I think we could use some of that. Fire away.

I would really like to read some of your insights.

Hi, Ascendinside, what does Buddhism offer to end the bad parts about capitalism? How can it stop, say, poverty?

"you are the Buddha"- Buddha

"Be like the sea, that puts itself below all the creeks and rivers, and in doing so, allows the waters of the world to flow towards it." - Buddha

"If another religion will help you on your path to enlightenment, then you should pursue that religion with all your heart." - Buddha

He's got some pretty cool things to say....

Hmmm...

I am Buddha, so poverty disappears :-S

Be like the sea, so merge and accept my poverty :-S

Another religion will help me be enlightened, so poverty...what about poverty? :-S

I'm not sure I like Buddha that much. I wonder what he would have been like to hang-out with.

@economicsystem You are looking for fault with Buddha without looking for an answer to your own question. A simple google search for "Buddha, poverty" yielded this article that quite perfectly answers your query:
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/101785.htm

One of the core ideas of Buddhism is the notion of walking The Path. The Path can be viewed simply as a way to live your life in harmony with the world you inhabit, but it is just the way, the direction to travel. We as individuals must make the choice to walk this path, and follow that choice with the action of taking one step after the next.

The first step for any journey is asking questions (well done there) and finding answers for yourself (less so here). Knowing the path to take is not enough, you must also move your feet to get anywhere. :)

Yikes! That article is wayyyyyy too long. But my question is: even if Buddhism espouses this or that, why should we follow it? The answers to that question will be independent of following Buddhism just because it says that we ought to do so. So, that means that the real answers to any of our questions, including poverty must be in reasons themselves supported somehow--they may be intuitively true, or true on the basis of observation.

Having quickly scanned the article, the reasons itself for living a certain life under Buddhism appears to me a lot like the welfare state. And the welfare state is just another way of keeping people enslaved to capitalism without dying. So, I would say that if Buddhism does espouse anything in line with it, reject it. It's not worth it.

Lastly, the end to slavery is not "a journey." It's a damn struggle that is not about solitary contemplation to enlightenment. So, I think the incense and chanting and all that should have a place of its own--in religion.

@economicsystem If you do not like comprehensive answers I suggest you cease asking complex questions. It is clear from your response that you had no intention of listening, only speaking your anti-capitalist agenda. This is fine, but realize that it is your own actions which keep you from the answers you seek (namely not reading and jumping to conclusions based on incomplete information).

You say "Having quickly scanned the article, the reasons itself for living a certain life under Buddhism appears to me a lot like the welfare state."
Please explain this conclusion, perhaps by quoting parts of the material and explaining how it bolsters such a claim. I have no interest in a one sided debate in which I present information for discussion which you ignore and reject without cause. If the information I provide is too long for you, please direct me to the information of your choosing, I will happily read it so that I may better understand your point of view.

Lastly, there has been no mention of incense or chanting; nor was it said that the end to slavery is "a journey... about solitary contemplation to enlightenment." I felt my statement of "Knowing the path to take is not enough, you must also move your feet to get anywhere." clearly explained this sentiment, but perhaps I was being too vague. Allow me to clarify: grand tasks worthy of our effort are achieved by taking the neccessary steps to correct the problem. Simply pontificating (or meditating if you prefer) will not be enough to effect change. While it is wise to first consider one's actions before taking steps, contemplation itself will do little. Words are wind.
A path leads nowhere if no one walks it. No matter how well intentioned the goal, inaction will only perpetuate the problem.

Hmmm....it seems like the Buddhist is being quarrelsome, which seems rather contrary to the "Be like the sea, that puts itself below all the creeks and rivers, and in doing so, allows the waters of the world to flow towards it." You see, in order to move fluidly with the conversation, the Buddhist should instead go with it, rather than oppose it, as the principle of Buddhism you stated implies.

I forgot to ask you which of these principles you originally quoted from the Lord Buddha addresses poverty, since not one of them does, although it may be true that Buddhism as the article describes may in fact address poverty. If you can't come up with answer, I understand.

"If you do not like comprehensive answers I suggest you cease asking complex questions. "

Now, who said I do not like comprehensive answers? I, in fact, do. What I don't like is to just be re-directed to another person who is used to speak indirectly to a point you yourself are trying to make with reasons of your own. To me that seems a lot like a cop-out for the enlightenment and search for questions you believe are the tenants of a better society without poverty. You have made no real points of your own regarding how Buddhism is anti-poverty. In fact, you have made not one.

