In Buddhism - certainly the Zen type that I favour, you are not discouraged from trying to change the world, so that's a misconception. You are encouraged to break your identification with your ego, which drives your desire to change the world solely for your own benefit. With no ego your goal often becomes to change the world for the benefit of all, not just yourself. And as your ego is stilled you can try and fail with no sense of self-agrandisement if you succeed or self-abasement if you fail.

An oriental Buddhist girl who is exploited working in a sweatshop" which accepts the world as it is and follows the Dharma no questions asked.

No. In the short-term she will benefit from accepting her life, rather than railing against it or succumbing to depression or fear. In the longer term she should work towards improving it if that is what she wants. How she improves it - eg by getting a better job, going on-strike or starting a revolution, is for her to decide.

Should we bother about the external world if it doesn't affect in our way to attain Enlightenment? — pbxman

That depends on you. If you're happy living as an enlightened hermit then fine. If your growing sense of social involvement and compassion towards others opens your eyes to injustice then you may wish to do what you can to change things. Buddhism doesn't tell you what your goals should be. It's concerned with allowing you to identify them for yourself, and with better equiping you to pursue them.

To understand what needs to change externally, one first needs to have some form of awakening internally.

For example, a person may find promiscuous behavior bad. However, do they find it bad because they have experienced that it negatively impacts those who engage in it, or do they tell themselves it is bad, but secretly they desire to engage in such behavior themselves, but have been denied? This is an example of a very common psychological pattern and without an internal awakening one will not be able to tell the difference between the two.

To understand what needs to change externally, one first needs to have some form of awakening internally.

Well I agree but let's be honest. Buddhism is a philosophy but it's also a religion. The ideology of this religion affects the minds of the societies in which is practised and believed. That is to say people from Buddhist countries tend to be more submissive and prone to change the inside than the outside. In the same way people from India then to be less materialistic and more conformististic because they believe in the law of Karma. That's why in these countries it's kind of hard to see unions and laws which protects the rights of the people. Religion affects how societies think and the other way around.

https://www.ibtimes.co.in/indians-most-materialistic-after-the-chinese-report-530795

It is a dangerous thing to use theories and philosophies to know about the outside world.

I am not a Buddhist nor do I feel my interpretations of Buddhism are insightful or useful so I can't really comment on OP. I can say that Buddhism is not a religion that is based on being practical but rather pursuing spiritual enlightenment. It is unsurprising that it is not entirely pragmatic.

Interesting article... Times do change and people are starting to wake up. Those countries have remained the same for far to long. Didn't religion have anything to do with that?

If it did or didn't. whether your premise is true or not, it is not something you will understand without hard work, evidence and lots of research. Theories and philosophy won't help you.

That is to say people from Buddhist countries tend to be more submissive and prone to change the inside than the outside. — pbxman

I don't agree. This seems like an unsubstantiated claim.

You are encouraged to break your identification with your ego, which drives your desire to change the world solely for your own benefit. — Tim3003

Not sure how the following comments relate to Buddhism, which I claim only very limited knowledge of. That disclaimed...

We might focus on the phrase "you are encouraged to break your identification with your ego". Such a conception seems to assume that "you" and "ego" are two different things, and one is supposed to manage the other in some manner.

As example, consider the phrase "my thoughts" or "I am thinking XYZ". All such phrases imply a division between what is sometimes called the observer and the observed.

It's my sense that all such perceived divisions are an illusion generated by the way thought works. If true, then procedures such as "breaking identification with ego" would seem to strengthen that illusion.

As I see it, thought works like this.

A single unified reality is observed, and then broken conceptually in to imaginary parts, ie. "things". These conceptual parts can then be rearranged in our minds, giving us a vision of not just how reality is, but how it might be. That is, this division process allows us to be creative, the source of brilliance in our species.

So far so good, but of course there's always a price tag involved in everything, right? The price tag is that this division process creates an experience of ourselves as being another "thing" which is seen to be divided from everything else. This generates fear, which in turn generates violence and most other human problems.

