[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

File: 1683873861001.jpg (54.21 KB, 653x1000, yoga sutras satchinada.jpg)


I started being interested in eastern spirituality in general since i started training physical yoga last year. It changed my life i would say, i stopped feeling any physical discomfort caused by sedentary lifestyle and many times at the end practice, laying down on floor in "corpse pose" i felt something approaching a bliss, my mood also seems significantly lifted, i no longer give a fuck, even tho my material situation has not changed much.
This in turn caused me to get interested in eastern philosophy itself, i started reading Yoga Sutras, translation by Swami Satchenada (most popular translation from sanskrit i think, this guy was pretty famous with american hippies back in 60s).
Many of Satchenada commentaries are pretty interesting, they are modern and straight-forward, for example there are explamples including driving cars or going to the mall, there are also fragments that made me ask, is this guy reactionary? Can i reconcile at all my marxist tendencies with my interest in eastern philosophy, or are those things contradictory? All i know there is some one movement that says "actually buddhism and marxism has lot in common", are there more?
Here is the quote i am talking about:

"Suppose some people drive up in a big car, park in front of a huge palatial home and get out. Some other people are standing on the pavement in the hot sun getting tired. How many of those people will be happy? Not many. They will be saying, “See that big car? Those people are sucking the blood of the laborers.” We come across people like that; they are always jealous. When a person gets name, fame or high position, they try to criticize that person. “Oh, don’t you know, that person’s brother is so-and-so. Some strings must have been pulled.” They will never admit that the person might have gone up by his or her own merit. By that jealousy, you will not disturb the other person, but you disturb your own serenity. Those people simply got out of the car and walked into the house, but you are burning up inside. Instead, think, “Oh, such fortunate people. If everyone was like that how happy the world would be. May God bless everybody to have such comfort. I will also get that one day.” Make those people your friends. That response is missed in many cases, not only between individuals but even among nations. When some nation is prospering, the neighboring country is jealous of it and wants to ruin its economy. So we should always have the key of friendliness when we see happy people."


>Can i reconcile at all my marxist tendencies with my interest in eastern philosophy
I don't know, can you?
That quote is of course a very liberal view. It isn't necessarily wrong, it is better for you to let go of attachment.
Stop looking at methods and seeing a religion. Eastern philosophy is a method. Marxism is a method.


Well, are contradictions such a bad thing? Maybe Yoga doesn't quite fit dialectical materialism? You can use two different traditions and understand that some things should be left aside in one or another. To want to devote yourself entirely to a sort of "total" view which accepts no contradictions seems to me just to seek dogmatism.

On the note of contradiction, just look at prosperity gospel folks (both christian and buddhist). It is entirely a contradiction with the teachings, and yet people follow it without much difficulty. The fact you're aware of the difficulty seems to me to be half the battle.

This comrade is right. This is a liberal quote, simple as. You can find liberal buddhists, marxist buddhists, fascist buddhists, etc. People can always make a set of teachings fit whatever they want it to fit. It obviously produces contradictions, but they, as I insist, don't necessarily need to be resolved. Or, rather, the resolution (in a dialectical sense) is the understanding of the resolution as an impossibility.


in what way are contradictions in your belief not a bad thing? Like you say, difference is embedded in reality, the resolution of contradiction is to understand the contradiction as inherent but not problematic from a global perspective. As humans though, we need to pick a side. If there is a contradiction, the only acceptable answer I see is to choose a side. (only when it comes to guides to action, which religion/eastern philosophy and marxism both are (well, arguable for marxism); when it comes to understanding of things obvs contradiction is going to stick around. Within the realm of action and subjectivity, contradiction manifests as conflict where you have to take the position of one side in the contradiction, there's no place for simply accepting both sides of the contradiction (though we don't get to choose our position, we are already placed within the contradictions of that sort, that we duke it out within, so in a way it all comes back around; you have to understand the contradictions in order to place yourself in the world, in order to reject the view of reconciliation or eternal conflict in favor of a particular side))


It doesn't really matter if it's reactionary or not. I am the greatest Yogi in existence, trust me on this one.


