[Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism

[Joy Vriens]

Stanley J. Ziobro II apparently asking for a little reconstitution of 
the thread (skip to after ------- if not interested in a reconstitution):

Curt wrote:
Capitalism is completely incompatible with Buddhism, by the way, and the
only sound critique of Capitalism that there is is Marx's. So one way or
the other, Marx the atheist and Buddha the agnostic must be somehow
reconciled.

To which Richard answered:
> This reconciliation has already occurred in the writings of Bhikkhu
> Buddhadasa.
> His writings reinforced my deeply held conviction that any Buddhist who
> is not a communist (not to be confused with being a Communist) is really
> just fooling around.

And then I wrote:
The very interesting book "Une herméneutique bouddhique contemporaine de 
Thaïlande: Buddhadasa Bhikku" by Louis Gabaude has some chapters on this 
topic. etc.

Then Dan answered Curt
 >>>Buddhism literally crawled out of the swamps in India when it allied 
with
>>>the Merchants, who not only helped them establish a major base in Gandhara,
>>>but led them through the Silk Road from Parthia to China. Mahayana Buddhism
>>>(e.g., Sambhoga-kaya) is capitalist through and through and through.

Then I added:

>>One more anecdote about Buddhadasa. In the middle of the sixties he had
>>regular visits from Westerners and Americans who feared Communism and
>>wanted him to oppose Communism. They told him they would help him
>>financially and materially and that if he needed anything he only had to
>>ask them. BB answered that Buddhists fear the passions more than
>>Communism. On which they left.(Gabaude p. 439)

Voilà.
-------------------------------------------------------------

> Because Dan was indicating the role merchantile endeavors played in the
> spread of Buddhism, and because this anecdote illustrates one Buddhist's
> resonse to geopolitical realities, I fail to see the cogency of your
> remarks.  Besides, do not Communists also suffer from the passions?  Or
> was the Communicst Revolution and its effects the play of dispassionate
> agents on the world stage?

There was no intended cogency in my remarks, so it is quite all right if 
you fail to see it.
In my first reaction to Richard's mention of Buddhadasa I wrote: "BB 
rejects communism for the same reason as a liberal democracy, because in 
both systems material, physical and carnal happiness, remain the first 
and unique objective, in spite of their different mechanisms." Which 
should answer your question on whether Communists suffer from passions. 
They do, just the same as liberalists according to BB.

If you want me to react to Dan's remark on Buddhism allying with 
Merchants to spread their creed, I would say that this doesn't make them 
capitalists. No more than that Christians can be qualified as 
militarists for allying with the Roman legions for spreading through the 
Roman Empire.

>>BTW I believe it's more correct nowadays to compare religion to
>>amphetamines, cocaine etc. than to an opiate. If only it were an opiate...

> Would you consider that non-religion (whatever that would be) necessarily
> provides an answer?

To what question?

> Besides the existence of a non-religion being an
> impossibility, I tend to think that the desire for non-religion, because it is
> a desire, also must be transcended.

 From a Buddhist point of view probably.

Joy II (I was named after my grandfather)