Buddhist Anarchism: Theory & Practice

Essay can also be read here: Buddhist Anarchism: Theory and Practice | The Anarchist Library

Constructive feedback about clarity, arguments I should address or add to, perspectives I should consider, ideas I should clarify or expand on is appreciated. Please be nice for I am fragile.

“Is it possible to exercise rulership righteously: without killing and without instigating others to kill, without confiscating and without instigating others to confiscate, without sorrowing and without causing sorrow?”

-The Buddha, SN 4.20 [1]

Introduction

Buddhist Anarchism is a synthesis of Anarchism from Buddhist Religion. Buddhism is a religion over 2,500 years old that teaches people to free themselves from Dukkha (suffering, stress, unsatisfactoriness) through practicing Sila, Samadhi and Panya (Virtue, Concentration and Wisdom) and achieving nibbana (enlightenment, freedom from dukkha). Anarchism is a political philosophy in favor of egalitarian and mutual relationships between people and opposed to hierarchy, domination and authority. Anarchism asserts a world where everyone has control over that which directly affects them. Anarchism includes concepts of free association (federation as a process of forming egalitarian associations without coercion of government), mutual aid, and direct action. While Buddhism teaches compassion, individual responsibility and community interdependence.

Buddhist Anarchism is an Anarchism that is derived from Buddhism; Anarchism flows down from the application of Buddhist thought to questions of authority, domination and social organization. In considering how a state functions we find that the fundamental requirements of a state or government rely on breaking the most basic precepts (training rules) of Buddhism. The five precepts are considered the most basic rules for both monastic and lay people to follow. They are:

  1. Not to kill
  2. Not to steal (take what is not given)
  3. Not to commit sexual misconduct (cheating, abuse, etc.)
  4. Not to lie
  5. Not to use intoxicants (alcohol, etc.)

Nonviolence is a basic tenant of Buddhism that the Buddha was unambiguous with. The Buddha asserts non-retaliation is a practice that is difficult and often unpopular and if you are serious about ending suffering, one must commit to nonviolence [2]. The only leeway being the small room given when someone strikes a blow “desiring freedom” (such as being grabbed by a kidnapping police officer). This exception does not include the violence committed by the military or police nor does it allow killing under the guise of self-defense. The state and capitalism ultimately require a monopoly of force to be held by the state and its enforcers (police, military). If that violence is never a possibility (as in well practiced nonviolence) then the state and capitalism can not reasonably function. Private property cannot be enforced in the absence of violence. Police are not police and soldiers are not soldiers if they are disallowed from violence. What would stop us from sharing everything if there were no Pinkertons, police departments or military to enforce private property?

The precept against not taking what is not given comes to encompass the largest forms of theft today: theft of surplus labor value, private property and wages. Whenever a worker does not fully receive the value of their labor, the capitalist effectively steals that surplus value. When a boss withholds duly owed wages and tips for themselves, they steal the wages of the workers. Private property is an institution that seeks to legitimize the theft of formerly collective or free land by utilizing violence to kill, injure or imprison anyone who attempts to use what was once free for all [3]. Private property enables exploitation and creates an inherently oppressive dynamic between those who own property and those who are permitted to use it. If we seek to renounce oppression, we must also renounce theft and in doing so renounce private property.

The state and corporations rely upon lying and deceit. From corporate spying and advertising to government espionage and propaganda. A state must constantly reassert its own authority in dependence on violence, yet in doing so it constantly lies about the source of its authority, seeking to obfuscate that any government rests upon a willingness to enact violence against its own citizens. Politicians could not function without lying, electoral politics runs on many layers of obfuscation around both how the system works and what results from it. Police in the US and many countries depend upon lying to suspects and innocent people alike. If you did not want to exist under the purview of the state there is no alternative for you but to suffer great violence and deprivation, you cannot opt out because it was never a choice to be a citizen. Yet this truth is constantly paved over by valorizing the nation. There is no virtue in worshiping power and The Buddha never proposed that enlightenment could be found on the sole of a boot.

While the precepts against sexual misconduct and intoxicating drugs are not necessarily required for a state to function, they exist as crucial elements in the state’s oppression of people. When the CIA funneled drugs into black communities it was a methodology to hurt and maintain oppression of black people while supporting state violent interests globally [4][5]. Sexual abuse exists rampant in the US military and plays a crucial component in womens’ oppression within both government and corporate organizations [6]. A society that truly renounces sexual misconduct is one that creates a culture of opposition to sexual oppression. A society that understands the harm associated with intoxicating drugs seeks to most effectively communicate the dangers and pleasures associated, while abandoning ineffective moralizing and criminalization that does more to harm people who use drugs than it has ever done to promote a life worth living [7][8][9].

Within the suttas (scripture of the Buddha’s teachings) it’s written that in order to practice the Dhamma (the teachings) we must have the four requisites for practice: food, shelter, medicine and clothing [10]. If someone lacks one or more of these requisites they will struggle to implement the Dhamma and engage with the Sangha (community of Buddhists). If we want to provide opportunities for others to practice Buddhism, we must create a society that provides for all beings the requisites needed for practice. This means giving to others regardless of what they have done, are doing or will do. Wishing good will and happiness we must provide for others and ourselves these basic necessities without requirement. Because of the restrictions of the precepts and the necessity of requisites, a state cannot exist morally under a Buddhist framework.

As Anarcho-Buddhists we assert the most effective, compassionate and virtuous way to lead people to the triple gem of Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha is to provide the material requisites without coercion or hierarchy: to build a society where people exist with a high degree of autonomy that they might realize the Dukkha of the world. We know that to blame or shame for sensual pleasure is fundamentally unhelpful for getting someone to see the pleasure and pain of the world. An honest and genuine allowance of freedom will more quickly cause people to seek an end to Dukkha through the practice of Sila, Samadhi and Paññā than moralizing or criminalizing ever will…

Buddhist Anarchism takes seriously the teachings of The Buddha and asks how a society organized around these teachings would look and concludes it is a world without a state, without misogyny and other sexual oppression, a world that doesn’t obfuscate or lie about how drugs and products affect us, a world without spies or prisons. A Buddhist Anarchist world seeks true freedom in both material and mental spheres and a higher and more desirable form of autonomy: the autonomy to practice the Dhamma and or live freely, not the autonomy to struggle, suffer and survive in isolation.

Anarchist Monastic Order

In the Vinaya (rules for monastics) there is a lack of strong hierarchy, individual monastics are not granted more institutional power than other monastics. Individual responsibilities are doled out (such as someone who accounts for food storage) and are both elected by and immediately re-callable by the sangha. There is acknowledged social expectations that more experienced monastics ought to be respected (we respect the shoe-maker in shoe making and the monastic in the Dhamma) yet those experienced monastics do not (or rather, did not originally) have coercive power to compel other monastics into service or specific action: if one monastic feels that to do something is to break with the Dhamma, they should not do it even if a senior monastic asks it.

We already see egalitarian decision making within the monastic community, based on the shared rule for consensus (158 for nuns, 80 for monks): “Should any bhikkhuni (nun), when deliberation is being carried on in the Community, get up from her seat and leave without having given consent, it is to be confessed.” Pācittiya 158 [11]. This blocks all decision making because sangha matters have to be decided unanimously as in any consensus decision making. As Venerable Sujato notes in his essay Hierarchy:

“Within the Sangha, a hierarchy of power is only established in certain limited circumstance, namely, in disciplinary proceedings and in the appointment of Sangha officers. In the case of disciplinary proceedings, the authority stems not from any individual but from the Sangha as a whole. This is the normal state of affairs in Vinaya. Only the Sangha, in the sense of the monastics present within a particular monastery boundary, has the authority to make enforceable decisions, and only then when it operates in accordance with the Dhamma and Vinaya.

