Toward a Buddhist Understanding of Marxist-Leninism
By Adrian Chan-Wyles (PhD)
‘Deepening and developing philosophical materialism. Marx completed it, extended its knowledge of nature to the knowledge of human society. Marx’s historical materialism was one of the greatest achievements of scientific thought. The chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in the views on history and politics gave way to a strikingly integral; and harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in consequence of the growth of productive thoughts, out of one system of social life another and higher system develops – how capitalism, for instance, grows out of feudalism.
Just as man’s knowledge reflects nature (i.e. developing matter), which exists independently of him, so man’s social knowledge (i.e. his various views and doctrines – philosophical, religious, political, and so forth) reflects the economic system of society. Political institutions are a superstructure on the economic foundations. We see, for example, that the various political forms of the modern European states serve to fortify the rule of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat.’
(VI Lenin: Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism)
The work of Marx and Engels is often described as ‘Classical Marxism’ and lays the solid foundation for the theory of Scientific Socialism, formulated during the mid to late 1800’s. In this regard, the manner in which this theory is applied to society, reflects ‘society’ as it existed at that time. Vladimir Lenin developed this theory to reflect the changing economic and political conditions that developed toward the end of the 19th century as it transitioned into the 20th century. This progression of Marxist-Engelism is generally referred to as ‘Marxist-Leninism’. Marxist-Leninism opened the perceptual door for Classical Marxism to be practically applied to the new conditions of the rapidly changing and developing 20th century. Lenin, building upon the structure and stricture of Marxist-Engelism, initiated a new direction of intellectual appreciation for the genius of the work of Karl Marl and Friedrich Engels, and in so doing provided an interpretative framework that freed the theory of Scientific Socialism from its 19th century socio-economic roots. This development allowed such people as Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Fedal Castro, Che Guevara and others, to initiate Marxist-Leninist revolutions in different parts of the world. More than this, however, the rigors of Marxist-Leninism has inspired numerous important Civil Rights leaders and activist including Paul Robeson, Nelson Mandela, and Robert Mugabi, and the well-known Theravada Buddhist monk – the Venerable Buddhadasa, amongst many others. From the local level to the national and international levels of politics, the theoretical constructs associated with Marxist-Leninism has influenced hundreds of thousands, and millions of people.
Joseph Stalin effectively led the Soviet Union through its early days of formulation following the death of Lenin in 1924. Stalin stayed loyal to the doctrine of Marxist-Leninism, and proceeded to transform Russia and its surrounding republics, out of a state of backward feudalism, and into a state of developed modernity certainly on a par with the capitalist West (in a relatively short-time), whilst surpassing the capitalist bloc in a number of important medical, scientific and technological endeavours. These (and many other) issues were points of importance for Lenin and in his theoretical work, he laid the foundations for their eventual actuality, or production in the world of matter. This demonstrates the innate interaction of the mind (through thought) and the environment (through labour). Stalin had to start from scratch and build Socialism from the base up, and he did this very well. Just as Lenin had to lead a fledgling Communist Russia against the armies of fourteen invading (imperialist) countries (including the UK, USA, Canada, Republic of China, Australia, Japan, Czechoslovakia, Greece, France, Serbia, Romania, Germany, Italy and émigré Russians), Stalin (and the Soviet people) had to fight the fascist menace of German National Socialism (Nazism) during the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). In many ways this heroic resistance marked the pinnacle of Stalin’s career as Soviet leader. With very little aid in real terms from the West, the Soviet Red Army contested every inch of ground as it fought to stop and then turn back the invading Nazi German forces. This eventually led to the Soviet invasion of Eastern Germany and crushing of Adolf Hitler’s murderous regime. This was at a terrible cost to the Soviet people with a conservative death toll of men, women, and children standing at 27 million (other estimates talk of 40 million Soviet deaths). Part of this number was accrued through Nazi atrocities inflicted upon the Soviet people in the Ukraine (aided by a small number of Ukrainian fascists), and other places. However, whilst applying the thinking of Marxist-Leninism, the Soviet Union (under both Lenin and Stalin) was able to rapidly modernise and fight monumental wars of self-defence for its own survival, whilst simultaneously developing a society (and culture) designed to progress the functionality and performance of the mind and body of the people. The historical effect of this would lead to the USSR pioneering space travel even during the time of the Trotskyite diversion offered by the traitor Nikita Khrushchev (whose premiership of the USSR marked the decline that would see the demise of Communist Russia in 1991). With Khrushchev came the time of an abandonment of pure Marxist-Leninism and a subsequent dropping away of dialectical urgency, power, and ingenuity.
