

Just because some Buddhists don't become enlightened does not mean Buddha was wrong.

and here:

even Buddhist practice depends on how you practice.

adding some ideas in agreement with those expoused by you.

Quote from: Kaarine Alejandra on Today at 04:40:53 PM
Any kind of imposed system, ideal, philosophy or religion is destined to fail; and it fails because it was imposed by others how thought that the way they understand reality was the correct and only one.


Once again, your answer is not clear. To begin with, can you please elaborate what you mean by "fail"?

Here I was just commenting for what you wrote here:

Just because a country failed to instill some economic theory right does not mean it is useless.

From this idea I infer about the failure of socialism in some country, maybe of Eastern Europe so my comment was that between other conditions, the imposition of an economic system can lead sooner or later to its failure.

Just 2 cents,

I worked many years in a village that lived through fishing. The fishery was not a private property; it was held by the whole community. It worked pretty well. Some kilometers away there was another fishery but held in a private way by its owner. It worked pretty well too. The success was that in both cases the economic system was not imposed and the agreement to work in each of them was completely as is the way the Mayan people decides the use of their resources. Until everybody agrees no decision can be taken. But this results are just observed at a village scale and with that level of participation. An assembly can take several weeks of discussions until the total agreement is reached. There seems to be that behind this successfull examples there's an ancient culture of participation.

[Anatolii]

Marxism (or any economic theory for that matter) is about a social order in which people live in harmony under the slogan "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs".

Thought Capitalism was an 'econmic theory',Capitalism certainly does not take refuge in this slogan.
Buddhism certainly does not need slogans.