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.
What sort of political philosophy is most compatible with Buddhism?
What sort of political philosophy is most compatible with Buddhism? Does Buddhism support socialism?
0
Comments
I have no idea what that makes me, but I do consider myself Buddhist.....and even that is 'problematic', in that it's labelling....
I was just curious about how some people mix Buddhism with politics and if Buddhists regard politics as being subject to ethics.
Some people say that ethics can't be applied to politics and that our poltical actions are not the same as our non-political actions. But don't see how they can be different as they do harm and help people as any other action can.
For example, the Buddha clearly defined the obligations between employers and employees.
Buddha would definitely not support Marxism, which was and is an abhorant philosphy stifling & repressing the human spirit. Further, Marxism is materialism, holding the primary human aspiration is economic.
Buddhist cosmology itself as about human & mental evolution, from the animal realm to the goldly realms and then seeing the unsatisfactoriness of these realms thus seeking Nirvana.
If people do not have the chance to experience the godly realms (of love, sensuality, material goods, achievement, worldly success, etc), it is difficult to move on from those things towards Nibbana.
(see Maha-mangala Sutta)
Currently, Buddhism is the official religion of Thailand and Thailand practices capital punishment.
Buddhism tends to encourage aiding the less fortunate, but that's a feature of many different political systems. Remember that the US Republican party started as the party of emancipation. Generally, the debate between conservatives and liberals is not whether one should lend a hand to those who need it, but what policies will most benefit them in the long run.
In the west, Buddhism tends to be associated with liberal politics because it is relatively new to the west and liberals are more likely to take up a new religion. Conservatives, by definition, are resistant to change. Elsewhere in the world, I don't believe there's a strong link between Buddhism and any particular political orientation.
http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/buddhist_economics/english.html
False. Despite attempts to do so, opposed by most monks and the king, Buddhism is not the official religion of Thailand.
Ceremonies of the monarchy, for example, are Brahministic.
The king is the reincarnation of Vishnu (whatever).
Hi, this is just off the top of my head but I reckon something along the lines of:
Politics: Anarchist (be your own light is the premier anarchic principle)
In terms of the rest maybe:
Metaphysics: Systems Theorist
Mind: Functionalist
Morality: I'm not sure there is a word for this. Broad Spectrum Emergant Utilitaraianist (maxing peace truth and happiness)?
Epistemology: transcendental skeptic
Logic: Naturally.
namaste
Thich Nhat Hanh and many others teach that Buddhist should be engaged in social action, following the instructions of another, later, teacher, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless,comfort the afflicted, and protect widows and orphans. He is prepared to work with anyone, of any political or religious persuasion, who engages alongside him.
The teachings of the Buddha that are recorded in the Pali Canon are more or less apolitical. The Buddha doesn't explicitly promote a particular political philosophy, although he does give some pragmatic advice to lay-followers within the existing political economic system of the time (e.g., DN 31), mainly dealing with generosity, honesty and fulfilling one's duties in society.
All in all, I think Buddhism itself is compatible with pretty much any political-economic system as it predominately deals with how to behave skillfully with the circumstances were given. I agree with Richard Gombrich that, "The Buddha's Dhamma represents a strong form of what has been called 'religious individualism'" (Theravada Buddhism, 72). I say this because the teachings on kamma focus on individual actions, and not so much collective or societal actions.
Not explicitly, no. For starters, there's nothing in the suttas to suggest that the Buddha was either for or against private ownership of the means of production, especially in the modern industrial sense.
While it's true the Buddha encouraged generosity among his lay-followers, and that his monastic community has a relatively egalitarian communal structure, his teachings were also quite popular with the rising mercantile class in India at that time and many of his wealthier lay-followers were merchants. In fact, I think the Buddha's advice to the lay-community regarding livelihood sounds more like enlightened entrepreneurialism than socialism.
In DN 31, for example, the Buddha advised lay-followers to use a portion of their income for personal use, including donating to charity, but he also advised that some should be used for business investments and to be saved for hard times as well. This shows that the Buddha wasn't necessarily against consumption, private property and/or the accumulation of wealth, but there are suttas which seem to suggest that he was at least in favour of some type of welfare-state.
There is the case of DN 5, for example, where the brahmin Kutadanta asks the Buddha for advice on how to best conduct a great sacrifice. Kutadanta, who was evidently wealthy, had been given a village and some land by King Bimbisara, which he ruled as a king himself. On being asked by Kutadanta — who had a legion of animals waiting to be slaughtered — how to perform a great sacrifice, the Buddha answered with a fable about a great king who asked his chaplain a similar question.
