Human Nature, Politics, and Culture

Anything goes (almost).

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:38 pm

Anders wrote:
kirtu wrote:The primary impulse of the west is to control other people and restrict their creativity through serfdom. Marx was essentially correct on this point.

Kirt


I have never met or heard of anyone with an impulse to such a thing. Nor do I believe there is a conspiracy to effect this.

It may be an unintentional consequence of western society, but I don't believe it is the driving impulse.


You have to realize that Kirt is basically a Monarchist.

M
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12568
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby username » Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:28 pm

Anders wrote:
kirtu wrote:The primary impulse of the west is to control other people and restrict their creativity through serfdom. Marx was essentially correct on this point.

Kirt


I have never met or heard of anyone with an impulse to such a thing. Nor do I believe there is a conspiracy to effect this.

It may be an unintentional consequence of westernsociety, but I don't believe it is the driving impulse.


I think the annual Bilderberg conference including the globe's richest & their top strategists & certain presidents/premieres/generals including potential future western presidents and premiere candidates, is currently in session in Virginia as it is US's turn this year not West Europe. Run as ever by Kissinger for his ancient boss and his few European rivals who are all in attendance too. We'll see if there'll be new wars or deeper recessions in the next 12 months soon. Welcome to Samsara's earth in deepening Kaliyuga on a relative level but ultimately a Buddha's Pureland.
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes
username
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Sally Gross » Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:14 pm

Karma Dorje wrote:
So let's see:

Science
Mathematics
Music
Arts
Moral philosophy
Democracy
Gender equality
Transparency and accountability in public institutions
Etc.

You really think there is so little of value in our own society?


Forgive me for being flippant, but I can't help thinking of the "what have the Romans ever done for us" scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian. The truth is that every human culture is a compound of positive and negative, skilful and unskilful, and that little is purely indigenous, uninfluenced by neighbouring cultures and traditions. My own native culture, which is Jewish and which I love, is no exception. There is much that is good, but there is also much that is ugly; and, when push comes to shove, there is little which does not bear the hallmarks of wider contexts which have shaped the worlds of Jews and Judaisms in different times and places. Perhaps having a sense of the mixed origins, the admixture of the beautiful and the ugly, and the feet of pure clay is needed truly to appreciate any culture: not to see it in terms so idealised that the cherished conception is totally at odds with the reality, but seeing and appreciating it for what it is, warts and all.

In your list of Western contributions, there is little on which the West actually has any lien. Until relatively recently in broad historical terms, China and its sphere of influence were way ahead of the West in science and technology, many crucial developments in mathematics originated in India unless I am much mistaken, though much also developed in Greece. Music and arts: how does one rank these as superior or inferior with absolute objectivity? Democracy -- Greece, but judging from the Pali canon, there were also forms of democracy in certain areas in which the Buddha taught; Sikhism comes to mind in connection with gender equality, at least when this refers primarily to men and to women.

Perhaps what this drives home is the extent to which all of us, whatever the cultures in which we have roots, are related to one another -- something which I perceive as having some connection with anatta/anatman; and in the context of this sub-forum and forum, Dharma / Buddha-Dharma as a unifying factor which transcends cultural particularities and which can find expression through all our cultural backgrounds.
Dukkham eva hi, na koci dukkhito,
kaarako na, kiriyaa va vijjati,
atthi nibbuti, na nibbuto pumaa,
maggam atthi, gamako na vijjati


Suffering there certainly is, but no sufferer,
no doer, though certainly the deed is found.
peace is achieved, but no-one's appeased,
the way is walked, but no walker's to be found.

- Visuddhimagga XVI, 90
User avatar
Sally Gross
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:33 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Karma Dorje » Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:39 pm

Sally Gross wrote:
Forgive me for being flippant, but I can't help thinking of the "what have the Romans ever done for us" scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian. The truth is that every human culture is a compound of positive and negative, skilful and unskilful, and that little is purely indigenous, uninfluenced by neighbouring cultures and traditions. My own native culture, which is Jewish and which I love, is no exception. There is much that is good, but there is also much that is ugly; and, when push comes to shove, there is little which does not bear the hallmarks of wider contexts which have shaped the worlds of Jews and Judaisms in different times and places. Perhaps having a sense of the mixed origins, the admixture of the beautiful and the ugly, and the feet of pure clay is needed truly to appreciate any culture: not to see it in terms so idealised that the cherished conception is totally at odds with the reality, but seeing and appreciating it for what it is, warts and all.