Lenin demonstrated how Marxist-Engelism could be develop beyond the historical epoch within which Scientific Socialism was formulated, and its principles be applied in a flexible manner to different historical epochs. However, Marxist-Engelism, and Marxist-Leninism is not just a philosophy for society and its evolution from capitalism to Socialism, but can also be used by individuals as a means of inspired (personal) psychological and physical evolution away from the selfish limitations of bourgeois individuality, and into the historically meaningful ‘proletariat’ or ‘true’ working class. A true worker is not an individual, but is naturally part of a historically conditioned group that is the exploited masses. This is a movement away from false consciousness to true consciousness, or what Marx (and Lenin) termed the righting of a hitherto ‘inverted’ mind-set that interprets the world the wrong way around. This is the basis of theistic religion that keeps the ruthless bourgeois capitalist system in place through the use of befuddling the workers with idealism. A god concept is created in the mind, (in other words, ‘god’ is a thought in the head) which is then mistaken as ‘existing’ independent of the head that has created it, either within or outside of the external physical environment. The theistic religious establishments keep this illusion in place through the use of dogmatic theology, which is an ‘imagined’ science of the divine. The divine is thought to be ‘real’ whilst the physical world is believed to be ‘false’, when in fact reality is the exact opposite. Theistic religion is criticised by Marx and Lenin because it is the basis of bourgeois inverted mind-set that keeps the working class enslaved through bourgeois use of ‘anti-logic’. This culminates in the workers doing all the work and yet being paid a very small proportion of the profit they create through their labour. The actual profit they create goes straight into the off-shore account of the bourgeois person who owns the place of work. This type of religion is attacked by Marxist-Leninism because it is the bedrock of bourgeois capitalism. This is religion that has had its theology promoted to the level of State dogma, and which became highly ‘politicised’ as a result. This is a political ‘creed’ masquerading as a ‘religion’ that was originally designed for Jewish groups and individuals to ‘spiritually’ combat Roman imperialism. This is, of course, Judaism and its reformist off-shoot known as Christianity. The philosophy of Jesus Christ is essentially Utopian Socialist in nature, and was designed to be highly disruptive of the imperialist Roman State, whilst confronting the Roman military occupation with religious fanaticism and self-sacrifice. When Rome converted to Christianity, the Christian bible was altered and the teaching of Christ distorted into a State supporting, politicised theology that even directly contradicts the teachings of Jesus into a philosophy that supported the very Roman imperialism Christianity sought to bring-down through religious activism. This reversal from anti-imperialism to pro-imperialism is a contributing factor in the critique of religion found in Marxist-Leninism. The political institutes of the Church had gone too far in misrepresenting the teachings of Jesus Christ, and so Marx and Lenin roundly condemned the Christian Church as being rotten to the core, and the very foundation upon which bourgeois, capitalist society is built and perpetuated. Marxist-Leninism (contrary to a popular misconception) does not intend to ‘abolish’ or ‘destroy’ religion, but rather immediately expel its institutions from the political arena, and disinvests its priests of all political power. This is correct as theistic religion was first intended as a personal pathway to the realisation of god(s) and Marxist-Leninism returns this function to all religions. Religion, in the Marxist-Leninist sense, is a personal matter that has no place in the political arena. It is thought that as every need of the worker will be eventually be met by Socialism – the need to believe in a theistic god(s) will become ever less until it finally fades away.
What does this mean for Buddhism? Theistic religion is viewed by Marxist-Leninism as a superstitious belief system developed in more primitive times, which seeks to explain universal existence from an ‘imagined’ perspective that has no basis within verifiable science. This is not to say that individuals who hold religious viewpoints are not sincere, or to deny that many have good intentions and pure characters, but that such individuals are associated with Church-structures that are part and parcel of the bourgeois political system. As bourgeois politics and religion go hand in hand, the working class are told to ‘infect’ their minds with theistic religion (which deliberately perceives the world the wrong way around), and to accept bourgeois capitalist oppression as being ‘god’s will’. This mystification of the material fact that the bourgeois class took power in a violent manner, and then set-about ruthlessly exploiting the working class, demonstrates the ahistorical ‘lie’ that is theistic religion. Politicised theistic religion encourages the individualisation of the worker so that there can be no organised Unionisation amongst the workers and throughout society. The workers are psychologically and physically enslaved to such a point that they take on and internalise the bourgeois mind-set – and mistake this ‘brain-washing’ as being an exercise in their own ‘free-will’. Everywhere the worker turns, the opiate of religion is crying-out with the demand that ‘faith’ must replace ‘science’ at every turn. Buddhists should take note of this all important and entirely comprehensive point, as it suggests that Buddhists should get their philosophical house in order, and firmly side with Marx and Lenin in this vitally important manner. This is not a difficult thing to do, as the Buddha’s method of deconstructing theistic religion is entirely compatible with Marxist-Engelism and Marxist-Leninism and does not depart from this incisive philosophy in anyway.
