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

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

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

 No.1024595[View All]

Since this community is primarily composed of westerners, discussions of religion and spirituality often concentrates on christianity, while buddhism is often ignored. However, buddhism has a lot of relevance in the history of communism in Asia, and even today the Dalai Lama still openly calls himself a marxist.

However, what really interests me is whether buddhist practice makes people less or more revolutionary. Speaking from experience, buddhist practice made my life much more peaceful, instead of being angry at the system, I let go and accept the reality. By accepting it I don't mean that I support it, but that I simply understand that this is the way things are and that me being angry won't change anything, or will it?

Also, I think buddhism has the potential of making people more leftist. For example:
> The emphasis on thinking about interdependence along with meditation practice, which makes your preconceived notions fade away, opens people to realise the truth about capitalism
> the eightfold path includes right livelihood, which forces people to think whether the way they make money is exploitative of others or not
> The main driver behind capitalism, greed, is the first of the three poisons, one of the Buddhas teachings

ITT: Buddhism and socialism
227 posts and 47 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Buddhism is not necessarily hierarchical, the many schools of Buddhism are very distinct from each other so generalisation is disingenuous.
You can say this about literally any religion.
>You can say the same of any philosophy, why have stoicism or anything else.
Buddhism, as it is practiced in the world, is a lot more then just a philosophy. Most philosophies do not have their practitioners creating temples and requesting their toleration as such by the state.
>It's useful for communication, the mistake is to over identify with the terms and labels, and that's exactly what Buddhist teachings explain.
The terms and labels matter in the actual existing world where organizations and institutions exist, and where such things run at odds with a centralized state.


>I have no positions on Buddhism or really any religion, however I will say I see way more Churches and religious orgs around my city helping people than Marxist orgs doing so, in fact, so far it’s a flat 0.0% of Marxist organizations I see making a positive change in even a single person’s life, whereas every Church I know of at least runs a food program
<Religious institutions have more resources and members then Marxist organizations, and so can have more "charity" programs operating at a goven time, as opposed to Marxists whose numbers are low and resources limited in any given western city
Also, Marxist organizations do this shit all the time when they can, but it isn't a solution and generally does nothing.


to end the suffering in the case of Buddhism

can't see any lie there if it works as promised


>Well a majority I've interacted with seem to think so so that's who I'm arguing with here
That's because they don't understand what Stirnerites are talking about. Neither do Marxists.

Gautama argued that there is no permanent self (Jiva, the ego, the soul, the self-essence), that everything that we consider "self" is always changing and gets destroyed after death. Stirnerites do not argue against it at all. You should not reduce Stirner's Unique to either ego, individuality, "uniqueness," personality, thinking or anything really. That's a mistake newbie Stirnerites do, thinking that the Unique means "uniqueness" or self-expression which is what creates this image of Stirnerism as capitalist individualism. Because there is no essence. The self for Stirner is empty of essence which is comparable to Nagarjuna's concept of shunyata. Buddhists advocate egolessness which is not in conflict with Stirner. I think most Buddhists never analyzed this issue on the level as deep as Stirner did. Nagarjuna came close. Stirner dug so deep into our thinking processes that his thought penetrates reality itself so even for a Buddhist his ideas are hard to grasp. When Buddhists actually read what he has to say they themselves become Stirnerites. That's what happened to Jun Tsuji.

Also, there are many interpretations of shunyata as well depending on which school does the reading, some go completely off the charts from what Nagarjuna was trying to say.


Stirner's creative nothing is akin to an infinitely small number. +0 is technically something but we can never write it down. How do you write an infinity? The answer: you don't.


Every attempt to write down an infinity or a "nothingness" leads to resorting to some kind of cheating. Which leads us to no longer operate with numbers but with infinities. Infinity + 1 = infinity. Why's that so? Because we are already past something finite. Numbers are finite, numbers are something. When something is infinite or something is nothing, it breaks math itself.


Calculus. Quantum physics. Stirnerism. It's all so utterly fucking surreal and brain-fucking that it's no wonder that Stirner had to write a book to deflect strawmen from people whose brains operate only in three dimensions instead of five.


Infinite numbers don't break math. This sounds like actual cult speech


I'm not saying that Stirnerites are smarter than anyone else. It's just that their thinking is utterly incomprehensible without a proper preparation. Think about how you can "see" in 4D if you train your brain to visually comprehend the qualities 4D space has.


I'm saying that calculus operates on its own rules by introducing such thing as infinity. Infinity's properties are very weird when you compare them to numbers.


>because it is rooted in idealism, and not materialism
Nagarjuna doesn't exist apparently.

Buddhist fundamental beliefs are phenomenological in nature, not idealistic. Buddhism was born as a denial of the authority of the Vedas. Hinduism, like Christianity, was an idealist religion. The quality both Hinduism and Christianity share is appeal to authority. Yes, at least when it was created, Buddhism was not able to get itself rid of the idealism of Hinduism fully. That's why I recommend mixing the later more purified schools like Madhyamaka, Yogacara or Zen with nihilism. It cleans up some idealistic parts that may have been left in Buddhism for one reason or another. But hey, Gautama tried, okay? At least he put some effort, give the guy some credit.


