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.
Buddhist Anarchism
ClayTheScribe
Veteran
What do you all think of this article below? I know it's a bit dated, but he still brings up relevant points. Do you agree? Disagree? Is this something we need even more today considering what's happening in the world? Why are some Buddhists so easy to shy away from politics?
http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/garysnyder.htm
http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/garysnyder.htm
0
Comments
Obviously, I am both an anarchist and a Buddhist. I agree with the late co-founder of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Robert Aitken Roshi, when he stated that "Buddhism is anarchism, after all, for anarchism is love, trust, selflessness and all those good Buddhist virtues including a total lack of imposition on another."
Why not reflecting just on his teachings and follow simply?
*smile*
1. Right understanding
2. Right intention
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right meditation
Dividing one's thinking into two sorts
The Blessed One said, "Monks, before my self-awakening, when I was still just an unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'Why don't I keep dividing my thinking into two sorts?' So I made thinking imbued with sensuality, thinking imbued with ill will, & thinking imbued with harmfulness one sort, and thinking imbued with renunciation, thinking imbued with non-ill will, & thinking imbued with harmlessness another sort.
"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with sensuality arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.'
"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with sensuality had arisen, I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence.
"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with ill will arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with ill will has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.'
"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with ill will had arisen, I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence."
"Right Resolve: samma sankappo", edited by John T. Bullitt. Access to Insight, 26 May 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-sankappo/index.html . Retrieved on 21 October 2011.
But your post made sense.
Even without the smile.
*smile*
I do take issue with his suggestion that the powers that be foster fear in the population. However, even the truth in it ignores the reality that fear sometimes needs to be fostered. Sometime we need ," young men, ardent for some desperate glory," stirred up to stamp out injustice and/or tyranny.
When Snyder quotes the IWW injunction to " Foster a new society within the shell of the old," he unknowingly gets it right: you need the shell , the ugly society which fights and creates out of greed and insecurity, so that the " enlightened" can go about their business. I see no other way.
In the Dvedhavitakka Sutta, which you quoted, Buddha was obviously differentiating between two sorts. Later in the sutta, he relates between the "false path" or the "eightfold wrong path", i.e., wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood, wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, and wrong concentration - and the "safe, restful path that leads to rapture" or the "noble eightfold path", i.e., right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. In other suttas, such as AN 04.259, the Buddha also relates between the two sorts of qualities.
@sndymorn
We don't "need the shell" - the "shell" needs us. It was built upon our backs, and we are the ones that perpetuate it while a very few people reap the profits. This "shell", of course, is just a manifestation of Samsaric existence. Anarchists struggle for the emancipation from this "shell" much like Buddhists seek emancipation from the suffering of cyclic existence in Samsara. However, anarchism to me is a goal. Do I expect to realize it on a large scale within society? Not at all. However, that doesn't deter me from working towards a goal of true freedom and equality. Do I expect to realize Nirvana within this lifetime? It doesn't matter, either. It is still something worth working towards.
"Young men, ardent for some desperate glory" have also, in the past, been stirred up to inflict both injustice and tyranny. Prime example is Nazi Germany in WW2. The point is that fear is used to manipulated people. When people are afraid, they tend to not think rationally. When people are really afraid, they are even more willing to sacrifice their freedom for a sense of security. An example would be the Patriot Act, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus, etc. There is a famous quotation from Benjamin Franklin which goes, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Of course, as an anarchist, I don't necessarily agree. Everybody deserves liberty and safety.
We need the shell as much as it needs us.
That " very few ... reap profits" while topical considering the Occupy Wall Street movement, is beside the point I think. I believe it was ever thus: few controlling many.
I argue that the structure will remain and you are privileged to benefit from the peace within its confines ( which came first, the confine or confinee?) . You can spin your beautiful and seductive Buddhist web safely for now. Statistically speaking , the world today is a very peaceful place. The tension of great powers see to it.
By the way, I am not much of a Buddhist,so I usually come to Current event section to avoid the esoteric lingo.
I do not wish to insult , only explain my focus.
