Just wondering how this is possible?

Such a big part of Buddhism is acceptance of what is. But personally as a woman in the United States right now, I do not feel like accepting this situation. I feel angry and I don't want to let that go, or feel okay with how things are. It's so important to fight for things to be better. I'm reading Hope in the Dark by Rebecca Solnit right now and she also discusses how crucial it is to resist even in the most basic ways, like with your thoughts or small efforts. And I also don't feel like having compassion for everyone at this moment. I do not want to feel kindness toward people who are bigoted, and all the other many things I could say about how their actions and words have harmed others. I would never hurt them, I just don't want to wish them well right now and hearing otherwise honestly just makes me mad, and feels very privileged. It makes me want to turn away from the things I've learned in Buddhism.

I want to resist. But I think part of how Buddhism or mindfulness comes into it is that I can just accept exactly how I feel. I am angry, or devastated, or hopeful. I feel the pain of others. I cry when I want to. In that way I do let it go/let it be. Also trying to accept that my present moment is the only thing I can control.

Basically I am asking for ways to keep some ideals without giving away the agency of my emotions and desire to fight back.

P.S. thank you to the person who told me about this subreddit. It's exactly what I wanted

Hi everyone,

For many years i've been interested in both Buddhism and leftism. Most of the time, i was more serious about Buddhism while my interest in leftism was honestly pretty vague and often waffling. But since last week, the election of Donald Trump in the US and political developments in my home country have led me to the point where i'm honestly just fed up with the way the right dominates politics nowadays, and the inability of centrists/liberals to counter this domination. Therefore, i now think we need a strong leftist movement to offer resistance to the policies of the right. The problem i have is that my mind is currently dominated by anger towards the right. Thoughts of resentment often come up in my mind, disturbing my daily meditation sessions. I also experience feelings of ill-will towards right-wing politicians and public figures.

How should i deal with my anger towards the right in a skillful way? Does anyone have any guidance, whether personally or in the form of linked resources, on how to combine leftist political stances with a Buddhist lifestyle?

Greetings,

DharmaMeneer

I haven't read this yet, but this looks interesting.

Link:

https://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/2024/10/16/economic-justice-in-the-buddhist-tradition/

Or do you retain it to fuel your radicalism and sense of justice? I am not Buddhist, but am influenced by Buddhism. I’d like your perspectives.

Hi everyone,

u/rayosu recently brought up the current subreddit banner may not be the most appropriate because of a militaristic association. I'd like to invite you all to suggest a new banner image as well as design ideas in general (like background image).

Let's get creative :)

The text in the header picture is "進者往生極楽 退者無間地獄", which can be translated as "who advances will attain paradise; who retreats (gets) eternal hell". This slogan was written on a flag that was used in an Ikkō-ikki (一向一揆), a violent uprising associated with the Jōdo Shin sect of Japanese Buddhism. "Advancing" and "retreating" here refers to advancing and retreating in battle.

Is this a message that is appropriate for this subreddit? (It seems overly militaristic to me.) Why was it even chosen as the header image?

I'm writing a short piece for my university's socialism society's zine and was wondering if anyone could offer me some examples of Buddhist socialism/leftism being implemented in both institutional or communal (in-community) manner. This can be either in-miniature or in-macro.

Historically or During modernity would both be great, and if anyone could point me to some good further reading suggestions on Buddhist socialism, I have some things about Bhuddhadasa Bhikku but not a great deal else.

Thank you in advance to anyone who responds :)

So I saw these quote from this source "What is the cause, what is the reason, O Lord," questioned he, "that we find amongst mankind the short-lived and long-lived, the healthy and the diseased, the ugly and beautiful, those lacking influence and the powerful, the poor and the rich, the low-born and the high-born, and the ignorant and the wise?"

The Buddha’s reply was: "All living beings have actions (Karma) as their own, their inheritance, their congenital cause, their kinsman, their refuge. It is Karma that differentiates beings into low and high states."

and the author said "Karma is powerful, man cannot interfere with its inexorable result though he may desire to do so" but did The Buddha believe this? Because I can't find the Sutta that the dialogue he quoted came from. And if the Buddha believed you can't alter social hierarchy as it's predestined (not in a systemically unjust way but in a just karmic way) how does that effect Buddhist socialism as a concept? Thanks.