The first point that must established for both Buddhists and Marxists is that Buddhism is not a ‘religion’ and therefore does not fall into the category of the Marxist-Leninist critique of religion. Marx and Engels limited their critique of religion primarily to the Judeo-Christian tradition prevalent in the West both historically and during the 19th century. Although both Marx and Engels knew about Buddhism (and described it’s philosophy as an ‘advanced’ form of dialectics akin to that found within Ancient Greece), neither officially attempt a ‘religious’ critique of it (although Marx once referred to Buddhism as being similar to a form of ‘rational’ Brahmanism). Probably the main academic source for early Indian Buddhism (and Tibetan Buddhism) for the learned duo came from Marx’s friend (and emanate academic) Karl Koppen. Tibetan Buddhism is a much later development in India that saw elements of Brahmanism influencing the Buddha’s originally teaching. This is essentially a corruption of early Buddhism which Marx quite rightly (albeit briefly but ruthlessly) criticised (together with the institute of ‘Dalai Lama’) in his ‘The German Ideology’. What Marx was criticising was the ‘idealism’ that this form of Buddhism clearly exhibits. This type of Buddhism – taking root as it did within Tibet – is the nearest to a theistic religion as practised in the West, but it is by no means indicative of the Buddha’s original ‘non-theistic’ teaching. This type of Buddhism views the Dalai Lama as a ‘god’ and the Buddha as a ‘divine’ being – whilst teaching the non-Buddhist ideal of ‘reincarnation’. Within the original Buddhism as taught by the Buddha, gods and spirits only appear to be ‘real’ in the minds of deluded beings, but are known not to exist in the minds of those who are enlightened (to the true materialist nature of the universe). The Buddha dismissed the Brahmanic ideal of ‘reincarnation’ (which states that individuals can return as themselves, or their own recognisable personality – a false belief prevalent within Lamaism), but he did suggest that a type of ‘rebirth’ might be possible, but only in the minds of the deluded. When a human mind is fully enlightened, it is understood that no such rebirth occurs or is able to occur. The agency of ‘karma’ (i.e. ‘action’) was co-opted by the Buddha from Brahmanism (the religion of his birth), but radically altered. Whereas the Brahmanic concept of karma suggested that a person is subject to the effects of his or her actions, augmented by the desires of various gods and spirits (who can mysteriously influence individuals and groups from the ‘unseen’ spiritual realm), the Buddha stated that karma was in fact only cause and effect produced within a material world through actions that have their origination solely in the ‘intent’ aspect of the individual psyche. Early Buddhism (which is today practised in the Theravada, Mahayana and the Chinese Ch’an School), states that there is a material world that the human mind interfaces with through the senses. Buddhism, in this sense, is a very sophisticated science of perception which is in effect the study of the correct functionality of mind and body within a material environment. The Buddha even gave a teaching that provided the world’s first theory of evolution (over two thousand years before Darwin) in the form of the Aggama Sutta, which interprets the material world (and all life in it) as being the product of a slow evolutionary process. An important point to note here is that the Buddha’s philosophy is neither ‘idealistic’ nor is it ‘materialist’ in the vulgar or metaphysical sense. This is stated in Pali as ‘nama-rupa’, or the ‘mind-body’ nexus – a situation that dramatically mirrors the observations of Marx and Engels in the Theses of Feuerbach, and the corroborating work of Lenin. It is important to recognise that whilst emphasising the material environment (and its cause and effect in historical nature) as an antidote to the ahistorical idealism of theology, neither Marx, Engels nor Lenin denied that physical, human existence involves an interaction of mind and matter (with the scientific caveat that the agencies of human ‘awareness’ and ‘consciousness’ had evolved from the evolutionary operation and function of the structure of the brain - and not the other way around). This is because matter becomes aware of its own presence when evolutionary forces conspire to create a special arrangement.
