The purpose of sitting (or any formal) meditation practice is so you can do exactly what you suggest, put it into practice in your every day life, that is, meditate all the time. The meditative state allows the practitioner to have the greatest awareness/clarity.

99.9% of all the intellectual stuff that goes on in Buddhism (and particularly, Zen) has but one message...meditate, because this is where all realization takes place.

We have a duty to help others

Really. How do you figure?

We find our own self realization in society. That's pretty obvious

Maybe to you, but what exactly do you mean by that?

I don't believe in any spiritual benefits someone can find apart from society

Perhaps you might understand society better if first you understood yourself, no?

I wasn't saying everyone should own the same things. Capitalism causes a lot of misery and I see that everyday

Capitalism has also moved an incredible percentage of the global population out of poverty (plus, it's a lot better than feudalism or slavery). It's simply a matter of having the proper checks and balances in order to maximize the productive aspects and minimize the bad stuff, but that's another story.

That aside, the key to understanding anything is being able to see is clearly. And the key to seeing things with clarity is understanding yourself.

I understand my place perfectly and how to minimize the bad stuff is not another story. Buddhism and Marxism point out how bad materialism becomes and finding something to help the situation is what this thread is about

Buddhism doesn't point out anything. It's purpose is to allow it's practitioners to transcend suffering through the cultivation of awareness...leading to wisdom, then to compassion.

The way is not "in". That's a place for vacation, not a destination

George Harrison, who I've read a lot about, became more selfish with the obsession with finding meditative states. He thought he was wrestling with Christianity, when he really just needed to get off drugs and find something besides the Beatles to do. Instead he stayed with the Beatles and used meditation to escape, and ended up continuing with drug use for much of his life

I wasn't saying everyone should own the same things. Capitalism causes a lot of misery and I see that everyday — Gregory

Are you not forgetting the first noble truth of the Buddha (or any religion that pays any attention to anything and wants to gain members aka "exists"): Existence is suffering. The cause of suffering is desire.

Materialism creates desire. Channel your efforts into the right social endeavours and you can make a change

Materialism creates desire. — Gregory

All kinds of things create desire. The material aspects are perhaps the smallest part.

This thread is about how Buddhism relates to political social theory

I understand. I am just saying that Buddhism is not about anything in particular, instead, it's about seeing all things as clearly as possible. What you do with that is up to each individual.

The new testament says to obey the powers that have the authority, although Jesus himself refused to take sides between the Jews and the Romans — Gregory

It was hard to decide which power had the authority: Judea, or Roma. If Jesus had a clear knowledge which, he would have sided to obey that one. But he had no way of relying on the old adage that we use these days in times of facing hard decisions. He could not ask, "Now, what would Jesus do?"

I am just saying that Buddhism is not about anything in particular, instead, it's about not seeing anything particular as clearly as possible. — synthesis

There, did I fix that for you right?

I understand. I am just saying that Buddhism is not about anything in particular, instead, it's about seeing all things as clearly as possible. — synthesis

My understanding of Buddhism is completely different. It prescribes a certain ideolgy, that must be the shaper of the conduct of a Buddhist's life. The ideology is clear, well defined, and restrictive.

I don't know this part, but my impression is that the ensuing behaviour based on the Buddhist ideology is not as restrictive as the ideology itself.

it's about seeing all things as clearly as possible. — synthesis

This statement describes the teachings of all religions and ideologies, from their own perspective. No ideology or religion teaches "this is the set of our rules and this is what you must believe, but actually the one and only true religion is the one you only hear about and which is totally different from ours."

I think Buddhism allows different degrees of adherence to its own tenets, because it (the ideology) recognizes that full-blown compliance would lead to the unanimous annihilation of the individuals who practice Buddhism.

I understand. I am just saying that Buddhism is not about anything in particular, instead, it's about seeing all things as clearly as possible.
— synthesis

My understanding of Buddhism is completely different. It prescribes a certain ideology, that must be the shaper of the conduct of a Buddhist's life. The ideology is clear, well defined, and restrictive. — god must be atheist

Buddhism is difficult to talk about for many different reasons. If you had room full of Buddhists, you might never hear a conversation where they agree on much. It's like everything intellectual, everybody has their own reality.

I am speaking to the essence of Buddhism (the non-intellectual).

