We offer meditation supplies, books, media and audio teachings to support, encourage and inspire you on your spiritual path.
Occupy Buddhism
Or Why the Dalai Lama is a Marxist
Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.
The movement of the real abolishes error and simultaneously manifests as the self-liberation of society.
I realize that it’s unrealistic to think that sanghas will start Marxist study groups to actually try to understand capitalism, understand the misery and suffering that systemically result from capital, or to use his ideas on issues of identity, attachment, subjectivity, consciousness, materialism, alienation, and happiness to inspire alternative modes of living in the world. For those who are interested, the Dalai Lama’s half-Marxism seems like a good place to start, and if somebody finds his stance confusing or misguided, that seems like a good reason to take another look at Marx. But the charm of capital remains so great that I doubt Buddhists will be any less seduced by it than other groups.
No Regrets
Some of the Dalai Lama’s friends have asked him not to mention that he is a Marxist. Why?
Regardless of the answer, there is something threatening and potentially discomforting about mixing Buddhism with discussions of money and politics. For some Buddhists the conversation is too profane, while others think it is impolite: they would prefer not to (to borrow a phrase from Melville’s Bartleby). They would prefer not to talk about property, income inequality, structural poverty, permanent unemployment, and the structural weaknesses of capital.
For a long time now, Wall Street, politicians and the media have preferred not to talk about these issues. However, that wall seems to be breaking down. Republican presidential candidates were especially anxious during the last primary cycle to label any discussion of wealth inequality as “class warfare,” insisting people drop the issue. But it didn’t work. Even Warren Buffett famously declared, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
The Dalai Lama’s friends would prefer he didn’t, yet year after year he reminds us of his Marxist leanings and his apprehensions about capitalism. Many Buddhists seem to have preferred not to hear him.
Like the Dalai Lama, the Occupy movement represents the true spirit of Melville’s Wall Street scribe: inexplicably, its members refuse to do what they are told, refuse to go away, but appear and again to the frustration of Wall Street and the mayors and police who represent the non-rocking boat of the status quo.
Americans and Buddhists might want to think about capitalism and how it can possibly be reconciled with the Buddha’s teachings. It’s difficult, to be sure, and gets very emotional for some. It might seem scary to think about its future, but that’s probably a good reason we should look at it: why is it scary to think about capitalism? It is as if Occupy has taken on the role of society’s collective therapist: patiently waiting and witnessing the tortured machinations of a society that tries to finally come to grips with its own state of denial.
Buddhism and America should enter the movement of the real and be engaged with the struggle to end suffering, and man’s inhumanity to man. The movement of the real is emotionally tough, because its first move is to reveal error. But it also appears in the emerging sangha, an invisisble movement of unification that appears in the action of the collective. The action of the collective is to be collected, to come together and deal with whatever arises from this being together. In the decline of capital, the saving power of the collective might appear in new and unexpected forms. Buddhist insurgency might look like a shift to a new leaderless sangha, or a new type of leader and teacher who discovers and understands the vast unrecognized potential of the collective movement of the real.
Marx's analysis of capitalism was based on the political economics of his day; things have changed, especially since the end of WWII, and even more so since the recent recession. The problem with Marxism is precisely that it is an ideology. It has its own logic and rationalism, but as an economic system it can never work because Marx had little understanding of what motivates people on a day to day basis - love of family, the quest for harmony, the constant search for a little happiness. He dealt in ideals, and ideals are dangerous. I see this reflected in your article. There is a thinly veiled call to arms that echoes the threats of the countless idealists that have inflicted their frustrations on the rest of us. I would urge you to re-read what you wrote and meditate on your words. Recall that the Buddha said "do no harm."