"It is clear from your response that you had no intention of listening, only speaking your anti-capitalist agenda. This is fine, but realize that it is your own actions which keep you from the answers you seek (namely not reading and jumping to conclusions based on incomplete information)."

I think you're confusing the idea that I reject religion, especially Buddhism completely with the idea that I am not listening. I would listen to reasons for Buddhism being anti-poverty if you in fact had given them. But you haven't, all you've done is let some essay speak for you. Perhaps you should take your own advice and choose points from your reading material you think are worth mentioning in support of the idea that Buddhism is anti-poverty? I have no idea what "your own actions which keep you from the answers you seek..." means. From that very sentence itself, however, it reads like condescending religious rhetoric used to "shame," "warn," and make people adopt it.

"Please explain this conclusion, perhaps by quoting parts of the material and explaining how it bolsters such a claim."

That's a fair enough remark to make, though do notice that it also reads a lot like you are in a position of instruction, making a demand of his/her subordinate, which in turn reads rather insultingly, rather than in the spirit of Buddhist co-operation. It might be better to say, for example, "you are my equal, could you explain which parts of the article you're getting this from?" Or even less pretentiously, you could say: "Where are you getting this from?"

The part to which I refer, as one example, is at the beginning right after the introduction where he/she says that Buddhists advocate a certain level of material living. That to me sounds like the welfare state, as people who wish to be free of capital would say instead that they wish for the means of production to be distributed equally among people in society, rather than a certain level of material well-being as in the welfare state.

"...in which I present information for discussion which you ignore and reject without cause."

You didn't present any information for discussion, and I did not reject it without cause. When asked about how it is that the quotes you mentioned advocate anti-poverty, you put up a link to a very long essay that apparently must be read in order for anyone to have a discussion with you about how it is that Buddhism advocates anti-poverty. It would be better as others do to actually present reasons and arguments of your own for discussion so that others don't have to make critiques of reading material instead. You don't see other people just putting up things without an argument, do you? Furthermore, since you didn't present any points, I couldn't reject them without cause. All I did was ask questions and drew implications from the quotes you put up, and when I disagreed with Buddhism, I said exactly why. That is rejection with cause.

"If the information I provide is too long for you, please direct me to the information of your choosing, I will happily read it so that I may better understand your point of view."

How about I just direct you to my own thoughts and reasons, since this is a blog, not something else...? Then like the rest of the blogers, you could reply to those points?

"Lastly, there has been no mention of incense or chanting; nor was it said that the end to slavery is "a journey... about solitary contemplation to enlightenment."

You did say: "If another religion will help you on your path to enlightenment, then you should pursue that religion with all your heart." So, surely it's not a far-stretch to imagine that Buddhists as a religion do chant and use incense. In fact, there are many who do. They call themselves Buddhist monks, and they are part of this religious liberation Buddhism that you are advocating. You also said: "The first step for any journey is asking questions (well done there) and finding answers for yourself (less so here)." And you said that Buddhism advocates anti-poverty (or so you implied from your answer to the original question), so your comment in fact states that the first step to anti-poverty advocated by Buddhism is a "journey." And in turn, I replied that anti-poverty is not a journey, that freedom from slavery is a damn struggle. So you seem to have lost track of what you said.


"Simply pontificating (or meditating if you prefer) will not be enough to effect change."

I couldn't agree with you more, which is why I asked a very specific question from the start with hopes of actual reasons on a blog: "...what does Buddhism offer to end the bad parts about capitalism? How can it stop, say, poverty?" All I got was a really long essay and scolding from a Buddhist practitioner but without any reasons for his/her undefined position.

"While it is wise to first consider one's actions before taking steps, contemplation itself will do little. Words are wind."

So why then should we practice Buddhism, whose major tenant *is* contemplation?!
That's exactly why it is that people wonder how religion can help remove poverty. All the monks I know of have a very strict schedule of praying, eating, and chores. But most of them do not grow their own food or make their own money, and yet they somehow survive with the "charity" of people who do. Perhaps they should get to work....