In the case of Sangha officers, the Sangha delegates its power to an individual. When there is a job needing to be done in the Sangha, for example, looking after the monastery stores, the Sangha may appoint a monastic to do the job. That monastic should be competent and capable of doing the job properly. Since it is the Sangha’s duty to ensure that the candidate is competent, once they have taken office, their decisions should be respected within the scope of their job. They do not need to refer back to the Sangha for every little decision.

An individual monastic should not criticize or disobey the Sangha officer within the scope of their duties. For example, if a requisite is scarce and the Sangha officer allocates it to the monastics via a lottery, someone who has missed out should not just take what they want from the stores, nor should they groundlessly accuse the Sangha officer of bias. But if a genuine conflict or difficulty arises, the Sangha can raise the issue and make a decision.” [12]

In terms of seniority, it can be classified as an influence rather than a hierarchy because no monastic, no matter how senior, has the ability to violently threaten another monastic’s livelihood [13]. A monastic is both free to leave a particular teacher or to disrobe altogether, as is any layperson likewise free to find a new teacher or community, free from coercive reprisal. The start of the Thai Forest Tradition (Dhammayut Order) was a return to form for Buddhism in Thailand and in doing so was a departure from the existing Buddhist orders in Thailand. The earliest figures in the forest reformation were not at risk of being unable to seek alms. Venerable Sujato speaks to the seniority dynamic: “A senior is felt to be respected and worthy of honor. However, when you look closely at the Vinaya, this is applied in only a few minor instances; for example, the order in which monastic eat is often in accordance with seniority. And the Buddha is very careful to point out that the true meaning of a senior is one who acts [in a] respectable way, undermining the notions of automatic authority due to seniority.” [12]. The monastic codes create a community without coercive control over others, especially in strict interpretations of the Dhamma-Vinaya.

Modern Hierarchy

In modernity, Buddhist orders worldwide function as rigid hierarchies with those at the top exercising strong control over others. Venerable Sujato notes the irony: “Unlike most religious organizations…the guidelines for the Buddhist monastic community are anti-hierarchical. Despite this, modern Buddhist organizations tend towards a strongly hierarchical model” [12]. Senior monks have more control over novice monks. We do not live in a society that functions on needs-based justice, therefore leaving the monastic order has the potential to endanger those who leave when they do not have a family or community which can support them in the transition back to lay-life. We see many children who join monasteries principally for education and material support and in doing so often become vulnerable targets for abuse. In this way a hierarchy that developed from the establishment of monasteries as sources for material support endangers an individual monastic’s ability to survive in the event they leave the monastery as well as compromising the motivation behind ordination. Effectively creating a situation of coercion: stay here or you won’t get food. At the time of Buddhism’s inception there was a culture of materially supporting those who became homeless to focus on religious practice, meaning whatever hierarchy was present originally looked and functioned very differently than it does today.

This older nonhierarchical structure has been curtailed by the state itself. In many Buddhist majority countries, the monastic community is regulated by state law in such a way as to create rigid hierarchies more easily utilized by the state to maintain power. As Ajahn Brahmali notes: “In Thailand there are a number of such laws that directly regulate the Sangha. An important aspect of these laws is the creation of a Sangha hierarchy that to some extent overrides the independence of individual monasteries as established by the Vinaya.” [14]. In some cases Buddhism would develop a theocracy, as seen in Tibet where coercive control is directly in the hands of the monastic order [15][16][17]

When looking at the setup and modern organization of the Buddhist sangha it’s important to consider the historical context in which the monastic order was established: a patriarchal and feudal time when The Buddha was just beginning to establish a new religion. If you look at the origin stories for many of the rules in the Vinaya, many have to do with complaints from lay people. Given that monastics are absolutely dependent upon lay people for survival, maintaining a good relationship and image to the lay community was and is vital for the survival of the monastic community.

The original sangha’s power dynamic was one of being materially dependent upon laypeople, the coercive control (direct control of food and resources) sits entirely in the hands of lay people who can decide at any time to withhold resources. If the monastics are not up to snuff, it is completely within the power of the lay people to refuse support. There are even many rules within the Vinaya about hoarding resources (excess robes) or having particularly nice items (a jeweled alms bowl). Later on, the sangha would integrate with various state powers such as King Asoka’s monarchy and various kingdoms in Asia. The monastic community over time made itself approachable by supportive powers of state and capital by maintaining a hierarchy within the monastic community. As Rome sought to establish governments within European tribes so they could take advantage of them, the Buddhist community has similarly structured itself to benefit from, be controlled by and generally interface with the state and capital [18].

By making itself into a hierarchical structure actively interfacing with the state, the sangha becomes beholden to the state. The sangha becomes coercively controlled not by the laity, yet by the state whose favor is necessary to maintain positive status lest the order be culled as has happened in India and China before. We know that King Asoka’s conversion and subsequent sponsorship of Buddhism is a major factor in Buddhism’s survival and spread, contrasted with other religious groups which never gained state support [19]. It’s hard to argue that if this was the intention of the Buddha, it wasn’t effective. After all, Buddhism now sits firmly rooted as a major world religion and conversion grows in America and Europe. While many religions contemporary with Buddhism’s inception remain confined to parts of India or are gone entirely.

Seeking sponsorship of the state was a temporary survival measure for the order. In order to survive the sangha invested great time in seeking stability and protection from a variety of different state powers. Yet, whatever utility state sponsorship had for Buddhism before, it has now become a force railing against the Dhammic values of being unburdensome and unfettered. Buddhist hierarchy and state sponsorship should be dismantled and abandoned. To allow for a more effective, unfettered and unburdensome transmission and practice of The Dhamma. The original order’s version of hierarchy was weak and all power was primarily in the hands of lay people, hierarchy later developed to maintain the power and influence of the order, temporarily to its benefit and detrimental in the long run. It’s time we shift Buddhist organization towards the well being and freedom enabled by Anarchism.

Monastic Lay Divide

In Ajahn Lee’s biography he talks about this relationship he had with one of his teachers, one of utter servitude [20]. There was a clear hierarchy between himself and the master. He’d listen to the wall after cleaning up his master’s dwelling place, gauging each noise the master would make and changing his behavior in terms of cleaning to further please his master. He frames this as effective training in observation. While it may help one in becoming more observant and careful, unequal relationships breed trauma and are more likely to turn people away from dhamma than draw them in. Ajahn Lee’s relationship to his master was not founded on mutual aid, it’s one person begging at the feet of another.

Relationships like this are ultimately ineffective in training. Most people don’t want to act like a servant or a slave. The teaching dynamic between student and teacher ought to be one of mutual aid, cooperation and voluntary contract. The relationship between laity is often similarly servile in order to honor the great courage and effort that goes into monastic life. It’s no small feat to be a monastic, at least one which follows the Vinaya. That kind of effort deserves a kind of respect and that respect can in turn motivate the monastics themselves to live up to it. Great guilt can be felt when you don’t measure up to the image in which people see you. Similarly, that reverence given to monastics gives a sense of weight and prestige to the teachings themselves. Yet we don’t have to deify monastics, to do so is to grant a kind of blindness to ourselves that so often leads to abuse [21][22].

