Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhism and Anarchism
Transmetaphysical
Veteran
Is Buddhism and Anarchism consistent with eachother? I would say so. It appears to me that Buddha was against authority and his teachings were heavily centered around ones ownself as the only authority.
I don't think Buddha would approve of anyone submitting themselves to any authority whatsoever and I think he's made this clear. He promoted a completely autonomous life.
Remember, " everyone votes for a dictator."
(Note: I'm not an Anarchist, but rather a Panarchist. I support infrastructure and order, but not government.)
.
I don't think Buddha would approve of anyone submitting themselves to any authority whatsoever and I think he's made this clear. He promoted a completely autonomous life.
Remember, " everyone votes for a dictator."
(Note: I'm not an Anarchist, but rather a Panarchist. I support infrastructure and order, but not government.)
.
0
Comments
Would the Buddha be an anarchist? No, he was not against government or authority, in fact, his sangha had clear lines of authority and rules which is a form of government. What the Buddha would be against are the impermanent illusions positions of authority can facilitate within people's minds.
I don't think that governments automatically become a source of supreme moral and ethical authority. Rather, if we recognize that a government is there to provide common services that work to further the goals and expectations of the community, then when we participate with the government it is on those grounds.
I think Anarchists see "the man" and it scares them away from seeing how the community can benefit from setting governance and social norms that work to secure the rights of individuals.
In this regard, I do not find that government is to be blamed for any of humankind's problems, it is greed and ignorance, delusion and the like. I see it as something as common in government as it is outside of government. This makes it more important to uproot ignorance and greed than systems that govern.
With warmth,
Matt
What exactly are you basing this on?
This makes no sense. Infrastructure and order, by their very nature, require government.
Anarchy =/= Chaos
It is defined as a society without government. You know what true chaos and disorder is? Man being a slave to authority.
Government means mind control. Govern = control. ment = mind.
Buddha taught that man ought to be in control of his own mind.
The sangha is there to preserve the dharma. The rules were there to keep the dharma pure. They don't govern people, they don't arrest people.
Is there such a thing as too free? Buddhism is about LIBERATION.
No. There can be public organizations that develop and maintain roads, highways, and other utilities. There is no need for a dictator and a legal system to restrict and bind you.
I myself work for the government and aid only with infrastructure, not governing others.
.
or drive a car at 200 miles an hour around schools?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to understand what you are saying.
Government is the outletting of mans unsane psychological disorder. If everyone maintained their own home and their own garden, things will fall into place, instead of having people trying to fix everyone else and tell them what to do. Before you can try to change others, work on yourself first.
People need to look at the root. People want a government to keep things in line because no one is looking at the root.
.
Did Buddha subject himself to government authorities? Did he coerce authority over others?
If I'm not mistaken, Buddha was against the caste system (government) of India.
.
This is an idealisitic fantasy. I can name several anarchical periods in time and they were replete with chaos and violence, but I cannot name one that fits the mold of self-control and peace. (See the British civil war and the french revolution.) So in theory you may have some ground to stand on but once again that is a idealistic fantasy and holds no historical precedence or realistic probability.
Too literal of a deconstruction of the word; in context, the word does not necesserily mean mind control, although a government can attempt mind control. Could you not argue that an enlightened being would see an attempt of one attempting to control another's mind?
Wrong, the Buddha taught Dukkha and it's cessation including the illusion of control.
The Sangha is there to preserve and teach the dharma -true. There are established rules for each sangha, if one breaks these rules, they are then punished accordingly, be it extra work or being banned from the sangha. By all definitions, this is a form of governement and not a form of mind control.
of course there would be no need for laws or governments... Come to think of it, i don't think we would need roads and infrastructures either.
I thought you were referring to now, in the world in its current state.
Development, maintenance and usage require regulations and that is government. Mankind is a social creature and society by necessity means government.
You personally may not, but someone in your department does.
But is still government nonetheless.
I diagree.
"chaos" is not what anarchy means, except perhaps as a descriptive term.
I disagree. But we can agree that since his death Buddhism has become a very very governed religion. This doesn't mean the Buddha himself was into domination and indoctrination of the masses.
