Buddhalaisuus ja marxilaisuus

Googlesta löytyy juttua. Tähän alle kopioin dalai laman vastauksen koskien marxismia. (toivottavasti englanti luonnistuu. ;))


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

A: 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 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 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 nor 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 principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of 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.

Marxilaisuuteen tulikin jo vastaus.

Vahvoja paralleeleja löytyy paljon, Spinozan systeemi on varsin lähellä buddhalaista filosofiaa ( http://www.yesselman.com/BuddSpin.html#Note3 ), Hume kieltää "minuuden" ja peräkkäisen kausaliteetin objektiivisen totuuden, mainittakoon Husserl, fenomenologia ja yogaacara ( http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77020528 ), tietysti Schopenhauer ( http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/peter2.htm ), jne. jne.

Buddhalaisuus ei tietenkään ole yhtenäinen möykky, joten kaipa filosofisesti painottuneet buddhalaisuuden suuntaukset suhtautuvat länsimaisiin filosofioihin kiinnostuneesti ja tuoreita näkökulmia tarjoten, käytännöllistä välittömyyttä painottavat buddhalaiset suuntaukset taas tuskin ovat länsimaisesta filosofisesta jauhamisesta sen kiinnostuneempia kuin itäisestäkään. :)

Jos mennään maailmankatsomuksiin päivänpolitiikan tasalle, niin Dalai-lama on vielä todennut, että äänestäisi vihreitä, jos olisi tilaisuus äänestää.

Erinomainen artikkeli, joka ainakin mulle avaa ja syventää näkemystä kummankin herran anti-metafyysisestä filosofiasta, Sunyatasta.
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/loy10.htm