"In the life of Buddha, we find that the Buddha often discussed politics with the rulers of realms in his time"
"The Buddha once said, 'When the ruler of a country is just and good, the ministers become just and good; when the ministers are just and good, the higher officials become just and good; when the higher officials are just and good, the rank and file become just and good; when the rank and file become just and good, the people become just and good."
The full article is quite insightful into the Buddhas attitude towards politics.
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,6622,0,0,1,0
I was always necessarily thus. It has always been the dynamics of power since its inception. The first rulers that society knew justified their power as a "divine right". They were seen as gods, or the descendant of gods - and that is why they felt that they were entitled to subjugate the masses. This is not just about Occupy Wall Street.
I see no peace within the confines of this structure. It is the propagator of wars and class division. There is a thread about the relative decline of violence in the world - but that is compared to the billions of people in this world. It doesn't mean that acts of violence are necessarily less frequent - it simply means there are more people in relation to those acts of violence than before.
You also said that the structure was never going away. Well, I can only hope and work towards a society based upon the true fraternity of humankind. As I said before, anarchism, at least to me, is a goal. It is something I work towards. Whether or not it is realized on a massive scale really makes little difference. I will not cease to tirelessly work towards that end.
Also, I "spun" my "Buddhist web" because this is a thread specifically about Buddhist anarchism. These are, to me, mutually benefiting and related. They are both about the emancipation of humankind. As a Buddhist anarchist, I seek emancipation of humankind in all its aspects - not just spiritually, but also economic, political and social.
@Jason
Edward Bellamy's book is certainly an intriguing read. His sequel to the book, Equality is also a great read. Of course, I am not a fan of the nationalist movement that sprang from his work, although it is certainly commendable that a mass political movement almost immediately sprang from it.
@zidangus
That is a very interest article. It almost portrays the Buddha as a liberal democrat and pacifist of his day.
However, t is also interesting that when Buddha was born, an astrologer named Asita predicted that he would either become a great king (chakravartin) or the Buddha. We all know that Buddha gave up his royal life to pursue the life of an ascetic. However, it is also interesting to note that if he were to become a chakravartin, he would be a "World Sovereign". This means that all regional boundaries and political barriers are disregared as the world embraces the Dhamma. There would no longer be any nation-states. However, as long as a chakravartin remains a ruler, he cant become fully enlightened. Therefore, since Buddha wouldnt attain enlightenment in the palace, he renounced his heirship to become an ascetic.
In the Temiya Jataka, when the Bodhisatta (as prince Temiya) witnessed his father sentence one robber to a thousand strokes from thorn-baited whips, another to imprisonment in chains, a third to death by the spear, and a fourth to death by impaling. The infant Bodhisatta was terrified at his father's apparent cruelty and thought to himself, "A king acts as judge, and so he must perform cruel actions every day. By condemning men to death or torture, he will however himself be condemned to hell."
This lead him to begin thinking about what it would be like to be a king, he remembered a previous existence when, a result of dread decisions forced upon him in the position of king, he had had to suffer eighty thousand years in hell. He resolved to not suffer the same fate, and pretended to be a crippled mute so that he would be declared unfit to be a king. He became a hermit instead. Thus the attitude of prince Temiya was almost anarchist and pacifistic by modern standards.
@Jason
That is some beautiful imagery. I do find it kind of odd that nationalism was a result of his work. Nationalism highlights the perceived differences between people, and promotes jingoism and militarism. I'm quite surprised that it came from the guy who wrote both Looking Backward and Equality, which seems to promote internationalism and utopian socialism. In fact, in Equality everybody spoke a universal language which seems to fly in the face of nationalism.
For people who practice, there are unwholesome topics to speak of:
"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these — talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not — he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to debates such as these — 'You understand this doctrine and discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. I'm being consistent. You're not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!' — he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue."
— DN 2
It is very normal that people use to speak about such things rater to practice but I don't think that it is useful to call it an idea of Buddha to do so. People have the tendency to use what ever is useable to continue struggle with others and nothing more useful as to take religion into the boot.
So it would be good if the Sangha (the noble incl. those who earnest strive for not harming and liberation) are clear about the message of the Buddha.
