Dear All,
In order to give ourselves a chance of reflection before posting, the thread is now set in slow mode.
As reminded above:
With Metta,
Ric
6 Likes
This isnât saying capitalism or physical wealth is bad, it is just saying that physical wealth is impermanent and needs to be coupled with spiritual wealth as well. I would argue that a good balance of physical and spiritual wealth is possible in the eyes of the Dhamma, and that rich people can still be good Buddhists. They just have to recognize that physical wealth isnât permanent and should be spent on beneficial things.
The book âIn the Buddhaâs Wordsâ (Bikkhu Bodhi) has chapters arranged like this with relevant suttas referenced. It therefore documents the progression from mundane right view where fortunate rebirth is the goal, to transcendent right view:
IV The happiness visible in this present life
V The way to fortunate rebirth
VI Deepening oneâs perspective on the world
VII The path to liberation
1 Like
It seems Early Buddhist Sangha is closer to communism rather than capitalism. This is because Buddhist monks are not allowed to have personal money for living.
I agree.
For the record, I personally consider laissez faire Capitalism the better system. This is because it recognizes something the Buddha too pointed out - every person tends to act in their own self interest above all else.
SN3.8
Having explored every quarter with the mind,
one finds no-one dearer than oneself.
Likewise for others, each holds themselves dear;
so one who loves themselves would harm no other
The issue with Crony Capitalism (which is what the American dream seems to have degenerated into), Socialism (some âdemocraticâ form of which is to be found in most western countries), Communism (thankfully, I have no personal experience of this, but the reports of its excesses are legendary) et al is that such systems forcibly try to expropriate wealth from the âotherâ using some or the other form of coercion.
The majority are generally happy to receive (with no upper limit!) wealth/ resources expropriated from a vilified minority (generally identified on communal/racial/ ideological basis). Demagogue leaders invariably step in to exploit the situation, promising to make things better << cue pithy slogan here 
>>.
The twist in the tale is that such leaders eventually fill their own pockets above all, accruing wealth and power, while their âmajorityâ support base are left with crumbs, instead of the âequitableâ paradise they were promised, and the dispossessed minority flee with their wealth/ resources. Overall, Society is left poorer.
The Buddha recognized the lust for excessive wealth/ power (Sensual desire) for what it is - a symptom of the universal human disease of âSelfâ and the craving to nurture it at any cost (the complete senselessness of which is evident in the extreme actions of âleadersâ across the political/economic spectrum from Trump to Kim Jong Un). He recommended a gentle cure - the 8 fold path.
The Path begins with Right View - Virtue and generosity are recommended based on our own Self interest! (AN8.12, AN8.22, Ud5.3) Right Livelihood means earning wealth without harming ourself or others - and using it in a way that will benefit us (AN8.54). We take up this path voluntarily once we open our eyes and see the harm we are causing to ourselves by our greedy actions.
The Buddha does not say that having wealth is a bad thing (AN7.7) - he simply points out the superiority of spiritual wealth (which comes from our right actions) over mere material wealth (which can be a good thing, if used well). He counsels us to embrace generosity and turn our mind to acquiring good qualities in the interest of our own welfare.
Thereâs a new book that specifically addresses Buddhism and Capitalism.
https://www.globalbuddhism.org/article/view/3831/3606
One of the editors, Fabio Rambelli, himself, I find interesting for his book A Buddhist Theory of Semiotics. I have been prevented from delving further into his ideas on this, because I have been doing research under one of the foremost Deleuzian scholars in the world, and Deleuze is all about the simulacrum and affect as a means to intervene upon it, and, semiotics is classified as âcontentâ and ânarrative theory,â so âŚ
However, Deleuze canât escape signification, so ⌠this is one of my battles ⌠why canât I just approach the problems I face using Buddhist philosophy, instead of using a âcomparative approachâ?
âSignlessnessâ is a big part of things like the Diamond Sutra, but I found a reference to âsignless immersionâ in the Piášá¸olyasutta (SN 22.80) ⌠which is exciting⌠onward âŚ
Regards, Megan
2 Likes
Hasnât George Lakoffâs idea of âframingâ basically already bridged that gap?
Because âThe Academyâ is still controlled by provincial White men, presumablyâŚ
We rely upon Charles Sanders Pierce for Deleuze. Heâs most known for the concept of index, but we use him for his semiotics. What youâre talking about is covered off by him. Youâd have to ask Laura the proper terms and definitions for them. We were supposed to memorize them, but I refuse. I intensely dislike Pierce. And youâd have to put Henri Bergson in there as well. Since heâs behind the movement image - and, so therefore time image, or three that Deleuze identified.
So, thatâs all taken care of. And I still did say that Deleuze is not able to escape signification.
1 Like
These are interesting reflections, thank you. And the risk of ending up with demagogue politicians is indeed high.
I recently heard a talk by Noam Chomsky in which he mentioned that Madison in the US recognized this danger and thought that the wealthy should be protected so that the Constitution should be made to avoid this danger to the wealthy. In contrast he was saying that Aristotle recognized the same danger but thought that for him the solution was to create a welfare state.
Probably some kind of middle way would be idealđ
Protections for the wealthy exist in the form of property rights. Canadaâs charter doesnât include property rights, but there are protections in the old Bill of Rights and common law. We have slim jurisprudence on the matter, with the decision giving a âreadingâ of the Charter to the effect that by no means can it be read to intend protections for property rights of a corporate or commercial nature. And we also have judicial statements to the effect that were property rights enshrined that would lead to the destruction of society.