Buddhists must avoid the trap of theism and not fall into the trap of religiosity. Buddhism in its pure form is not a religion, but a transpersonal philosophy that seeks to permanently uproot greed, hatred and delusion in the human mind and in society. As the Buddha firmly rejected the ancient Indian society premised upon Brahmanic theology, a true Buddhist should reject an essentially Judeo-Christian society (even in its secular form) which advocates and supports capitalism. Buddhism (like Marxist-Leninism) cannot compromise with the very greed it seeks to uproot. Of course, bourgeois Buddhism (such as that erroneously advocated by the pro-Tibetan movement in the West), is a distortion of Buddhism infected with the religiosity of the Judeo-Christian tradition (that co-ops all other cultures as a ‘fetish’ to entertain the lazy bourgeois mind), is undoubtedly an issue as it is often the ‘first’ Buddhism that Westerners (and Marxist-Leninists) encounter and either join as a ‘cult’ or quite rightly - harshly judge as being ‘religion’. Marxist-Leninists must understand that ‘pure’ Buddhism is a form of early Marxist critique relevant to the feudalistic Indian society of its time, and that many Asian Buddhists who inhabit economically deprived areas of the world, due to their Buddhist indoctrination, are quite often ardent Marxist-Leninists who seek revolution (albeit with a calm and compassionate mind). Both Mao Zedong and Ho Chih Minh forged ‘People’s Armies’ of devout Buddhists driven by compassion and loving kindness, which selflessly rose-up in the name of Marx and Lenin to change the world for the betterment of humanity. In both those countries today, (together with Laos) Buddhism serves as a firm pillar of Socialism throughout society, because the auspices of Scientific Socialism are in full agreement with the Buddha’s teaching of ‘Dharma’.
Buddhists are encouraged to read the works of Marx and Engels, as well as Lenin (and others), to become acquainted with the functioning of the non-inverted mind. Each Marxist tract is an exercise in the correct use of the mind. This should lead to an examination of the practice of Buddhism, so that it is deconstructed to remove any ‘theistic’ or ‘religious’ elements, and so that ‘fact’ replaces ‘faith’. With this study, knowledge of dialectics and historical materialism becomes both evident and internalised in the mind of the reader. This is exactly identical with early Buddhist teachings, but develops this ancient Indian thought and makes it relevant to the modern era. When meditating, Buddhists should examine what it is that they are actually doing. Are they reducing material existence to a ‘thought’ in the head? Is this in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching? If not, why not? Meditation for the Buddhist must become a matter of education and discipline, and not a theistic device of ‘escape’ from the real world. The Buddha taught meditation as a device for removing historical (i.e. ‘karmic’) conditioning from the mind through an act of will. He did this by modifying already existing modes of Brahmanic and Yogic meditational practises, and rather than attempting to find or locate a ‘divine entity’ through introspective concentration, he instead rejected the search for theism (as being false and pointless) and instigated a logical set of psychological exercises designed to identify the ingrained (and underlying) thought patterns of greed, hatred, and delusion. Once clearly identified, these ‘taints’ are isolated in the mind and prevented from manifesting in the world through the discipline of physical restraint. In the earliest Buddhism, concentrative strength is built-up through concentrating on the full inward and outward breath mechanism, as well as posture, mental states and emotional responses to various stimulus. This Buddhist practice (even within earlier Buddhism) included various and distinct ‘visualisation’ techniques designed to breakup misconceptions about material existence. This practice included the Buddhist monk sat meditating in graveyards (or ‘cremation temples’) observing overtime the slow rotting of corpses left lying about. This demonstrated what the human body looked like within its physical structure (i.e. its anatomy), and diminished attachment to its outer form even when alive. This led to meditation practises whereby a body is visualised in the mind, and its layers gradually stripped away until the bones are reduced to dust. A similar visualisation device was used by the Buddha to generate compassion and loving kindness in the mind toward all beings, a positive (and self-produced response) to all beings in the world, including those who are hateful, or those who are selfish and indifferent to the suffering of others. In later Buddhism, this visualisation practice developed to include theistic tendencies which need not detain us at this juncture. The Buddha taught that each psycho-physical moment is the product of cause and effect, and as such, its origin, manifestation, and eventual demise can be clearly discerned. The Buddha explained that everything exists in a continuous state of flux, and is therefore always changing. The problem with the human condition is that it assumes a ‘permanency’ where none exists, and the difference between ‘reality’ and its ‘misconception’ in the human mind serves as the essence of human suffering. Furthermore, the Buddha taught that it is possible through self-effort, to achieve a state described as ‘non-identification’ with thought, whilst fully participating in thought. Perhaps the most important aspect of prolonged Buddhist meditation is that the concentrative power of the mind is increased and greatly enhanced. This is to be logically expected if the functionality of