[Buddha-l] Re: Will new the pope verify Buddhist doctrine?

[curt]

Richard P. Hayes wrote:

>On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 10:20 -0400, curt wrote:
>
>  
>
>>If we just wanted to be part of a movement dedicated to helping
>>the poor, etc, then we should just all become Socialists.
>>    
>>
>
>One of my colleagues when I was at McGill was Gregory Baum, who had a
>lot of influence on my thinking (mostly because he said so many things
>that I already believed). He often described himself as someone
>dedicated to presenting a leftist dimension to theology and to
>presenting a theological dimension to the left. He has just published a
>new book entitled "Amazing Church" in which he chronicles some of the
>positive changes made in and by the Catholic Church in the 20th century.
>  
>
Hmmm - the Catholic Church wouldn't exactly be the first place I would 
look for
examples of "positive change" in the Religions of the 20th century. If 
you ask me,
they should have kept the Latin mass and allowed women priests -  
instead of the
other way around - and its been pretty much downhill ever since. Except 
maybe for
Liberation Theology - maybe. I'm not convinced that it plays a net 
positive role,
since it can also be seen as a fig leaf covering the otherwise fairly 
naked support
the Catholic Church gives to the economic elites of the world.

>Let me not put words into anyone else's mouth. It seems to me that when
>Socialist thinking forgets its moorings in religion, it becomes a
>caricature of true socialism, and when religious leaders forget their
>moorings in the teachings of founders who incessantly advocated for the
>poor and oppressed, then any religion becomes a caricature of its
>original intent.
>  
>
I would question both of these assumptions: (1) that Socialism's 
moorings are Religious,
and (2) that Religions have in general been founded by people who 
advocate for the
poor and oppressed. But I see both of those as side issues.

>>Don't get me wrong - I happen to be a Socialist myself.
>>    
>>
>
>How did that happen? In my own case, it didn't just happen. It was the
>only thing that made any sense to me, and I was hopelessly addicted to
>things that made sense to both my intellect and my heart. Nothing that I
>have seen or heard during the past forty years has convinced me that
>socialism does not provide the best blueprint for the amelioration of
>the human condition.  
>  
>
I hope this isn't putting words in your mouth - but I absolutely agree 
that Socialism
is the only conceivable result of an analysis of human society that is 
both rational
and compassionate. The fact that it is so easy to see - but so hard to 
actually do anything
about is something that I think has yet to be adequately explained.

>Incidentally, my grandfather was a Socialist, once upon a time, back in
>the days when Socialists actually ran for president in the USA. A couple
>of weeks ago I happened to see a book with a title something like Who's
>Who in New Mexico, published in 1960 or so. New Mexico has such a small
>population that the book was able to list everyone living in the state,
>so I looked to see what the book had to say about my relatives. I
>discovered a lengthy entry on my grandfather. It listed his various
>charitable works, all of which would now surely get him designated as a
>Massachusetts liberal (for he was indeed born in Boston). And then, to
>my great astonishment, it listed his political party. REPUBLICAN! Good
>Gotama! I nearly fainted dead away. But then I remembered that pretty
>much ALL my relatives were Republican in those days, because that's the
>party that people with liberal leanings often worked for. Things have
>changed since then. (Oh, in case you're wondering, yes, I did
>accidentally drop the book into a shredder. Imagine what acute
>embarrassment I would face if anyone on buddha-l were to learn that I
>had Republican genes!)
> 
>
>>Religious charity work very often involves attempts to indoctrinate poor
>>people and other "disempowered" groups to see their situation
>>as either "God's will" or the result of "past karma" or whatever.
>>    
>>
>
>Socialist charity work often involves attempts to indoctrinate poor
>people to see their situation as the result of other people's greed and
>oppression. I'm not sure that is a net gain. 
>
Well, comrade, as far as I am concerned, all indoctrination is not 
created equal.
Socialist "propaganda", if you will, is absolutely necessary to counter 
the "manufactured
consent" of the masses in their own exploitation. In fact I could get 
downright Buddhist
about this if I'm not careful. Those who are unaware of the class 
struggle walk about
as if they were asleep and dreaming - someone's got to wake them up!!! 
And if you
want to throw in a little Marxism, one could argue that Socialist 
propaganda is only
effective to the extent that it truly jives with the "objective 
conditions" of the oppressed.

>Indoctrination is
>indoctrination, and it's almost invariably simplistic and ridiculous.
>What might be a pleasant turn of events would be for people just to help
>those who are hurting without indoctrinating them in any way at all.
>That, I think, is happening more and more these days. It is also
>happening less and less. It depends a lot of which crowd you hang out
>with.
>
>  
>
>>I do think that Buddhism has something essential to offer to the
>>cause of changing society, though. Most (if not all) previous
>>attempts to change society for the better have failed - or even
>>made things worse. The atrocities committed in the name of
>>Socialism in the past come to mind. 
>>    
>>
>Don't forget all the atrocities committed in the name of Sad-dharma.
>Buddhists do not get off the human condition hook, I'm afraid. Buddhist
>history is just not the place to look for instances of inspiring models
>to follow in the present and the future. Of course, if Buddhist THEORY
>were followed, the world would no doubt be a better place. But the same
>could be said of Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and Wiccan
>theory. The world is completely awash in theory, almost all of it good.
>Alas, it is also completely awash in practice, almost all of it bad.
>
Yes - I absolutely agree. I do not think that Buddhists have any 
particular moral authority
on social issues. As you point out, the opposite could even be argued 
for (Yasutani Roshi's
writings on Racial Hygene come to mind). But I do think that Socialism 
needs a heavy dose
of Spirituality, and I think that Buddhism is one, but only one, form of 
Spirituality that can
help provide this.

>These days just about the only perfect marriage of awful theory with a
>good practice of it is found in the White House. If only the folks there
>could fail to live up to their awful ideals as well as the rest of us
>fail to live up to our good ideals, the world would be a happier place.
>  
>
Personally I think that "they" are doing quite nicely living up to their 
ideals. Their main
problem is the tendency for the rate of profit to decline - which they 
can't change, but
they can, and are, dealing with the consequences of it rationally and 
effectively from
their (class) standpoint.

Comradely,
Curt