There is nothing wrong if a high developed scholar teaches leader and there is also no problem if somebody quotes to calm people down.
The better "Buddhism" is able to declare that it's not an alternative politic but a way to earnestly solve the real problem, the more success it will have. If it jumps on the train of normal life, it losses its value and is nothing but an other opinion at least, as the real message is not easy to see. *smile*
Nice article, but the problem is that more than 98% of all this 100% hearts are not human and such ways miss that we need to reduce our own greed rather to search for a better way to still desire (more than real need) of the humanity.
There is a global believe that all humans can leave a luxury life and the solution is to just seek for ways to still desire.
Modern people have no idea what real starving and poorness means.
If we see a rich man suffering that he still does not have enough make a share, maybe it solves his problem. We need to have much compassion with those how even if they have gained all material things not able to see the way to real peace and happiness.
I guess it would good to make a founding for them *smile*
Here I like to quote one message of a an maybe not so known real rebel:
Great Compassion
If I am good to someone, he or she will learn goodness and, in turn, will be good to others. If I am not good, he or she will harbor hatred and resentment and will, in turn, pass it on to others. If the world is not good, I have to make more effort to be good myself.
Taking care of others is the same as taking care of myself. When I respect and serve others, I am serving all Buddhas everywhere. This is called great compassion. Compassion is a happy mental state.
When we protect ourselves through mindfulness, we are protecting others as well. When we protect other living beings through compassionate actions, we are also protecting ourselves.
from Step by Step by Maha Ghosananda
*smile*
So yes, Buddhism eventually tended to withdrawl from lay society and not make waves. Add to this, the monks quite often came from the upper class and were raised to accept the social system as normal meant a monk could walk past an authentic crippled beggar in his rounds and return to the temple with a full bowl and think nothing was wrong. So yes, quite often Buddhism was happy with the existing totalitarian system and sometimes is part of it.
Buddhism is a religion of personal salvation, not social change, and even today struggles to eject the mental disease of thinking karma means people get what they deserve, so there is nothing to change. But some people are trying.
Having agreed that Buddhism has a problem with being socially engaged, I must confess the whole concept of anarchism eludes me. An "anarchistic society" is an oxymoron. Like communism or a benign dictatorship, human nature gets in the way. I illustrate this by repeating something an old hippy turned UU Minister from California once told me. He said that the communes were doomed to failure, because everyone was too busy doing their own thing to do what needed to get done. In the typical commune, anarchism ruled, and everyone wanted peace and love and especially lots of sex, but nobody was willing to take out the trash or sweep the floor.
But in a community we need to understand clearly what it means to focus on ones own karma. *smile*
Sweeping
Our routines give us lots of strength. Wherever in the monastery you can do them — regardless of whether it's your own hut or someone else's: If it's dirty or messy, straighten it out. You don't have to do it for anyone's sake. You don't have to do it to impress anyone. You do it for the sake of your practice. When we sweep our huts, sweep our buildings, it's as if we sweep all the dirty things out of our hearts, because we're people who practice. I want each of us to have this attitude in our hearts. Then we won't have to ask for harmony or cooperation. It'll already be there.
from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/chah/insimpleterms.html
*smile*
It even doesn't matter who rules or what the others do. If we practice we are everywhere above any social system.
However, current examples would include the Trumbullplex in Detroit, which is a housing collective that has been running since 1993. There is also the Zapatista autonomous municipalities of Chiapas which, although they do not explicitly refer to themselves as anything, are often viewed as being either libertarian Marxist or anarcho-syndicalist depending upon the municipality. There is also Freetown Christiana in Copenhagen, Denmark. Among many other anarchist societies, collectives, communes, syndicates, etc. that still exist throughout the world.
Anyways, I digress. The point of anarchism, to me, is that it serves as a goal. It is something worth working towards. However, if the concept of anarchism eludes you, I would suggest reading this faq. That being said, being a lay Buddhist and an anarchist is about as odd to me as being a lay Buddhist and Republican or Democrat, or as odd as Buddhist temples being involved in politics period.