the mind is gathered and strengthened. This is the state of ‘panna’ or ‘prajna’ which is likened to a light being switched-on that illuminates the entire surroundings. This insight manifests when the harsh conditionality of one’s culture and upbringing has been thoroughly ‘seen through’ and understood to have been simply the product of physical experience coupled with either positive or negative re-enforcement. Once this is understood, existence becomes powerfully ‘existential’ and ‘revolutionary’ in both essence and actuality. This is where Buddhists have an advantage over many other Marxist-Leninists in as much as Buddhist meditation offers the working class a method of throwing-off the bourgeois conditionality of their upbringing. The disadvantage of this situation is that Buddhism also has the tendency to degenerate into a bourgeois theism that simply serves to re-inforce the very same bourgeois conditionality. However, if the pristine and original teachings of the Buddha are carefully discerned, then as a philosophy very similar in nature to Marxism, Buddhist meditation offers the working class a method of self-applied psychological transformation that can be easily integrated in the more tradition Marxist-Leninist tendency of reading, studying and discussing progressive political texts. The Buddha offers a pathway of directly uprooting bourgeois conditionality without the need for discussion (or even association with others on a similar path). This means that Marxist-Leninists should investigate Buddhist meditational practice as a form of cognitive science, and work to create a meaningful dialogue, connection and interaction with Asian Buddhism that is prevalent throughout large parts of the world. Buddhist meditation is an important tool for the working class that can be used anywhere and by anyone. It may well be that the Marxist-Leninist stateless state of ‘Communism’ in the outer world (as yet unattained) is synonymous with the Buddhist ‘realised’ state of inner ‘enlightenment’. If the working class (as individuals) can free their minds from bourgeois conditionality ‘here and now’, this could theoretically enhance and progress the working class (collectively). The Buddha’s method carefully traces the branches of conditioned existence back to the root, and this is exactly what the work Marx and Lenin does. More than this, however, both the philosophy of Buddhism (contained within the suttas and sutras), and the theory of Marxist-Leninism (contained within its writings), serve to demonstrate the advanced and progressive functioning of a ‘non-inverted’ mind. Such a mind-state marks the demise of the bourgeoisie, capitalism and all exploitation premised upon endless greed in the world.
For the Buddhist living in the modern age, it must be understood that any achievement of enlightenment is not complete without the embracing of Marxist-Leninism (a Buddhism for the modern age). This is because there is a tendency within all forms of traditional Buddhism for practitioners to fall into a theistic quietism. This is the mistaking of achieving a ‘still’ mind for a corresponding ‘non-activity’ in the world. This type of quietism is incomplete even within early Buddhism. A ‘still’ mind, if achieved, is only half the battle in the Buddhist system of self-transformation. Eventually the mind must re-activate and interact with the world (through action or labour) so that its transformation is complete. Early Buddhism does recognise this despite certain ‘quietist’ attitudes preserved within some branches of the Theravada School. In the Mahayana School of Chinese Ch’an Buddhism, returning to perform good deeds in the world is fully recognised, and explains why Ch’an Buddhism in Communist China is part of the political system striving to build and complete Socialism in that country (a functional Buddhism also serves in Communist Vietnam and Laos). As capitalism is the dominant economic system of this age, Buddhists should study the work of Marx and Lenin to gain a thorough understanding of it, and how it can historically be progressed into Socialism (and eventual Communism). For the Buddhist it should be understood that capitalism in the modern age, is a special form of a highly condensed and historically conditioned manifestation of greed, hatred and delusion. As the Buddha rejected all conditioned social, economic and political constructs as ‘impermanent’ and the product of ‘ignorance’, he did not deal with the agency of predatory capitalism simply because it did not exist in his era of life as the dominant or widespread economic system. The Buddha advised against dogmatism and entrenched ideologies, and encouraged his students to put his teachings into practice and decide for themselves. The Buddha’s deconstruction of the motivating forces within the human psyche appears relevant to all times and places, but in the modern (and post-modern age) it is insightful philosophy of Marxist-Leninism that continues the Buddhist project of universal caring and compassion for all life on earth, and just as the Buddha was accused of all kinds of corruption by his Brahmin enemies, so too is Marxist-Leninism subject to all kinds of lies and distortions by its bourgeois enemies. This is the very delusion that the Buddha seeks to undermine and uproot. This is how the Buddha assists the progress of the Red Flag throughout the world and assists in the emancipation of the oppressed and the exploited. This redefines the act of seated meditation as a revolutionary act as important as social action, for which it is a preparation. As Buddhists respect wisdom and knowledge, it is important to study the works of Karl Marx – the practical Buddha of our modern age.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2016.
