Chain of Dependent Origination
Buddha’s Historical Materialism
By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD
‘According to the Buddha’s teaching, there is nothing which exists beyond or separate from nature, either as a mystical power controlling events from without, or in any other way related to or involved in the proceedings of nature. Whatever is associated with nature cannot be separate from nature, but must be a component of it. All events in nature proceed at the direction of the inter-relationship of natural phenomena. There are no accidents, nor is there any creative force independent of causes,’[1]
‘…conditioned genesis does not always have twelve factors in early Buddhist texts. There also exist accounts of it which list five factors, eight, nine, ten, or eleven factors.’[2]
‘In the Abhidhamma many different models of Dependent Origination are presented, sorted according to the various kinds of skilful, unskilful and neutral mental states involved in producing them.’[3]
This category of Buddhist philosophy is termed ‘paṭiccasamuppāda’ in Pali, and ‘pratityasamutpada’ in Sanskrit, and is arguably the area of Buddhist theory open to the greatest misunderstanding and dispute throughout the Buddhist world and beyond. It is not that Buddhists do not comprehend what the Buddha appears to be discussing, but as thousands of years have transpired since the lifetime of the Buddha and today, the transmission and interpretation process has led to certain assumptions within Buddhist tradition that are not always obviously present in the Buddhist suttas (or sutras). This separation between the Buddha’s assumed original teaching, and the convention of that teaching is well-known, but is compounded by a further misrepresentation when Buddhist philosophy is altered as part of its integration into new cultures and societies. Not only is this true of Buddhism spreading into the West (where it has suffered extensive interference from Judeo-Christian glosses), but also true in Asia where capitalism has spread unabated (as a product of Western imperialism and intense Christian missionary work). This has opened the pristine logic of the Buddha’s early teaching to a process of radical re-interpretation which in all its aspects, reflects the very faith-led belief in theism that the Buddha very clearly rejected. In many ways this linked to unscrupulous Buddhist teachers (not always Western), deliberately morphing the Buddha’s secular teaching into an inverted belief system that is fuelled by the propaganda of superstition and idealistic imaginations. The impetus for this negative transformation lies in the search for relentless profit, and the needs of advertising campaigns to attract paying clients to part with ridiculous amounts of money, whilst being ‘taught’ how to sit quietly and breath in a conscious manner. This process has created a parody of Buddhism that looks like the familiar Judeo-Christian tradition, but with the added exoticisms of seated meditation (as prayer), and the assumption of ‘rebirth’ (as a reward or punishment after death). The point of the Buddha’s non-inverted philosophy is that in virtually every aspect of it, it should appear thoroughly ‘alien’ and ‘unfamiliar’ to the average Western (bourgeois) mind that encounters it.
It may surprise many to learn that the Buddha did not accept the Brahmanic concept of rebirth as being a product of an enlightened mind, but to only be an assumed aspect of an unenlightened mind (the Buddha never once recognised ‘reincarnation’ as being relevant to his system of philosophy). In the early teachings, the Buddha appears to be alluding to a ‘belief’ in rebirth that many of his disciples appear to believe in, and states that in the unenlightened state, a disciple may believe that rebirth is possible in any number of ‘imagined’ realms. The fact that the Buddha defines the enlightened state as being the absence of rebirth and the habit of accumulating karma, strongly suggests that the notion of rebirth, although apparently popular in his day, was in fact a delusion of the highest kind, that disappears once greed, hatred and delusion is uprooted from within the thought processes. Therefore, the assumption that the Buddha taught rebirth is epistemologically and ontologically incorrect – and yet such a belief forms a corner-stone of attraction for many Western practitioners – and serves as the theistic (and metaphysical) basis of later forms of Buddhism that introduced foreign concepts into Buddhist understanding.
The received form of the twelve links of dependent origination has two versions. The ‘forward’ version is conditioned by the presence of suffering-inducing ‘ignorance’ which taints existence of all beings, and unfolds in the following manner:
1) Conditioned ignorance (not understanding reality as defined by the Buddha)
2) Conditioned volitional actions (premised upon an unenlightened attitude)
3) Conditioned conscious awareness
4) Conditioned name and form (i.e. ideas and material world)
5) Conditioned arising of sense organs and sense objects
6) Conditioned contact (between sense organ and sense object)
7) Conditioned sensation
8) Conditioned craving
9) Conditioned attachment (clinging)
10) Conditioned becoming (i.e. conception of new life)
11) Conditioned birth (i.e. a new being)
12) Conditioned old age and death
This is the Buddha explaining that if ‘this’ material condition exists, then ‘that’ material condition also exists. Material conditions are defined by the inner reactions of the mind, together with its consciousness, perceptions and sensations in the body, which are the result of the ‘six’ sense organs (i.e. mind [which is consciously aware of ideas], vision, hearing, touch, taste and smell), interacting with the physical environment. As the mind and body are conditioned by greed, hatred and delusion, and due to the attachment of material conditions and the psychological responses to them, a ‘deluded’ individual exists within a self-defeating cycle of dependent conditionality. The Buddha acknowledged thousands of years ago that material reality defines the inner psychological terrain, and that the psychology of an individual is conditioned by the unfolding of history as he or she has experienced it. The antidote to this ‘inverted’ state of being is to practice seated meditation in accordance with the Buddha’s guidance, to uproot the basis of ignorance in the mind and thereby dissolve through insight, the twelve links in the chain of dependent origination. This process leads logically to a ‘reverse’ interpretation of the chain of dependent origination which is premised upon the idea that if ‘this’ material condition does not ‘exist’, then ‘that’ material condition also does not ‘exist’. As all ignorance (and its cause) has been uprooted from the mind (and body), this is the state of enlightenment as conceived by the Buddha. The reverse chain of dependent origination is as follows:
1) Through the non-arising of ignorance – ignorant conditionality is uprooted
2) Through the non-arising of ignorance – volitional action ceases
3) Through the non-arising of ignorance - conscious awareness ceases
4) Through the non-arising of ignorance - name and form cease
5) Through the non-arising of ignorance - sense organs and sense objects cease
6) Through the non-arising of ignorance - contact (between sense organ and sense object) ceases
7) Through the non-arising of ignorance – sensation ceases
8) Through the non-arising of ignorance – craving ceases
9) Through the non-arising of ignorance – attachment (clinging) ceases
10) Through the non-arising of ignorance - becoming (i.e. conception of new life) ceases
11) Through the non-arising of ignorance - birth (i.e. a new being)
12) Through the non-arising of ignorance - old age and death ceases
Generally speaking, these twelve links are interpreted as being an explanation of three lifetimes being explained in different ways, through the Buddha’s method of perceptual science. The twelve links are distributed throughout these three lifetimes in the following manner:
a) Past life = No. 1 Ignorance, No. 2 Volitional actions
b) Present life = No. 3 Consciousness, No. 4 Name and form, No. 5 sense organs and sense objects, No. 6 Contact, No. 7 sensation, No. 8 Craving, No. 9 Attachment (clinging), No. 10. Becoming
c) Future life = No. 11 Birth, No.12 Ageing and death
This schematic is the subject of elaborate and sophisticated analysis and practical assessment by many Buddhist monastics, teachers, and various lay-practitioners, particularly in Asia. Within Western Buddhism, where many Buddhist practitioners are bourgeois and fully supportive of a capitalist system premised upon unbridled greed, this teaching is usually given only lip-service and quietly laid to one-side. In economically poor countries where everyday life is hard, this teaching of dependent origination is viewed as essential as a form of self-empowerment whereby Buddhist practitioners make a virtue of living within a state of grinding poverty. However, it is doubtful that the twelve links as they appear today was the Buddha’s original or intended meaning. Even within the Pali suttas other versions of this chain with less links are evident. For instance, there are chains with just five links, eight links, nine links, ten links and eleven links.[4] If the shortest chain is taken as the oldest version (with the others being evidence of elaborations at later dates, probably by followers of the Buddha), the most concise chain reads as follow:
1) Conditioned craving
2) Conditioned attachment (clinging)
3) Conditioned becoming (i.e. conception of new life)
4) Conditioned birth (i.e. a new being)
5) Conditioned old age and death
This much shorter chain appears to be describing life in the present moment, where sexual desire leads to procreation and the conception of a new life. This seems to be a warning about living in the lay world and participating within the conventions of marriage and child-rearing. Having partners and children requires participation in the prevailing economic system so that a living is earned to support the house-hold. Of course, the Buddha acknowledged that lay people could practice his path – and the Pali Suttas record stories of both lay men and women achieving enlightenment – but he also acknowledged that living outside of marriage and deterministic economic systems was the most efficient manner of applying his teaching. When the shorter chain of dependent origination is taken into account with the Buddha’s idea that rebirth ceases in the enlightened state (and only exists in the deluded state), it is highly unlikely that the Buddha would have advocated a metaphysical rebirth theory that deviates from his obvious ‘material’ interpretation of reality. The fourth link in the received chain of dependent origination termed ‘name and form’ (nama-rupa) is the Buddha’s definition of reality – which is an integration of ideation (i.e. consciousness) and matter. For the Buddha there is no other definition of reality, therefore, whatever the received chain indicates, Buddhist logic dictates that it cannot be discussing the theistic concept of rebirth. Evidence for this conclusion might well exist within the Theravada School. Whereas the lifetime to lifetime model of the received chain of dependent origination can be found in Buddhaghosa’s 5th century CE text entitled ‘Visuddhimagga’’, what is less well-known is that an Abhidhamma commentary text entitled ‘Sammohavinodani’ (also written by Buddhaghosa, but after his compilation of the Visuddhimagga), states another theory that PA Payutto describes as perhaps being of ancient origination, with only well-hidden implications in the received Buddhist teachings. This is called the ‘one mind moment’ theory which states that the Buddha’s dependent origination theory, at least in its earliest conception, had nothing to do with a ‘life to life’ implication, and everything to do with a strictly ‘existential’ development of an incredibly precise awareness (developed through seated meditation practice). This research implies that the monastic tradition of the Theravada School contains two diametrically opposed interpretations of the dependent origination theory. PA Payutto states that whilst writing the Sammohavinodani, Buddhaghosa was of the opinion that the theory of dependent origination was very difficult to define and explain, and that although there was a convention of interpretation in effect (such as the received ‘life to life’ version he had conveyed in the Visuddhimagga), there existed other explanations, probably ancient in construction, and passed-on by word of mouth from teacher to student (premised upon a ‘lost’ earlier commentarial tradition), that were more in keeping with what is found in the Buddha’s sutta teachings. By way of an explanation as to why he has deviated from the received version of Dependent Origination in the Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghosa explains in his Sammohavinodani the following:
‘I will glean this work from the ancient commentaries.’[5]
Even when conveying the received version of Dependent Origination in the earlier Visuddhimagga text, Buddhaghosa states:
‘Now I would like to expound on the paccyakara (principle of conditionality), even though I haven’t a foot to stand on, like a man stepping into a flowing river with no stepping stone. However, Dependent Origination is rich in teachings, not to mention the commentaries handed down from ancient teachers in an unbroken line. Relying on these two sources, I will now expound the principle of Dependent Origination.’[6]