You can do math with infinity guys look up surreal numbers


>dalai lama

get that shit out of here vid related


Uh, I know. That's not the point I was making. Quantum physics breaks Neutonian physics but physics as a field of study does not collapse onto itself and the Neutonian physics are still applicable on macro level.


File: 1656538668830.png (387.72 KB, 725x311, ClipboardImage.png)


>Stirner's creative nothing is akin to an infinitely small number
this is called the infinitesimal, which is the reciprocal of infinity. i.e. 1/infinity


Yeah, I did study calculus. Just didn't know the exact name. But I know the basic operations between infinities and infinitesimals, as well as basic paradoxes.

Oh, boy, I remember the math from the university lectures! Thank you so much, brain. Perhaps it would be nice to try studying it more.


Calculus kinda pissed me off a bit as being some acid nonsensical shit when you compare it to algebra. But it's fun. It is so weird that its inner workings are legit fascinating.


Stfu pseud and read Deleuze or Bataille or hell, Marx, or any progression of thought beyond Stirnerist Egoism. Most stirnerites get over it when they leave high school and move on to heavier theory. Stirner himself is incredibly steeped in a post-Hegelian mindset, even as he works to assault it. If you actually think Stirner is somehow "utterly incomprehensible" without prior preparation you just suck at reading comprehension. Marx already took apart Stirner and reincorporated the useful core of his thinking in the German Ideology. If you want to see "utterly incomprehensible without prior preparation" crack open the first chapter of something like Anti-Oedipus, which is actually a coherent materialist philosophy that demands you dramatically reconfigure your thinking about the world. And quantum woo has literally nothing to do with Stirner, quantum physics didn't exist in the 1840s. Calculus has nothing to do with Stirner either, it's just math. Stirner is only useful as babies' first awareness of social constructs, and beyond that he functions as a rorsarch test to read your own shit into. The conception of the individual as a "creative nothing" isn't unique to Stirner and it mystifies what is actually a complex assemblage of potentialities and immanent forces of desiring-production shaped by an entire social field of libidinal forces.

t. former stirnerite


>And quantum woo has literally nothing to do with Stirner, quantum physics didn't exist in the 1840s. Calculus has nothing to do with Stirner either, it's just math
Did I say they do, genius? I was explaining how when you operate with certain abstractions the rules shift. That's all I was saying. Can you read past a few sentences you saw when you opened the thread?

>Stirner is only useful as babies' first awareness of social constructs

Did I say that all you need to read is Stirner? Where? Where did I say that? I actually do think that post-structuralism is a complimentary material, yet you had the urge to accuse me of something I didn't say. Again.


communist states have done more for the world than any church


What I was talking about is that Stirner's ideas are hard to understand for Buddhists because they haven't read The Unique and Its Property. Like, DUH. You need to read the book to understand what it's about, otherwise it's Strawmanville all day long.


Most people in this thread vastly mischaracterize Buddhism when they depict it as an atheistic religion. yes, you can have atheistic conceptions of Buddhism, but buddhism as practiced in Asia is a far cry from that. Buddhism literally has more elaborate hell realms than Christianity where those who haven't found enlightenment are tortured in a billion different elaborate ways after death until they figure out the correct path. The conception of Buddhism in the West as peaceful and chill and enlightened is just orientalism.


That's why I said that Buddhism wasn't cleaned from Hinduist influences entirely. And that's why Lakayata is based. Trolling Buddhists epic style.


Christianity is arguably the religion that has the most affinity to Communism, as most of the early and important exponents of the latter came from the tradition of the former. It had the praise essentially of people like M&E and Stalin, and provides a theology disposed to the equality of all. Reincarnationist doctrines, however, justify casteism and freeze people into the social status they had at birth, as predestination in reverse in a way, not even to get into the Kaliyug cycle business that the numerous online fascists go soy over.


>> The main driver behind capitalism, greed, is the first of the three poisons, one of the Buddhas teachings
Same with Christianity. 7 cardinal sins.


>Christianity is arguably the religion that has the most affinity to Communism
Well, guess what? Marx was inspired by Feuerbach who was inspired by Christianity. And Stirner rejected all of this.

Communism is a political system, not a set of ethical ideals. Same goes to anarchism but anarchists frequently cling to secular humanism. In which context Nietzsche's claim that anarchists are Christians does have some merit. Ultimately, anyone can have communist leanings if their interests align. But yeah, even secular humanism is Christianity's off-shoot.


>Even secular humanism is Christianity's off-shoot
How? I'm asking in good faith, I don't understand.



Not them, but historically speaking a good deal of modern politics is just rehashes of old christian theological debates. Umberto Eco even has a funny little text in which he very convincingly compares old Catholic monastic orders (Dominican, Augustinians, Franciscan, etc.) with left-wing tendencies and the squabbles between them would be familiar to any old leftist. That being said, humanism is in many ways pretty much just secular Christianity, given that its premises are essentially the same as the Christian ones (to care for fellow man, to do good, etc.) just with the whole Christian business extracted from it. This isn't necessarily a bad thing per se, and as any leftist should be aware all of the great left-wing writers (Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc.) were very aware of the Christian tradition simply because that's the milieu in which they were educated. As such, we see constant references (in Marx's work this is very frequent) to biblical allusions and the like.