Unfortunately, you also make the error of believing "there is no alternative" to either capitalism or communism. Of course there is. One alternative is the cooperative movement. The largest bank in my home province of Quebec is a cooperative, for example, and it performs very well - it even returns part of its profits to its depositors. The cooperative movement is sometimes criticized because it appears to limit economic growth. This a myth perpetrated by mainstream economists; where has the never-ending demand for growth taken us? Actually, cooperatives resemble the half-Marxism that the Dalai Lama seems to favour.
Your essay was very interesting, but it is limited by the same "all or nothing" ideological blinders that affect our politicians and business leaders, as well as their economic advisors.
often the Buddhist message of self reliance is overlooked.
You'd have to be pretty well off to afford Tricycle itself, actually.
I live in a small rural town in the Nevada desert. Our hospital is owned by the county, our water system is a government entity, garbage collection is done by the city (and contracted to the county), and the agricultural irrigation district is owned by the farmers who draw water from the system. In all these instances socialism works about as well as any system, but they all have one thing in common; the individuals are working together for their own enlightened self interest. Once a socialist system starts to depend on the good intentions of people who don't have a real world stake in the outcome, they will horde resources for themselves at the expense of those who they are supposed to be responsible to. In the United States we were founded on a system that restricted the political power of the individual citizen and protected the minority from a tyranny of the majority. How can we do the same with economic power and prevent the rich from using their wealth to buy and take over our civic institutions? The working people of the world have seen one movement after another proclaim their intention to produce fairness and justice for them only to see the leaders find a new way to live lives of ease on the labor of others. I admire the intentions of His Holiness but lets face facts; in a large scale Marxist system that admires him he won't be sent out to dig ditches or pick fruit.
Marxism was an idealistic philosophy that looked to bringing about some kind of social equality but not very practical hence most despite many countries embraced it at one time or another eventually they gave it up eventually. People will never be equal in theirs and other people's eyes.
Only the unquiet mind is fixated with "isms" and "mental concepts".
Everything you need for a gentle and prosperous life is already
within you. With metta.
Thank you for this revealing article. You have given some clarity about the difficult topic of political /economic philosophy regarding social justice, no matter what the "tittles" imply. I struggle about my politcal beliefs and my studies and practice in Buddhism, as I think many others do. This article has enforced my committment to social justice and the foundation on which I justify those beliefs. I hope that more articles continue this discussion, Occupy Buddhism may be a breakthough for many of us who want to take this subject on-with head-on truthfulness. I agree with the call that Revolution is Enlightenment and it can be accomplished without massive violence- but we know it will include some of that too.
Of course, the Dalai Lama is no more a marxist than state-run-capitalist China is communist. The virus capitalism cannot be separated from its results: fascism, the slave trade, environmental destruction, the impoverishment of billions, and the death of at least 400 million. Total refusal to think or theorize cannot excuse these results. I do not see how anyone could accept the teachings of Buddhism, and also endorse a system that requires violent oppression of the majority of the population and the destruction of the natural world.
If you do not know that the China is ruled by one party--The Communist Party, if you do not see the benefits of capitalism allowing anyone the opportunity to better themselves, their family, and their others versus the communist state where a citizen’s value is a mere state slave to use as the one party who controls the state sees fit, then I could only advise you to read some history. Read about the 60 million murdered by Mao or the 20-30 millions by Lenin and Stalin. You might even visit a communist country if you dare. I have, and I appreciate even more the greatness of America and capitalism.
If the Dalai Lama is Marxist,then he should have no problem with Communist China. The virus Marxism cannot be separated from its spawn Communism or the result: totalitarianism, slavery, and the death of approximately 100 million. Lofty, quixotic theories do not excuse the results. I do not know how anyone could accept the precepts and endorse a system that excels at breaking them.
The Dalai Lama does much good for peace, and he can be forgiven this ignorance. However, reality cannot be ignored because of his authority.