@economicsystem Your assumption that I am a Buddhist is a false one. If a religious label must be applied to my virtual visage, I will accept atheist. I have studied most world religions at some depth along my own path of spiritual discovery, including the much misunderstood practice of Buddhism in discussion here. I only mention this as a response to the notion that I am acting contrary to the teachings of "the Lord Buddha". (subtle derision noticed)

"Now, who said I do not like comprehensive answers?" You did, in so many words- "Yikes! That article is wayyyyyy too long."
As it turns out, comprehensive is defined as 'of large content or scope: wide ranging', so you can see where my quip was coming from.
I can see now that the hang up was the practice itself- clicking a link and reading the words of others that pertain to the discussion at hand. While this hang up is one of the weirder ones I've encountered on these forums, its is certainly not insurmountable.
"You didn't present any information for discussion, and I did not reject it without cause." While this sentence is self defeating (how can you reject information with cause if there was no info presented?), most would consider including a link to an article and saying it quite perfectly answers your query as "presenting information", but let's not split hairs and I'll allow your non-link-reading as a "cause" for rejection of rejected information which may or may nor have been presented.

Your question "what does Buddhism offer to end the bad parts about capitalism? How can it stop, say, poverty?" is complex. You are asking how a religious practice can end the bad parts of an economic system. You then refine the scope of "bad parts" to poverty and ask how it can stop it. By poverty, it is fair to presume you are referring to Absolute poverty (destitution) and not Relative poverty (lacking a usual or socially acceptable level of resources or income as compared with others within a society or country). I make this distinction because Buddhist monks live in relative poverty by choice, so they are not likely to advocate against their own minimalist way of life. But you know monks personally: "All the monks I know of have a very strict schedule of praying, eating, and chores." so surely this goes without saying.

On absolute poverty (the inability to afford basic human needs, such as clean and fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter. About 1.7 billion people are estimated to live in absolute poverty today), Buddhism offers much the same as most world religions: namely feeding and sheltering the poor.

Beyond this common religious service to society of aiding the impoverished, Buddhism offers many tales of poverty throughout history and the methodology Buddha teaches to overcome it. Not being a Buddhist, I felt the best use of our mutual time would be to connect you to a Buddhist since I could not speak with any authority on the matter. That I found one who wrote at length on your question, perfectly answering it as if it were written just for you was worth linking. Shame you won't read it.

But look, the only reason I jumped in here was to prevent the very kind of back and forth discussion about Buddhism and poverty that is now taking place because it is a non-sequitur; it has nothing to do with the original post or the subsequent quotes. It was only after your deriding response to Ascendinside's quotes (check the names at the top of the posts) that I chose to speak up at all. It was an attempt to respect the original poster's intent: "So, during this thread I will share some insights as well as, hopefully, hear what others have to say about their practice and the movement itself from a place of love and compassion."

@Ascendinside has offered the teachings of Buddha for simple reason "facilitating peoples inner strength to weather the storms of societal change." This is a noble reason worthy of our respect, so let's at least keep it on topic.

This is not an attempt to censor dissent or change the subject. If you are honestly concerned about how Buddhism can end poverty please create a post with that intent for more discussion on the subject to take place.

Dearest Marchelo: The only thing you are right about was my assumption that you were a Buddhist, which was judged from your advocating its use, especially to end poverty.

How could "Lord Buddha" be a subtle derision? Was that not his name? You are clearly making very strong assumptions without any basis, and you are projecting those as the attack of others (me), when in reality, what's happening is that you just don't want to hear anything that would reject religion, including Buddhism, prompting you to respond with quick defensiveness to Lord Buddha's teachings. This is, in fact, an attempt to censor dissent.

Aside from that, congratulations on actually providing some reasons that people can agree or disagree upon rather than just a long, boring essay that is supposed to enlighten everyone on the subtle claim you initially made.

So let's start with your first claim:

"You did, in so many words- "Yikes! That article is wayyyyyy too long." "

That is *not* a claim to dislike comprehensive answers. I would love, as I said, if you posted reasons however long so that they could be replied to. But, you did not, you instead let a long, boring essay do the work for you, and scolded others for not reading it and not seeing your point about Buddhism as a new way for anti-poverty.

But, just in case you are confused about what I do and don't like, I *love* comprehensive, complex answers. I hate long, boring essays by other people for claims one person is making. So do continue that habit of posting reasons you want to make for Buddhism being anti-poverty so that I can respond to them. Just please do not post long, boring essays by people who are supposed to make your own claims true. This is a blog.