In your list of Western contributions, there is little on which the West actually has any lien. Until relatively recently in broad historical terms, China and its sphere of influence were way ahead of the West in science and technology, many crucial developments in mathematics originated in India unless I am much mistaken, though much also developed in Greece. Music and arts: how does one rank these as superior or inferior with absolute objectivity? Democracy -- Greece, but judging from the Pali canon, there were also forms of democracy in certain areas in which the Buddha taught; Sikhism comes to mind in connection with gender equality, at least when this refers primarily to men and to women.

Perhaps what this drives home is the extent to which all of us, whatever the cultures in which we have roots, are related to one another -- something which I perceive as having some connection with anatta/anatman; and in the context of this sub-forum and forum, Dharma / Buddha-Dharma as a unifying factor which transcends cultural particularities and which can find expression through all our cultural backgrounds.


I don't disagree a bit with what you are saying. My point was that there is much of value in our present culture, regardless of provenance, and to throw it all out in favor of another culture is completely unnecessary. We need to work with our current condition, not attempt to transplant social and cultural molds that have little resonance with the societies in which we find ourselves now.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."
~Arthur Carlson
User avatar
Karma Dorje
 
Posts: 971
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Sally Gross » Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:19 pm

Karma Dorje wrote:
I don't disagree a bit with what you are saying. My point was that there is much of value in our present culture, regardless of provenance, and to throw it all out in favor of another culture is completely unnecessary. We need to work with our current condition, not attempt to transplant social and cultural molds that have little resonance with the societies in which we find ourselves now.


Nor am I disagreeing with you: responding to a message does not necessarily signify disagreement! :anjali:
Dukkham eva hi, na koci dukkhito,
kaarako na, kiriyaa va vijjati,
atthi nibbuti, na nibbuto pumaa,
maggam atthi, gamako na vijjati


Suffering there certainly is, but no sufferer,
no doer, though certainly the deed is found.
peace is achieved, but no-one's appeased,
the way is walked, but no walker's to be found.

- Visuddhimagga XVI, 90
User avatar
Sally Gross
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:33 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Dronma » Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:16 pm

Sally Gross wrote:Forgive me for being flippant, but I can't help thinking of the "what have the Romans ever done for us" scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian. The truth is that every human culture is a compound of positive and negative, skilful and unskilful, and that little is purely indigenous, uninfluenced by neighbouring cultures and traditions. My own native culture, which is Jewish and which I love, is no exception. There is much that is good, but there is also much that is ugly; and, when push comes to shove, there is little which does not bear the hallmarks of wider contexts which have shaped the worlds of Jews and Judaisms in different times and places. Perhaps having a sense of the mixed origins, the admixture of the beautiful and the ugly, and the feet of pure clay is needed truly to appreciate any culture: not to see it in terms so idealised that the cherished conception is totally at odds with the reality, but seeing and appreciating it for what it is, warts and all.

In your list of Western contributions, there is little on which the West actually has any lien. Until relatively recently in broad historical terms, China and its sphere of influence were way ahead of the West in science and technology, many crucial developments in mathematics originated in India unless I am much mistaken, though much also developed in Greece. Music and arts: how does one rank these as superior or inferior with absolute objectivity? Democracy -- Greece, but judging from the Pali canon, there were also forms of democracy in certain areas in which the Buddha taught; Sikhism comes to mind in connection with gender equality, at least when this refers primarily to men and to women.

Perhaps what this drives home is the extent to which all of us, whatever the cultures in which we have roots, are related to one another -- something which I perceive as having some connection with anatta/anatman; and in the context of this sub-forum and forum, Dharma / Buddha-Dharma as a unifying factor which transcends cultural particularities and which can find expression through all our cultural backgrounds.



Thank you, Sally! :namaste:
Synthesis is the secret of all Great Civilizations and Golden Ages of history!
"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour"
~ Padmasambhava ~
User avatar
Dronma
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm
Location: Athens - GR

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Virgo » Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:55 pm

Malcolm wrote:[
You have to realize that Kirt is basically a Monarchist.

M

Really? I am surprised

Kevin
User avatar
Virgo
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Globe

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:00 pm

Virgo wrote:
Malcolm wrote:[
You have to realize that Kirt is basically a Monarchist.