How about we discuss our differences and find a common ground in Buddhism?

Obviously I am an Anarchist, which rejects hierarchical power, and relationships of domination. To me this logically concludes in veganism, as well as rejecting ALL social and systems of oppression.

Curious what you all think of this? Are you vegan? Why or why not? How do you feel about direct action groups like the Animal Liberation Front?

Let’s have a civil and respectful discussion about animal rights.

Lately I have been contemplating the question in the title: Can an anarchist take refuge?

The problem – in short – is that anarchism rejects absolute authority, while taking refuge implies acceptance of the absolute authority of the Buddha, Dhamma, and (especially) Saṅgha. Those two are incompatible, and therefore, an anarchist cannot take refuge, or so it seems.

I was writing up some further explanation of the problem (as I see it) with the intention of posting that here, but it got much too long, so I published it as a blog post instead:

https://www.lajosbrons.net/blog/anarchist-refuge/

This blog post only reflects my current thoughts about the issue, however, and I would very much like to know others' opinions about it, which is the reason for posting here, of course. So, if you have any thoughts about the (in-)compatibility of Buddhism and anarchism, please let me know.

In his essay “The Problem of Buddhist Socialism in Japan”, Ichikawa Hakugen lists several obstacles to the development of Buddhist Socialism. One of those is “middle-way-ism” (中道主義). This particular problem isn’t specifically Japanese. Indeed, it is fairly common to encounter right-wing or centrist Buddhist arguing against the view of left-wing Buddhists by appealing to “the Middle Way”. That appeal – and thus, “middle-way-ism” – is fundamentally mistaken, however, for at least three reasons.

(1) the middle ground fallacy

The most obvious problem for “middle-way-ism” is that it is a fallacy. “Middle-way-ism” is really nothing but an appeal to moderation or middle ground fallacy in Buddhist garb. It advocates against “extremism” of any kind and in favor of compromises and the middle ground whenever that is considered opportune to its adherents. However, whatever the garb, a fallacious argument can never be right, and thus, “middle-way-ism” is … well … bullshit.

(2) “middle-way-ism” is not Buddhist

The most prominent occurrence of the term “Middle Way” in Buddhist texts is in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, which opens with the Buddha’s doctrine of a Middle Way between asceticism and hedonism (i.e., the pursuit of sensual pleasure), a Middle Way that leads to vision, knowledge, peace, awakening, and nirvāṇa. This is indeed a “middle way” in the most literal sense of that term; that is, the Buddha carves a new path in between the two existing forks in the road, both of which he deems to extreme.

Importantly, this is the only use of the term “Middle Way” about which we can say with a fair degree of confidence that it goes back to the Buddha himself. A similar, but not identical phrase occurs in the Nidānavagga section of the Connected Discourses, where it says that the Buddha “teaches the Dhamma by the middle” between the extremes “all exists” and “all does not exist” or between “eternalism” and “annihilationism”. This “middle” is not called “the Middle Way”, however. And more importantly, it is nothing like the middle way between the extremes of asceticism and hedonism mentioned above. Rather, this “middle” is more like the skeptical strategy of denying an assumption that underlies both of the options presented. It is a return to an earlier overlooked fork in the road where that assumption was made. Eternalism is the view that there is a self, soul, or person, that survives death; annihilationism is the view that the self does not survive death, but is annihilated at death. The “middle” in this case is the rejection of the assumption underlying both of these views that there is a self in the first place.

So, while the Middle Way between asceticism and hedonism is like a compromise between two extremes, a middle path in a very literal sense, this second middle is no compromise at all, but a rejection of both options. It is a return to an earlier fork in the path, where both of the options presented took the same road by making the same assumption, and a continuation on the alternative, overlooked path from that fork by rejecting that shared assumption.

