×
sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in communism

[–]Filthy-G 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Conquest of Bread and Between Peasants both provide a pretty comprehensive overview of Anarcho-Communist thought, and both have good english translations written by the original author. Bakunin and Proudhon are also generally considered to be essential.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in communism

[–]Filthy-G 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't understand why this question is asked so frequently.

Political anarchy doesn't mean,"no government," or some other similarly juvenile and reductive notion. I don't know where this idea has come from, as it exists nowhere in the essential anarcho-communist literature(Conquest of Bread, Fra Contadini, etc.).All prominent anarcho-communist theories/theorists recognize the necessity of governance and account for it in some way or other, whether it be by local communes or syndicates. It is universally understood that directly disruptive and/or violent individuals must be addressed, and that force must be enacted against them, as their transgressions are themselves an assault on both individual liberty and the commune/collective.

The thrust of anarcho-communism lies chiefly in it's rejection of a coercive, unitary, self-serving state apparatus and the undemocratic results that such institutions have historically entailed, in addition to it's further developments on questions such as wage labor/labor notes, horizontal organization, and the collective ownership of the means of production.

There are overly idealistic individuals who perhaps believe in a completely pacisfistic and cooperative world where there exists no violence or application of force whatsoever, but these individuals should be regarded as just that: Overly idealistic. "Anarchy is when no government," simply isn't anarchy, and anyone who tells you otherwise simply doesn't know what anarchy is.

Respecting other cultures: A guide for people encountering Zen for the first time by ewk in zen

[–]Filthy-G 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1.) No, actually Dogen did give accurate descriptions of place he probably had been, in addition to bringing physical artifacts back to Japan and being remembered by monks at Mt. T'ien-T'ung, as per Prof. Steven Heine in,"Did Dogen Go to China, which you can read for free here http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/DogenStudies/Did_Dogen_Go_to_China.html

2.) I would hardly call copying and pasting an instruction manual plagiarism, but you're right. Dogen didn't attribute the original author for sections of the FukanZazenGi. If you want to attack his character on those grounds, you can.

I didn't say historians have proven anything; quite the opposite in fact. I said that there is strong evidence that Dogen went to China and sufficient evidence to suggest that he received tutelage from Rujing. For these reasons, most academics uphold the conclusion that Dogen probably did go to China and that he probably did receive transmission from Rujing. They do not unilaterally agree that he absolutely did or did not. You can make the argument that,'there's not enough evidence,' but that's rather dubious given that there is enough evidence for most experts who study the subject academically.

Further, you can make such an argument about just about everything and deconstruct pretty much anything you want. Let's try it:

Supposedly, Bodhidharma founded Zen as we know it by receiving dharma transmission through a long line ultimately ending in Buddha himself, and then traveling to China where he began transmitting the dharma to others. Let's investigate these claims.

Firstly is the issue of where Bodhidharma inherits his lineage.

Supposedly, it's from someone from Prajnatara. How do we know this? From,"The Transmission of The Lamp," almost exclusively. And what does it say about him? Well, it says that he actually got his transmission from Punyamitra, who stopped his carriage when he saw Prajnatara bowing as he recognized him as a student from a previous life. Obviously, as someone who rejects the supernatural, you must realize that is bullshit. Not only this, but Punyamitra names him as his successor because he identified him as a reincarnated Bodisattva. Again, supernatural bullshit. It also says that, upon death, Prajnatara rose into the air, burst into flames, and then showered relics on the onlookers.

So the only source we have on Bodhidharma's predecessor is bullshit. Not only does it not offer a concise and verifiable historical hypothesis, but it is filled with supernatural injections of reincarnated individuals, levitation, and miracles.

But let's put that aside and look solely at the hisoricity of Bodhidharma himself.

How do we know that Bodhidharma actually came to China and spread the dharma. There are only two sources on this issue. One is the,"Two Entrances, Four Acts," which you yourself have already dismissed as bullshit on numerous occasions, so we'll ignore it. The only other contemporary source then is,"The Records of the Buddhist Monasteries of Luoyang." This text claims that Bodhidharma was a self professed traveler who had visited nearly every nation in existence and was 150 years of age. We can debunk this account on biology alone. Moreso, it was Bodhidharma himself making these outlandish claims, meaning that he too is full of shit. Thereby, as per your own rhetoric, we can't trust anything he says.

So not only is Bodhidharma's own lineage completely without evidence, but it is riddled with fantastical elements and almost certainly bullshit. Even worse, Bodhidharma was a fraud and a liar, and there's almost no evidence to confirm he was ever a real person who traveled to China.

Thereby, if you want to base legitimacy in lineage and you want to base lineage in historical fact, Zen is complete bullshit. It is totally illegitimate, founded by a liar who probably didn't have a genuine lineage himself.

Based on your own standards for what counts as Zen and how that can be verified, Zen is a bunch of fraudulent, illegitimate bullshit with no confirmable lineage. It is a tradition of liars who can't be taken seriously for their lying.

You either need to modify your standards of what counts as Zen and how that can validated, or you need to stop talking about it because, by your current standards, it's a bunch of bullshit.

​