M

Really? I am surprised

Kevin


Yes, he buys into the idea of enlightened rulers. Of course at the end of the day that is just Plato's Repulic redux, the original fascist nightmare.

M
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12568
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Jikan » Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:50 pm

Anders wrote:
kirtu wrote:The primary impulse of the west is to control other people and restrict their creativity through serfdom. Marx was essentially correct on this point.

Kirt


I have never met or heard of anyone with an impulse to such a thing. Nor do I believe there is a conspiracy to effect this.

It may be an unintentional consequence of western society, but I don't believe it is the driving impulse.


Marx didn't make that claim exactly. He didn't say that the nature of Western culture was itself exploitative (Marx was himself a Hegel-reading Shakespeare-quoting paragon of Western culture), but that the capitalist mode of production was such. This is an important distinction. Marx *liked* "western culture" as such, although he was skeptical of the ideological work that the culture bourgeois intellectuals identified did.

enough pedantry from me.
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5665
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Dzogchen, Buddhism and culture

Postby Lhug-Pa » Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:21 pm

Plato's Republican idea of an Enlightened ruler—similar to a Khemetian Shekem or a Dalai Lama—is a good idea if the ruler is actually Enlightened.

Of course the question is how can that be measured.

I mean for example if we had a truly Enlightened ruler in the USA, we wouldn't be living in a corporatocracy ('Democracy' my rear-end) like we are now, and we would all be eating organic food, have a shorter work week, no more fossil fuel as the primary means of transportation, and we would also have more access to Yoga and Tantra practices that actually work instead of 'believin' in Jesus' and going off to war to protect the interests of slave driving corporations.

But since we don't have an Enlightened ruler, we have, well, what we have now. Of course a ruler of any kind, is generally nothing more than a reflection of the mindstate of the average citizen, no?
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Dzogchen, Buddhism and culture

Postby username » Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:31 pm

In the last half century we have had a few great German experts on Marx as well as a noted Italian but mainly a number of great French intellectuals who redefined what Marx said such as Louis Althusser, and they all disagreed with each other on a number of issues and their areas of interest too. They can not all be called Marxists as many did not call themselves that, but had insightful things to say. The only noted American theoretician has been Chomsky. Most of them are dead now but there is currently a consensus that Marx, primarily a historian/ideolog first and philosopher second, would have changed a lot of his ideas. This is more realistic as he was quite intelligent.

However in essence he did believe it was in the nature of western society to grow into a pyramid of power of exploitation by an elite controlling the means of production and evolving from a colonial abusive global vampire sucking the rest of the world dry (he was an historic expert on this) to an industrial exploitation machine phase before moving on to socialist and then communist phases which he defined as inevitable and only a matter of timing. In effect the current ruling banking elites indeed implement the philosopher king idea by employing people like Kissinger, Brzezinski , Condy Rice etc as the architects of their regime which is why some establishment lackeys are always harping on about the need to revive Platonism. This in its essence has the implementation of a complete exploitative system eroding the opposing civil rights of resistance slowly over generations in a long term plan in the name of emergency laws etc. using emerging technologies as we have been witnessing in a creeping coup against democracy in the last decade. It will get worse over the next two generations.
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes
username
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Dzogchen, Buddhism and culture

Postby Lhug-Pa » Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:44 pm

The banking 'elites' actually invert the Platonist idea of the Philosopher King.

As far as I can tell, the Wisdom expressed in the writings of Plato, Ammonio Saccas, Proclus, Plotinus, Iamblichus, etc., is the exact opposite of the international banker's "New World Order" based on drugs and war.

The bankers don't worship Gomer Oz Dabar. Like Prodigy of Mobb Deep cited, they worship Gold Oil & Drugs.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Dzogchen, Buddhism and culture

Postby username » Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:57 pm

Old Plato's discourse might have been well intended but he was not as wise as Socrates and the logical conclusion of his ideas would be not far off George Orwell's 1984 given enough time since inevitably power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So lets appreciate what we have inherited as civil rights and democracy which is not guaranteed to last forever.
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes
username
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Dzogchen, Buddhism and culture

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:04 pm

username wrote:So lets appreciate what we have inherited as civil rights and democracy which is not guaranteed to last forever.