A better connection to the teachings and greater benefit can be had if the dynamic between laity and monastics is made less reverential and more respectful. If the relationship were one of friendship, community and mutual aid, where laity are supporting monastics out of compassion and desire for their success. With the love and wisdom that someone is able to spread from living as a monastic, there could be more benefit for all beings. There could be less alienation between the two parts of the community. More openness for questions and engagement, less fear. The framework of both monastic and lay communities could seek a more honest and egalitarian decision making process, where each voice in the community is made equal. Giving people as much power over their own lives and that which affects it as possible. In doing so people jump to their desires of freedom with ever more energy than through shame, guilt or hierarchy. People more deeply embrace and practice the dhamma when it is a choice made in freedom. A teaching relationship between monastics and laity founded on mutual aid, cooperation, and the reciprocation of dhamma and material support can only improve the Sangha.

Practice

There’s a part of Mae Chee Kaew’s biography where it talks about how once someone is in one of the hells, it’s a lot harder to work your way up to a birth with more favorable circumstances [23]. Essentially emphasizing out how the circumstances into which we are born do make it harder to practice. When your entire life is horrifying suffering as a screaming ghost, or more close to home, constant insecurity in respect to food, clothing, medicine and shelter, it’s hard to keep a reign on feelings of anger and despair, it’s hard to concentrate the mind, it’s hard to be generous, it’s hard to be forgiving.

An Anarcho-Buddhist practice seeks to provide the four requisites to all people in the knowledge that without those requisites people cannot seriously approach or practice with the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. While providing those requisites it is understood that coercion cannot compel someone to Dhamma, no one else can do the practice for you, you must be at the forefront of your own liberation, and you must be empowered with autonomy to practice Dhamma genuinely. In providing the requisites the Anarchist Buddhist goes about their practice while following the basic moral precepts of Buddhism. In doing so our service is blameless and provides a truly solid foundation for a better world.

What does this look like, practically? In terms of community building we can focus on:

  1. Immediate provision of the four requisites to all people without requirement or coercion
  2. The building of the Sangha in such a way as to ensure requisites and autonomy now and tomorrow

Immediate provision is experienced when we give a hungry person food, provide medical care, hand out jackets for the cold and give houses to those without. It is a present albeit temporary fix to a long standing issue, a sandwich lasts only until it is eaten. This kind of practice is immediately beneficial, it is a crucial practice of Sila, to provide for others the opportunity to see the Dhamma. Yet this giving alone is not enough to ensure a long term and consistent access to the requisites, it is a temporary stop-gap under an imperialist capitalist system that demands some go without food so that others may eat from golden tables heaped with caviar. In order to ensure everyone has the requisites for practice, we must revolutionize society to provide food, medicine, shelter and clothing for all people regardless of who they are, what they have done, will do or are doing.

We can begin by creating the kind of Sangha that provides for all by creating communities which are horizontal (non-hierarchical), independent, self-sustaining and possessing a culture of mutual aid. By creating communities independent of the state and capitalism we can cultivate the basic well-being and materials needed to see the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. These communities can take various forms from squat houses, monastic communities, general communes, affinity groups, direct action cells, free stores, community meetups and more. Through these communities we can create a cultural attitude of compassionate giving to all who are without and strong opposition to the forces and institutions which rob and oppress people. When we create communal structures outside the arm of the state we create the shell of the new world within the old, when we practice direct action we chip away at the shell of the old to give sunlight to a new world. We resist rugged-individualist, consumerist and hierarchical cultural and state institutions by willfully living with autonomy and compassion.

To create such communities we must find other individuals willing and able to participate through networking in existing Anarchist and Buddhist spaces. The community can then decide the best avenue for itself based on its own specific context. Any given community might decide that establishing land and residence is important, another may focus entirely on sourcing and distributing food, a third simply creating an egalitarian place to practice and learn the Dhamma and a fourth may form an action group to directly oppose violence and oppression wherever it may be. Whether a community focuses on mutual aid, direct action or inward focused community building, through existence as a free people we demonstrate the joy and peace of living beyond the state. These communities are not only a source for freedom from hunger, nakedness, and other material deprivations but also a way to the true liberation of Nibanna.

As any Anarchist Buddhist community begins it must reckon with two separate spectrums of how it relates to the law and industrial capitalism:

  1. Illegalist vs. Legalist
  2. Self-sustaining vs. Industrial Dependence

How willing is a given community to follow or break the existing law? The law isn’t now nor has it ever been a measurement for moral action, but deciding to break the law comes with great difficulty. Land is considered private property and within the purview of the state it demands titles and money for its use, a given community may practice squatting or otherwise seize such land for their own use illegally or seek to pool resources and legally acquire such land. This is not a binary, a community may seek to legally acquire land only to covertly construct buildings outside of existing building codes and under cover so as to avoid taxation or a community may skirt the law by making multiple technically mobile trailers not considered under building codes. Taking patented plants owned by corporations and using their engineered genetics to covertly grow food without paying the corporations. Sabotaging weapons factories or handing out sandwiches. Dumpster diving for resources or begging for food. There’s a broad spectrum between bowing to the state when it’s most effective and disobeying its dictates when it suits the particular community.

Self sustainment is a question of the circumstances of the community. Is there arable land where the community is? Are there any appropriate dumpsters to get food from? Are there enough able bodied lay people to till the soil? Can sabotage be enacted without killing anyone? Can a well be drilled and textiles grown? These circumstances are both highly specific and subject to change. A given community may start by carrying in water from an outside source only to set up a well within a few years, likewise with food, textiles and electricity. A food distribution group might start by dumpster diving but soon supplement from grocery store donations. There is an ever growing resource of accessible information about sustainable agriculture, squatting, food reclamation, direct action, off-grid electrical systems, and independent ways of creating all we need or want from sex toys and instruments to farming equipment and medicine. In an ideal situation a given community can start or become totally independent of capitalism and the state. While this is often inaccessible at the start or not possible without much broader inter-community support, it ought to be a sought after goal.

As we build our communities we can look to practices of squatting, non-violent resistance, sustainable manufacturing and agricultural practices, egalitarian decision making and free association to create a Sangha and ultimately a world free of coercion and material deprivation. We can create a world with genuine freedom and autonomy, a world where no one goes hungry, cold, or without care. We can create the kind of Pure Land that conduces directly to awakening, if we work together with intention and will.

So, what happens if we disregard the claims of the state to every tree and every tract of land, every naturally growing food and every human body, to assert that all beings have a right to autonomy and that through enshrining autonomy and providing for the body we empower all beings to reach towards Nibbana? The state, eventually seeing a threat to its power, will attempt to police or outright destroy such challenges. Through taxation of the Sangha to support its imperial military and police efforts. Through demanding that any community follow the dictates of the state independent of what the Dhamma says as in compulsory military service, immoral laws, private property, deprivation of material needs from the poor and the demand that any land used by the community be acquired through state regulated private property regardless of whether it’s being used as a financial holding or third home of the rich. Through severe and protracted targeting and legal action against nonviolent direct action groups such as the Animal and Earth Liberation Front and its supporters [24][25]. In response to state repression there are many tactics we might employ to avoid or subvert the ire of the state. We can obfuscate building projects through camouflage or legal loopholes, engage in direct action using appropriate security and clandestine operating procedures. Refuse dictates from the state and even defend our communities with our own bodies through nonviolent resistance when the state seeks to eradicate us [26].