The thing is, just like some westerners putting Buddhism into one box and labelling it chill and peaceful religion, you are doing the same but putting other labels on it. There is a lot of schools of buddhism, and yes of course some spooked beliefs in cosmology. You can choose what to take from buddhism, or you can just outright deny it completely without even properly understanding it.


Buddhists outlined practical exercises to overcoming the illusion of the self. How to achieve nirvana, the fading away of ego/self.
Elevating sterner higher than buddhists seems not very genuine to me, can you explain further how sterner analysed the issue deeper than buddhists do?


File: 1656578407166.jpg (14.36 KB, 225x224, StirnernSoda.jpg)

Because practically, studying Stirner made me more at ease of vanishing spooks and stealing shit than anything else, while it didn't offer me anything useful at how to loosen up the grip of the ego. Meanwhile buddhist zen practice developed my ability to observe my thoughts and feelings to a degree where I don't have to feel identified to them.


I feel like MLs treat Buddhists like socdems.


>but buddhism could become a spook like any other religion so i avoid calling myself a buddhist, or rather, stopped because i was raised as one
Based and Stirnerian Buddhist-pilled. But honestly, it doesn't stop Marxists from calling themselves Marxists even if they're revisionists. I feel you man.

Were you really raised as a Buddhist? Fascinating. What's your experience as a born Buddhist?


Yo, you achieved some black magic, man, that's cool.


Again, the ego is a surface-level "self" (dhammas) constructed by the society and therefore a spook. Stirner's self is what you get when you "observe the nature of reality" when you meditate. You are literally nothing. You are you, it's a recursion. There's no "You are something." There's only "You are" and that's it. That's literally it. It's circular reasoning essentially. That's the issue, the Buddhists think that "I" means something where it's simply the end of language, the first-person perspective itself. It's not about what this first-person perspective really means, even if I was constructed by a hivemind I would still be myself because the hivemind created such thing as "myself." I may even be the whole world, who the fuck knows?


I think what you are describing is at the essence of Buddhism, as far as I understand it. Zen Buddhism puts a lot of emphasis in understanding how language is basically nothing.

I like to think about buddhism in Lacanian terminology. Meditation practice can lead to nirvana, which is the extinguishing of the ego. In this mind-state symbolisation is negated, you are put into the state before your mind integrates the Real, the state of nature from which we have been forever severed by our entrance into language, into the symbolic order. Buddhism practice cuts you from your grip on the the big Other, where that big Other could be Buddhism itself. Thats why many buddhist teachings explain that you shouldn't over identify with Buddhism itself, recall the parable of the raft, where carrying the raft after crossing the river is only a burden.

What is achieved through buddhism is the consolidation of the unconscious, which is primarily the symbolic order, into consciousness. Thats what mindfulness means, being aware of what's happening, instead of being stuck in the habitual patterns of thinking, instead of expanding your horizons of consciousness. Bringing the unconscious into consciousness, diminishes the power of the symbolic order, since that makes us enable to enjoy the ideology which we previously enjoyed. Zizek quote from The Sublime Object of Ideology perfectly illustrates this "We can enjoy what we do only because we do not know what we do". Once the mechanisms of the symbolic order are known to us, we don't obtain enjoyment from it, in fact we see that this enjoyment was supplemented with suffering, and that if we are free from this construct we can obtain greater freedom and peace, which is the ultimate enjoyment. This understanding of the symbolic order is as much as an intellectual task as it is also a task of contemplative practice. Remember that the second noble truth invites you to understand the origin of suffering.


One of the few things I dislike about buddhism is the pacifism. Although sometimes buddhists don't like it either


Shooting them as enemies of the proletariat? You knows it.



If you want to end suffering, be a communist, not a buddhist putting faith in anything except the workers.


Let's see how their meditation stood up to Mongolian Bolsheviks shooting them en masse.


What does fetishisation of murder do for you?


Pacifism is certainly a spook. I think it's mostly connected to their metaphysics. Samsara, rebirth, Boddhisattvas. Cut it off and they will lose pacifism. Just give them Stirner and Nietzsche to read, that should help. What I noticed is that Buddhists change their minds after reading Stirner and Nietzsche which suggests to me that they cannot refute the presented counter-arguments which is an interesting observation.


Then again, some Stirnerites like Emile Armand were pacifists so it's rather complicated.


I think anticommunist clergy being killed is funny. Don't you?


not mutually exclusive
blood thirsty larpers face the wall


Grow a spine, buddhist idiot. When you're dealing with anticommunists, as all clergy are, you have to be harsh.
As I said, Bolsheviks killed buddhists like Ungern Sternberg for good reason. Religion has nothing to offer the proletariat.

Unique IPs: 20

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