What does constitute meaningful engagement in the world? Can we say that to act is not a realistic engagement with the world but a withdrawal into its unreality? To avoid the full impact of “this reality” might, in fact, lead us to a willingness to face a more expansive truth. Marxism can call upon “equality” just as capitalism can summon “prosperity” to its cause. Both are wonderful ideals but, like many others, they all must pass through the individual consciousness of men and women to be implemented and sustained. Perhaps if Marx had been the Dalai Lama…..? Surely real engagement in the world is to bring our attention inwards; to fling open the doors to another reality and allow the influence of a higher consciousness to animate and guide all our actions and govern the ideals that would lead us to our true home. Jean Pierre de Caussade, an 18th century Jesuit priest, talked about the ‘sacrament of the present moment’. To enter this – call it shunyata, mind or divine presence if you wish - would allow us to find true Marxism and capitalism in ourselves… and (dare I say it!) to discover that both would be contained by Love. Now that would be something!
Alastair R. McNeilage
A very interesting article on the whole. Keep up the good work! I would say, however, that HH the Dalai Lama has on a number of occaisons endorsed free-market capitalism. See here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/28/us-workplace-dalailama-idUSTRE...
In which he is quoted as writing, three years ago, that:
"I have come to put my faith in the free-market system.... The fact that it allows for freedom and diversity of thought and religion has convinced me that it is the one we should be working from."
Far from being genuine contemplative, then, he appears to be merely appended his name upon whatever comes his way.
For my part, I have looked in some detail at whether Buddhism and Marxism are compatible. I conclude that although they are not metaphysically incompatible - they both share a similair denial of the importance of the individual - they are practically incompatible - they each have different moral and political purposes. Read the summary of my findings here:
http://christian-eriksson.co.uk/analysis/2012/01/buddhist-liberal-views-...
I'd also agree with you that Zizek's analysis fails to touch upon any sophisticated understanding of Buddhism - he sets up a straw man, in other words. But surely, then, there's nothing else to say beyond this point?
Best wishes,
Christian Eriksson
Christian,
Do you understand that marxism and liberalism are very different? Your "summary" of your findings discusses the incompatibility of Buddhism and Western Liberalism, but says nothing at all of the incompatibility of Buddhism and marxism.
Zizek may say little about a sophisticated understanding of Buddhism, but that is not his target--he sets out only to critique the superficial Western Buddhism which, far from being a "straw man," is a very prominent force of Buddhism. So, he may not be correct about what Buddhism COULD be, but he is dead on about what it actually IS in its most common form in the West.
On Marx and Religion: Marx said (and he is never quoted in full),
"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and also the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people." Collected Works 1975 vol 3;175.
Religion is protest and historically has often been a revolutionary ideology; it is also the heart of potential universal ethics, an unrealistic projection of the status quo used by elites as an opiate to keep people quiet (ie. pie in the sky when you die). Marx is a complex thinker, as you would expect of a man who spoke 10 languages! and wrote a book on calculus as the basis of the rewrite of his giant work Capitalism.
Very perceptive point neuston2004, one which far too many people forget. If only Mao had read the preceeding few sentences to the famous 'Religion is the opium of the people' quote in Marx's *Critique of Hegel's Phislophy of Right* China's religious persecutions might not have been as brutal as they were.
Do not ignore the humanist marxism of Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, Antonio Gramsciç they strongly criticized the USSR and China, and opted for worker managed factories, a decentralized non-consumer society managed by direct democracy.
Capitalism has shown an incredible capacity to survive and expand during international crises, but the crisis it has created through Global Warming will radically destablilize the climate and primary biomes we rely on to feed our massively overpopulated world, leading to increasingly extreme events, droughts, floods, sea level rise, you know the litany. No oigarchy can spend or kill its way out of this crisis. Consumer capitalism is on life support at a high and increasingly intolerable cost. It may take the whole world down with it, giving us Somalia or Syria as our future.
The utopian and direct democratic forms of life and management spurned by political scientists and economics are the only actual alternative. Buddhism could be the heart and center of a smaller, simpler, non-violent bioregional society. It is important to begin constructing this now with alternative energy and cooperative forms of living, but the official governments are long captured by the oligarchy and will resist to the end. Change depends with our daily initiatives, with our putting enlightenment into practice.