The path to a beautiful world and thriving Sangha is not without hardship. The practice is difficult and there’s joy in creating living communities which reduce or eliminate painful circumstances and allow people the context in which to grow as practitioners and individuals, there’s breath granted when the machine that builds bombs stops for a moment. In these communities we can utilize a horizontal organization founded on mutual aid, needs based justice and Dhamma. In stark contrast to the existing worldly institutions of the state and capitalism, as Emma Goodman says: “an organization without discipline, fear, or punishment, and without the pressure of poverty: a new social organism which will make an end to the terrible struggle for the means of existence, — the savage struggle which undermines the finest qualities in man, and ever widens the social abyss”[27]. Tomorrow can be better if we work together.

The Way is Rough

A wonderful bhikkuni once told me of a monk imprisoned by a government, who was tortured for years. After release he showed no signs of PTSD or other negative effects. When asked how he had managed it, he attested to his internal commitment not to let resentment or anger arise in him. Through this practice of deep compassion and peace he was able to endure great suffering from the state. We can look to one of the innumerable monastics who have been forced to endure state torture, Palden Gyatso:

“The [political] prisoners were unyielding. They said openly that they would prefer to die rather than submit to the Chinese. […] For those who use brute force, there is nothing more insulting than a victim’s refusal to acknowledge their power. The human body can bear immeasurable pain and yet recover. Wounds can heal. But once your spirit is broken, everything falls apart. So we did not allow ourselves to feel dejected. We draw strength from our convictions and, above all, from our belief that we were fighting for justice and for the freedom of our country.” [28]

Practicing Buddhism and being socially active are difficult, especially in the anarchist scene, where many anarchists advocate tactics of shoplifting, deceit and killing. Following the precepts and fighting for a peaceful and egalitarian society is not as straightforward as it might seem. It is a frequent question whether the goodness of feeding the hungry and liberating the enslaved justifies the shoplifting and killing we might use to do it. The Buddha cautioned us against spending too much time investigating the kammic result of any action: “The [precise working out of the] results of kamma.…are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone” [29]. While we shouldn’t waste time obsessing over the mathematical consequences of every action, The Buddha wasn’t ambiguous about what is conducive to internal liberation. A complete commitment to Buddhism is an extremist commitment to harmlessness, to honesty, to sexual safety, to living off what people give to us willingly and doing all of it with as clear a mind as we can muster. Buddhist Anarchism is hard and the benefits of a buddhist life are found now and later, in short term peace, calm and a stable determination to a lasting liberation, a peaceful society or fortune rebirth [30].

The Buddha was clear that a commitment to not killing is essential:

“All tremble at the rod, all are fearful of death. Drawing the parallel to yourself, neither kill nor get others to kill.

All tremble at the rod, all hold their life dear. Drawing the parallel to yourself, neither kill nor get others to kill.

Whoever takes a rod to harm living beings desiring ease, when he himself is looking for ease, meets with no ease after death. Whoever doesn’t take a rod to harm living beings desiring ease, when he himself is looking for ease, meets with ease after death.”

– Dhammapada 129-132 [31]

The necessity of virtue for internal liberation is repeated throughout scripture as in MN 136: “Here some person kills living beings, takes what is not given, misconducts himself in sexual desires, speaks falsehood, speaks maliciously, speaks harshly, gossips, is covetous, is ill-willed, and has wrong view. In the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.” this is reiterated in AN 8.39 and countless other suttas [32].

Even those who kill yet attain fortunate rebirths are given a response: “In the case of the person who takes life…[yet] on the break-up of the body, after death, reappears in the good destinations, in the heavenly world: either earlier he performed fine kamma that is to be felt as pleasant, or later he performed fine kamma that is to be felt as pleasant, or at the time of death he adopted & carried out right views. Because of that, on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the good destinations, in the heavenly world. But as for the results of taking life… holding wrong views, he will feel them either right here & now, or later [in this lifetime], or following that…” MN 136 [33]

It’s easy to try and justify breaking precepts because it can seem expedient to our worldly goals. If I just take this pair of bolt cutters, could they not aid in the liberation of those imprisoned? Yet this failure to uphold the precepts reflects the importance of prefigurative politics and a misperception of what leads to internal liberation. If we want a society without lies, without killing, without sexual misconduct or theft or other ills, we have to practice creating that society today. The anarchist world cannot be built at a later date or after some revolution, insurrection or other delusion of mass social improvement. We as individuals must live the pure land now if we want to see it reflected back in others.

We can justify killing cops as self defense seeking liberation, theft as expropriation of duly owed goods, lying as a tactic against state repression. Yet all these justifications are ways to try and cope with the difficulty of practice and avoid the truth that you can’t negotiate your way around hell, you have to go through it. You can’t produce positive peace with violence or honesty with lies. While some anarchists argue that because private property is theft itself we are justified in shoplifting, this argument ignores the multifaceted reasoning behind the precepts as both broad moral guides and training rules. All our actions create habit energy that helps or hinders the arising of further action. When we accept shoplifting as permissible we create a habit that makes taking what is not given easier and engage in action that distances us from internal liberation. Abstinence is easier than moderation. If we desire liberation for ourselves and others we have to train ourselves to relinquish even the thought of killing, theft, lying and sexual misconduct.

This commitment to internal liberation doesn’t mean that the kamma incurred when someone kills seeking genuine liberation or shoplifts to redistribute goods to those in need is all painful unpleasant kamma, we don’t need to fall into puritanical absolutism about the morality of every action. Yet as Buddhists we have to consider our motivations for any action, are we trying to seek enlightenment? Or focus solely on the state of the world? These goals are not mutually exclusive and do have different tactics. It’s unarguable that the assassination of an evil tyrant does much to change the state of the world, yet has it done much for the assassin’s internal liberation? We can decide to refrain from shoplifting extra food in pursuit of our internal liberation, yet we are being disingenuous if we do not take seriously the opportunity shoplifting presents as a way to feed the hungry on a budget. As individuals we all have to make our own decisions about what is most important to us and what we are willing to do for our goals. We don’t have to dictate to others what their goals are or ought to be, we can exist within our own autonomous lives and make our own calls around what we’re seeking and how.

When engaging with others we must always remember compassion and understanding. Moralizing a homeless person over stealing isn’t going to stop the behavior or banish their hunger. Trying to convince a traumatized trans person to accept a lynching only turns people away from the Dhamma and leaves another trans body on the ground. Many of Buddhism’s earliest converts came from upper class backgrounds and this class discrepancy allowed those individuals the material time and space to completely engage with the Dhamma [34][35]. We need compassion for the poor and oppressed who aren’t able to easily interface with the Dhamma. We need to provide more wholesome ways to satisfy material needs and refrain from Puritan blaming and shaming for survival and liberatory behaviors. It’s a waste of breath to needlessly call out the relative imperfections of the dispossessed, we ought to seek solidarity even with those who do not share our religious practice. Through the simple display of the peace that comes from practicing the Dhamma we can be a beacon to those seeking to escape stress and suffering independent of their surrounding circumstances.