Amen.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12568
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen, Buddhism and culture

Postby Lhug-Pa » Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:11 pm

Right, at least we still have Freedom of Religion for the most part; even though it's not a good idea to talk too openly about Esoteric ideas in many situations, due to the bigotry & ignorance of many people.

By the way, I think Karl Marx could have been in with the banking 'elites' himself. Not much original in his writings either from what I understand. We don't need to worship Marx (not saying that anyone here is necessarily, however some others practically do) to have a working Socialism.

Almost any system (Socialism, Republicanism, Democracy, Libertarianism, Tibetan Dalai Lamas & African Shekemu Queens/Kings, etc.) can work if implemented intelligently.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Dzogchen, Buddhism and culture

Postby Sally Gross » Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:46 pm

username wrote:In the last half century we have had a few great German experts on Marx as well as a noted Italian but mainly a number of great French intellectuals who redefined what Marx said such as Louis Althusser, and they all disagreed with each other on a number of issues and their areas of interest too. They can not all be called Marxists as many did not call themselves that, but had insightful things to say. The only noted American theoretician has been Chomsky. Most of them are dead now but there is currently a consensus that Marx, primarily a historian/ideolog first and philosopher second, would have changed a lot of his ideas. This is more realistic as he was quite intelligent.


Like many involved in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, Marx and Marxism loomed large in my earlier history, and I continue to have a healthy respect for Marx. At the risk of going badly off-topic, I therefore feel bound to disagree with you. In Marxian terms, "ideology" is not a happy term; and Marx, who focused on an analysis of the capitalist mode of production and of the ideology associated with the bourgeoisie, was a counter-ideologist in his own terms. Much of his work -- the Grundrisse, the three volumes of Capital, and his notes for a fourth volume of Capital, Theories of Surplus Value, itself published posthumously in three formidable volumes, is on economics. He is an economist in the classical tradition, whose work develops the economic theories of David Ricardo in particular, and his analysis of simple reproduction, expanded reproduction and of the capitalist business cycle are all seminal. He has been much maligned since the vaunted "defeat of Communism", but the current obviously structural crisis of global capitalism suggests that his analysis of capitalism is not that far off the mark. Contrary to popular belief, he did not offer an analysis of socialist economics, and certainly offered no theory of communist economics. In strictly Marxist terms, it is questionable whether there has been a properly realised socialism in the world yet, and there most certainly has not been a realised post-capitalist communism.

I'm not sure who the experts on Marx to whom you refer were, apart from Althusser. The noted Italian of whom you are thinking was probably Gramsci, who died a lot longer than half a century ago. Given the timeframe you set, I'd guess that the German experts are the Frankfurt School. Your noted American theoretician of Marxism, Noam Chomsky, is actually not a Marxist as far as I know. An American theorist of Marxism who comes to mind is the late Paul Sweezy, who was an extremely competent economist and was probably the leading student of the late Joseph Schumpeter, a conservative economist who rightly admired Marx. Some of Schumpeter's most important work focuses on analysis of the capitalist business cycle in which Marx's work was seminal, as I have noted; and Schumpeter draws upon the work of others, such as the early Soviet economist Nikolai Kondratieff, whose long waves of capitalist development (called "Kondratiev Waves") may well shed significant light on the current plight of the global economy. For a sense of the economic heart of Marx's work and the way it was developed later, you could do worse than to read Paul Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development, which is probably still published by Monthly Review. I'd suggest that you spend time dipping into the Marxist Internet Library, at http://www.marxists.org, for a better portrait of Marx's works, Marxian theorists and the many strands of Marxist theory.

Truth is truth is truth. Commitment to Dharma surely entails intellectual integrity in this regard as well -- not oversimplifying, and giving credit where credit is due.
Dukkham eva hi, na koci dukkhito,
kaarako na, kiriyaa va vijjati,
atthi nibbuti, na nibbuto pumaa,
maggam atthi, gamako na vijjati


Suffering there certainly is, but no sufferer,
no doer, though certainly the deed is found.
peace is achieved, but no-one's appeased,
the way is walked, but no walker's to be found.