PA Payutto explains that by the time of Buddhaghosa (5th century CE), the one mind moment theory of Dependent Origination was still known as a vague memory (and still exists within the Abhidhamma texts), but was being usurped by the life to life theory in the scholastic circles. This appears to demonstrate a shift in Buddhist theory from the strictly materialist interpretation of existence by the historical Buddha, to a metaphysical idealism espoused by an ‘imaginary’ Buddha. As the Buddha consigned the notion of rebirth to the delusional realm, and stated on numerous occasions that in the fully enlightened state rebirth does not exist, it must be considered that the received teaching upon Dependent Origination is an explanation of unenlightened existence, whilst that of the one mind moment theory is an explanation of reality from the enlightened perspective. Whatever the case, what is important is that in the state of reality, the Buddha was adamant that no rebirth (or karma for that matter), existed. There is a suggestion here that the received version of Dependent Origination represents a later Buddhist trend in the philosophical embracing of the very delusion that the Buddha most clearly rejected in the earliest versions of his teaching (perhaps as a means to make the harsh and uncompromising anti-establishment teachings of the Buddha more popular amongst ordinary lay society). The Pali suttas clearly convey that the Buddha’s enlightened insight is very much akin to the pristine logic associated with modern science, whereby the raw nature of material reality is precisely analysed free of any interfering obscuration (such as religious beliefs, metaphysics or unfounded pre-conceptions, etc). The Sammohavinodani text is a commentary upon the Vibhanga, which is the second volume of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. This is how the one mind moment is defined in this important text:
‘The Founder expounded the paccayakara in terms of numerous moments of consciousness in the Suttanabhajaniya, but as the paccayakara is not limited to numerous minds, but can occur even in one mind moment, he now seeks to explain the paccayakara as it occurs in one mind moment, and thus in the Abhidhammabhajaniya.‘[7]
And elsewhere in the same text Buddhaghosa states:
‘In the Suttanabhajaniya the paccayakara is divided into different lifetimes. In the Abhidhammabhajaniya it is expounded in one mind moment.’[8]
Buddhaghosa further explains how cause and effect (karma) operates within the one mind moment theory of Dependent Origination, in the midst of everyday life:
‘…birth, (ageing and death) for example, here refer to birth (ageing and death) of arupa (immaterial) things, not to the decaying of teeth, the greying of hair, the wrinkling of the skin, dying, the action of leaving existence.’[9]
This extraordinary passage appears to be stating that the Buddha is talking about the dissolving of all ‘immaterial’ (or ‘thought’ constructed idealism) that prevent the mind from directly perceiving the pristine reality of material existence during the act of seated meditation (in the training stage), and the everyday experience of material existence for the fully enlightened being. According to this theory of Dependent Origination, the Buddha teaches the ‘merging’ of the human mind with the material universe it is already intrinsically a part of, but which, when in the unenlightened state, ‘thinks’ that it is not, due to deluded (and obscuring) thought patterns premised upon the idealism of religion, and other spurious and ‘inverted systems’ that attempt to interpret reality.
Having ascertained that the Buddha’s interpretation of reality is premised upon the acknowledgement of cause and effect (karma), operating within a material world, how does this correlate with the view of Karl Marx in relation to historical materialism? Firstly, Buddhism is a materialist philosophy that utilises a form of secular logic that appears curiously ‘modern’ in its structure, and yet it arose out of the feudal society of ancient India thousands of years ago. Secondly, Buddhism over-time has become enthused with various idealism and bourgeois distortions, which are often today taken as the original intent of the Buddha, when historical analysis proves this opinion to be fallacious. Thirdly, the Buddha taught an emancipatory philosophy, and not a ‘binding’ religion. Fourthly, the Buddha firmly rejected theism and rebirth. If Buddhism is interpreted as a theistic religion that endorses a superstitious belief system (operating in the service of the status quo), then Buddhism has no philosophical similarity with Marxism, and should be ruthlessly subjected to the Marxist critique of established religion, and exposed as just another form of ‘inverted’ bourgeois hypocrisy that entraps the masses in a backward and primitive mind-set. However, just as both Marx and Engels thought highly of early Buddhist philosophy, there is more to this issue than meets the discerning eye (Marx even admitted in an 1866 letter to Antoinette Philips, that he had attempted to practice Buddhist meditation). When the subject of contemporary Buddhism is subjected to the processes of what might be termed ‘philosophical archaeology’, it becomes apparent that there exist tantalising similarities between the Buddha’s thinking, and the thinking of Karl Marx. However, as the philosophy of Marx is loaded with meaning, it often must be read literally line by line, and carefully contemplated before moving on. The Buddha’s philosophy is often no less loaded with advanced meaning. For instance, in the text entitled ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’ (published in 1859), Marx states:
‘Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure. In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production.’[10]
From the perspective of Marx, the philosophy of the Buddha (at least according to the above text), is the consequence of the ‘contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production’ that existed within the India that the Buddha existed. The outer ‘contradictions’ of the productive forces (generated by the antagonistic relations of production) of a particular epoch of Indian history, created the inner conditions through which the Buddha was able to formulate his philosophical interpretation of existence and reality. If Marx’s thinking is applied to Buddhism, then it becomes clears that the Buddha’s understanding is to be considered very much a product of its time, despite the idea inherent within Buddhism, that its central teachings are applicable for all time (and by implication, all circumstances). However, although this may well be the case for the external cultural trappings of Buddhism (i.e. its particular manifestation of ‘Indian-ness’), it is interesting to note the Buddha’s apparent use of a ‘modern’ mode of logic, his insistence upon a material interpretation of reality, and his complete rejection of theism as a legitimate path toward liberation from suffering. On the face of it, the Buddha appears to be conveying a ‘science’ of perception that remains remarkably ‘robust’ in the face of modern scientific scrutiny. This being the case, it seems that Buddhism is a revolutionary and developmental perspective that has a timeless import beyond the initial cultural form through which it originally manifested, and in this sense it shares a definite similarity with Marxist-Engelism – which manifested through a typical 19th century intellectualism, albeit in a most progressive fashion. Although world culture has moved on, Marxism remains just as important in the 21st century as it was in the 19th century. This is to say that the theory of Marxism has transcended the socio-economic epoch within which it was formulated. Buddhism rejected the socio-economic system prevalent during its inception and sort to redefine society through radical shift in intellectual awareness and the manner in which the mind perceived and processed knowledge. However, the Buddha’s social action was just radical as his intellectual transformation. He rejected the notion of work for monetary profit or gain for his monastics, and advocated that his lay followers only participate in paid work that conformed to his moral rejection of the corrupt caste system and any political, social, cultural and military activity related to it, which is the product of a deluded or inverted mind-set. Within his monastic community (i.e. the ordained Sangha), there was no privately owned property, with the monks and nuns not even owning the robes that they wore. Everything within the monastic community was communally owned, and the laity was taught the Buddha’s teaching free of charge. In return, the Buddhist monks received food and water from the lay community during daily rounds of contemplative begging – but the sustenance given to a single monk or nun was always brought back to the monastery to be communally shared amongst the population. Lay Buddhists were advised to follow the Buddha’s morality to their best abilities, whilst not directly conflicting with the status quo (and inviting draconian responses from the authorities). Like Antonio Gramsci faced with the absolute power and oppression of Italian fascism, the Buddha avoided direct confrontation with the governmental system of his day, and sort to bring it down from within by converting its leading lights to his manner of thinking. In this regard, the Buddha’s revolutionary approach might best be described as militant non-co-operation and deliberate non-participation in what he interpreted as the oppressive society of his day. Although definitely not advocating physical violence in any form, the Buddha definitely advocated a type of psychological warfare that was designed to undermine the prevailing system from within. The ‘uprooting’ or ‘destruction’ of greed, hatred and delusion in the mind, coupled with his complete rejection of all theism and theistic constructs (such as a permanent soul), can reasonably be described as the use of radical violence upon the psychological plane. Therefore, in accordance with the historical epoch within which he lived, the Buddha saw it as prudent to reject physical violence as a legitimate way to create a revolution, but instead imitated a system of psychological and philosophical violence that profoundly attacked and undermined the entire premise of the society within which he lived. He achieved this by replacing the theistic idealism prevalent in ancient India with a staunch materialist analysis of reality, premised upon a ‘new’ way of using the human-mind that advocated logic and reason over that of superstition and ignorance. Although this new way of organising the human-mind became prevalent in ancient and classical Greece, there is some evidence to suggest that it may have spread to Greece from Buddhist India.[11]
What was the Buddha attempting to achieve through his theory of Dependent Origination? He was striving to achieve nothing other than the over-throw of theism as the dominant vehicle for interpreting reality, whilst simultaneously establishing the world of matter as the primary basis for existence, which should be analysed by a non-inverted human mind using logic and reason. In this regard, once the primacy of materially based logic and reason is established, the chain can in theory be comprised of any number of inter-connecting links. The number of links do not matter in and of themselves, providing the internal logic contained within the Buddha’s interpretive system remains constant. Obviously the introduction of a ‘past life’ and a ‘future life’ with regard to establishing a rebirth theory is illogical and inconsistent with the Buddha’s other known teachings. The rebirth gloss over the Dependent Origination theory, when viewed in this clear dialectical manner, appears to be a later alteration to the Buddha’s teaching, which ironically re-introduces a primitive idea the Buddha already rejected when he established the primacy of logic and reason over superstition and ignorance. The point is that when a rational mind is used to analyse reality, the notion of rebirth (as a past life and a future life separate and distinct from the present life) simply cannot be ascertained as existing. This analysis fits with the Buddha’s rejection of an ‘atman’, or permanent soul-theory of Brahmanism, which is the usual theoretical basis through which rebirth occurs. It is the atman that is believed to mysteriously exist somewhere within the mind and body of an individual, and which survives the death of the physical body before ‘moving on’ to a ‘new’ body and starting life again. Needless to say, as the atman is a divine entity, it is believed to be both timeless and ageless, to have traversed innumerable incarnations. The problem for Buddhists who literally believe in a rebirth theory, is that the Buddha rejected the very theistic basis through which rebirth is believed to occur as there is no atman for the Buddha, there can be no rebirth premised upon it. This explains why modern Buddhists who accept rebirth find it very difficult to both explain and justify it in the light of Buddhist philosophy, as not only did the Buddha state that the atman does not exist, but he offered no alternative system to explain rebirth. This lack of an alternative theory for rebirth is logical as the Buddha thoroughly rejected the rebirth theory and had no need for it in his materially based system of analysis.