As I see it, "breaking identification with ego" is a process of entering the illusion of division and attempting to manage imaginary "things" within that illusion. This might be compared to dreaming, where we struggle with imaginary things that don't actually exist while we sleep.

It seems more direct to me to identify what is causing the illusion of division and then turn that off, or at least turn the volume down so that the illusion of division is less compelling. And, from my perspective, the source of the illusion of division is not this idea or that idea, but instead the medium that all ideas are made of, thought itself.

From this view "enlightenment" is not some glamorous elevated state (raw meat for the ego!) but rather an ongoing process of sensibly managing a mechanical process of the body, in this case, thinking. We already engage in such mundane routine management of all other mechanical processes of the body such as breathing, eating, sleeping, expelling waste, sex etc. But when it comes to another mechanical process of the body, thinking, we seem to always want to turn the job in to something esoteric, complicated, sophisticated, elusive, the realm of experts and so on.

The people who have taught us to consider this subject in such an odd manner are, omg, what a coincidence!, the people who make their livings as self appointed experts on such subjects. The business reality for them is that they can't make a living as experts unless the subject is complicated, supposedly beyond the reach of the average man. To be fair, most of these self appointed experts are people of good will who are just following blindly along in the footsteps of those who came before them, repeating what they've heard somebody else say.

Is managing this built in source of division illusion complicated? No, it's not. As example, if our body has accumulated more fat than is healthy the solution is simple, lose some weight. Not always easy for sure, but also not complicated.

The maladies that flourish in a habit of excessive thinking can be considered in the very same way. If we are serious about losing weight, in the body or the mind, simple mechanical solutions are available. If we aren't serious, then nothing will work.

The dirty little secret of "enlightenment" is that we make it complicated on purpose, as a way to hold it at a safe distance, so that we don't have to do the work involved. After all, dreaming about losing weight is a lot easier than cutting calories and exercising more.

We might focus on the phrase "you are encouraged to break your identification with your ego". Such a conception seems to assume that "you" and "ego" are two different things, and one is supposed to manage the other in some manner. — Jake

Correct.

As example, consider the phrase "my thoughts" or "I am thinking XYZ". All such phrases imply a division between what is sometimes called the observer and the observed. — Jake

Correct. If there wasn't one, when you stopped thinking you'd cease to exist.

It's my sense that all such perceived divisions are an illusion generated by the way thought works. If true, then procedures such as "breaking identification with ego" would seem to strengthen that illusion. — Jake

I am often accused by the mindfullness group leader whose group I go to of thinking too much. I think you are guilty of this too. I've learned that it is a mistake to believe thought holds all the answers. I suggest you read a book on Zen to learn more..

Correct. If there wasn't one, when you stopped thinking you'd cease to exist. — Tim3003

We are made of thought, so we do cease to exist when we stop thinking.

I am often accused by the mindfullness group leader whose group I go to of thinking too much. I think you are guilty of this too. I've learned that it is a mistake to believe thought holds all the answers. I suggest you read a book on Zen to learn more.. — Tim3003

I suggest you read my post above to see I already said what you are saying here, better than you just said it.

As example, consider the phrase "my thoughts" or "I am thinking XYZ". All such phrases imply a division between what is sometimes called the observer and the observed.
— Jake

Correct. If there wasn't one, when you stopped thinking you'd cease to exist. — Tim3003

So critters without a sense of self don't exist? :razz:

We are made of thought, so we do cease to exist when we stop thinking. — Jake

No - unless your heart beating is somehow connected to your thoughts! We are still alive and aware of our environment. Our awareness is not created by thought. It is present at a more fundamental level. We share it and the instinct to act on what our senses tell us with animals. Mind has developed on top of that along with language. You still confuse the self constructed by language and mind with existance at a more primal level..