- Visuddhimagga XVI, 90
User avatar
Sally Gross
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:33 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Re: Dzogchen, Buddhism and culture

Postby username » Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:43 pm

Sally Gross wrote:
username wrote:In the last half century we have had a few great German experts on Marx as well as a noted Italian but mainly a number of great French intellectuals who redefined what Marx said such as Louis Althusser, and they all disagreed with each other on a number of issues and their areas of interest too. They can not all be called Marxists as many did not call themselves that, but had insightful things to say. The only noted American theoretician has been Chomsky. Most of them are dead now but there is currently a consensus that Marx, primarily a historian/ideolog first and philosopher second, would have changed a lot of his ideas. This is more realistic as he was quite intelligent.


Like many involved in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, Marx and Marxism loomed large in my earlier history, and I continue to have a healthy respect for Marx. At the risk of going badly off-topic, I therefore feel bound to disagree with you. In Marxian terms, "ideology" is not a happy term; and Marx, who focused on an analysis of the capitalist mode of production and of the ideology associated with the bourgeoisie, was a counter-ideologist in his own terms. Much of his work -- the Grundrisse, the three volumes of Capital, and his notes for a fourth volume of Capital, Theories of Surplus Value, itself published posthumously in three formidable volumes, is on economics. He is an economist in the classical tradition, whose work develops the economic theories of David Ricardo in particular, and his analysis of simple reproduction, expanded reproduction and of the capitalist business cycle are all seminal. He has been much maligned since the vaunted "defeat of Communism", but the current obviously structural crisis of global capitalism suggests that his analysis of capitalism is not that far off the mark. Contrary to popular belief, he did not offer an analysis of socialist economics, and certainly offered no theory of communist economics. In strictly Marxist terms, it is questionable whether there has been a properly realised socialism in the world yet, and there most certainly has not been a realised post-capitalist communism.

I'm not sure who the experts on Marx to whom you refer were, apart from Althusser. The noted Italian of whom you are thinking was probably Gramsci, who died a lot longer than half a century ago. Given the timeframe you set, I'd guess that the German experts are the Frankfurt School. Your noted American theoretician of Marxism, Noam Chomsky, is actually not a Marxist as far as I know. An American theorist of Marxism who comes to mind is the late Paul Sweezy, who was an extremely competent economist and was probably the leading student of the late Joseph Schumpeter, a conservative economist who rightly admired Marx. Some of Schumpeter's most important work focuses on analysis of the capitalist business cycle in which Marx's work was seminal, as I have noted; and Schumpeter draws upon the work of others, such as the early Soviet economist Nikolai Kondratieff, whose long waves of capitalist development (called "Kondratiev Waves") may well shed significant light on the current plight of the global economy. For a sense of the economic heart of Marx's work and the way it was developed later, you could do worse than to read Paul Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development, which is probably still published by Monthly Review. I'd suggest that you spend time dipping into the Marxist Internet Library, at http://www.marxists.org, for a better portrait of Marx's works, Marxian theorists and the many strands of Marxist theory.

Truth is truth is truth. Commitment to Dharma surely entails intellectual integrity in this regard as well -- not oversimplifying, and giving credit where credit is due.


Yes for me the Frankfurt school luminaries modernized Marx a great deal though many accuse them of selling out. Just as the Austrian school had to reinvent evil on the other side. On Chomsky you do not read carefully as I said many of these figures did not call themselves Marxists nor can we call them that just before mentioning Chomsky as a theoretician of note. He is labelled as a modern anarchist but I think that is not correct either. So please read carefully. I put in those two provisors, a pain, exactly as I could see someone might jump to conclusions. The fact that it still happened is sad.

On your other point, I did think about his wirtings on economy but decided against it and he is primarily a historian first and philosopher second. Marx had interesting ideas on economy for his time and indeed there is a great revival on his long term thoughts on economy but they are now examined as primarily a truly great historian's analysis first and a philosopher second. Further these ideas were mainly in the area of political economy. Even fifty or sixty years ago in modern universities and business schools his ideas were mainly studied as theoretical political economy while the real ideas of the left started way back then with John Maynard Keynes then Frankfurt school and recently the Third Way and so on. This is the reality of actual economic debate in terms of actual policy, not political economy, for a long time. Marx is not quoted when analyzing figures as much as Keynes-vs.-Hayek are to this day in terms of actual scientific economical studies. This is a long established fact. Just as many think in error all psychologists and clinical psycho-therapists just read Freud.