Although the orthodox Christian theological position is that ‘rebirth’ (Buddhist), and ‘reincarnation’ (Brahmanism) are alien concepts that are blasphemy to entertain – Christianity - nevertheless, does present the idea of an ‘after-life’ (or ‘continued’ existence), whereby a pious Christian is thought to transmigrate to a heavenly paradise following physical death, or be sent to an infernal hell for sinning against god. This vague notion of an after-life is found by Westerners to be easily reconciled within Buddhism, by its equally vague notion of rebirth – albeit one free of Christian praise or punishment (although it is true that as Buddhism became ever more Christianised, many Westerners mistakenly interpreted the Buddha’s indifferent theory of ‘karma’ as being one of ‘reward’ and ‘punishment’). This situation is compounded by Buddhist teachers in the West (including those of an Asian background), deliberately allowing these misconceptions to take hold of the fee paying practitioner, as a means to boost business. The fact that the Buddha thoroughly rejected the notion of teaching for monetary profit is lost in translation – or deliberately hidden or wantonly obscured for commercial reasons. A truly sceptical Buddhism would probably not be that popular amongst a post-Christian populace that is busy looking for a theological substitute. Just as Christianity was produced by the State, and thereby periodically alters its interpretation of its theology to suit whatever project the State is undertaking, an incoming Buddhist philosophy - divorced as it often is from its Asian cultural basis - is moulded to become simply an unorthodox version of the Christianity it has replaced. This is how the Western bourgeoisie treat Buddhism as a fetishized play-thing. Marx has this to say about Christianity as it swept through the world on its imperialist mission:
‘Of the Christian colonial system, W. Howitt, a man who makes a speciality of Christianity, says: “The barbarities and desperate outrages of the so-called Christian race, throughout every region of the world, and upon every people they have been able to subdue, are not to be paralleled by those of any other race, however fierce, however untaught, and however reckless of mercy and of shame, in any age of the earth.”’[12]
This unspeakable corruption is the rubric through which Asian Buddhism has been conveyed (by and large) and interpreted in the West. The idea of an ‘after-life’ is very difficult to shake by those brought-up in the culture of the West – which is a secular version of Christian theology. Just as early Buddhists were compelled to give-in to certain aspects of the very idealism the Buddha had rejected with regards to rebirth, Western converts generally do not question their historically conditioned instincts – making a virtue of Buddhist rebirth – as if it were a legitimate teaching of the Buddha himself. It is a very different thing to use the mind in a logical manner, than it is to use the same mind in a manner that perpetuates all kinds of imagined theisms, after-lives, and disembodied spirits, etc. The Buddha taught that it is through the logical assessment of material existence (and the mind’s reaction to it), that the mind becomes calm and free from the vexations caused by an inverted mind-set. This is why it is correct to refer to the Buddha’s theory of Dependent Origination as being the product of the correct assessment of material reality. The Buddha rejects all notions of ‘first cause’ and this includes the deluded notion that a god can alter the world at will. Of course, in modern terms it might be truthfully stated that the Buddha rejected all forms of ‘creationism’, as can be ascertained through his ‘Agganna Sutta’,[13] a Pali text that presents the Buddha’s theory of evolution, thousands of years before Charles Darwin made it a modern scientific reality in the West.
In 1928, the Soviet Union established the ‘Institute for the Scientific Study of Buddhist Culture’ (ISBC), headed by the famous Buddhist scholar FI Shcherbatskoy (1866-1942).[14] In many ways this development represented the Soviet acknowledgement that philosophical Buddhism (as being distinct from various cultural manifestations of Buddhism with religious undertones), was in fact a material science that could be dialectically assessed. In this instance, Buddhist philosophy advocated a ‘cause and effect’ criterion for assessing how the human mind interacts with its material environment. The Buddha – like Marx – stated that the environment affects the operating of the mind, just as a mind conditioned by this experience, effects the physical world (through behaviour). This represents a symbiotic relationship between consciousness and matter without falling into the traps of idealism or dogma. The Buddha interpreted the ‘mind’ as an organ that generates consciousness, with consciousness ending when the physical body ceases to function. This being the case, it would seem that any notions of mythic ‘rebirth’ within Buddhism, appear to be later glosses designed to transform Buddhism into a theistic religion. This is assumed because the oldest layers of the Buddha’s teaching convey a no nonsense logical approach to existence, but the US scholar Hans H Penner is of the opinion that ‘mythic’ Buddhism, with its gods, goddesses, miracles and rebirth concept, is in fact the ‘original’ Buddhism, and that any attempts of reading any form of modern ‘logic’ in the words of the Buddha is a mistaken invention of the early European attempts at analysing this alien belief system, and trying to equate Buddhism with the European experiences of the renaissance and the enlightenment.[15] Such an attempt at apparent deconstruction, appears to be for the purpose of reducing logical Buddhism to the status of a theistic religion such as Christianity, for instance, and is at odds with such Indian academic thinkers as Sukumar Dutt,[16] Walpola Rahula,[17] and KN Jayatilleke,[18] amongst many others. Penner appears to be suggesting that secular logic develops from theistic myth-making, but this assertion is incorrect and ahistorical. Modern Western logic developed not out of Christian theology, for instance, but rather from the Western rediscovering of ancient Greek logical thought. Modern Western logic was not the consequence of Christian theology, but rather its abandonment, and the same analysis and conclusion can be applied to the philosophy of the Buddha. The Buddha’s logic did not, and could not have developed out of the polytheism of Brahmanism, but only as a separate and complete break with the prevailing ideology and dogma of the day. Modern logic, being a symptom of a non-inverted mind-set, cannot be generated by an inverted mind-set (mythic theism), as Marx (and Buddha) would suggest. Furthermore, if Beckwith (and his ‘Greek Buddha’ hypothesis) is correct, the ancient Greeks acquired their logic from the Buddha himself, via Pyrrho, in a cycle that fed back into modern Europe, excluding Brahmanic and Christian theology from any contribution to (atheistic) rational thought.