In Patrick Peritore, Adventures in Political Theory, (see it on Amazon) there are chapters on humanist marxism, direct democracy, feminism, and evolutionary biology as a basis for understanding politics. A start to the discussion.
This is obviously an important piece of background sought out by many, like me. I would hope to be able to find more writing on this subject. If anyone Tricycle or otherwise have access to a bibliography or other sources that address this issue, please share. I've struggled to rectify political belifs with my religious commitments for years. i've even asked or brought it up at classes in my Temple looking for clarification, to no avail. It seemed to be a "taboo" topic". this is not an odd response because the least debatable assumption in our society is not race, religion or national origin but, in my opinion whether Capitalism is a legitimate form of socio-economic organization of a just, equatible and moral society. Somehow Marx, probalbly because of his headon view over religions' controlling assumptions about class has offended so many hierarchical elites of all stripes. This is important, timely and necessary in scope and context.
Dear Friend, see my Adventures in Political Theory (on Amazon), for a comprehensive look at contemporary humanist marxism, feminism, existentialism, even evolutionary biology, plus a big bibliography. Its the result of 40 yeas of university teaching and field research in 8 countries.
Best, Patrick Peritore
On some further reflection I would just humbly like to add that, as Buddhists, it is actually not necessary to become "Marxists," is it? since this is precisely the kind of dualistic perspective which our practice should seek to diminish through continued vigilance. Even the "ist" in "Buddhist" makes me balk at times…
However, when these kinds of political issues are raised in Buddhist forums, I think it is best to engage the relativity of the views regarding these matters only to the extent necessary to formulate the goodwill of Bodhicitta, as well as generating better intentions towards all sentient beings… that is to say: say YES to the spirit of what is naturally good as it arises out of the dharmakaya -- and then: resume our practice! (…I would provisionally add that perhaps Dzogchen or Mahamudra practitioners shouldn't even be seen in this vicinity.. ;-)
Thanks again so much, Stuart Smithers, for this wonderful prompt to goodness. Goodlife to all!
You are right. One need not be a Marxist or any ist. My effort is now based on being true to my natural goodness. Greed pulls me away, an open heart helps steer me.
Namaste Good Seekers!
I have often thought of myself as the Last Communist standing, but I should change that to Last Marxist standing. Unfortunately Communists hijacked Marxism and used it to control people and capture power in many countries, and wrought devastation and unending sorrow. Marxism is based on what might be described as good Christian values as Christ might have embraced, sharing, brotherhood, which are also the basis of socialism.
It has been said that the missing link between the apes and civilized man is us. We are, as a species, greedy and lazy (and sure we write poetry and make art and plastic). Capitalism knows us well and appeals to our base nature, or the shadow as aura521 would call it. (Hello Aura). To rise above that and share and care for others and work for its own sake, not for reward, we must be better people, be true to our Buddha-nature, and embrace the principles of Marxism. I can't speak for Jesus but I expect he would approve.
Thank you shantit for your heartfelt illuminations (also for unexpectedly reminding me of Sloterdijk's comment that we are just "Savannah monkeys" who somehow managed to build cities and create "civilization")… Yes, let's keep going for Buddha-nature: only THAT as the evolutionary project. Namaste!
"On reflection, we don't seem to have wound up with much more than a democracy "in name only," either"
I couldn't agree more.
Still I'm a little surprised that HH would make this statement years after the slaughter of 1+ million Cambodians and an attempt to completely eradicate buddhism*. This was done by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, the poster boys for Asian Marxists.
So what does constitute right speech? Since HH was just stating his opinion, were his
remarks necessary considering his position as the most revered and best know Buddhist in the world? Did they bring suffering to others such as refugees from Eastern Europe and Cuba who lived under the oppression of Moscow or Fidel Castro and the millions that currently live under communism and Marxism?