"I can see now that the hang up was the practice itself- clicking a link and reading the words of others that pertain to the discussion at hand. While this hang up is one of the weirder ones I've encountered on these forums, its is certainly not insurmountable."

I have no idea what you mean by this. I have trouble understanding a lot of slang. What is a "hang-up"? What does that have to do with rejecting Buddhism?

"While this sentence is self defeating (how can you reject information with cause if there was no info presented?), most would consider including a link to an article and saying it quite perfectly answers your query as "presenting information", but let's not split hairs and I'll allow your non-link-reading as a "cause" for rejection of rejected information which may or may nor have been presented."

Sure, let's do that. As I said, good job on providing reasons of your own rather than letting a long, boring essay speak to some point (which is itself unclear) you're supposed to be making. Also, re-read the sentence carefully along with what follows. You will see that it is not self-defeating, although I can understand if the culminating logic of the whole paragraph is a little hard to understand for you.

"You are asking how a religious practice can end the bad parts of an economic system. You then refine the scope of "bad parts" to poverty and ask how it can stop it."

Finally, way of addressing my original question about Buddhism! (Although do notice that the quotes mentioned earlier by you do not show Buddhism is anti-poverty, and they were originally a response to my original question).

"By poverty, it is fair to presume you are referring to Absolute poverty (destitution) and not Relative poverty (lacking a usual or socially acceptable level of resources or income as compared with others within a society or country). I make this distinction because Buddhist monks live in relative poverty by choice, so they are not likely to advocate against their own minimalist way of life."

The difference is not at all clear, and the definition below this claim doesn't make it explicit. Do you mean that relative poverty would include having little money but food, clothing or shelter, but absolute poverty would include not having anything, being completely naked on the street? Exactly what is the difference?

"But you know monks personally:"

Not that it matters to the argument(s), but yes, I have known monks personally. And no, they don't exactly live in relative poverty, if you can make that distinction at all. There go those defensive assumptions again!

"On absolute poverty (the inability to afford basic human needs, such as clean and fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter. About 1.7 billion people are estimated to live in absolute poverty today), Buddhism offers much the same as most world religions: namely feeding and sheltering the poor."

What is the difference between this and relative poverty? This paints a picture of people being completely naked in a shack. Is this what you mean? What exactly does absolute poverty contain that relative poverty does not?

Notice also that "feeding and sheltering the poor" is tantamount to the welfare state. So it appears that my original comments about Buddhism advocating the welfare state were not an attempt not to listen or find faults in Lord Buddha, but grounded in real fact. I guess that defensiveness didn't allow you to see that.

"Beyond this common religious service to society of aiding the impoverished, Buddhism offers many tales of poverty throughout history and the methodology Buddha teaches to overcome it."

Do I have to read the essay to find out what they are, or do you think that you could post some examples, as is customary on a blog?

"Not being a Buddhist, I felt the best use of our mutual time would be to connect you to a Buddhist since I could not speak with any authority on the matter. That I found one who wrote at length on your question, perfectly answering it as if it were written just for you was worth linking. Shame you won't read it."

Well, since this is a blog and you're trying to make a point, why not offer some reasons of your own for your own claims? I am sorry I won't read it, but I scanned it and it looked awfully long and boring to me.

"But look, the only reason I jumped in here was to prevent the very kind of back and forth discussion about Buddhism and poverty that is now taking place because it is a non-sequitur; it has nothing to do with the original post or the subsequent quotes."

Yes, it does have to do with the original quotes. Ascendinside posted a comment about Buddhism. I replied with an honest and explicit question about what it says in terms of poverty. In turn, AnotherChris posted quotes in response to my question, and I wrote out the implications of those quotes since there was no reasons given. Then *you* posted saying that I was trying to find fault with Lord Buddha, when in reality there was nothing to indicate that. And from there, you persisted to defend Lord Buddha and his teachings against reason, along with some insidiously insulting remarks aimed directly to me in an air of condescension.

"It was only after your deriding response to Ascendinside's quotes (check the names at the top of the posts) that I chose to speak up at all. It was an attempt to respect the original poster's intent:"

Ascendiniside did not post quotes, AnotherChris did, and the remarks I made in response to those quotes were *not* derision. They are exactly the implications you would draw from them if you say that Buddhism is anti-poverty and that those quotes explain how Buddhism is anti-poverty. I'm afraid you have your facts wrong yet again.