For the Buddha, an act is either good, bad, or neutral depending upon the mind-set that generates it, and not necessarily upon the act itself – this is the Buddhist concept of ‘kamma’ or ‘karma’. This Buddhist notion differs from the Brahmanic concept of karma, in as much as gods or spirits have no place within it. It is not gods or spirits that determine the destiny of humanity (either collectively or individually), according to the Buddha, but solely the agency of the human mind, or more specifically ‘volition’. It is ‘volition’ (or ‘willed’ action) for the Buddha that determines all human action and the results of that action. A mind infected with greed, hatred and delusion will produce actions premised upon greed, hatred and delusion, and a mind free of greed, hatred and delusion, will generate actions free of greed, hatred and delusion. Similarly, a mind motivated by compassion and wisdom will produce actions motivated by compassion and wisdom. The Buddha teaches that the agency of ‘volition’ is premised entirely upon the presence of greed, hatred and delusion in the human mind, which serve as the basis for the entirety of human suffering, and that the agency of ‘volition’ does not arise when greed, hatred and delusion are uprooted from the functionality of the mind (through the practice of seated meditation). When volition comes to an end, the Buddha teaches that the agency of karma also comes to an end. This means that all karmic consequences usually attributed to actions cease to manifest, as there no longer exists any basis for its generation and manifestation. As the Buddha equates a mind free of greed, hatred and delusion, with a mind full of loving kindness, compassion and wisdom, the enlightened Buddhist lives a quiet and worthwhile existence, helping others where possible, and not perpetuating any modes of deluded behaviour such as that found in others (who have not yet purified the functionality of their minds and bodies). This ‘desireless’ state (nirvana), has two aspects according to the Buddha. There is nirvana whilst still inhabiting a living physical body, and nirvana free of a physical body (after death). Although all karma ceases with the breaking of volition (in the mind), a living body may well still experience discomfort or illness from time to time because this is the unstable nature of physical matter, and has nothing to do with ‘willed’ actions (either good or bad). Nirvana in the ‘beyond life’ state, is not spiritual in the theistic sense, but rather represents the state of attainment as the physical body ceases to function and falls away. As the Buddha rejects any notion of ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’, nirvana is essentially a ‘negative’ description, relaying that state which is no longer ‘tainted’ by the presence of delusion. Nirvana then, is a delusionless state beyond ‘being’ and ‘non-being’. Nirvana beyond form, is the state of physical death, and every enlightened person is expected to remain fully ‘aware’ throughout the dying process, until ‘awareness’ itself dissolves into emptiness. Even today in the scientifically advanced West, this level of psycho-physical attainment is not considered viable for most of humanity, although it obviously remains a possibility. If the Buddha’s enlightenment is demystified, then it becomes obvious that he pushed the boundary of human perception to its absolute evolutionary limits. This is a principle that Karl Marx hinted at in his letter to Charles Darwin, and in his general work regarding consciousness and education.[19]
From a Marxist perspective the question has to be asked, is the Buddha correct to associate thought with action? The Buddha rejected the theistic notion that human behaviour (and the consequences of that behaviour) was the product of divine will or supernatural influence. All human experience for the Buddha originated within the mind, was deployed through physical action (i.e. words and deeds), and its effects experienced through the senses. What an individual experiences as the consequences of their thoughts and actions, are not ‘punishments, but rather the direct reflection of the quality of those thoughts and actions. Chaotic thoughts manifest chaotic actions, which influence the environment (and everyone in it) in a chaotic manner. The environment may become damaged as a consequence, and other people might well react with anger and alarm. In such a scenario, draconian measures of various kinds, might well be deployed against the individual directly responsible for the chaos. The same argument can be applied to groups of human beings. However, the opposite is true that if an orderly mind expresses orderly thoughts and actions in the physical world, the orderly reactions (from others) are likely to occur, but this is not always the case (as the Buddha understood). When good reactions happen to bad people, or when bad responses are attracted by otherwise good people, the buddha explained this as being the product of prevailing conditions in the world. Of course bad things can happen to good people (and vice versa), but the Buddha stated that this certainly is not the norm and a bad person cannot rely upon such good reactions, and neither can a good person always expect bad things to happen. The Buddha explained that the consequences of an individual’s actions may not be readily observable because the psycho-physical conditions for such manifestations are not yet ripe. On the other hand, if a person acted despicably in the past, but has subsequently reformed their behaviour, there might come a time when a bad karmic response manifests in the midst of otherwise good conduct. The Buddha’s answer to this was to thoroughly uproot all greed, hatred and delusion in the mind, because these taints serve as the basis for all negative thought and action, indeed, they are the basis of ‘volitional’ will. As the Buddha was dismissing the moral control effected by a god concept and its worship, he replaced it with his own notion of karma which is essentially self-regulating – an individual receives what they produce. However, when volition is uprooted from the mind, then the Buddha states that ALL karmic production ceases, and any and all outstanding karmic debt is cleared (accept for matters relating to the biological functioning of the human body, but even these are greatly reduced in severity). For the Buddha, certain actions manifest within certain conditions, and without these conditions being present, specific actions cannot be generated. This is the Buddha’s recognition of the limitation of matter (which he expresses in the chain of dependent origination). Buddhist karma, like revolutionary discipline, is a matter of self-control and correctly reading the prevailing conditions.
The work of Marx is replete with defining conditions and understanding how to act, and when not to act. Marx routinely criticises all those who write books and pamphlets detailing their evolutionary understanding, because he quite rightly associates their action of writing with the thoughts in their minds, and concludes that as they ‘think’, then so will they ‘act’. He precisely (and often not without humour) intercedes when he judges their pronouncements to be deficient or misled. He does this because he is concerned about the theoretical understanding of proletariat revolution and its application (as a discernible method) in the real world. A deficient understanding of proletariat revolution inevitably leads to a proletariat revolution that is deficient (and prone to collapse). Marx understood that specific modes of thought lead to definite physical acts, and that the experiences of these acts leave a mark on the minds of those who experience them. Eradicating the ‘false consciousness’ tends to be the motivation behind much of the corrective missives of Marx, whereby he exposes where various bourgeois (reactionary) opinions still lurk in the minds of the workers – and their bourgeois allies. Marx, through his work, is effectively teaching others how to ‘regulate’ their thoughts (and their actions) so that they concur with the strictures found within the ‘Communist Manifesto’ – which rejects all forms of inverted bourgeois thinking. Like the Buddha, Marx strips away all rhetorical attempts of ‘hiding’ the true intentions deeply rooted in the mind, and dismisses all intellection that purports to be thinking in one way, but is in fact orientated in other directions. A very good example of this procedure is Marx’s letter to W Bracke (dated 5.5.1875), which deals with his criticism of the Gotha Programme (the deficiencies of which, Marx continuously blames on the Utopian Socialist attitudes of Ferdinand Lassalle, that according to Marx deviated from that of Scientific Socialism).[20] In a powerful critique of a type of Socialism prevalent in Germany at this time, Marx states:
‘In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banner: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!’
The Buddha’s method of dialectical instruction matches that employed by Marx. Like Marx, the Buddha did not suffer fools easily, and was committed to always eradicating false doctrines through logical argument. In the Pali Vimamsaka Sutta, which deals with the right way to instruct a student, the Buddha states:
‘Bhikkhus, a disciple should approach the Teacher who speaks thus in order to hear the Dhamma. The Teacher teaches him the Dhamma with its higher and higher levels, with its more and more sublime levels, with its dark and bright counterparts. As the Teacher teaches the Dhamma to a bhikkhu in this way, through direct knowledge of a certain teaching here in that Dhamma, the bhikkhu comes to a conclusion about the teachings. He places confidence in the Teacher thus: ‘The Blessed One is fully enlightened, the Dhamma is well proclaimed by the Blessed One, the Sangha is practising the good way.’[21]
Despite the obvious differing context, the Buddha also ruthlessly attacked any ‘delusion’ that raised its head and pretending to be ‘wisdom’. If the mind and body are not regulated properly, then there can be no progress in self-cultivation and self-education. Much of Marx’s work was written in German and translated into English, and the Buddhist texts were written in Pali (and Sanskrit) thousands of years ago before also being translated into English (much of it during the 19th century). If the 19th century ‘academic’ English language were rendered into a more contemporary English (so that it read less like a Christian bible), the parallels between Marx’s writings and the teachings of the Buddha would become more accessible to the general masses. It might also be the case that improved translations of the books of Karl Marx might make his work more accessible (and intelligible) to a broader audience brought-up in these post-modern times. It is understood that through his lifelong friend Karl Koppen, Karl Marx had more than an average understanding of Buddhism at a time when most Europeans knew nothing about it at all. It is an interesting question as to whether Marx was influenced by the Buddha’s approach to ascertaining genuine knowledge about the nature of reality, and if he used this understanding in formulating his own particular ingenious theory of Scientific Socialism.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2017.
[1] Payutto, PA, Dependent Origination – The Buddhist Law of Conditionality, Buddha Dhamma Foundation, (1994) Page 22
[2] Choong, Mun-Keat, The Notions of Emptiness in Early Buddhism, Motilal Banarsidass Publications, (1999), Pages 18-19
[3] Payutto, PA, Dependent Origination – The Buddhist Law of Conditionality, BuddhaDhamma Foundation, (1994) Page 102 (Appendix I)
[4] Ibid, Pages 18-19 – see SN 12:57, and SN 12: 55-56 for Pali Suttas conveying chains with lesser links, etc.
[5] Ibid, Page 99
[6] Ibid, Page 99
[7] Ibid, Page 100
[8] Ibid, Page 100
[9] Ibid, Page 100-101
[10] Karl Marx 1859 - A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy – Preface https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm Accessed 8.2.2017
[11] Beckwith, Christopher, I, Greek Buddha – Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia, Princeton, (2015). Beckwith contends that the Greek philosopher Pyrrho encountered early Buddhism in Central Asia and India whilst accompanying the troops of Alexander the Great, and that it was the teaching of the Buddha that formed the foundation of Pyrrho’s new ‘Skeptic’ philosophy, which trigger a revolutionary new development in the use of the mind with in Greece.
[12] Marx, Karl, Capital, Lawrence & Wishart, (1970), Pages 703-704
[13] The Agganna Sutta
https://web.archive.org/web/20060403183911/http://www.buddhistinformation.com:80/ida_b_wells_memorial_sutra_library/agganna_sutta.htm Accessed 9.2.2017. Although the Buddha uses semi-mystical allusions to describe the origins of life on earth, this appears to be a rhetorical device designed to eradicate all notions of gods creating the planet. Rather shockingly, the Buddha offers a paradigm-shifting theory for its time, where he rejects all notions of divine intervention in the creation process, radically re-defining creation as being a process of gradual (physical) change (evolution), over long periods of time.
[14] USSR: FI Shcherbatskoy (1866-1942) – Expert in Buddhism https://thesanghakommune.org/2017/02/21/ussr-fi-shcherbatskoy-1866-1942-expert-in-buddhism/ Accessed 24.2.2017
[15] Penner, Hans, H, Rediscovering the Buddha – Legends of the Buddha and Their Interpretation, Oxford University Press, (2009)
[16] See: Dutt, Sukumar, The Buddha and Five After Centuries, Luzac & Company Limited, (1957)
[17] See: Rahula, Walpola, What the Buddha Taught, Gordon Fraser, (1972)
[18] See: Jayatilleke, KN, The Message of the Buddha, George Allen & Unwin, (1975)
[19] Darwin & Marx - Down House - 25.05.15 http://buddhistsocialism.weebly.com/darwin--marx---down-house-2015.html Accessed 24.2.2017
[20] Marx, Kari & Friedrich Engels, Marx – Engels Selected Works – One Volume, Lawrence and Wishart, (1973), Pages 313-331. This work carries the subtitle of ‘Marginal Notes to the Programme of the German Workers’ Party’.