Long story short, the king (i.e., the state), who had amassed great personal wealth but whose kingdom was "best by thieves" and "infested with brigands," is told by his chaplain that taxing the people, executing and imprisoning them, or simply banishing them from the land won't solve his kingdom's problems, and is given this advice:
Nevertheless, I don't think that the Buddha would object to a more egalitarian, socialist society that tries to limit the economic and societal conditions which foster things like greed and violence, and the way Buddhism has affected me has lead me to adopt more socialist-leaning views. As Einstein put it, "the real purpose of socialism is... to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development" (Why Socialism?), and I have a hard time not getting involved when I see what I perceive to be people being preyed upon by greed, hatred and delusion.
Right, in Sutra of infinite light or Large sutra on Pure Land, the only politic in pureland is loving kindness - purely democracy of humility, love and serenity
I have heard stories that the Buddha was one of the first people to speak out against slavery ans the caste system, is this not true? What did the Buddha have to say about slavery and the caste system?
Buddhists also have said there are no should and should not in Buddhism.
I think that people can have strong ideological attachment to the established system as well as extreme right or left.
I really don't understand that, you say they are not yours but you say your actions; seems a complete contradiction.
If my actions are not mine then who do they belong to. I choose them.
no.
"My" actions are the result of choices and the physical means of carrying out the action, that is to say my body. My body is not me, and the actions don't belong to my body. The choices are also not me, and the actions don't belong to the choices. Nothing that created the action is me. You can go a step back from that and say "I created the choices", but when you analyze what created the choices, it turns out to be an aggregate similar to the aggregate that created the action. None of the things that make up the aggregate are me. You can go back an infinite number of steps, claiming at each step that "I" created that step, but it always turns out that the thing that created the step is an aggregate, none of whose parts are "me".
Exactly. On analysis, this owner always turns out to be an aggregate, none of whose parts are "me".
In the nikayas, the Buddha doesn't teach that there is no self (or that there is a self). He teaches that you can't find anything that is self. No matter what you point to, it is "na me so atta"; not me, not mine, not who I am.
Wha...? As far as I know, the teachings on not-self have nothing to do with socialism, and socialism has nothing to do with nurture being more important than nature.
Atheism
[rant]
My aim in life is to start a co-operative Engineering Consultantsy and projects firm in my future. Simply because I enjoy the work. It brings me happiness to design and make things. I would hope I never get caught up in the big corporation side of Engineering. I prefer the cooperative because everyone gets a say in what the company does and everyone gets a share in the profits. I would also like to teach karate for free one day (the students would pay a share of the rooms rent and I would get nothing)
I know that maybe chasing a dream is something I cam clinging to in my life, and maybe it is a sensual pleasure. The reality is we all have to live in a system that demands money to be able to live within normal society. So Id rather find happiness in work.
[/rant]
I just think that Buddhism is compatible with any political system except the far right. It teaches mindfulness, respect and humility. I just think that just because you are a practicing buddhist doesnt mean you have to BE anything else.
Namaste.
Socialists tend to believe that nurture is more important than nature than right-wing people - at least in my own experience. They conclude that socialism is the way to better nurture and that capitalism makes people greedy.
Minding your own business and keeping your mouth shut.
Hmm, I see what you're saying. Personally, I don't think they think it's more important as much as they don't buy into the whole idea that "human nature is to be greedy." Greed is only one small aspect of human nature. Also, I'd say that capitalism doesn't make people greedy as much as it rewards people for being greedy, but it has the same result either way.
Why? What is the far right? And why is it incompatible?
As I said elsewhere, I agree that Buddhism is essentially apolitical. As are most religions. They concern the personal (ethics, values, theology, etc) and do not often enter political theory.
The Far right (and also the extreme left) both rely on oppression of the general public under their rule.
Im not saying you couldnt get on with a nazi if you were buddhist. ( they may not like you though
What are you referring to with this? As it sits, it is hard to answer specifically. In its historical manifestation as Stalinism and Maoism, yes, Communism killed millions of people and yes, persecuted and destroyed Buddhist temples. The historical case of what Maoist China did to Tibet is a very good example of this.
This thread just seems to be getting a little loose to me. Are you referring to any post or response in particular, or did you just sort of toss that out there?
I thought someone said that Buddhism is compatible with any political philosophy except far-right.
Do you agree with it, or are you just putting words down for the sake of it?
I would suggest that only a political philosophy that includes the greatest happiness of the greatest number and the possibility of consensus could possibly fit with the tenets of Buddhism. That such a philosophy has not yet arisen is only a consequence of the First Noble Truth and human bloody-mindedness.