On paper there are some philosophical similarities but I ended up having a negative experience and impression of Buddhism after being a serious practitioner for almost 4 years and started training to be a priest. Imo it's ultimately very idealistic and I personally wouldn't be able to reconcile the two without discarding enough of the practice that it didn't resemble Buddhism much anymore.

But my experience with it was as an authentic imported organized religion. As part of training to be a priest I was taught secret mudras, mantras, and visualizations that I'm supposed to keep secret because they're considered dangerous for people who aren't ready, for example.

I also witnessed all of the non first year attendees perform a devotional practice of doing 1,000 full body prostrations a day (in a row with basically no breaks) for three days in a row. People's knees were bleeding through their robes. There was a lot of stuff like that which ultimately really turned me off from Buddhism. This was all Tendai Buddhism by the way.

The training was very much like boot camp and designed to break you down and mold you differently. Sometimes when I'm drunk I still feel like I need to return to it and will start reciting sutras and wanting to reach out to the temple, even though it was 14 years ago, then wonder wtf I was thinking the next morning. Luckily that almost never happens now.

I guess I'm writing this because most people's experiences with Buddhism in Western countries was very different than mine. Many people see it as a secular practice but that was not at all my experience.

Not reading, but Breht from RevLeft has a bunch of episodes about Buddhism you might want to check out.

I’m Buddhiſt. The concept of Paṭicca-samuppāda, or Dependent Origination, is quite ſimilar to the ideas preſented by dialectical materialiſm. I don’t directly know many articles or books that talk about the two, but in learning enough about and practiſing both Marxiſm and Buddhiſm, I have found that a Marxiſt-Lenniniſt world view is compatible with Buddhiſm ; there’s even a ſpecifick kind of Socialiſm, called Dhammick Socialiſm or Buddhiſt Socialiſm, which incorporates elements from both Buddhiſm and Marxiſt theory—we could underſtand it as either as Marxiſm with Buddhiſt Characteriſticks or Buddhiſm with Marxiſt Characteriſticks depending on which element one wants to give more emphaſis.

I ſhould alſo like to note that reincarnation iſn’t a Buddhiſt belief—that’s more of a Hindu concept. In Buddhiſm, we do have the concept of rebirth, but that ties in with the concept of annatā (*anatman in Sanſkrit) or non-ſelf, which itſelf relies on Dependent Origination. Baſically, it ſtates that no conditioned phenomena exiſts independently from other conditioned phenomena ; thus, any notion of a permanent, unchanging, independent ſelf, ſoul, or exiſtence is untenable. For example, a flower is made up entirely of non-flower elements without which it could not exiſt—there is no flowerneſs to be found anywhere in it. The concept of rebirth, when underſtood properly and within its context, actually iſn’t at odds with a Marxiſt view—it’s more a different way of referring to certain phenomena which do have a material baſe. Juſt as a wave exiſts dependent on (or to uſe Marxiſt language, in contradiction with) the ſurrounding ocean and wind, ſo too a perſon exiſts dependent on their material conditions—phyſical, environmental, hiſtorical phenomena which ſhape and maintain them. A perſon is thus a pile of conditions, and there’s not any independent, perſiſtent, unchanging ſelf underlying that to be found.

To ſomewhat addreſs the queſtion, ſome reſources to look into might be the works of Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu or Han Yong-un ; and though not directly touching on Marxiſm, the works and and talks of Thich Nhat Hanh, Ajahn Brahm, or Ajahn Chah might be good points of inveſtigation—the Suttas themſelves are alſo a good place to look to gain a better underſtanding of Buddhiſt teachings, though it would be wiſe to keep in mind that they are very old and intended for the audience and place at the time ; not all elements are as eaſy to interpret or directly relevant to modern times without underſtanding the context ſurrounding them. The Buddha tended to adapt what he was teaching to the people, their level of underſtanding, and the context of the times. Buddhiſm in general tries to do that.

YES, Buddhism and Marxism are very fun to mix. They both point to similar fundamental truths about reality. Highly recommend all of revolutionary left radio’s stuff on dialectics and Buddhism. Breht makes a lot of connections explicitly. With a good grasp of diamat I find parallels in Buddhist stuff on my own too. He’s not a Marxist but I value the perspective of the theory of samsara. In addition, the Zen Studies Podcast (recommended by comrade Elliot Sang).

For reading reading, assuming you already understand dialectics, here’s some stuff from my reading list: What the Buddha Taught, The Dhammapada, McMindfulness (critiques capitalism’s cooption of Buddhism and argues for a return to its liberatory center), What Makes You Not a Buddhist, The Ego Tunnel (scientific perspective on no-self). Obviously there is more recommended in the audio recommendations.

It’s not totally Buddhist but a sort of secular enlightenment book, but I’ve been reading Awake by Angelo Dilullo and found it pretty dialectical.

If Terry Eagleton can write a book called Materialism and spend 1/3 of it reconciling Marxism with Catholicism a Buddhist version has to exist.

Here's an article: https://mronline.org/2023/07/24/the-revolutionary-spirit-of-the-buddha/ , which links to https://aeon.co/essays/how-marxism-and-buddhism-complement-each-other

Look up 'Buddhist Economics'

Might not be quite what you're after, but look into the writings of B.R. Ambedkar. He was a contemporary of Gandhi, and a "low-caste" convert to Buddhism. His retellings of Buddhist stories are decidedly communist, and he used them as a liberatory tool for the most oppressed castes in India.

Ask Mach, Bogdanov and Avenarius.