[21] Vimamsaka Sutta https://suttacentral.net/en/mn47 Accessed 24.2.2017
‘…conditioned genesis does not always have twelve factors in early Buddhist texts. There also exist accounts of it which list five factors, eight, nine, ten, or eleven factors.’[2]
‘In the Abhidhamma many different models of Dependent Origination are presented, sorted according to the various kinds of skilful, unskilful and neutral mental states involved in producing them.’[3]
This category of Buddhist philosophy is termed ‘paṭiccasamuppāda’ in Pali, and ‘pratityasamutpada’ in Sanskrit, and is arguably the area of Buddhist theory open to the greatest misunderstanding and dispute throughout the Buddhist world and beyond. It is not that Buddhists do not comprehend what the Buddha appears to be discussing, but as thousands of years have transpired since the lifetime of the Buddha and today, the transmission and interpretation process has led to certain assumptions within Buddhist tradition that are not always obviously present in the Buddhist suttas (or sutras). This separation between the Buddha’s assumed original teaching, and the convention of that teaching is well-known, but is compounded by a further misrepresentation when Buddhist philosophy is altered as part of its integration into new cultures and societies. Not only is this true of Buddhism spreading into the West (where it has suffered extensive interference from Judeo-Christian glosses), but also true in Asia where capitalism has spread unabated (as a product of Western imperialism and intense Christian missionary work). This has opened the pristine logic of the Buddha’s early teaching to a process of radical re-interpretation which in all its aspects, reflects the very faith-led belief in theism that the Buddha very clearly rejected. In many ways this linked to unscrupulous Buddhist teachers (not always Western), deliberately morphing the Buddha’s secular teaching into an inverted belief system that is fuelled by the propaganda of superstition and idealistic imaginations. The impetus for this negative transformation lies in the search for relentless profit, and the needs of advertising campaigns to attract paying clients to part with ridiculous amounts of money, whilst being ‘taught’ how to sit quietly and breath in a conscious manner. This process has created a parody of Buddhism that looks like the familiar Judeo-Christian tradition, but with the added exoticisms of seated meditation (as prayer), and the assumption of ‘rebirth’ (as a reward or punishment after death). The point of the Buddha’s non-inverted philosophy is that in virtually every aspect of it, it should appear thoroughly ‘alien’ and ‘unfamiliar’ to the average Western (bourgeois) mind that encounters it.
It may surprise many to learn that the Buddha did not accept the Brahmanic concept of rebirth as being a product of an enlightened mind, but to only be an assumed aspect of an unenlightened mind (the Buddha never once recognised ‘reincarnation’ as being relevant to his system of philosophy). In the early teachings, the Buddha appears to be alluding to a ‘belief’ in rebirth that many of his disciples appear to believe in, and states that in the unenlightened state, a disciple may believe that rebirth is possible in any number of ‘imagined’ realms. The fact that the Buddha defines the enlightened state as being the absence of rebirth and the habit of accumulating karma, strongly suggests that the notion of rebirth, although apparently popular in his day, was in fact a delusion of the highest kind, that disappears once greed, hatred and delusion is uprooted from within the thought processes. Therefore, the assumption that the Buddha taught rebirth is epistemologically and ontologically incorrect – and yet such a belief forms a corner-stone of attraction for many Western practitioners – and serves as the theistic (and metaphysical) basis of later forms of Buddhism that introduced foreign concepts into Buddhist understanding.
The received form of the twelve links of dependent origination has two versions. The ‘forward’ version is conditioned by the presence of suffering-inducing ‘ignorance’ which taints existence of all beings, and unfolds in the following manner:
1) Conditioned ignorance (not understanding reality as defined by the Buddha)
2) Conditioned volitional actions (premised upon an unenlightened attitude)
3) Conditioned conscious awareness
4) Conditioned name and form (i.e. ideas and material world)
5) Conditioned arising of sense organs and sense objects
6) Conditioned contact (between sense organ and sense object)
7) Conditioned sensation
8) Conditioned craving
9) Conditioned attachment (clinging)
10) Conditioned becoming (i.e. conception of new life)
11) Conditioned birth (i.e. a new being)
12) Conditioned old age and death
This is the Buddha explaining that if ‘this’ material condition exists, then ‘that’ material condition also exists. Material conditions are defined by the inner reactions of the mind, together with its consciousness, perceptions and sensations in the body, which are the result of the ‘six’ sense organs (i.e. mind [which is consciously aware of ideas], vision, hearing, touch, taste and smell), interacting with the physical environment. As the mind and body are conditioned by greed, hatred and delusion, and due to the attachment of material conditions and the psychological responses to them, a ‘deluded’ individual exists within a self-defeating cycle of dependent conditionality. The Buddha acknowledged thousands of years ago that material reality defines the inner psychological terrain, and that the psychology of an individual is conditioned by the unfolding of history as he or she has experienced it. The antidote to this ‘inverted’ state of being is to practice seated meditation in accordance with the Buddha’s guidance, to uproot the basis of ignorance in the mind and thereby dissolve through insight, the twelve links in the chain of dependent origination. This process leads logically to a ‘reverse’ interpretation of the chain of dependent origination which is premised upon the idea that if ‘this’ material condition does not ‘exist’, then ‘that’ material condition also does not ‘exist’. As all ignorance (and its cause) has been uprooted from the mind (and body), this is the state of enlightenment as conceived by the Buddha. The reverse chain of dependent origination is as follows:
1) Through the non-arising of ignorance – ignorant conditionality is uprooted
2) Through the non-arising of ignorance – volitional action ceases
3) Through the non-arising of ignorance - conscious awareness ceases
4) Through the non-arising of ignorance - name and form cease
5) Through the non-arising of ignorance - sense organs and sense objects cease
6) Through the non-arising of ignorance - contact (between sense organ and sense object) ceases
7) Through the non-arising of ignorance – sensation ceases
8) Through the non-arising of ignorance – craving ceases
9) Through the non-arising of ignorance – attachment (clinging) ceases
10) Through the non-arising of ignorance - becoming (i.e. conception of new life) ceases
11) Through the non-arising of ignorance - birth (i.e. a new being)
12) Through the non-arising of ignorance - old age and death ceases
Generally speaking, these twelve links are interpreted as being an explanation of three lifetimes being explained in different ways, through the Buddha’s method of perceptual science. The twelve links are distributed throughout these three lifetimes in the following manner:
a) Past life = No. 1 Ignorance, No. 2 Volitional actions
b) Present life = No. 3 Consciousness, No. 4 Name and form, No. 5 sense organs and sense objects, No. 6 Contact, No. 7 sensation, No. 8 Craving, No. 9 Attachment (clinging), No. 10. Becoming
c) Future life = No. 11 Birth, No.12 Ageing and death
This schematic is the subject of elaborate and sophisticated analysis and practical assessment by many Buddhist monastics, teachers, and various lay-practitioners, particularly in Asia. Within Western Buddhism, where many Buddhist practitioners are bourgeois and fully supportive of a capitalist system premised upon unbridled greed, this teaching is usually given only lip-service and quietly laid to one-side. In economically poor countries where everyday life is hard, this teaching of dependent origination is viewed as essential as a form of self-empowerment whereby Buddhist practitioners make a virtue of living within a state of grinding poverty. However, it is doubtful that the twelve links as they appear today was the Buddha’s original or intended meaning. Even within the Pali suttas other versions of this chain with less links are evident. For instance, there are chains with just five links, eight links, nine links, ten links and eleven links.[4] If the shortest chain is taken as the oldest version (with the others being evidence of elaborations at later dates, probably by followers of the Buddha), the most concise chain reads as follow:
1) Conditioned craving
2) Conditioned attachment (clinging)
3) Conditioned becoming (i.e. conception of new life)
4) Conditioned birth (i.e. a new being)
5) Conditioned old age and death
This much shorter chain appears to be describing life in the present moment, where sexual desire leads to procreation and the conception of a new life. This seems to be a warning about living in the lay world and participating within the conventions of marriage and child-rearing. Having partners and children requires participation in the prevailing economic system so that a living is earned to support the house-hold. Of course, the Buddha acknowledged that lay people could practice his path – and the Pali Suttas record stories of both lay men and women achieving enlightenment – but he also acknowledged that living outside of marriage and deterministic economic systems was the most efficient manner of applying his teaching. When the shorter chain of dependent origination is taken into account with the Buddha’s idea that rebirth ceases in the enlightened state (and only exists in the deluded state), it is highly unlikely that the Buddha would have advocated a metaphysical rebirth theory that deviates from his obvious ‘material’ interpretation of reality. The fourth link in the received chain of dependent origination termed ‘name and form’ (nama-rupa) is the Buddha’s definition of reality – which is an integration of ideation (i.e. consciousness) and matter. For the Buddha there is no other definition of reality, therefore, whatever the received chain indicates, Buddhist logic dictates that it cannot be discussing the theistic concept of rebirth. Evidence for this conclusion might well exist within the Theravada School. Whereas the lifetime to lifetime model of the received chain of dependent origination can be found in Buddhaghosa’s 5th century CE text entitled ‘Visuddhimagga’’, what is less well-known is that an Abhidhamma commentary text entitled ‘Sammohavinodani’ (also written by Buddhaghosa, but after his compilation of the Visuddhimagga), states another theory that PA Payutto describes as perhaps being of ancient origination, with only well-hidden implications in the received Buddhist teachings. This is called the ‘one mind moment’ theory which states that the Buddha’s dependent origination theory, at least in its earliest conception, had nothing to do with a ‘life to life’ implication, and everything to do with a strictly ‘existential’ development of an incredibly precise awareness (developed through seated meditation practice). This research implies that the monastic tradition of the Theravada School contains two diametrically opposed interpretations of the dependent origination theory. PA Payutto states that whilst writing the Sammohavinodani, Buddhaghosa was of the opinion that the theory of dependent origination was very difficult to define and explain, and that although there was a convention of interpretation in effect (such as the received ‘life to life’ version he had conveyed in the Visuddhimagga), there existed other explanations, probably ancient in construction, and passed-on by word of mouth from teacher to student (premised upon a ‘lost’ earlier commentarial tradition), that were more in keeping with what is found in the Buddha’s sutta teachings. By way of an explanation as to why he has deviated from the received version of Dependent Origination in the Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghosa explains in his Sammohavinodani the following:
‘I will glean this work from the ancient commentaries.’[5]
Even when conveying the received version of Dependent Origination in the earlier Visuddhimagga text, Buddhaghosa states:
‘Now I would like to expound on the paccyakara (principle of conditionality), even though I haven’t a foot to stand on, like a man stepping into a flowing river with no stepping stone. However, Dependent Origination is rich in teachings, not to mention the commentaries handed down from ancient teachers in an unbroken line. Relying on these two sources, I will now expound the principle of Dependent Origination.’[6]