Were the remarks divisive? Maybe a little as they certainly make it more difficult in the US to share Buddhist thought to those already distrustful of anything but Christianity.
I mean no disrespect to His Holiness and I'm sure someone can explain the necessity of his remarks to me but at the moment, I just wish he hadn't made them.
*Taken from Wikipedia which I'll admit is hardly authoritative but a good place to start Khmer Rouge Era
"In 1975 when the communist Khmer Rouge took control of Cambodia, they tried to completely destroy Buddhism and very nearly succeeded. By the time of the Vietnamese invasion in 1979, nearly every monk and religious intellectual had been either murdered or driven into exile, and nearly every temple and Buddhist temple and library had been destroyed.
The Khmer Rouge policies towards Buddhism- which included the forcible disrobing of monks, the destruction of monasteries, and, ultimately, the execution of uncooperative monks effectively destroyed Cambodia's Buddhist institutions.[10] Monks who did not flee and avoided execution lived among the laity, sometimes secretly performing Buddhist rituals for the sick or afflicted.[10]
Estimates vary regarding the number of monks in Cambodia prior to the ascension of the Khmer Rouge, ranging between 65,000 and 80,000.[11] By the time of the Buddhist restoration in the early 1980s, the number of Cambodian monks worldwide was estimated to be less than 3,000.[12] The patriarchs of both Cambodian nikayas perished sometime during the period 1975-78, though the cause of their deaths is not known.[11]"
His Holiness appears to be someone who, historically posited in a relevant location (20th century China), was genuinely able to form an excellent view of what Marxism is — and isn't (vis-a-vis Communism) — and was therefore able to declare his agreement with it. The article also demonstrates why Buddhist practitioners should consider incorporating Marxist perspectives into their view to arrive at a more complex and humane understanding of what a better world might look like…
Those who argue that Marxism equals a lack of freedom or unequal distribution are making the usual mistakes of mischaracterization, instead of coming to realize a fundamental truth: that there has NOT been a single Communist country in existence — to date! — but merely in name only. Many Marxists would offer the valuable reminder that Marx's vision of Socialism or Communism, which would actually amount to something like a truly democratic society, has never actually been realized... at least not yet. And THAT is why his spirit is not going away... On reflection, we don't seem to have wound up with much more than a democracy "in name only," either.
Well put, Traveller. To say that communism has failed is sheer propaganda--it cannot have failed, since it has never been properly attempted. The USSR needed to participate in global capitalism in order to finance its defense industry, and so became a kind of state run capitalism instead of communism. China is the largest state-run capitalist economy ever--they may "officially" have the idea that this is a necessary "phase" in the transition to complete communism, but for the moment, it is the very definition of fascism. The argument that since a communist state has never existed communism should be abandoned is poor reasoning--it is like arguing that if you aren't enlightened yet, Buddhism has been "proven" a dismal failure, and should be abandoned.
For those who think a kinder, gentler capitalism could work, I would suggest reading Mandel's "Introduction to Marxist Economics" or Mattick's "Business as Usual." For those who think communism has been tried and proven a failure, I would suggest Eagleton's "Why Marx Was Right" or Badiou's "The Communist Hypothesis."
For those who think that capitalist competition, greed, self-interest and aggression are our true human nature, well, that's kind of sad--and it's hard to imagine how you could accept any of the teachings of Buddhism.
Thanks much wtompepper, for those suggestions -- Eagleton is certainly one of the more eloquent and yet stimulating thinkers around (and, I've always found Badiou a good foil for Zizek)… On this m.o., I would like to add a link to an article by "P.M." (famous for his philosophical project "bolo bolo" back in the 80s), which may give many people an indication that it is possible to rethink our current situation in creative, humane and compassionate ways. This kind of thinking shows up as a good first step to start a more meaningful conversation, and so I highly recommend fellow Buddhist practitioners to have a look…
http://turbulence.org.uk/turbulence-5/potatoes-and-computers/
Bravo...good to see this kind of discussion here, and extra thanks to you Tom for the reading suggestions.