As Buddhist Anarchists we are practicing for a world of peace, where no one fears being left outside, where there is no anxiety that a boss or merchant will swindle us, where there is no danger of sexual assault or rape, where anything can be left without worry over loss. We are striving for a world without binds, without violent institutions, without anyone being better, worse or the same as anyone else. To actualize Buddhist Anarchism is to create a pure land here and now, to reach out our hands to those around us, to hold and be held, to breathe without stress. To live as Buddhist Anarchists is to live as free people.

[1] suttacentral.net

[2] www.dhammatalks.org

[3] theanarchistlibrary.org

[4] jacobin.com

[5] oig.justice.gov

[6] web.archive.org

[7] www.npr.org

[8] www.cdc.gov

[9] harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com

[10] www.wisdomlib.org

[11] suttacentral.net

[12] discourse.suttacentral.net

[12] discourse.suttacentral.net

[12] discourse.suttacentral.net

[13] dhammaflow.org

[14] discourse.suttacentral.net

[15] hir.harvard.edu

[16] case.edu

[17] case.edu

[18] theanarchistlibrary.org

[19] www.accesstoinsight.org

[20] dhammatalks.net

[21] www.buddhistdoor.net

[22] journals.sagepub.com

[23] forestdhamma.org

[24] en.wikipedia.org

[25] theanarchistlibrary.org

[26] archive.org or www.waveland.com

[27] theanarchistlibrary.org

[28] savetibet.org

[29] www.dhammatalks.org

[30] www.accesstoinsight.org

[31] www.accesstoinsight.org

[32] www.accesstoinsight.org

[33] www.accesstoinsight.org

[34] discourse.suttacentral.net

[35] discourse.suttacentral.net

6 Likes

I think you are relying to much on Marxist theory here. In Buddhadhamma there will always be violence, rape, theft and people in better or worse situations because of the āsavas and kamma. No amount of changing the material circumstances will completely remove that.

4 Likes

A critical aspect of developing the goal of being free from suffering is an acute recognition of first being liable to suffering. Recognizing the inevitability of liability is crucial, which means knowing that there is a fundamental aspect of being unable to avoid suffering even if circumstances were perfect. Managing or mitigating that liability is not a goal in itself, since no matter how preferable one were to arrange their external circumstances, there is still that fundamental backdrop of old age, disease and death. The above essay seems to suggest that preferable circumstances are as meaningful as the path itself, which is a dangerously misleading equivalence.

3 Likes

As someone who got into anarchist principles a while ago, I agree that society would be better off if it was structured according to anarchist and Buddhist principles. Yet I practice the Eightfold Path of the Noble Ones so that my freedom and escape from suffering is not reliant on others doing the right thing.

As Ajahn Brahm states so often in his Rains Retreat talks, existence is a prison. You can fix up your prison cell all you want, decorate it all you want or as a compassionate Buddhist work to improve the cells of others. However nothing will ever change the fact that it’s still and always will be a prison. Focus on the path above all else, meditate, see reality for what it is and get out of the prison as soon as possible.

6 Likes

Anarchism makes critiques and comes from a fundamentally different perspective than Marxism, while I reference the Marxist theory of labor value in this essay I am primarily relying on the Anarchist philosophical tradition and not Marxism. These ideologies have influenced one another but exist as independent entities, Anarchism is not a school of Marxism, it is its own ideology apart from Marxism

A lot of modern anarchists take some of Marx’s critiques and understandings of capitalism into consideration (as I do here with the labor value) but are not Marxists. In the same way many people meditate but are not Buddhists.

My point here isn’t to create a material utopia, obviously no material needs can remove dukkha (the Buddha’s own class status is plainly evidence of this), but that if we want everyone to be able to actually practice the dhamma we have to create the material conditions for them to do so. It’s about striving towards something better and not giving up on morality because of others immorality.

These were the types of responses I was trying to pre empt by asking for specific feedback. If further replies would kindly stick either to noble silence or responding to my specific feedback requests that would be appreciated.

1 Like

Hello Potato. An interesting topic for sure.

From your conclusion:

I think there’s a few anachronisms with this approach. While I don’t think a mystical, personal anarchism is not possible, I think we need to reconcile these two ideas carefully.

While Anarchism (especially revolutionary anarchism) focuses on external world, Buddhism is about internal experience. Anarchism hopes being able to change the world or at least die trying on the road, while Buddhism doesn’t think samsara can be changed fundamentally.

Now, as Buddhists, we can certainly (and should) strive to make our lives more harmonious, peaceful, our communities where people are not in danger of assault or rape or famine. In small quarters of our own communities. But we should remember that whatever peace we might achieve in our lives, it too is temporary, and a better salvation is found in the Nibbāna. Even Buddha foretold the end of his Sangha, the disappearance of Dhamma. Nothing permanent and safe is ultimately found in conditioned existence.

Ultimately, an arahant’s salvation is independent of external factors. An arahant is not afraid of famine, murder, rape or assault. I think this is a powerful message and a realistic aspiration. I can’t always control whether people are going to assault me or not. I can try to control all the conditions that lead the human beings to assault others, trying to remove all excuses, and somebody might just assault me all the same.

I can’t control others’ actions. Especially not violent actions, which are even harder to control if you give up violence yourself. Some people will take my food and slap my face. I can’t live in constant fear or trying to make sure this never ever happens. What I can do is be at peace whatever might happen to me, offer my metta to my assailants, set an example of peace for both my and my assailant’s sake. It’s not easy, yes. But to me, that’s still the only realistic goal.

So, I think you should first differentiate Anarchist-Buddhism and Buddhist-Anarchism - which of those two are you using as a tool for the other’s goal? Anarchist goals and Buddhist goals are not compatible, but a lot can be said about (certain, especially non-violent) methods. You could use Buddhist principles for an Anarchist utopia, or Anarchist principles for Buddhist Nibbāna.

Which I think you’re in the latter camp. In which case, you could do to explain on what Nibbāna is, how it transcends the material concerns (which might be at odds with some parts of your article, like this):

While I agree with your quote to come in my post, we don’t really need to worry about state trying to control all these aspects - they will, always do that. Recognising that we don’t want to take part in this, recognising our morals, is halfway there to Nibbāna already.

Very little material requirements are needed for practising the Dhamma, and I find that notion liberating. It means my salvation doesn’t depend on an abundance, but it even thrives on scarcity.

We can’t also wait for the state to make things amenable for us to achieve Nibbāna. We can’t rely on perpetuators to act peacefully before realising peace for ourselves. Ancient India in many ways was a far more vicious and violent place than today, with worse levels of hunger. Today, only a fraction of people in US are in immediate danger of rape or murder compared to ancient India. Today, obesity rather than famine is the eating disorder in the civilised world.

In many ways, Ancient India was a far worse off oppressive place to live and people achieved Nibbāna in abundant numbers - perhaps, precisely because the dangers of Samsara were so much more evident.

It’s an interesting thing, a seemingly paradoxical position. But let us consider why human life is very precious to achieving Nibbāna - it isn’t as horrible as the hells, but it isn’t as blissful as the heavens either. Devas are repeatedly scared of listening to the Dhamma, when they’re told that the bliss they enjoy is transient and no permanent peace is found in the heavens.

We should be careful to tie our hopes of salvation to the condition that evil forces leave us alone. If the conditions were favorable to begin with, we wouldn’t seek an escape from samsara now, would we?

This is an interesting and important part. Buddha often reflects the importance of four basic neceesities: Food, Clothing, Lodging, Medicine. These things should not be shamed for:

"Properly considering the robe, I use it: simply to ward off cold, to ward off heat, to ward off the touch of flies, mosquitoes, simply for the purpose of covering the parts of the body that cause shame.