PA Payutto explains that by the time of Buddhaghosa (5th century CE), the one mind moment theory of Dependent Origination was still known as a vague memory (and still exists within the Abhidhamma texts), but was being usurped by the life to life theory in the scholastic circles. This appears to demonstrate a shift in Buddhist theory from the strictly materialist interpretation of existence by the historical Buddha, to a metaphysical idealism espoused by an ‘imaginary’ Buddha. As the Buddha consigned the notion of rebirth to the delusional realm, and stated on numerous occasions that in the fully enlightened state rebirth does not exist, it must be considered that the received teaching upon Dependent Origination is an explanation of unenlightened existence, whilst that of the one mind moment theory is an explanation of reality from the enlightened perspective. Whatever the case, what is important is that in the state of reality, the Buddha was adamant that no rebirth (or karma for that matter), existed. There is a suggestion here that the received version of Dependent Origination represents a later Buddhist trend in the philosophical embracing of the very delusion that the Buddha most clearly rejected in the earliest versions of his teaching (perhaps as a means to make the harsh and uncompromising anti-establishment teachings of the Buddha more popular amongst ordinary lay society). The Pali suttas clearly convey that the Buddha’s enlightened insight is very much akin to the pristine logic associated with modern science, whereby the raw nature of material reality is precisely analysed free of any interfering obscuration (such as religious beliefs, metaphysics or unfounded pre-conceptions, etc). The Sammohavinodani text is a commentary upon the Vibhanga, which is the second volume of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. This is how the one mind moment is defined in this important text:
‘The Founder expounded the paccayakara in terms of numerous moments of consciousness in the Suttanabhajaniya, but as the paccayakara is not limited to numerous minds, but can occur even in one mind moment, he now seeks to explain the paccayakara as it occurs in one mind moment, and thus in the Abhidhammabhajaniya.‘[7]
And elsewhere in the same text Buddhaghosa states:
‘In the Suttanabhajaniya the paccayakara is divided into different lifetimes. In the Abhidhammabhajaniya it is expounded in one mind moment.’[8]
Buddhaghosa further explains how cause and effect (karma) operates within the one mind moment theory of Dependent Origination, in the midst of everyday life:
‘…birth, (ageing and death) for example, here refer to birth (ageing and death) of arupa (immaterial) things, not to the decaying of teeth, the greying of hair, the wrinkling of the skin, dying, the action of leaving existence.’[9]
This extraordinary passage appears to be stating that the Buddha is talking about the dissolving of all ‘immaterial’ (or ‘thought’ constructed idealism) that prevent the mind from directly perceiving the pristine reality of material existence during the act of seated meditation (in the training stage), and the everyday experience of material existence for the fully enlightened being. According to this theory of Dependent Origination, the Buddha teaches the ‘merging’ of the human mind with the material universe it is already intrinsically a part of, but which, when in the unenlightened state, ‘thinks’ that it is not, due to deluded (and obscuring) thought patterns premised upon the idealism of religion, and other spurious and ‘inverted systems’ that attempt to interpret reality.
Having ascertained that the Buddha’s interpretation of reality is premised upon the acknowledgement of cause and effect (karma), operating within a material world, how does this correlate with the view of Karl Marx in relation to historical materialism? Firstly, Buddhism is a materialist philosophy that utilises a form of secular logic that appears curiously ‘modern’ in its structure, and yet it arose out of the feudal society of ancient India thousands of years ago. Secondly, Buddhism over-time has become enthused with various idealism and bourgeois distortions, which are often today taken as the original intent of the Buddha, when historical analysis proves this opinion to be fallacious. Thirdly, the Buddha taught an emancipatory philosophy, and not a ‘binding’ religion. Fourthly, the Buddha firmly rejected theism and rebirth. If Buddhism is interpreted as a theistic religion that endorses a superstitious belief system (operating in the service of the status quo), then Buddhism has no philosophical similarity with Marxism, and should be ruthlessly subjected to the Marxist critique of established religion, and exposed as just another form of ‘inverted’ bourgeois hypocrisy that entraps the masses in a backward and primitive mind-set. However, just as both Marx and Engels thought highly of early Buddhist philosophy, there is more to this issue than meets the discerning eye (Marx even admitted in an 1866 letter to Antoinette Philips, that he had attempted to practice Buddhist meditation). When the subject of contemporary Buddhism is subjected to the processes of what might be termed ‘philosophical archaeology’, it becomes apparent that there exist tantalising similarities between the Buddha’s thinking, and the thinking of Karl Marx. However, as the philosophy of Marx is loaded with meaning, it often must be read literally line by line, and carefully contemplated before moving on. The Buddha’s philosophy is often no less loaded with advanced meaning. For instance, in the text entitled ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’ (published in 1859), Marx states:
‘Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure. In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production.’[10]
From the perspective of Marx, the philosophy of the Buddha (at least according to the above text), is the consequence of the ‘contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production’ that existed within the India that the Buddha existed. The outer ‘contradictions’ of the productive forces (generated by the antagonistic relations of production) of a particular epoch of Indian history, created the inner conditions through which the Buddha was able to formulate his philosophical interpretation of existence and reality. If Marx’s thinking is applied to Buddhism, then it becomes clears that the Buddha’s understanding is to be considered very much a product of its time, despite the idea inherent within Buddhism, that its central teachings are applicable for all time (and by implication, all circumstances). However, although this may well be the case for the external cultural trappings of Buddhism (i.e. its particular manifestation of ‘Indian-ness’), it is interesting to note the Buddha’s apparent use of a ‘modern’ mode of logic, his insistence upon a material interpretation of reality, and his complete rejection of theism as a legitimate path toward liberation from suffering. On the face of it, the Buddha appears to be conveying a ‘science’ of perception that remains remarkably ‘robust’ in the face of modern scientific scrutiny. This being the case, it seems that Buddhism is a revolutionary and developmental perspective that has a timeless import beyond the initial cultural form through which it originally manifested, and in this sense it shares a definite similarity with Marxist-Engelism – which manifested through a typical 19th century intellectualism, albeit in a most progressive fashion. Although world culture has moved on, Marxism remains just as important in the 21st century as it was in the 19th century. This is to say that the theory of Marxism has transcended the socio-economic epoch within which it was formulated. Buddhism rejected the socio-economic system prevalent during its inception and sort to redefine society through radical shift in intellectual awareness and the manner in which the mind perceived and processed knowledge. However, the Buddha’s social action was just radical as his intellectual transformation. He rejected the notion of work for monetary profit or gain for his monastics, and advocated that his lay followers only participate in paid work that conformed to his moral rejection of the corrupt caste system and any political, social, cultural and military activity related to it, which is the product of a deluded or inverted mind-set. Within his monastic community (i.e. the ordained Sangha), there was no privately owned property, with the monks and nuns not even owning the robes that they wore. Everything within the monastic community was communally owned, and the laity was taught the Buddha’s teaching free of charge. In return, the Buddhist monks received food and water from the lay community during daily rounds of contemplative begging – but the sustenance given to a single monk or nun was always brought back to the monastery to be communally shared amongst the population. Lay Buddhists were advised to follow the Buddha’s morality to their best abilities, whilst not directly conflicting with the status quo (and inviting draconian responses from the authorities). Like Antonio Gramsci faced with the absolute power and oppression of Italian fascism, the Buddha avoided direct confrontation with the governmental system of his day, and sort to bring it down from within by converting its leading lights to his manner of thinking. In this regard, the Buddha’s revolutionary approach might best be described as militant non-co-operation and deliberate non-participation in what he interpreted as the oppressive society of his day. Although definitely not advocating physical violence in any form, the Buddha definitely advocated a type of psychological warfare that was designed to undermine the prevailing system from within. The ‘uprooting’ or ‘destruction’ of greed, hatred and delusion in the mind, coupled with his complete rejection of all theism and theistic constructs (such as a permanent soul), can reasonably be described as the use of radical violence upon the psychological plane. Therefore, in accordance with the historical epoch within which he lived, the Buddha saw it as prudent to reject physical violence as a legitimate way to create a revolution, but instead imitated a system of psychological and philosophical violence that profoundly attacked and undermined the entire premise of the society within which he lived. He achieved this by replacing the theistic idealism prevalent in ancient India with a staunch materialist analysis of reality, premised upon a ‘new’ way of using the human-mind that advocated logic and reason over that of superstition and ignorance. Although this new way of organising the human-mind became prevalent in ancient and classical Greece, there is some evidence to suggest that it may have spread to Greece from Buddhist India.[11]
What was the Buddha attempting to achieve through his theory of Dependent Origination? He was striving to achieve nothing other than the over-throw of theism as the dominant vehicle for interpreting reality, whilst simultaneously establishing the world of matter as the primary basis for existence, which should be analysed by a non-inverted human mind using logic and reason. In this regard, once the primacy of materially based logic and reason is established, the chain can in theory be comprised of any number of inter-connecting links. The number of links do not matter in and of themselves, providing the internal logic contained within the Buddha’s interpretive system remains constant. Obviously the introduction of a ‘past life’ and a ‘future life’ with regard to establishing a rebirth theory is illogical and inconsistent with the Buddha’s other known teachings. The rebirth gloss over the Dependent Origination theory, when viewed in this clear dialectical manner, appears to be a later alteration to the Buddha’s teaching, which ironically re-introduces a primitive idea the Buddha already rejected when he established the primacy of logic and reason over superstition and ignorance. The point is that when a rational mind is used to analyse reality, the notion of rebirth (as a past life and a future life separate and distinct from the present life) simply cannot be ascertained as existing. This analysis fits with the Buddha’s rejection of an ‘atman’, or permanent soul-theory of Brahmanism, which is the usual theoretical basis through which rebirth occurs. It is the atman that is believed to mysteriously exist somewhere within the mind and body of an individual, and which survives the death of the physical body before ‘moving on’ to a ‘new’ body and starting life again. Needless to say, as the atman is a divine entity, it is believed to be both timeless and ageless, to have traversed innumerable incarnations. The problem for Buddhists who literally believe in a rebirth theory, is that the Buddha rejected the very theistic basis through which rebirth is believed to occur as there is no atman for the Buddha, there can be no rebirth premised upon it. This explains why modern Buddhists who accept rebirth find it very difficult to both explain and justify it in the light of Buddhist philosophy, as not only did the Buddha state that the atman does not exist, but he offered no alternative system to explain rebirth. This lack of an alternative theory for rebirth is logical as the Buddha thoroughly rejected the rebirth theory and had no need for it in his materially based system of analysis.