Isn't Buddhism just a political too to indoctrinate people to make them submissive and willing to be exploited with the existential promise to be saved in the next life? What's the psychological impact of reincarnation, karma and only looking trying to fix things only from the inside? — pbxman

For a Buddhist there are 3 things that are important

1. The law of Karma which is basically ''what goes around comes around''

2. Samsara, the universe in which you're born and live under the circumstances decided by 1 above

3. Nirvana, an awakened state which frees you from 1 and thus 2.


To answer your question:

Our circumstances (poverty, riches, oppressed, power, etc) are decided by Karma - our actions in our past lives. Nothing can be done about it and we only have ourselves to blame. What should we do? Acceptance is said to be a very important step in psychology. We then have nirvana - the great escape from all this suffering and pain. We can only achieve it through change within as our external circumstances are not ours to control/change, at least not in a Karmic sense.

Our awareness is not created by thought. It is present at a more fundamental level. We share it and the instinct to act on what our senses tell us with animals. Mind has developed on top of that along with language. You still confuse the self constructed by language and mind with existance at a more primal level. — Tim3003

It is unclear what you consider thought, thinking, or mind. Do you consider all mammals besides humans mindless, for instance?

I will point out that the minds of all mammals work in fundamentally the same way. Other mammals have invariant mental representations for things and even associate sounds or words with them.

Isn't Buddhism just a political too to indoctrinate people to make them submissive and willing to be exploited with the existential promise to be saved in the next life? — pbxman

There's a difference between submission and acceptance. Buddhism teaches acceptance. Also, it teaches discernment. That is, how to determine what to accept and what not to accept. It teaches how to advance from a state or circumstance that is unacceptable to one that is acceptable - it could be said to be from ignorance to enlightenment, or from bondage to liberation (nirvana), etc, etc. Buddhism teaches that the path to enlightenment/liberation begins here and now, any future life is a result of incompletion. It teaches people not to follow others blindly but to put in the work themselves since enlightenment/liberation can only be achieved by oneself for oneself.
Also, much as some people would look forward to a future life, it should be seen as more of a caution and motivation against the delays one must suffer through if unable to complete the journey in this lifetime.

What's the psychological impact of reincarnation, karma and only looking trying to fix things only from the inside? — pbxman

For those who choose to believe in such (myself included), I believe it offers a coherent and continuous outlook into life. The mystery behind life and death becomes something trivial compared to the present moment in which the opportunity for work and progress is within one's grasp.
Trying to fix things from within is the right order of things and, also, working on oneself before attempting to work on or influence others. For example, a car could still move without the body if it has all the inner components functioning but with just the body without the inner components, it is practically useless. Or, how can one teach what one doesn't understand.
From what I've learned, the hierarchy of significance is such that the inner supersedes the outer and therefore intelligent work requires us to follow the same order. It's the whole 'charity begins at home' (but should not end there) thing.

In the same way people from India then to be less materialistic and more conformististic because they believe in the law of Karma. — pbxman

That is to say people from Buddhist countries tend to be more submissive and prone to change the inside than the outside. — pbxman

I don't agree. This seems like an unsubstantiated claim. — Tzeentch

Karma is quite an insidious, slippery and engimatic concept because it can be interpreted in contradictory ways. Any material success might be interpreted as a status indicator of good Karma by some Indians today. The notion of Karma might have been used to sustain the caste system but whether this is good or bad is relative to point of view.

In some sense you can't be held responsible for your Karma if Karma is responsible for your inability to carry out right action. A systematic interpretation of Karma might be an insidious deception of Karma. Ugh...

Is there a better interpretation of Karma?

Interesting conclusions then again I think you could find this question interesting. As for karma it has the same credibility as God, The Simulation Hypothesis, Bardos or the Wheel of Samara or Harry Potter. It's just a matter of faith.

:up: Great discussion guys, learning more about Buddhism here. Great analyzing from nearly everyone.

One problem I face with Buddhist philosophy/conception is the idea of "No desire".

When one thinks about it is certain that one will not survive life without desires. Cultivating wise desires that become the back-bone of good decisions is essential for thriving in any world.

Accepting life as it is, or having an ideal to work towards, in mind, are both possibilities, and excluding one from the Buddhist philosophy, should for the sake of intellectual livelihood and integrity of the philosophy, not be done.