I think the Buddha was very much against authority, to me his is the supreme anarchist.
Question everything, be your own light - this statement on personal liberation is very anarchy to me!
namaste
Yes, it is a government albeit a very a decentralized one.
I don't see what point your trying to make though by saying that. That's not a real objection, more like a question of semantics.
well said.
They govern dharma in ways perhaps the Buddha would not have.
It isn't semantics and the point, I felt, was obvious.
Human beings need some form of governance. It matters not if the government is question is a large, centralized authority or a small, decentralized for of collectivism, some form is necessary. Any time you have social groupings of any kind there is structure, there is a certain ordering, and there are certain rules. This is government. Society and government are mutually inclusive, both depend on the other, and neither exists without the other.
So say the slave masters....
First off, I didn't say anarchy meant chaos but that it was on the side of chaos, which as you mentioned, is a description or simile of the ideal. And as I responded in my next post, the idealistic hope of an anarchical society is a fantasy with no historic precedence and no realistic probablilty of coming to fruition. So once again, in theory like idealistic communism, anarchism is a nice fantasy but unrealistic.
I am not a theravadan scholar but even I have read in the pali canon of the Buddha establishing rules, norms, and precepts that governed his disciples. Granted, they were not as direct and dogmatic as some sanghas have since established but they are still a form a government.
The Buddha taught that each should question all things that do not seem sound and correct, but I do not see anarchy in this statment. I understand that as a guide to liberation from dhukka.
I agree with the past take on this, who wouldn't?
But only recently has the possibility of anarchy powered by technology been possible, it is naive and perhaps a bit arrogant of us to assume mankind will never be able to move away from these terrible dictatorships and tyrannical democracies.
Just because the texts propose rigid rules and structures, I don't believe these were part of the systems the Buddha was involved in:)
I do, when I apply it to government and state.
namaste
Slave masters? For God's sake man, just look at human civilization. Throughout human history you'll never find any civilization devoid of some for of government. That is what we are. People gather in groups, groups form societies, societies develop hierarchies, develop structure, develop laws. That is our nature and thus is for any pack animal.
"Depend on no one." - the Buddha
"Be a lamp unto yourself. Work on your Liberation with diligence. - the Buddha"
.
Technology has not changed anything except getting us to work faster and helping us to produce more waste to accomodate more people.
You can believe what you will but our only source of the Buddha and his teachings are from these very same suttas.
I've never seen an animal arrest another, I have never seen an animal enforce laws.
The law of the jungle is anarchy.
It is not natural for there to be the manipulators and the manipulated, the controllers and the controlled.
.
Where? I don't see too much of it around today or in history.
Civilization is something we still strive for.
When it comes I assure you we wont be being ruled by the few but by ourselves. Each a light unto themselves.
I see us in a better light.
No rather than arrest they kill those that are a threat to their dominion. Are you claiming that anarchy supports killing to protect dominion?
Democracy is dictatorship in disguise. As I said in the OP, everyone votes for a dictator. Also, have you not heard of the tyranny of the majority?
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." - Benjamin Franklin
I don't care if there is checks and balances on authority or not. I will have NO authority governing my life.
As you can see from the Buddha quotes I posted, he taught self-autonomy.
.
My point was, whatever way you look at it democracy is the "tyranny of the many."
All governemnt will lead to a concentration of power.
I disagree. The source is not the buddha but dharma. Dharma before sutta:)
namaste
People telling you how you should live your life using force or the threat of force.
The quotes were directly related to the argument at hand. All that was needed to refute your argument was to quote Buddha directly.
Btw, all quotes, by definition, are out of context.
.
I know many government officials who are working compassionately to bring about positive social change. The problem isn't the system, its the deluded minds in the system.
Oh sure.. I agree. But let us not confuse tribal systems with massive industrial systems. And let us not confuse tribal elders with the state:)
I don't really understand your point here.
More government means more suffering.
As Buddhists, when we train in Right View, should it just focus on our own little lives? That seems very ego based to me. When you try to look through the delusions about us, the media, the news, the economy, what should you do? As a buddhist?