Although the orthodox Christian theological position is that ‘rebirth’ (Buddhist), and ‘reincarnation’ (Brahmanism) are alien concepts that are blasphemy to entertain – Christianity - nevertheless, does present the idea of an ‘after-life’ (or ‘continued’ existence), whereby a pious Christian is thought to transmigrate to a heavenly paradise following physical death, or be sent to an infernal hell for sinning against god. This vague notion of an after-life is found by Westerners to be easily reconciled within Buddhism, by its equally vague notion of rebirth – albeit one free of Christian praise or punishment (although it is true that as Buddhism became ever more Christianised, many Westerners mistakenly interpreted the Buddha’s indifferent theory of ‘karma’ as being one of ‘reward’ and ‘punishment’). This situation is compounded by Buddhist teachers in the West (including those of an Asian background), deliberately allowing these misconceptions to take hold of the fee paying practitioner, as a means to boost business. The fact that the Buddha thoroughly rejected the notion of teaching for monetary profit is lost in translation – or deliberately hidden or wantonly obscured for commercial reasons. A truly sceptical Buddhism would probably not be that popular amongst a post-Christian populace that is busy looking for a theological substitute. Just as Christianity was produced by the State, and thereby periodically alters its interpretation of its theology to suit whatever project the State is undertaking, an incoming Buddhist philosophy - divorced as it often is from its Asian cultural basis - is moulded to become simply an unorthodox version of the Christianity it has replaced. This is how the Western bourgeoisie treat Buddhism as a fetishized play-thing. Marx has this to say about Christianity as it swept through the world on its imperialist mission:
‘Of the Christian colonial system, W. Howitt, a man who makes a speciality of Christianity, says: “The barbarities and desperate outrages of the so-called Christian race, throughout every region of the world, and upon every people they have been able to subdue, are not to be paralleled by those of any other race, however fierce, however untaught, and however reckless of mercy and of shame, in any age of the earth.”’[12]
This unspeakable corruption is the rubric through which Asian Buddhism has been conveyed (by and large) and interpreted in the West. The idea of an ‘after-life’ is very difficult to shake by those brought-up in the culture of the West – which is a secular version of Christian theology. Just as early Buddhists were compelled to give-in to certain aspects of the very idealism the Buddha had rejected with regards to rebirth, Western converts generally do not question their historically conditioned instincts – making a virtue of Buddhist rebirth – as if it were a legitimate teaching of the Buddha himself. It is a very different thing to use the mind in a logical manner, than it is to use the same mind in a manner that perpetuates all kinds of imagined theisms, after-lives, and disembodied spirits, etc. The Buddha taught that it is through the logical assessment of material existence (and the mind’s reaction to it), that the mind becomes calm and free from the vexations caused by an inverted mind-set. This is why it is correct to refer to the Buddha’s theory of Dependent Origination as being the product of the correct assessment of material reality. The Buddha rejects all notions of ‘first cause’ and this includes the deluded notion that a god can alter the world at will. Of course, in modern terms it might be truthfully stated that the Buddha rejected all forms of ‘creationism’, as can be ascertained through his ‘Agganna Sutta’,[13] a Pali text that presents the Buddha’s theory of evolution, thousands of years before Charles Darwin made it a modern scientific reality in the West.
In 1928, the Soviet Union established the ‘Institute for the Scientific Study of Buddhist Culture’ (ISBC), headed by the famous Buddhist scholar FI Shcherbatskoy (1866-1942).[14] In many ways this development represented the Soviet acknowledgement that philosophical Buddhism (as being distinct from various cultural manifestations of Buddhism with religious undertones), was in fact a material science that could be dialectically assessed. In this instance, Buddhist philosophy advocated a ‘cause and effect’ criterion for assessing how the human mind interacts with its material environment. The Buddha – like Marx – stated that the environment affects the operating of the mind, just as a mind conditioned by this experience, effects the physical world (through behaviour). This represents a symbiotic relationship between consciousness and matter without falling into the traps of idealism or dogma. The Buddha interpreted the ‘mind’ as an organ that generates consciousness, with consciousness ending when the physical body ceases to function. This being the case, it would seem that any notions of mythic ‘rebirth’ within Buddhism, appear to be later glosses designed to transform Buddhism into a theistic religion. This is assumed because the oldest layers of the Buddha’s teaching convey a no nonsense logical approach to existence, but the US scholar Hans H Penner is of the opinion that ‘mythic’ Buddhism, with its gods, goddesses, miracles and rebirth concept, is in fact the ‘original’ Buddhism, and that any attempts of reading any form of modern ‘logic’ in the words of the Buddha is a mistaken invention of the early European attempts at analysing this alien belief system, and trying to equate Buddhism with the European experiences of the renaissance and the enlightenment.[15] Such an attempt at apparent deconstruction, appears to be for the purpose of reducing logical Buddhism to the status of a theistic religion such as Christianity, for instance, and is at odds with such Indian academic thinkers as Sukumar Dutt,[16] Walpola Rahula,[17] and KN Jayatilleke,[18] amongst many others. Penner appears to be suggesting that secular logic develops from theistic myth-making, but this assertion is incorrect and ahistorical. Modern Western logic developed not out of Christian theology, for instance, but rather from the Western rediscovering of ancient Greek logical thought. Modern Western logic was not the consequence of Christian theology, but rather its abandonment, and the same analysis and conclusion can be applied to the philosophy of the Buddha. The Buddha’s logic did not, and could not have developed out of the polytheism of Brahmanism, but only as a separate and complete break with the prevailing ideology and dogma of the day. Modern logic, being a symptom of a non-inverted mind-set, cannot be generated by an inverted mind-set (mythic theism), as Marx (and Buddha) would suggest. Furthermore, if Beckwith (and his ‘Greek Buddha’ hypothesis) is correct, the ancient Greeks acquired their logic from the Buddha himself, via Pyrrho, in a cycle that fed back into modern Europe, excluding Brahmanic and Christian theology from any contribution to (atheistic) rational thought.