I've studied this shit for a while and I may be wrong but despite all the gab about saving beings and bodhisattva vows, everything to these people is immaterial. The fundamental idea in zen buddhism at least is that the world arises from the mind and not the other way around. This can be easily vulgarized into
'perception is reality'. Now while there is a different metaphysics and epistemology at play here versus say Kant or Hegel or other earlier Westerns, it's fundamentally what we call 'idealism'. This is basically incompatible with materialism which insists that the mind arises from the world/nature. My text says 'as mortals, we are ruled by conditions, not by ourselves…while conditions change, the mind [equated to the self, the Buddha] neither waxes nor wanes'. There is a tension here between social conditions we can remake as humans and biological/physical conditions we can't break out of. Depending how you interpret this, it can sound very reactionary or be liberating.


Taoism is the only actually significant eastern philosophy, and there are plenty of authors that reconcile it to both Marxism and Anarchism.


>The fundamental idea in zen buddhism at least is that the world arises from the mind
It's complicated but no. The first rule is that there is no self.


What does that even mean? Really, "significant"
To follow the Way is to be the ultimate opportunist. To exist in harmony with your environment, leaving no trace.


>The fundamental idea in zen buddhism at least is that the world arises from the mind and not the other way around.
They say your perception of the world comes from the mind, Ego, self. The idea is to shut that down and be able to experience the world as is. That's why Zen Buddhist meditation is all about breathing, not focusing on some "bodhisattva" like Tibetan buddhists do. So you breathe, focus on the breath, quiet the mind, allowing you to experience the world. And the world, turns out, also breathes: plants, animals, tides go in and out. Everything is in motion, which you can perceive better when you yourself are still.

Big part of Zen Buddhism is mindfulness, basically thinking about what you are doing right now and being in the moment, because that is the only thing that exists for you at that moment, everything else is just intrusive thoughts.

BUT THEN AGAIN, it is a bona fide religion. You do not need to adhere to all its tenets to take out stuff that is useful to you, like zazen meditation.

Zen has/had its share of problems. D. T. Suzuki, the guy who popularised Zen buddhism in the West pretty much, was gung-ho for Imperial Japan during WWII. In fact, he practically weaponised Zen, when he used the Zen belief that we are all different aspects/characters of the same consciousnesses, to tell Japanese soldiers that they are only killing themselves really, it's all a game the One consciousness is playing and war is a part of that game. Ultimately, he told them, it doesn't matter who wins or loses or what happens, cause we're all one, but it is best to play your role as well as you can, and well if your role happens to be a soldier of Imperial Japan, so you better do it as best as you can, going so far to sacrifice yourself to defeat the enemy, because as a soldier, your duty is to win battles.

This stuff inspired Jung and his theory of "archetypes". Archetypes are basically recurring roles.

So yeah, tread carefully.


Reminds me of BhaghavadGita where Krishna convinces Arjuna that killing usurpators (basically his family, cousin's) is fine because he should not feel attached to them anyway and he is Warrior anyway so it would be cringe to decline


File: 1688059647725.jpg (7.05 KB, 255x181, 1419288040584.jpg)

>is doing stretches and clearing your mind reactionary
Just because it's old doesn't mean it's bad.


Buddhism is a world religion, not merely an exercising routine



I've had my share of being influenced and affected by this in the media I've consumed as well, particularly among books on lucid dreaming.
I think the best way to approach this is to understand when and why this literature can be a bit goofy, and that it's worth remembering that not everyone who spreads useful information is gracefully intelligent.
Are people in expensive cars and houses who attribute all of their riches to themselves and who manage to somehow forget to use their apparent strengths to help bring everyone else along truly fortunate? Or do you see more fortune in, for example, a couple that you graduated high school with who got married, and have an exemplary love story to share, and whose intelligence is used not just to accumulate material wealth for themselves, but also to light the way for others amidst dark times?
Hard for me to imagine someone hating good consoomers out of jealousy rather than seeing the threat their behavior presents to their community.
Hope my post helps kek


yeah but that's what yoga is


Unique IPs: 10

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]