"It was an attempt to respect the original poster's intent: "So, during this thread I will share some insights as well as, hopefully, hear what others have to say about their practice and the movement itself from a place of love and compassion.""

That was not your intent at all. From your remarks it's clear that you simply got defensive about Buddhism, and you attributed your own assumptions and defensiveness to the clear black and white letters I typed on this blog. It seems to me that you have appointed yourself as a member of the Blog Watch when it's not necessary. Read the script carefully. You don't see me calling the original poster's names, but only giving my opinions and reasons for rejecting Buddhism.

"This is not an attempt to censor dissent or change the subject. If you are honestly concerned about how Buddhism can end poverty please create a post with that intent for more discussion on the subject to take place."

Based on your comments, it clearly is an attempt to censor dissent for something you just don't like. If I honestly am concerned about Buddhism being anti-poverty, I can respond as I have to the posts given. You are placing yourself in a position of authority (perhaps this is a habit with you?), but you have no such on a free speech blog.

OK?

Perhaps I was not clear when I said "please create a post with that intent for more discussion on the subject to take place."

This request does not come from a place of authority, leaderless movement and all that, but rather from a place of respect. Besides, authority requires the ability to enforce a punishment, and since all i can do is participate or not participate, my 'enforcement' will be that of non-participation. We have clearly strayed from the original thread topic ("during this thread I will share some insights as well as, hopefully, hear what others have to say about their practice and the movement itself from a place of love and compassion.") so out of respect for the original poster's intention I will respectfully cease participation with you on this topic in this thread.

I am sorry that you feel my comments represent "an attempt to censor dissent for something [I] just don't like" as well as for any false assumptions or condescending remarks I have made towards you. Know that it was not my intention to belittle you in anyway.

My stubbornness when it comes to staying on topic and respecting the intent of the original poster stems from my experiences in other Occupy forums, primarily at occupywallst.org/forum/. The shouting matches, lack of basic respect, and abundance of pointlessly divisive arguments has led me to highly value the topic structure and general tone of discourse on this forum - so much so that I may have overstepped into the role of "Blog Watch". Again, my apologies for the authoritarian approach, but on this point I remain stubborn, as I see it worth the effort to encourage constructive debate.

I ask humbly, with an eagerness to continue the discussion, please provide a link to the new discussion you create to field the "How Buddhism can end poverty" debate in a proper setting. This small effort on your behalf will speak volumes on your commitment to a respectful solidarity with those whom we Occupy this virtual space, allowing our dialog to continue while also attracting other interested individuals who may not know such a discussion is taking place under the current heading of "Outer Revolution/Inner Revolution".

Judging by your tone and your comments, you were very clear about what you intended. You wanted to silence anything I said with arrogance, distortion, and derision because you didn't like to hear anything contrary to Buddhism. Your stubborness comes from simply being quarelsome and jumping to the aid of someone who was in fact not being attacked, not due to a respect for the original posting. Everything I said was in line with the original posting, and in fact it was I who suggested you provide the basis for a debate--reasons rather than a long, boring essay.

In any case, I won't provide a link to the new discussion as I have been asking questions that pertain to the original posting. If the original person doesn't want to reply, that's OK, I'm not going to antagonize as you did. If people wish to respond, that's OK too, but be sure that if someone begins to accuse me of things I didn't do in a real attempt to belittle me, I certainly will not remain silent, that is until until I decide that I don't want to participate in responding to ill-intentioned comments. In fact, as of this moment I've decided that if you persist in acting as you have, I simply will ignore your comments and continue the conversation with whomever wants to instead.

Be like the water, don't try to force people to do things with arrogance and antagonism. If you don't like the conversation, just leave, or better yet, follow your own advice and start a new post about why you think Buddhism has something to contribute.

If, on the other hand, you do want to participate, then go ahead, I certainly won't stop you or try, nor will I begin to make accusations that are based on nothing. I won't scold or try to belittle you either for not reading something that I post.

I hope my intentions are clear as well.

OK?

economicsystem, do you mind if I join this conversation? I am currently trying to learn about buddhism and you seem to know a lot. Have you found an answer to your question because I am wondering the same myself.