For the Buddha, an act is either good, bad, or neutral depending upon the mind-set that generates it, and not necessarily upon the act itself – this is the Buddhist concept of ‘kamma’ or ‘karma’. This Buddhist notion differs from the Brahmanic concept of karma, in as much as gods or spirits have no place within it. It is not gods or spirits that determine the destiny of humanity (either collectively or individually), according to the Buddha, but solely the agency of the human mind, or more specifically ‘volition’. It is ‘volition’ (or ‘willed’ action) for the Buddha that determines all human action and the results of that action. A mind infected with greed, hatred and delusion will produce actions premised upon greed, hatred and delusion, and a mind free of greed, hatred and delusion, will generate actions free of greed, hatred and delusion. Similarly, a mind motivated by compassion and wisdom will produce actions motivated by compassion and wisdom. The Buddha teaches that the agency of ‘volition’ is premised entirely upon the presence of greed, hatred and delusion in the human mind, which serve as the basis for the entirety of human suffering, and that the agency of ‘volition’ does not arise when greed, hatred and delusion are uprooted from the functionality of the mind (through the practice of seated meditation). When volition comes to an end, the Buddha teaches that the agency of karma also comes to an end. This means that all karmic consequences usually attributed to actions cease to manifest, as there no longer exists any basis for its generation and manifestation. As the Buddha equates a mind free of greed, hatred and delusion, with a mind full of loving kindness, compassion and wisdom, the enlightened Buddhist lives a quiet and worthwhile existence, helping others where possible, and not perpetuating any modes of deluded behaviour such as that found in others (who have not yet purified the functionality of their minds and bodies). This ‘desireless’ state (nirvana), has two aspects according to the Buddha. There is nirvana whilst still inhabiting a living physical body, and nirvana free of a physical body (after death). Although all karma ceases with the breaking of volition (in the mind), a living body may well still experience discomfort or illness from time to time because this is the unstable nature of physical matter, and has nothing to do with ‘willed’ actions (either good or bad). Nirvana in the ‘beyond life’ state, is not spiritual in the theistic sense, but rather represents the state of attainment as the physical body ceases to function and falls away. As the Buddha rejects any notion of ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’, nirvana is essentially a ‘negative’ description, relaying that state which is no longer ‘tainted’ by the presence of delusion. Nirvana then, is a delusionless state beyond ‘being’ and ‘non-being’. Nirvana beyond form, is the state of physical death, and every enlightened person is expected to remain fully ‘aware’ throughout the dying process, until ‘awareness’ itself dissolves into emptiness. Even today in the scientifically advanced West, this level of psycho-physical attainment is not considered viable for most of humanity, although it obviously remains a possibility. If the Buddha’s enlightenment is demystified, then it becomes obvious that he pushed the boundary of human perception to its absolute evolutionary limits. This is a principle that Karl Marx hinted at in his letter to Charles Darwin, and in his general work regarding consciousness and education.[19]
From a Marxist perspective the question has to be asked, is the Buddha correct to associate thought with action? The Buddha rejected the theistic notion that human behaviour (and the consequences of that behaviour) was the product of divine will or supernatural influence. All human experience for the Buddha originated within the mind, was deployed through physical action (i.e. words and deeds), and its effects experienced through the senses. What an individual experiences as the consequences of their thoughts and actions, are not ‘punishments, but rather the direct reflection of the quality of those thoughts and actions. Chaotic thoughts manifest chaotic actions, which influence the environment (and everyone in it) in a chaotic manner. The environment may become damaged as a consequence, and other people might well react with anger and alarm. In such a scenario, draconian measures of various kinds, might well be deployed against the individual directly responsible for the chaos. The same argument can be applied to groups of human beings. However, the opposite is true that if an orderly mind expresses orderly thoughts and actions in the physical world, the orderly reactions (from others) are likely to occur, but this is not always the case (as the Buddha understood). When good reactions happen to bad people, or when bad responses are attracted by otherwise good people, the buddha explained this as being the product of prevailing conditions in the world. Of course bad things can happen to good people (and vice versa), but the Buddha stated that this certainly is not the norm and a bad person cannot rely upon such good reactions, and neither can a good person always expect bad things to happen. The Buddha explained that the consequences of an individual’s actions may not be readily observable because the psycho-physical conditions for such manifestations are not yet ripe. On the other hand, if a person acted despicably in the past, but has subsequently reformed their behaviour, there might come a time when a bad karmic response manifests in the midst of otherwise good conduct. The Buddha’s answer to this was to thoroughly uproot all greed, hatred and delusion in the mind, because these taints serve as the basis for all negative thought and action, indeed, they are the basis of ‘volitional’ will. As the Buddha was dismissing the moral control effected by a god concept and its worship, he replaced it with his own notion of karma which is essentially self-regulating – an individual receives what they produce. However, when volition is uprooted from the mind, then the Buddha states that ALL karmic production ceases, and any and all outstanding karmic debt is cleared (accept for matters relating to the biological functioning of the human body, but even these are greatly reduced in severity). For the Buddha, certain actions manifest within certain conditions, and without these conditions being present, specific actions cannot be generated. This is the Buddha’s recognition of the limitation of matter (which he expresses in the chain of dependent origination). Buddhist karma, like revolutionary discipline, is a matter of self-control and correctly reading the prevailing conditions.
The work of Marx is replete with defining conditions and understanding how to act, and when not to act. Marx routinely criticises all those who write books and pamphlets detailing their evolutionary understanding, because he quite rightly associates their action of writing with the thoughts in their minds, and concludes that as they ‘think’, then so will they ‘act’. He precisely (and often not without humour) intercedes when he judges their pronouncements to be deficient or misled. He does this because he is concerned about the theoretical understanding of proletariat revolution and its application (as a discernible method) in the real world. A deficient understanding of proletariat revolution inevitably leads to a proletariat revolution that is deficient (and prone to collapse). Marx understood that specific modes of thought lead to definite physical acts, and that the experiences of these acts leave a mark on the minds of those who experience them. Eradicating the ‘false consciousness’ tends to be the motivation behind much of the corrective missives of Marx, whereby he exposes where various bourgeois (reactionary) opinions still lurk in the minds of the workers – and their bourgeois allies. Marx, through his work, is effectively teaching others how to ‘regulate’ their thoughts (and their actions) so that they concur with the strictures found within the ‘Communist Manifesto’ – which rejects all forms of inverted bourgeois thinking. Like the Buddha, Marx strips away all rhetorical attempts of ‘hiding’ the true intentions deeply rooted in the mind, and dismisses all intellection that purports to be thinking in one way, but is in fact orientated in other directions. A very good example of this procedure is Marx’s letter to W Bracke (dated 5.5.1875), which deals with his criticism of the Gotha Programme (the deficiencies of which, Marx continuously blames on the Utopian Socialist attitudes of Ferdinand Lassalle, that according to Marx deviated from that of Scientific Socialism).[20] In a powerful critique of a type of Socialism prevalent in Germany at this time, Marx states:
‘In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banner: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!’
The Buddha’s method of dialectical instruction matches that employed by Marx. Like Marx, the Buddha did not suffer fools easily, and was committed to always eradicating false doctrines through logical argument. In the Pali Vimamsaka Sutta, which deals with the right way to instruct a student, the Buddha states:
‘Bhikkhus, a disciple should approach the Teacher who speaks thus in order to hear the Dhamma. The Teacher teaches him the Dhamma with its higher and higher levels, with its more and more sublime levels, with its dark and bright counterparts. As the Teacher teaches the Dhamma to a bhikkhu in this way, through direct knowledge of a certain teaching here in that Dhamma, the bhikkhu comes to a conclusion about the teachings. He places confidence in the Teacher thus: ‘The Blessed One is fully enlightened, the Dhamma is well proclaimed by the Blessed One, the Sangha is practising the good way.’[21]
Despite the obvious differing context, the Buddha also ruthlessly attacked any ‘delusion’ that raised its head and pretending to be ‘wisdom’. If the mind and body are not regulated properly, then there can be no progress in self-cultivation and self-education. Much of Marx’s work was written in German and translated into English, and the Buddhist texts were written in Pali (and Sanskrit) thousands of years ago before also being translated into English (much of it during the 19th century). If the 19th century ‘academic’ English language were rendered into a more contemporary English (so that it read less like a Christian bible), the parallels between Marx’s writings and the teachings of the Buddha would become more accessible to the general masses. It might also be the case that improved translations of the books of Karl Marx might make his work more accessible (and intelligible) to a broader audience brought-up in these post-modern times. It is understood that through his lifelong friend Karl Koppen, Karl Marx had more than an average understanding of Buddhism at a time when most Europeans knew nothing about it at all. It is an interesting question as to whether Marx was influenced by the Buddha’s approach to ascertaining genuine knowledge about the nature of reality, and if he used this understanding in formulating his own particular ingenious theory of Scientific Socialism.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2017.
[1] Payutto, PA, Dependent Origination – The Buddhist Law of Conditionality, Buddha Dhamma Foundation, (1994) Page 22
[2] Choong, Mun-Keat, The Notions of Emptiness in Early Buddhism, Motilal Banarsidass Publications, (1999), Pages 18-19
[3] Payutto, PA, Dependent Origination – The Buddhist Law of Conditionality, BuddhaDhamma Foundation, (1994) Page 102 (Appendix I)
[4] Ibid, Pages 18-19 – see SN 12:57, and SN 12: 55-56 for Pali Suttas conveying chains with lesser links, etc.
[5] Ibid, Page 99
[6] Ibid, Page 99
[7] Ibid, Page 100
[8] Ibid, Page 100
[9] Ibid, Page 100-101
[10] Karl Marx 1859 - A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy – Preface https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm Accessed 8.2.2017
[11] Beckwith, Christopher, I, Greek Buddha – Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia, Princeton, (2015). Beckwith contends that the Greek philosopher Pyrrho encountered early Buddhism in Central Asia and India whilst accompanying the troops of Alexander the Great, and that it was the teaching of the Buddha that formed the foundation of Pyrrho’s new ‘Skeptic’ philosophy, which trigger a revolutionary new development in the use of the mind with in Greece.
[12] Marx, Karl, Capital, Lawrence & Wishart, (1970), Pages 703-704
[13] The Agganna Sutta
https://web.archive.org/web/20060403183911/http://www.buddhistinformation.com:80/ida_b_wells_memorial_sutra_library/agganna_sutta.htm Accessed 9.2.2017. Although the Buddha uses semi-mystical allusions to describe the origins of life on earth, this appears to be a rhetorical device designed to eradicate all notions of gods creating the planet. Rather shockingly, the Buddha offers a paradigm-shifting theory for its time, where he rejects all notions of divine intervention in the creation process, radically re-defining creation as being a process of gradual (physical) change (evolution), over long periods of time.
[14] USSR: FI Shcherbatskoy (1866-1942) – Expert in Buddhism https://thesanghakommune.org/2017/02/21/ussr-fi-shcherbatskoy-1866-1942-expert-in-buddhism/ Accessed 24.2.2017
[15] Penner, Hans, H, Rediscovering the Buddha – Legends of the Buddha and Their Interpretation, Oxford University Press, (2009)
[16] See: Dutt, Sukumar, The Buddha and Five After Centuries, Luzac & Company Limited, (1957)
[17] See: Rahula, Walpola, What the Buddha Taught, Gordon Fraser, (1972)
[18] See: Jayatilleke, KN, The Message of the Buddha, George Allen & Unwin, (1975)
[19] Darwin & Marx - Down House - 25.05.15 http://buddhistsocialism.weebly.com/darwin--marx---down-house-2015.html Accessed 24.2.2017
[20] Marx, Kari & Friedrich Engels, Marx – Engels Selected Works – One Volume, Lawrence and Wishart, (1973), Pages 313-331. This work carries the subtitle of ‘Marginal Notes to the Programme of the German Workers’ Party’.
[21] Vimamsaka Sutta https://suttacentral.net/en/mn47 Accessed 24.2.2017