Marxist & Buddhist?

 

For my inaugural post I thought I'd share what is perhaps a surprising example of what I readily identify with when I hear the expression, "the religious left." This is an excerpt from a series of interviews when His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, Tenzin Gyatso, visited France in 1993 and published as Beyond Dogma: Dialogues & Discourses (1996). Please keep in mind that the Dalai Lama is speaking to a general audience in a conversational style:

You have often stated that you would like to achieve a synthesis between Buddhism and Marxism. What is the appeal of Marxism for you?

"Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons, the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope [i.e., John Paul II] also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.

As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.

I think the major flaw of the [ostensibly] Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is not much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion.

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."

Well, "half-Marxist, half-Buddhist" captures, in shorthand, the broad contours of my lifeworld instantiation of at least two "official" or authoritative worldviews, the latter of course being the locus of spiritual praxis. And I must concede that this characterization of my worldview is misleading to the extent that one forgets that the systematic, ideological or philosophically coherent quality that is often a conspicuous (because necessary and desirable) feature of official, public, or strongly institutionalized worldviews, or worldviews of considerable historical pedigree, or worldviews of universalist orientation or ambition, leaves us with a picture of worldviews that are rather abstract and stylized if not rationally re-constructed, indeed, on the order of “ideal-types” and in stark contrast to the messy picture of worldviews, as it were, “on the ground,” as they extend or ramify through corporate bodies, social movements and individuals as the various strata of worldview identities and expression (at the level of the individual, I describe worldviews as 'lifeworlds’).

In short, there’s a gap of descriptive, analytical and evaluative significance between worldviews in theory and worldviews on the ground or in praxis (the latter providing its own unique theoretical articulation or justification). Compare, for example (after Ninian Smart), Roman Catholicism as propagated by the organs of the Vatican with the Catholicism of believers in a small village in North Eastern Spain, or that lived by a Catholic Worker community in Pennsylvania, or as practiced by members of a comunidades de base inspired by Liberation Theology in Columbia (or Peru, Chile…). This gap is widest at the stratum of individual worldview identity and expression in which worldviews are individuated as lifeworlds, the conscious or articulate part of which is like the proverbial tip of an iceberg, as much of the lifeworld is below the surface, subconscious and taken for granted, subject to little or no light of reason, helping, it seems and in part, to account for the conservative character of traditions. It is with regard to such lifeworlds that the nonpareil pioneer in the study of religions, the late Ninian Smart, suggested we acknowledge the fact that “we tend to live in a certain amount of aporia:"

"Do we, when it comes to the crunch, really have a systematic worldview? We have an amalgam of beliefs, which we may publicly characterize in a certain way. I may say that I am an Episcopalian, but how much of my real worldview [what I have called here a lifeworld] corresponds to the more or less ‘official’ worldview which tells me nothing directly about cricket, being Scottish, having a certain scepticism about nationalism, thinking there is life on other worlds, shelving the problem of evil, or other matters. Our values and beliefs are more like a collage than a Canaletto [cf. Lévi-Strauss’s use of the term 'bricolage']. They do not even have consistency of perspective."

So, the two must prominent parts of my worldview collage, my lifeworld, are Buddhism and Marxism. And I'm not embarrassed to admit that I thereby find comfort in being in rather noble company.

Further reading for bibliophiles: Marx & Marxism, and Buddhism.

Patrick S. O'Donnell

 

Comments

[ClubPenguinCheats]

I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity.

[discount coach]

Luckily to read your article,thank you! I would like to wish you a joyous everyday and express my hope for your happiness and good future.

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

Pete,

I don't think the question of whether or not Buddhism, or any religious worldview as such, is "true" is a coherent or meaningful one. First of all, Buddhism is not a "position" but a tradition of spiritual praxis. It helps to keep in mind what a Christian philosopher has written:

"Current attitudes to religion among philosophers are highly polarized, some impatient to see it buried, others insisting on its defensibility. But as long as the debate is conducted at the level of abstract argumentation alone, what is really important about our allegiance to, or rejection of, religion, is likely to elude us. There is, to be sure, a cognitive core to religious belief, a central set of truth-claims to which the religious adherent is committed; but it can be extremely unproductive to try to evaluate these claims in isolation. There are rich and complex connections that link religious belief with ethical commitment and individual self-awareness, with the attempt to understand the cosmos and the struggle to find meaning in our lives; and only when these connections are revealed, only when we come to have a broader sense of the ‘spiritual dimension’ within which religion lives and moves, can we begin to see fully what is involved in accepting or rejecting a religious view of reality." Please see John Cottingham's important book, The Spiritual Dimension: Religion, Philosophy and Human Value (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

For the myriad reasons why, please see the following posts at the Ratio Juris blog:

Here: http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/2008/12/buddhism-basic-bibliography.html

Here: http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/2009/09/jaina-propaedeutic-for-metaphysical.html

and Here: http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/2009/09/facts-values-truth-objectivity_22.html

A short answer follows, but please see in addition the material in the posts above for further explanation and elaboration:

The philosopher Hilary Putnam put a point earlier made by Ninian Smart this way: "'Is our own way of life right or wrong?' is a silly question, although it isn’t silly to ask if this or that particular feature of our way of life is right or wrong, and 'Is our view of the world right or wrong?' is a silly question, although it isn’t silly to ask if this or that particular belief is right or wrong." In any case, and in many respects, sensitive, empathetic, reflective, and critical global worldview description and analysis is in its infancy, and thus it seems highly unlikely anyone is (at least today) sufficiently well-versed in all the planet's religious and philosophical worldviews to engage in such an enterprise. For we are only now beginning to appreciate the unique logic and forms of rationality found in non-Western worldviews. And we are still in the process of formulating the possible candidates for acceptable cross-cultural and comparative criteria for the analysis and evaluation of worldviews, especially if we grant that the assumptions and methods of modern Western philosophy are not necessarily privileged in such an enterprise, and in fact remain open to learning (about contemporary philosophy's own myths and presuppositions, for example) from this cross-cultural encounter. Another way to put this would be to concede that Western philosophy (or science for that matter) does not possess an a priori monopoly on, or privileged possession of, the truth in any absolute sense. This is not equivalent to denying we can or should strive to make rational and ethical assessments of particular beliefs or practices within worldviews (cf. Martha C. Nussbaum's Sex and Social Justice, 1999, or think of Gandhi's critique of Hinduism and his belief that no religion should countenance in theory or practice the violation of fundamental ethical values and precepts), for we do and should. And this is all the more urgent if we happen to believe religions are first and foremost about "ways of life" and personal conduct, rather than dogmas, doctrine, or orthodoxy (i.e., more a question of orthopraxis). Smart himself argues, and I think persuasively, that it is through the comparative analysis of worldviews that we will generate the normative conceptual resources and categories for worldview evaluation, if only because the process itself will serve to “detribalize Westerners,” that is, enable us to overcome our dispositional tendency to “treat our tradition normatively, either explicitly or secretly.”

[Pete]

The misunderstanding was mine. I assumed this was a broadly Christian blog.

Having said that, I find the remarks from the Dalai Lama silly. Is Buddhism true? A position can either be True, False or Incoherent. Which is it? That would be my first question to him and those (many) who think like him. A question for another type of blog!

Thanks for your response

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

Pete,

Your first paragraph appears addressed to me, while the second seems directed more to Michael, so...:

I understand the "religious left" to encompass, in theory and praxis, individuals and groups of various religious traditions in the manner Bob Hockett described in his "Welcome to this New Weblog" post of 2/9/10. My first post here was highly personal, and meant to introduce readers to my worldview, which is neither Catholic nor Christian.

I trust you'll forgive me, but I have neither the time nor the temperament, and lack the presumption necessary, for telling Christians generally what they might possibly learn from Buddhists. For my part, I'm perfectly happy to find those who profess to be Christians living a life in imitation of Christ, of being Christians in a sincere and thoughtful manner as exemplified by well-known saints and other Christians throughout history, from St. Francis to Archbishop Desmond Tutu (thereby further distancing themselves from that class of actions historically performed in the name of Christ that rightly exercised Tolstoy). I would hope all Catholics would understand the importance of Pope Benedict's emphasis on the belief, as evidenced in the tradition of natual theology, that reason and faith must work together.

I agree once more with the current Dalai Lama who said, in his inimitably charming way, "Of course, to myself, Buddhism is best. But this does not mean Buddhism is best for the world. No! Each person, each individual can find the best. Like medicine [Buddhists have long been fond of medical analogies and metaphors, not unlike those found in the Hellenistic ethical traditions]. You cannot say, 'Just because I take it, it is the best medicine.' For some people, Christian is best, because it is most effective." And I suspect there are more than a few spiritual truths (e.g., St. Teresa of Avila asked, 'What hope can we have of finding rest outside of ourselves if we cannot be at rest within?' and Meister Eckhart said 'The truth is that the more ourselves we are, the less of self is in us.') that are not the monopoly of, or proprietary to, any religious tradition.

[Pete]

If the the Religious Left should be identified with a "half-Marxist, half-Buddhist" worldview, as you freely suggest, I would be hard-pressed to think of an ideology more candidly anti-Christian.

Perhaps you can clarify for us what you think Christian thought can learn from Buddhism that cannot be learned from the natural law. I would suggest the answer is "Nothing," and would further argue that what is distinctive about Buddhism is manifestly false, both on rational and revealed grounds. To deny that is to cease to think seriously as a Catholic or Christian.

I'm happy to be corrected.

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

Michael,

Many years ago when I attended a Marianist Catholic High School it was a young devotee of Merton's contemplative life and work who first introduced me to religions of Asian provenance and thus I've felt a special affinity to Merton ever since. And if you'll pardon a bit more "free association," the Rule of St. Benedict to which Merton was committed comes to mind again with regard to my friend, the globetrotting writer Pico Iyer, who wrote an exquisite book on the Dalai Lama, and regularly visits the New Camaldoli Hermitage in Big Sur when he returns to see his mother (who happens to be my dear and closest friend) here in Santa Barbara.

[Michael Perry]

Thanks, Patrick. Half Marxist, half Buddhist? Or thoroughly Marxist and thoroughly Buddhist? Your post put me in mind of something Thomas Merton said: "I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity. I intend to become as good a Buddhist as I can."