More to the point, the Buddha never taught that we should prefer the middle ground or a compromise or a middle way in all circumstances, contexts, and situations. He advocated only one very specific Middle Way, namely, that between hedonism and asceticism. (And the only other occasion where he argued for a “middle” was not an argument for a “middle way” in the same sense.) And consequently, “middle-way-ism” – that is, the idea that we should always prefer the middle ground or a compromise or a middle way – is not a Buddhist idea.

(3) not every compromise is a “middle way”

Anti-leftist appeals to “the Middle Way are problematic for a third reason: they assume that leftism is extreme and that centrism is some kind of “middle way”, but that assumption is quite debatable. Centrism effectively accepts the sociopolitical status quo. It accepts capitalism and its consequences: climate change, pollution, famines, widespread inequality and suffering, and so forth. Centrism might want to alleviate some of capitalism’s worst effects, but absolutely refuses to even consider its root causes. That, to me, is extremism. In 2015, Tariq Ali published a book titled The Extreme Centre wherein he exposed the extremism of centrism and he was absolutely right. There may be “extremists” on the far left fringe, but the vast majority of leftists who refuse to accept the massive suffering and other problems causes by capitalism are not extremists. Rather, the centrists who refuse to even consider the necessity of systemic change (and who are, thus, wed to the current system that only serves the interests of the rich) are the extremists in this context. Admittedly, there are even more extremist factions beyond centrism, but that doesn’t magically turn the centrists themselves into some kind of moderates. Compromising with evil is not a “middle way”; compromising with evil is collaboration.

What do you think of them?
Their understanding of the dharma?
Their apparent impressions of you?

The -isms in the title of this post are related, but not identical, and there are further closely related -isms that aren’t mentioned explicitly (but only referred to with the “etc.”).

In my opinion, the fundamental difference between Engaged Buddhism and Radical Buddhism is that the former largely accepts the capitalist/neoliberal world order and merely aims to alleviate its worst effects, while the latter wants to (“radically”) change the world. Hence, not only is Engaged Buddhism mostly apolitical (and often explicitly so), Radical Buddhism isn’t just political – it is revolutionary. It is also exceedingly rare.

One might think that Buddhist Socialism is a kind of Radical Buddhism, but the majority of people who have been called “Buddhist Socialists” were not. Some of them (like Ambedkar) were social democrats rather than socialists (i.e., they merely wanted to introduce some social policies, like a welfare state, into a largely capitalist system). Others (like Han Yongun, Takagi Kenmyō, and Buddhadāsa) weren’t socialists (or social democrats) at all, but merely (ab)used the term “socialism” (or something similar) to label some aspects of their thought that they believed to be similar to socialism.

In addition to these Buddhist quasi-socialists (or whatever you want to call them), there is a further group that I hesitate to call Buddhist Socialists. To me, there is a difference between a Buddhist Socialist and someone who is a Buddhist and a Socialist. A Buddhist Socialist’s socialism is at least partially motivated by, and based on their Buddhist beliefs. Otherwise, there would be no reason to call it “Buddhist Socialism” – it would just be “Buddhism + Socialism”, a mere accidental combination of two entirely separate entities. It seems to me that many of the people who have been called “Buddhist Socialists” really fall into this category – they were Buddhists and they were Socialists, but those two -isms weren’t really intertwined in their thought.

One special variety of “Buddhism + Socialism” is the advocacy of something like socialism, merely or primarily because it would create better conditions for Buddhist practice. (U Nu argued for something like this, for example.) I don’t know what to call that, but I wouldn’t call it “socialism”. Socialist ideologies give reasons to strive for socialism. These reasons differ between variants of socialism, but “creating better conditions for Buddhist practice” is not a socialist reason to strive for socialism. Furthermore, the socialist part of this particular combination of “Buddhism + Socialism” is a mere accidental and subservient part – if it ever turns out that capitalism or fascism creates more opportune conditions for Buddhist practice, then the socialist aspect goes out of the window immediately.