This article is great - many thanks for writing.
Hoo Boy! With respect to His Holiness, he may be missing a fundamental point that the Buddha and Christ did not - the reality of the unequal distribution of wealth. Capitalism is a deeply flawed system, communism is a deeply flawed system, national socialism (per the Nazi model) was a deeply flawed system - it's just a matter of replacing one impersonal (and sometimes tyrannical) system for another.
An economic system that guarantees equal distribution would require the presence of many "enlightened" individuals to administer that system. We may have enlightenment as our natural state but, at any given time, there are darn few of us that have realized it and would qualify for the job. What would His Holiness suggest, that all economic and political systems be administered by Tibetan Lamas?
Rather than wasting a lot of time pursuing the "something other" (especially when that other has proven to be unsatisfying and unworkable in the past) maybe we should fine tune the old loving kindness and teach others how to take care of themselves regardless of the economic system currently in vogue.
If you read the article carefully, you would see His Holiness did make related comments acknowledging the unequal distribution of wealth as being a major problem of Capitalism… also, that the Chinese Communist Party failed, precisely because no one has realized the aims of Marx, but merely of authoritarianism.
Thank you and I don't think I said anything that would suggest otherwise.
In America, over the last thirty years, every police department down to the smallest village has been armed to the teeth with military "surplus" equipment and a military, confrontational police culture has replaced To Serve And Protect. Police freely admit that their primary task these days is to protect their own lives and those of their comrades. This is not the mindset of a constabulary concerned with public safety - it is a military view of Us vs Them. And, unfortunately, the American citizenry appears to be Them in this equation.
Currently, the SWAT team is the most popular response by police departments everywhere to almost any situation, no matter how trivial. Last year, here in Albuquerque, a man dodged out of a diner without paying his bill and the police responded to the owner's call with a SWAT team. They swarmed the street of the diner, set off stun grenades and with a greatly entertaining and theatrical deployment of "troops" managed to "capture" the diner only to be told by a horrified waitress that the man had walked away up the street some time before they showed up. Naturally. He was dodging a bill, not robbing a bank or looking for a shoot out.
It would be a funnier story if it didn't illustrate the ominous truth all military people understand -- it is not possible to heavily arm and train troops and then expect them not to use what they've been given and taught to do. Lapses of the sort that happened at the Albuquerque diner are as small clouds on the horizon that tell the wise that a real storm is coming.
The notion of using military force against American citizens has been trained out of the American armed services most rigorously, with excellent reason. Quite cannily, The Powers That Be have realized that it would take very little pushing to get the American police to finish their journey to the dark side -- they were already in the habit of confronting and sometimes even killing their fellow Americans. After a couple decades of the right arming, training and cultural "enemies" (war on drugs, illegal immigrants, terrorists, gangs) to practice on, the American constabulary has become the perfect tool for use by power and money to protect their possessions in the dark days just ahead. Their years of practice have led to an America with more people incarcerated than any other country on this planet.
I think the reasoning behind this huge build up in police weaponry and tech will become more obvious as the summer progresses and more people try to exercise the right of assembly. I fear we are about to see the next moves in the end game of capitalism, at least in America; the universal last refuge of the incompetent - violence. And, unfortunately, due to the nature of power and the frailty of flesh against bullets, I think we're in for a century or more of outright oppression with the police being used as the instruments of power.
It is ironic in a way that makes me very sad that the movement of people toward freedom has chosen to call itself "Occupy..." since we ourselves are an occupied people. We were occupied in small, incremental moves over several decades and the cordon sanitaire that separates the rich from the rest of us has just about been completed. And using our own money. Very clever; quite wicked. We did, of course, participate but that does not make the situation any less miserable.