"Properly considering almsfood, I use it: not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on weight, nor for beautification; but simply for the survival and continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the chaste life, (thinking) I will destroy old feelings (of hunger) and not create new feelings (from overeating). Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, and live in comfort.

"Properly considering the lodging, I use it: simply to ward off cold, to ward off heat, to ward off the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun and reptiles; simply for protection from the inclemencies of weather and for the enjoyment of seclusion.

“Properly considering medicinal requisites for curing the sick, I use them: simply to ward off any pains of illness that have arisen and for the maximum freedom from disease.”

Much as we should strive to make our lives better, it shouldn’t be our priority - an easy life is valuable not for the pleasures of its sake, but for the sake of achieving Nibbāna. Stressing too much over these things is also suffering itself.

_

On topic of mystical anarchism, Gustav Landauer has been an interesting figure for me personally.

In his early years, he was a proponent of immediate action & revolution, getting quite detailed into how the revolution should take place & what to do after the revolution. He was friendly with some very interesting characters. Some of his close friends were arrested for committing explicitly terrorist acts against civilians. Being quite a peaceful person himself, he was taken aback with his friends’ actions, and then he was subsequently on the run.

Later in his life he developed a more mystical anarchism. While he always emphasized that interpersonal relationships were of utmost importance to any lasting social change (rather than structures), he became more and more focused on his religious side. He was less and less interested in dismantling the state with an actual violent revolution, but emphasised a revolution of the hearts, so to speak, aimed at making state institutions de facto obsolete.

From Newman, S (2020):

Landauer argued that this sort of ‘propaganda by deed’ was not only self-defeating – and moreover, indicative of a certain vanity and desire for recognition on the part of some anarchists - but went against the very ethical orientation of anarchism itself, which was non-violent and opposed to all forms of coercion and domination. It was therefore impossible, according to Landauer, to build an anarchist society on the basis of violence. Rather, revolutionary action should already come to reflect the ethical principles and ideals of the social order one wanted to create, rather than being simply a means to an end: ‘All violence is either despotism or authority. What the anarchists must realize is that a goal can only be reached if it is already reflected in its means. Non-violence cannot be attained by violence.’

In the end, striving to make conditions amenable is always a fool’s errand. This always gives power back to the aggressors, who by mere threats can disturb your peace.

Giving up the care for the body except for your benevolence, what can harm you?

A very powerful piece from MN 21:

Even if low-down bandits were to sever you limb from limb with a two-handed saw, anyone who had a malevolent thought on that account would not be following my instructions. If that happens, you should train like this: ‘Our minds will not degenerate. We will blurt out no bad words. We will remain full of sympathy, with a heart of love and no secret hate. We will meditate spreading a heart of love to that person. And with them as a basis, we will meditate spreading a heart full of love to everyone in the world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.’ That’s how you should train.

Furthermore, the lengthy description in MN 8 on Self-Effacement I think lays down the foundation you might find useful for a buddhist-anarchism, which I think the bulk of your article already sounds in favour of positively, which you might find useful:

Self-Effacement

‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’

‘Others will steal, but here we will not steal.’

‘Others will be unchaste, but here we will not be unchaste.’

‘Others will lie, but here we will not lie.’

‘Others will speak divisively, but here we will not speak divisively.’

‘Others will speak harshly, but here we will not speak harshly.’

‘Others will talk nonsense, but here we will not talk nonsense.’

‘Others will be covetous, but here we will not be covetous.’

‘Others will have ill will, but here we will not have ill will.’

‘Others will have wrong view, but here we will have right view.’

‘Others will have wrong thought, but here we will have right thought.’

‘Others will have wrong speech, but here we will have right speech.’

‘Others will have wrong action, but here we will have right action.’

‘Others will have wrong livelihood, but here we will have right livelihood.’

‘Others will have wrong effort, but here we will have right effort.’

‘Others will have wrong mindfulness, but here we will have right mindfulness.’

‘Others will have wrong immersion, but here we will have right immersion.’

‘Others will have wrong knowledge, but here we will have right knowledge.’

‘Others will have wrong freedom, but here we will have right freedom.’

‘Others will be overcome with dullness and drowsiness, but here we will be rid of dullness and drowsiness.’

‘Others will be restless, but here we will not be restless.’

‘Others will have doubts, but here we will have gone beyond doubt.’

‘Others will be irritable, but here we will be without anger.’

‘Others will be acrimonious, but here we will be without acrimony.’

‘Others will be offensive, but here we will be inoffensive.’

‘Others will be contemptuous, but here we will be without contempt.’

‘Others will be jealous, but here we will be without jealousy.’

‘Others will be stingy, but here we will be without stinginess.’

‘Others will be devious, but here we will not be devious.’

‘Others will be deceitful, but here we will not be deceitful.’

‘Others will be pompous, but here we will not be pompous.’

‘Others will be arrogant, but here we will not be arrogant.’

‘Others will be hard to admonish, but here we will not be hard to admonish.’

‘Others will have bad friends, but here we will have good friends.’

‘Others will be negligent, but here we will be diligent.’

‘Others will be faithless, but here we will have faith.’

‘Others will be conscienceless, but here we will have a sense of conscience.’

‘Others will be imprudent, but here we will be prudent.’

‘Others will be unlearned, but here we will be well learned.’

‘Others will be lazy, but here we will be energetic.’

‘Others will be unmindful, but here we will be mindful.’

‘Others will be witless, but here we will be accomplished in wisdom.’

‘Others will be attached to their own views, holding them tight, and refusing to let go, but here we will not be attached to our own views, not holding them tight, but will let them go easily.’

In the end, Buddhism is not about achieving a world without famine, rape or murder. It’s about achieving a peace such that famine, rape and murder can’t even touch. It’s about not fearing those things, not because they won’t happen, but even if they do, knowing that they can’t take away from you anything of value. That’s the true freedom, without fear or worry or any attempts to control the outside world, coming from a heart of compassion and detachment.

Taking it all in, I think that end-goal could be made clearer in your post, as well as the temporarity of whatever peaceful community we might build for ourselves. And that’s okay, too. Anarchist principles could guide to form the basis of a raft, so to speak, to allow people to see the end of suffering beyond the conditioned existence.

Metta and thanks for your interesting effort. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

Interesting writeup. I feel that part of right view is trying to live our lives in a way that maximizes kindness, gentleness, and compassion, and I think that this should be reflected in our political outlook as well. Almost anytime you comment on an ethical issue or a social issue, you’re commenting on a political issue as well. The boundaries aren’t as well defined as people may like to think.

So, as long as you’re living in the world, a political view is inevitable (whether you think so or not) and I think you should grapple with the societal issues around you and reflect on what political outlook is most in accord with right view which also means taking a critical analysis of the sociopolitical systems we live under (capitalism) to understand how they work and the effects they have.

For some reason it seems that Buddhists are often kind of hesitant to really have any well defined politics. I agree that Buddhism does promote a disengagement from the world and seeing the inherent suffering nature of this life which only has the solution of the Noble Eightfold Path, but if you feel so strongly about disengaging, then become a monastic. There is a path for that. Otherwise, if you’re living in the world then do so in the most kind, gentle, and compassionate way that is in accord with right view and right intention. You’re not free from views, and you’re still a layperson, so set your view in accord with something that helps others on a personal and systemic level.