I don't know this part, but my impression is that the ensuing behaviour based on the Buddhist ideology is not as restrictive as the ideology itself.

it's about seeing all things as clearly as possible.
— synthesis

This statement describes the teachings of all religions and ideologies, from their own perspective. No ideology or religion teaches "this is the set of our rules and this is what you must believe, but actually the one and only true religion is the one you only hear about and which is totally different from ours." — god must be atheist

Yes and no. The main difference is that the practice of meditation is the method taught to achieve clarity. Other religions (including the intellectual aspects of Buddhism) are creating an intellectual narrative. In Buddhism, the main purpose for this is to reveal to the follower that meditation is the path.

Other religions seem to concentrate much more on the narrative (although Christian mystics make for some of the most serious Zen students).

I think Buddhism allows different degrees of adherence to its own tenets, because it (the ideology) recognizes that full-blown compliance would lead to the unanimous annihilation of the individuals who practice Buddhism. — god must be atheist

Interesting theory but nothing could be further from the truth.

Everybody is on their own path.

Buddhists posit "interdependence" in order to separate from the world when it should be the opposite. A natural ally for Buddhism is Marxism, in a relationship within together they can learn from each other. On their own they are trouble

Yes and no. The main difference is that the practice of meditation is the method taught to achieve clarity. Other religions (including the intellectual aspects of Buddhism) are creating an intellectual narrative. In Buddhism, the main purpose for this is to reveal to the follower that meditation is the path. — synthesis

I think meditation IS the path, you are absolutely right about that. But what every Buddhist believes (if they actually follow The Buddha) is that human needs are the path to suffering. To eliminate suffering therefore you must eliminate the feeling of the needs --

Am I right in this assessment of Buddhist ideology at its most basic?

If yes, then you reveal that meditation is a path, a service route to eliminate the feeling of needs. Meditation reveals to you the clarity of how to achieve a life without needs.

If no, you don't agree that the most basic tenet of Buddhism is that needs create suffering, then I'm really interested in what you think Buddhist ideology is at its most basic.

Remember, meditation is not an ideology, it's a path. A method. A tool. It is not what meditation does that I wish you can tell me. I wish you could tell me what you believe the basic ideology of Buddha's beliefs is, if different form "needs create suffering, and you must eliminate needs."

Other religions — synthesis

I think you are comparing apples to oranges with this stance. Buddhism is not a religion. It invokes no deity, it uses no supernatural elements to guide one's life, it uses no supernatural elements (i.e. gods) to whom you can appeal to, or bribe with sacrifices, to help you achieve this or that of your earthly ambitions.

Buddhism is not a religion. Please don't compare it to religions. I mean, you can, but I, for one, resent it if you do.

Its comparison to Marxist-Leninist Bolshevik communism is more apt, inasmuch as both are theories. One is about social movement as reflected by economical arrangements, the other is about individual human psychology. There is an overlap between the two. The two are comparable, or at least mutually non-exclusive by way of being mere theories, while communism is mutually exclusive, therefore incomparable, with religions.

You can't eliminate needs by meditation. That's just nonsense. When a criminal is punished he might thing the punishment is a restriction on his freedom, but it is really a manifestation of his karma, his will. To live in the world but apart from it is the "way" of all religions

Capitalism is despicable. A large-scale robbery. The rich are getting richer and are doing their best to steal more from the poor. A country in which the salary of a waiter depends on tips is a despicable country.

You can't eliminate needs by meditation. — Gregory

Absolutely right. So... how does the meditation connect to the need stuff then? Any connection? I mean, if it is not connected to needs, then why meditate? Clarity? Clarity is something that is realized. What do you aim to realize with meditation? If it is not connected to Buddhism, then meditation is a practice that benefits anyone, Buddhist or otherwise... why does Buddhism then own meditation?

I am now really confused. Is mediation a Buddhist practice, or a practice that Buddhists do, but it's not exclusive to Buddhism? In that case, it is a path that anyone can take, in any situation.

We talk about Buddhism, though. If meditation is inclusive of other walks of life, then why insist that clarity via meditation is Buddhist? And if if it is not a Buddhist thing exclusively, then what IS the essence of Buddhism?

As far as I know, the Buddha taught that needs are the source of suffering. Meditation does not alleviate it, you say. So what is it, that a Buddhist is to do? The thing that makes him into a Buddhist. What area of life has what belief or what behaviour pattern is exclusive to Buddhism?

I am asking because I don't know. It's an honest question. If meditation is a tool that potentially anyone and everyone could use, what is a behaviour that is strictly Buddhist?