On your third point you are also wrong which is why he was turned into an all knowing prophet of a new religion. Like all major ideologues his school had two parts, the world view of how things are or historic cosmology extending into future prophecies. Plus, and more importantly, his ideology of, as Lenin would say, what is to be done in praxis. This is why if he was alive today he would see many of his predictions had come true but also he would revise much of his forecasts as basically silly.

Your ideas really belong to third world Marxists of a bygone age in the last century before the Berlin wall crumbled. They were really started to be dismantled in the Paris of 1960s by their theorists then taken up first in England and then US in the seventies and eighties. This sanctification of Marx into an extra ordinary being is a well known process that occured mainly in right wing third world countries' dictatorships during the long cold war where his books and ideas were banned. This is why many third world MArxists once safe in exile in the west changed their ideas or even became reactionaries. This is why your lens is distorted when looking at Marx. We who grew up mainly in democracies look at him not as the biggest giant in history but as a genius who had a lot of great insights and ideas as well as errors and mistakes, not "the prophet" who mapped history and future as he claimed or more importantly his old religious followers claimed.

On your fifth minor point, I was not referring to Gramsci as you presumed wrongly again since he was before half a century ago as you said. The man I had in mind started as "the" secret revolutionary ideologue of Italy's Red Brigade though he always denies this. Then became a sort of Gramscian believing in taking over the enemy's bunkers in stealth over generations including cultural gates like Gramsci nd like him wrote most of his influential material while in jail for a short term as he was released in 2003. In my opinion he has moved on to a third stage which is even more mature. His name is Antonio Negri and his American protege is the academic Michael Hardt who is not in full agreement with him. He is the person that started the movement in western democracies' intellectual circles, since the demise of the great French theoreticians, to reappraise Marx as a great thinker while updating and adjusting (correcting) some of Marx's ideas in the light of the new order coming into effect mainly in his famous book "Empire" which even made many right wingers to start praising Marx.

All the best.
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes
username
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Dzogchen, Buddhism and culture

Postby username » Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:19 am

Sally Gross wrote:Truth is truth is truth. Commitment to Dharma surely entails intellectual integrity in this regard as well -- not oversimplifying, and giving credit where credit is due.


Just because I praise and also criticize him and do not sanctify Marx? This is an unfounded accusation and uncalled for. I do not see any point in this mode of context.

All the best to you Sally.
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes
username
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby kirtu » Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:40 am

Virgo wrote:
kirtu wrote:Computers were inevitable from human computing activity no matter what the economic system.

I can accept that. However, I think capatalism plays a big part in the speed of advances we find in technology, in the computer industry as well. This doesn't mean I am huge into capatalism either...


The speed of advance follows Moore's Law: every x time, the computational capacity of a computer system roughly doubles. This used to be every 2 yrs or so (from 1964-65). Now it's basically every year or so.

However Moores Law, possibly with a slightly different doubling period, was also experienced in the Soviet Union and the East Bloc. "Pioneers of Soviet Computing" clearly indicates that Moore's Law held even in the Soviet Union (note: I'm not saying that their computers were on par with those in the West, esp. after 1980 - I'm saying that they experienced a doubling period of their computational power that can be calculated but was certainly > 2 yrs).

Moores Law isn't a heuristic as it is so often characterized. It is a real law of informatics and will continue as long as physics supports materials progression (a paper on Moore;s Law and the limits from the perspective of physics concludes that it will continue for about 600 years).

After a certain point, some tech advances are inevitable no matter what the system (with variation due to losing knowledge and an offset of some time - previously decades and now a much shorter time).

This can mean different things as long as physics isn't violated (and information systems are in this context a form of applied physics). Possibly we can restore the planet nearly at the last, now rapidly approaching minute of ecological collapse.

This knowledge and possibility is worth preserving and it comes primarily from the west through the development of science and mathematics which in turn rests on the collective experience of humanity worldwide for at least 100,000 years.

Kirt
Last edited by kirtu on Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche
User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4585
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Virgo » Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:30 am

kirtu wrote:The speed of advance follows Moore's Law: every x time, the computational capacity of a computer system roughly doubles.

Kirt

Hi Kirt, the point is the more opportunity people have to make money for coming up with new technologies, the faster they will come up with them. Why? The desirable reward is worth their time. If things aren't worth a persons while, that person will not pursue them enthusiastically unless the person has to. Capatalism, in a free market economy, is the most supportive system for that, imo.


Kevin
User avatar
Virgo
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Globe

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests

>