So - what do we do now? That is the question. As this article says, we need to at least start imagining what another, post-capitalist, culture would look like, how it would work, what it would feel like and how it could be sustained. We must imagine and start building what we can while we still can. And, perhaps this journey to another culture should be imagined without the masses of people in the streets that appear to be imminent. Why present ourselves for slaughter? Why provide those who would oppress us with the opportunity to weaken and rob us? Why not use the energy and motivation that assembly requires to move away from the current culture and into another mode of existence? Assembly has a place in social change but I do not think it is the place to start -- perhaps it is the place to end -- a big party after we have crossed over to another way of living. History demonstrates that assembly and confrontation and violence only leads to more of the same. Ever notice how revolution born out of assembly becomes Hail to the new boss; same as the old boss.
I would like to offer a few steps that anyone, anywhere can take right now, right in their own home. First, turn off the television. Turn it off. Right in the middle of whatever it's doing, just turn it off and leave it off. Send the equipment to the recycling facility nearest you. Next, get rid of your lawn. If you're going to grow a crop in that space, at least make it one you can eat or get some goats. Third, cook your own food in your own kitchen from real ingredients. Stop eating out, stop eating InstaFood and McCrap.
That's all for now. Just those three things and you will be on your way to reinventing our culture and being a very "dangerous" revolutionary. Ghandiji started by making salt and weaving cloth. Small lights are easy to kindle and by the illumination of those small lights, I am sure we will see the next step on a path out of this Hell.
Good grief - another Buddhist (I assume) prepper! I thought I was the only one.
Note to readers: Despite the horror stories associated with "survivalist" - "prepping" need not violate a single word of the Noble Eightfold Path. It might include the ability to defend one's family in the most extreme situations out of compassion and not anger. It often entails kindness and generosity towards those who are less prepared (with the notable exception of those who would use violence). It is politically neutral as most of us realize that any form of government feeds itself by taking from and manipulating its citizens.
Although there are those unfortunate few whose fear and confusion causes them to build bunkers, amass arsenals and physically or emotionally isolate themselves from others, the huge majority of us plant vegetable gardens and learn how to bake bread, store water and stay warm if the power goes out.
We reach out to our neighbors not only out of metta but because of the certainty that we'll experience much less suffering as part of a small community than if we go it alone.
Finally, and you heard it hear first, it IS possible to be politically conservative (and many of us aren't) and still be a well intentioned, path trotting Buddhist. I mention this only because 95% of the Dhamma teachers who I learn from (and deeply respect) would suggest otherwise.
Haha! Yes, I am a Buddhist and a "prepper"...that's a new term to me but I suppose it fits my outlook very well. Although, I think of it as just "doing otherwise" or, on most days, simply refusing to be a marketing victim. I feel my family is prepared for difficult times but we're still hoping the old hippie poster from the '60s will turn out to have been prophetic..."What if they threw a war and nobody showed up?" If enough of us simply turn aside and refuse to participate in the violent follies that appear to be coming, maybe we can defuse the situation and change our culture without bloodshed. I refuse to stop hoping and working, anyway, and we are trying to drag along as many people as possible into this way of living. I begin to think perhaps the conscious householder life, or prepping, is more common than we feared and even possibly more common than we hope. Someday, when we old timers ask someone what they "do" I hope the renaissance human will be so common that they'll look at us like we're crazy and say "About what?" Wouldn't that be cool?