My practice and application of my understanding of Dharma doesn't stop with my petty suffering.
I profoundly and passionately disagree with this point (I am enjoying the chat very much, by the way:) )
The state is like the ego. it is the problem.
namaste
Government does not equate to dukkha.
I'm not sure about "should do", but there are responses we can have other than blame. For instance, you can see that the media, the news, the economy and the government only have as much power as the projections people send into them. They don't have the power to compel a person into suffering... into dukkha.
Therefore, freeing yourself from suffering is independent of the existence of any of those and unrelated to Buddhism.
As a personal practitioner, I consider the government much like forces of nature. Some you can bend, some you can break, but always they are present and worth considering why it is done that way. Also, they are always able to be modified by our interactions with them, and often they are more reasonable than we give them credit for.
With warmth,
Matt
Wooo! We really do think different! The media, the news, the economy and the government have as much power as the people who own them.
My take on Dharma isn't about freeing oneself from suffering but from reducing the suffering in the world. So for me Dharma has to have a politial component as much as it does a spirtual or moral component.
There are no boundaries between me and the systems I am contained in and the self-indulgent striving to reduce my suffering in isoloation really doesn't fit my feet!
Nature is inherently at peace with itself in a way that government is necessarily not.
thanks for the chat Matt:)
namaste
The law of the jungle is anarchy.
It is not natural for there to be the manipulators and the manipulated, the controllers and the controlled.
I disagree, animals may not have rules, laws, or government by our uninformed definations... but all you have to do is observe any group of animals for awhile and you can not help but see, the have their own ways of doing all those things.
The fact it was thought for so long that they didn't have those things, was that no one was paying attention to what was really going on...
Ok if you truly feel this way, how about giving up all attachments that pertain to government and "slave masters"? Why not give up the car, the house and all mod cons that someone, somewhere along the chain of command, is involved in controlling the masses? (be it by controlling pay conditions, abiding by govt taxes, working for the oil companies etc). If you yearn for total freedom, you can always go live on the land, harvest your own food and make your own clothes etc.
Just a thought.
Power, huh? Are the people who own them stable and happy? Or are they subject to clinging and suffering, like everyone else? I guess if you see money as power, then perhaps they have power. Otherwise, they have money.
We do approach reality differently, it seems.
Yes, but you first, then others. It is impossible to free others from suffering while one is in a state of delusion as to the nature of reality. I don't mean to imply that you specifically are deluded, but as we develop our own freedom, we are more able to help others skillfully. This, in my understanding, is the way of dharma... in both the literal teachings of the Buddha, and the nature of reality that he taught.
So then, how would one skillfully help a president or politician? Condemn their subjectively important systems? I think it would be better targeting to help them approach their delusions, which prevent them from helping others skillfully.
This view is unhealthy in my opinion. Until we are internally stable, we only add to the chaos. It is better to meditate in isolated silence, then speak from the stable qualities that arise in the absence of mental fixations. In your example, it does not sound selfless to approach life in this way... I hear it as saying "I am part of the problem so I help the problem, I help myself."
Actually stepping aside, so you can heal yourself first is the most compassionate thing you can do... because when you come back to the party, you are awake and skillful.
Have you ever seen nature? It is often quite violent! Especially when it comes to territory, food, social groups and mating. Even trees overshadow each other. Peace is only really found in the stability of the awakened view... and that view does not depend on any external causes to be stable.
With warmth,
Matt
This is Buddhism.
To help reduce suffering in the world, you must chop at the root of suffering, and the root is within people themselves.
Most Buddhists wish to reduce suffering in the world, but the only way to achieve this is by understanding what cause suffering first within themselves, and to become liberated themselves first.
Buddhism is not selfish, it is self less. Once one realize his selflessness, then he can help others fully.
in other words, you must help yourself before you can help others.
most animals have many rules, hierarchy etc...
chimps are well know to practice politic in a way that can be very similar to human...
a Matt beat me to it.
and expressed himself far more eloquently...
/flex