Something very similar applies to “Radical Buddhism”, in my opinion. Someone who is a political radical and a Buddhist, but not because they are a Buddhist, is a “Radical + Buddhist”, but not a “Radical Buddhism”. To me, the compound term signifies that the radicalism is based on, and motivated by Buddhism. If it is not, that is, if the radicalism and the Buddhism are two separate entities cohabiting in a single mind, then that mind is not the mind of a Radical Buddhist.

What is left over are very small (and overlapping!) categories. Radical Buddhism that is genuinely revolutionary and that isn’t mere radicalism + Buddhism. And similarly, Buddhist Socialism that is genuinely socialist and that isn’t mere socialism + Buddhism. There are very few thinkers in those categories.

To be clear, I do not necessarily object to what I exclude from these categories. I’m merely trying to pinpoint what exactly “Radical Buddhism” and “Buddhist Socialism” mean for me – and what I am most interested in. And – as should be obvious – I’m posting this here because I’m curious about others’ thought about this.

I thought that some of you might find this interesting.

summary — In 1943, S.N.B. (Neville) Wijeyekoon published a book under the pseudonym Leuke aiming to compare Buddhism and Marxism. It starts out doing so indeed, but the second half of the book presents his own philosophy focused on achieving mental harmony by negating self-centeredness through “merging one’s self in social welfare”. Wijeyekoon’s wrote two more books, and in one of those he further developed aspects of this idea, while eliminating the overt Buddhist and Marxist influence.

This long blog post summarizes and comments on two of Wijeyekoon’s books (namely, his first and third). I do not have access to his second book, and neither do I know much about his life. I was considering writing a more academic paper about Wijeyekoon, but partially due to these problems – but also because I haven’t decided yet how to frame such a paper – this research project has stalled. Because it might be stalled indefinitely, I decided to clean up, edit, and publish some of my research notes in the form of this blog post.

link — https://www.lajosbrons.net/blog/wijeyekoon/

Normally I take questions like this to a teacher, but given the political undertones of the question, I have trouble trusting anyone who isn't a Leftist to guide me on this issue.

I've been involved in Leftist politics for 20 years. As I have watched the situation in the West deteriorate and so many move to the Right, I have to confess: I no longer see a point to continuing. This is not because I have abandoned my convictions, rather I simply believe our time is up. Between Climate Change and the looming possibility of WWIII, the amount of time needed to sway the public exceeds the amount of time left to act. More and more, I feel as though Leftists should be turning inward and focus on helping their fellow comrades survive what lies in ahead.

This stands in contrast to my practice as a Buddhist. In my eyes, the liberation of all beings necessarily implies helping those around us to reject the ideology that keeps us so tied to Capitalism. To simply walkaway from the situation, to just watch the public walk right into the arms of Fascism and mass extinction, feels like not just a contradiction but a "step backwards" in my practice. I could continue to do as I always have, I could push these people towards something better right up until I am thrown on a train or vaporized by a Russian nuke, but I am having trouble seeing a positive impact to doing so.

Things are different these days. The public has been exposed to Leftism in a way they never were prior to the advent of the Internet. They aren't ignorant of it, they aren't scared of it, they hate it with a passion and blame it for the system's failings to a degree which I have never seen before. I suppose this is, in some sense, the task I've signed up for - as deep as their belief in Capitalism is, the delusions which keep them trapped in Samsara are even deeper. But I don't know how to help when people take everything and anything you say as proof that you're the bad guy. I just don't know what it means to practice in this world.

Now, I'm Buddhist before I'm an anarchist. But for me they create a positive spin together. I mean Buddhist sanghas are run on principles of mutual aid, and the economy is a gift economy. So I don't disagree with the Buddha though, I'm not going to steal someone's property, I actually do believe in a protection of personal property. We all need to use things like land or a house etc. All I want is some space to develop my anarchist dream. But what do you do when someone wants to own the air you breathe or the water you drink; or the land under your feet. These are conflicts that Buddha wasn't speaking to in the ancient era. I wanted to ask Buddhists their thought, but considered this might be too politically charged for the main subreddit. Anyways thanks for listening.