1 Like

I am aware, from my days as a Marxist-Leninist arguing with Anarchists. The LTOV would be another criticism, but since I’m not sure what criticism is valid to you (specific) and since we have diametrically opposed political views I’ll bow out.

My point here isn’t to create a material utopia, obviously no material needs can remove dukkha (the Buddha’s own class status is plainly evidence of this), but that if we want everyone to be able to actually practice the dhamma we have to create the material conditions for them to do so. It’s about striving towards something better and not giving up on morality because of others immorality.

Not everyone will accept Dhamma, even if we live in an Anarchist commune. If you mean removing grinding poverty, which is an impediment, then sure but, as I said above, you and I will have very, very different views on how that is achieved.

Buddhists who put themselves in a position to propagate the teachings do so of their own volition. It is clear that most people don’t want to purify their behavior/views - that isn’t just throughout the suttas, but is evident in how people live. Those in the world who do have a wide array of choices and means often choose to live lavishly and satisfy their desires. Even if those people do not bring harm to others, and perhaps are very cordial and peaceful, they willingly make the choice to satisfy themselves all the time. That would not be conducive to the practice of even just the 5 precepts, let alone anything more. Give the choice, they would have to train themselves to want to train in Dhamma.

1 Like

The aspect that I always try to emphasize is that having well-defined world views as a Buddhist is fine, just so long as there is a clear understanding that meritorious behavior does not necessarily build towards developing the right view. As I said above, a person who is politically and socially active and makes a huge beneficial contribution out there in the world is not obligated to even follow the precepts. They can drink alcohol every evening, cheat on their spouse and still make the world a better place.

In the end, contributions towards a harmonious world don’t require virtue, restraint or mindfulness. But without a doubt, virtue, restraint and mindfulness - whether you choose so or not - will make circumstances better for those around us. Too often aspiring Buddhists get this all mixed up - they want to have their cake and eat it too.

If you’re a Buddhist and understand the importance of sila I think that your political leanings can be based in compassion which aids in your practice and can be based in right view. Of course, I think there’s the possibility of clinging too much to the world and your political views that it just causes suffering and is a hindrance. However, as a layperson, you’re likely bound to get caught up in the world of politics to some degree so you ought to have well founded political principles that keep you from being blown around by the onslaught of hateful and delusional rhetoric pushed by the media, politicians, etc. I am American and speaking from my perspective on the current state of politics in America, for reference.

I think that any leader that has truly been a net benefit to society has at least had some virtous principles that guide their behavior. However, that’s not to say that they are perfect people – but people’s behaviors aren’t really black and white. There’s a spectrum of qualities. You can have strong spiritual qualities and strong defilements. For example, MLK Jr. was a spiritual and civil rights leader who advocated for nonviolence and fought against the racist Jim Crowe era policies of the United States and understood its relationship to the capitalist system. He was also known to have cheated on his wife. He may not have had the utmost restraint, but the principles that guided most of his public actions were virtuous. I think the same applies to most leaders that truly care about and benefit society.

1 Like

The writing is pretty clear on the local level, but it’s unclear who or what this essay is for. It starts off like an encyclopedia entry, then shifts to a more polemic stance, etc… It would be improved by having a clarity of purpose: Is it to explore the overlaps? to explain Buddhism to Anarchists? to convince Buddhists to take Anarchism seriously? Who is your audience and what are you trying to accomplish here?

… The rest of this feedback is hard to give without knowing what your intentions are :blush:

4 Likes

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback, Dogen, I appreciate the care you’ve taken in your reply

The internal vs external focus is an opposition or spectrum in Anarcho-Buddhism, and one I try to lead people to consider individually. I see the spectrum as between a lay activist life and a secluded monastic life, with many variations between the two. In an earlier draft I drew a harder line on this, that we ought to be very diligent in following the path, but ultimately I decided that I couldn’t know the reader or others so completely as to prescribe them the best way. So I try to encourage individuals to find where in that spectrum of activist to monastic they find the most peace and joy. Do you think I should try to outline this spectrum more clearly and address this tension directly?

Don’t mistake anarchism or this Anarcho-Buddhism as asserting to change the nature of samsara, I don’t think that’s really possible and I’ve known enough rich depressed people to know material safety isn’t enough. But that doesn’t mean our common material reality can’t improve! It obviously has in massive ways since the Buddha’s death. Many new medicines, education, more people have housing and easy access to food, etc.

I came to Buddhism and Anarchism at the same time and to me they reinforce one another. To me, the application of Buddhist ethics is what arrives at Anarchist philosophy. While Anarchism helps to illuminate many minutia and mindsets for living with others. Of the common political ideologies I think anarchism most suits the dhamma as a social structure that enables one to pursue individual liberation easier. I think many of the goals of Anarchism are a broadening of the lifestyle promoted in Buddhism. As in, one of the goals of Anarchism is a world without domination, this is very congruent with the practices of virtue that renounce having control over other living beings. I see the goals of Anarchism as immediately aiding the practice of dhamma, although not the fulfillment of the path itself.

The idea that the state will always control material conditions isn’t true historically, that’s the whole project of anarchist praxis: creating communities and groups which are independent (or less dependent/controlled by) the state/government. I don’t really address this in the piece, while who it’s for is a little vague sometimes I think it’s definitely not trying to argue the inherent truth of Anarchism or Buddhism, rather assuming many basic positions of both are true or effective. Should I clarify this more in the introduction?

Little materials are needed to attain nibanna! People don’t need luxury, but in my time living out of my van in the US I meet many people who don’t have stable access to even those basics, let alone many people outside the US who have it much worse.

I think it shouldn’t be misunderstood, although you’re not the first person to intuit this, but I see the requisites as more supports than necessities. I think even in an anarchist society, people would still suffer, I just believe some of the sources of their suffering would be less lethal or severe.

I’ll take your feedback to heart and try to clarify these things which are known in my own head but aren’t communicated in the piece. Expect a second edition in a year or two.

To summarize your feedback and some of how I hope to apply it:

  • Address the external vs internal focus of Anarchism and Buddhism
  • Address the inherent impermanence of society and how there is never going to be a true utopia, only better and worse conditions
  • That enlightenment is supported by requisites but they are not a hard requirement
  • Define enlightenment in specific, what does it mean? How does anarchism incline towards or away from this?
  • Clarify the goals of Anarchism and Buddhism
  • Address the inability to enact worldwide change in a single lifetime, how doing better or living more liberated is as much an individual process as it is a communal one
  • Address generosity as important in the spiritual path

I will get to other replies later once I am in an energized and good state to fully take in the feedback.

1 Like

Do you see any points of disagreements or irreconcilable differences between Buddhism and Anarchism? For example, how can there be hiri and ottappa without governance.

Irreconcilable? Not really, Anarchism and Buddhism are both fairly diverse in reality. There’s always been a pacifist strain of anarchism and a variety of Buddhist teachings inclined towards social work. I think there is a tension about the internal world vs the external world. Anarchism, although sometimes concerned with internal liberation (see Tolstoy for example) is more focused on how humans relate and engage with each other as social beings. However, if the eightfold noble path including speech, livelihood and action is taken seriously, Buddhism cares about those things too, but aims for something beyond them whereas Anarchism remains agnostic about concerns beyond the social-cultural.