Regardless of the economic system, greed and corruption persist. Compassionate capitalism would work. Unfortunately, the primary advantage of capitalism has ended. People can no longer acquire a higher economic status through hard work. The disadvantage of Marxism is that there is inadequate incentive to work hard and acquire skills. There will not be a reward other than the public good. Much of the focus on the public good has gone. America is focused on selfishness. What is in it for me? I know there are exceptions. Those are huge generalizations. The article also generalises. Has someone studied the degree to which Buddhist are involved in social change work? I didn't see any statistics. Looking around the sangha may not be the best way to judge the degree to which Buddhist are engaged. My experience has been the members of sanghas are involved in social change and social service. My experience is that people who become aware of their own defilements, become more compassionate toward others. There is a consistency between Buddhism and Marxism, in that Buddhism offers compassion for everyone. Marxism is idealistic, It fails to take into account that people are frequently motivated by greed and power. We have varying degrees of motivation toward the public good. We are who we are. That is what is real . Of course, this is only my perception. I have great respect toward the Dalai Lama. I strive to be a realistic socialist.
Who says we have to "work hard and acquire skills"? Those are only "benefits" under a capitalist system. Under a Marxist version of democracy, people wouldn't necessarily need to "work hard"… everyone might be able to contribute their share of natural talent and ability to produce what they could, while others contribute other things -- which is pretty much what we have in place now: farmers grow the produce, musicians make the music, carpenters make the furniture, etc.), so that everyone has a bit of what they need, but not too much and not too little. Some have calculated that people wouldn't actually need to work more than a few hours a week, and much spare time could be devoted to education and self-development (learning or practicing whatever…). If everyone wanted it this way, it can be done.
And, please don't write off "idealism," which is usually just a false negative term to mischaracterize "inspiration"… I mean, we have to start somewhere, and without cynicism! Whatever the future manifests, I trust that Sangha practitioners of all kinds worldwide, will help contribute meaningful thoughts and compassionate reflection.
In my work as a physician, I specialized in the care of the acutely and chronically disabled. On a daily basis, I would essentially beg for the necessary care, medications, and equipment for my patients to eat, toilet, dress and bathe, as well as provide for their essential health needs, while the rich received botox or any essential or non-essential health provisions they requested. ( Recall ex-vice president Cheney getting a heart transplant ahead of those who had waited for years as well as those fitting the health criteria for such a procedure; whereas, Cheney did not.) The situation in health care is an ideal talking point in the discussion of capitalism vs. Marxism. Health care in the US has failed under capitalism requiring healthcare workers to struggle daily for balance in the care of patients, taking a huge toll upon the fair minded worker. All people should have equal opportunity for healthcare as well as all life necessities. We act as if there are shortages for life's basic needs for all people, but as discussed by Peter H. Diamandis in his book 'Abundance,' the basic needs for all are and will be available if we work in a cooperative manner. An idealistic form of Marxism may be effective, but, in the past, has degenerated in settings such as China due to personal hunger for power. Alternative business designs may be effective as discussed by Mohammed Yunus in ' Social Business.' Despite the potentially just social structures for society that may evolve, I continue to wonder if Samsara will persist due to continued greed and attachment by individuals.
I don't think there will be any quick ending to greed, corruption and striving; or even a long ending; or even any ending
Really? well, for what it's worth... what happens "quickly" is usually called "revolution" and it tends to be rather unpleasant, since that's the main quality of anything changing "overnight"... while, what happens slowly is usually some form of "democracy," since to be inclusive of as many voices as possible takes time and more time (and then some), since the "many voices" don't stop speaking out (nor should they)... As for your last gasp here -- "or even any ending" -- I will be honored to let the late Thinley Norbu Rinpoche have the final words, for us to try to live by:
Suffering in hopefulness is the eternalist.
Suffering in hopelessness is the nihilist.
Beyond both hopefulness and hopelessness is the Buddhist.
— Thinley Norbu (Magic Dance)
I'm not able to bring up page one of this article--any suggestions?
Thanks!
Try this link:
http://www.tricycle.com/web-exclusive/occupy-buddhism
I have for sometime been trying to reconcile my long standing Marxist beliefs with my newly acquired Buddhist practice. They always seemed to be a natural fit but I had not really analyzed why this was so. This article has given me the the first real explanation. It has also inspired me to reactivate my political work with a new perspective. Revolution is Enlightenment !