I am not entirely familiar with hiri or otappa, but based on looking them up just now:

Hiri - the attitude of taking earnest care with regard to one’s actions and refraining from non-virtuous actions.

Otappa is mentioned together with hiri and is sometimes translated as shame and guilt.

I don’t see how these emotions (?) are dependent on a state. Anarchism isn’t opposed to organization in the abstract, it’s opposed to hierarchical structures wherein one person has power over another. For example, a cop in America has physical power over me, they are enabled and protected by the state to exercise violence against me, confiscate my goods and engage in other forms of control over my life whether I consent or not.

Anarchism often emphasizes social groups, although various strains of anarchism differ on what those groups could look like (community, commune, temporary affinity group, trade union, family household, league of egoists, etc etc.). All these social groups are the primary source from which shame (a social emotion that arises when we break with our understood social group) and guilt (a feeling we have done something wrong by our own internalized ethics) arise. Shame/guilt are key emotions in developing culture and community.

For example, a given community might teach that everyone should have food. That community would evoke shame and guilt if someone part of that community were to refuse another food, they might experience social pressure or internal guilt if they’ve been taught to give food as an important value.

For a real life example, if I showed up to an anarchist book fair and started preaching about how we should do racism (or something) I would be quickly ostracized if not told to leave outright. If I refused I would probably get punched. Anarchism is predicated on ethics to begin with, a structure and organization that is collectively agreed upon and enacted in alignment with certain core anarchist values.

1 Like

It is my bad, i should have explained myself better. I noticed an emphasis in your article about not shaming the pursuit of sensual pleasure, or what you described as puritan attitude.

If you read MN22 for example, you would see the Buddha’s approach towards Ariṭṭha to be very different from the anarchist ideal you presented. The Buddha seemed to reinforce a sense of shame and guilt in that monk as described in the sutta.

There is also an article by Ven. Bodhi about the difference between the Buddhist approach to guilt and shame and the modern approach which can be closer to the ethos of anarchism.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_23.html

Taking refuge in the triple gem does not appear very reconcilable with anarchism as i understand both, considering that the later is very individualistic. The fact that self identified anarchists form communities always surprised me to be honest.

I think I get you now

What I talk about broadly is that, at least in American culture, sensual pleasure is misunderstood as a kind of metaphysical evil. I’m saying as a broad society we should be more agnostic and informative about it, showing the attraction and the danger of any given pleasure and leaving it up to any individual to decide within themselves and within their given community if they wish to engage with said pleasure.

Within a monastic community of course sensual pleasure would be inclined against, it’s up to every community to decide for themselves what they want and how they want to live. What I’m arguing for is the categorization of sense pleasure as both just sense pleasure (not of metaphysical significance) and as containing both danger and pleasure. For example, drug education in America is very vilifying, I and many others were taught a legitimately inaccurate idea of what drugs are and how they work. For example, being taught that smoking one joint will immediate put you on the street as a destitute crazy person. This miseducated has hurt me directly in my own life as it led me to have no legitimate information upon which to form my decisions in respect to drugs.

My proposal on a balanced education around drugs would be to explain the reasons people do them without hyperbole, the pleasant, neutral and unpleasant effects that come with different drugs. I don’t think we have to exaggerate, anyone who’s done enough drugs (including me) will tell you, you’ll be happier if you don’t do any of them. Yet I think beyond just education, an accepting and compassionate culture around sensual pleasure empowers people to remove themselves from it and seek help if they’re suffering (as from drugs or other things). The cultural attitude of shame and blame around drugs more often causes people to avoid seeking help.

It’s funny you say that, to me Buddhism has always been aggressively individualistic while Anarchism has always had an overwhelming inclination towards egalitarian community building. I think you can see the individualism when people respond to my essays about socially oriented Buddhism with an exhortion to abandon trying to build or help a community and focus on my individual liberation. One of my favorite Anarchist slogans is “to be whole is to be part”.

While there exist individualist strains of Anarchism, anarchism has historically been mostly populated by communal/social anarchists who self describe as communists or syndicalists. I’d describe the Anarchist Buddhism I present here as a variation on Anarchist Communism, which places community (the commune) as central to the ideology. Even within individualist anarchism groups are indispensable, see affinity groups, gangs, leagues of egoists, and friend groups. There is no anarchism that totally rejects groups or working together.

I live in the Middle East and i spent few years of my life in political activism. The shortcomings of governments - especially the monopoly of using violence - have led certain groups to restore what they perceived as “justice” through becoming non-state actors - acting as terror groups.

Nation-states present us with all kinds of falsehood, but the alternatives are often much worse. For example, it is not only the monopoly of violence by governments that was invented by the nation-state, but also sewage systems, and supermarkets where we can buy meat without doing the killing ourselves. This falsehood lead people to seek more authentic existence via myriad ways, including anarchism, and it might give rise to romantic and nostalgic views about the noble savage, who acts quite naturally without the pretensions of the civilization.

We could agree that defecating in public does not solve the problems of nation states and governments even if it appears to be more authentic, less pretentious and natural. The ills of the nation states and governments provide us with guilt and shame that is worthy of a human being - who fears to act as an animal. In a nation state, one can opt for vegetarianism and pacifism and to let go of the false sense of security that nation states and governments convince people of - without blaming them for it.

Sorry for the delay. I thought I posted this.

Seeking refuge in the triple gem and committing to the five precepts means avoiding a large amount of unwholesome behavior. Inevitability these limitations influence everything. Circumstances continue to serve as pressure to act in one way or another, but now there is a formal value system to consider. In one sense - as you’ve suggested - circumstances can remind us of our aspirations in virtue, and serve to support not breaking the precepts, but in other cases, they will cause us to forget about them.

Unfortunately, compassion, in the most general sense of the word, can be a source of pressure to act either wholesomely or unwholesomely by body, speech and mind. So, in order to preserve the development of virtue, the development precepts and freedom from suffering have to matter more than the pressure to satisfy sense desires. It is impossible for them to be on equal footing. So, while I don’t fully disagree with you, compassionate political leanings do not imply a basis for the right conduct, and therefore are not a universally reliable source of support.

I think the case ends up being the exact opposite: virtue and an attitude of good will result wise political views. It would be virtually impossible for someone living rightly to support violent and oppressive governments and policies, but having said that, the person would understand the limits of the reach of their political views and not compromise their development in order to see the change they desire to see in the world. This seems to be where most people don’t see eye to eye, and certainly where I see development in Dhamma at odds with anarchism.

Hierarchy is inherently problematic because it will always have the problem of asymmetries: power and information, and thus, will inevitably lead to corruption and exploitation.

Hierarchical power structures are inherently evil because they will always seek self-perpetuation using any mean possible, whether it’s deception, manipulation, coercion, or violent domination, no matter what they call themselves - mean-end disunity. In this way, a minority of elites can control and exploit the population.

The concept of Government is the longest running fraud in human history, as well as God, Church, Capitalism, or Socialist Tankism. All hierarchical power structures are inherently evil, no matter what they call themselves or what they promise. Why? Because they will do whatever it takes to maintain the asymmetries of power, wealth, and information, whether it’s deception, manipulation, coercion, or violent domination. Means and ends are inseparable and unjustifiable. There is no just war.

The only solution is complete anarchy with direct democracy, mutual aids, and library economy. But to be honest, this will never become a reality samsara, why? Because of greed, hate, and delusion. Power vacuum will always be filled. And any exploitative chance will be capitalized.