Joseph Stalin effectively led the Soviet Union through its early days of formulation following the death of Lenin in 1924. Stalin stayed loyal to the doctrine of Marxist-Leninism, and proceeded to transform Russia and its surrounding republics, out of a state of backward feudalism, and into a state of developed modernity certainly on a par with the capitalist West (in a relatively short-time), whilst surpassing the capitalist bloc in a number of important medical, scientific and technological endeavours. These (and many other) issues were points of importance for Lenin and in his theoretical work, he laid the foundations for their eventual actuality, or production in the world of matter. This demonstrates the innate interaction of the mind (through thought) and the environment (through labour). Stalin had to start from scratch and build Socialism from the base up, and he did this very well. Just as Lenin had to lead a fledgling Communist Russia against the armies of fourteen invading (imperialist) countries (including the UK, USA, Canada, Republic of China, Australia, Japan, Czechoslovakia, Greece, France, Serbia, Romania, Germany, Italy and émigré Russians), Stalin (and the Soviet people) had to fight the fascist menace of German National Socialism (Nazism) during the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). In many ways this heroic resistance marked the pinnacle of Stalin’s career as Soviet leader. With very little aid in real terms from the West, the Soviet Red Army contested every inch of ground as it fought to stop and then turn back the invading Nazi German forces. This eventually led to the Soviet invasion of Eastern Germany and crushing of Adolf Hitler’s murderous regime. This was at a terrible cost to the Soviet people with a conservative death toll of men, women, and children standing at 27 million (other estimates talk of 40 million Soviet deaths). Part of this number was accrued through Nazi atrocities inflicted upon the Soviet people in the Ukraine (aided by a small number of Ukrainian fascists), and other places. However, whilst applying the thinking of Marxist-Leninism, the Soviet Union (under both Lenin and Stalin) was able to rapidly modernise and fight monumental wars of self-defence for its own survival, whilst simultaneously developing a society (and culture) designed to progress the functionality and performance of the mind and body of the people. The historical effect of this would lead to the USSR pioneering space travel even during the time of the Trotskyite diversion offered by the traitor Nikita Khrushchev (whose premiership of the USSR marked the decline that would see the demise of Communist Russia in 1991). With Khrushchev came the time of an abandonment of pure Marxist-Leninism and a subsequent dropping away of dialectical urgency, power, and ingenuity.
Lenin demonstrated how Marxist-Engelism could be develop beyond the historical epoch within which Scientific Socialism was formulated, and its principles be applied in a flexible manner to different historical epochs. However, Marxist-Engelism, and Marxist-Leninism is not just a philosophy for society and its evolution from capitalism to Socialism, but can also be used by individuals as a means of inspired (personal) psychological and physical evolution away from the selfish limitations of bourgeois individuality, and into the historically meaningful ‘proletariat’ or ‘true’ working class. A true worker is not an individual, but is naturally part of a historically conditioned group that is the exploited masses. This is a movement away from false consciousness to true consciousness, or what Marx (and Lenin) termed the righting of a hitherto ‘inverted’ mind-set that interprets the world the wrong way around. This is the basis of theistic religion that keeps the ruthless bourgeois capitalist system in place through the use of befuddling the workers with idealism. A god concept is created in the mind, (in other words, ‘god’ is a thought in the head) which is then mistaken as ‘existing’ independent of the head that has created it, either within or outside of the external physical environment. The theistic religious establishments keep this illusion in place through the use of dogmatic theology, which is an ‘imagined’ science of the divine. The divine is thought to be ‘real’ whilst the physical world is believed to be ‘false’, when in fact reality is the exact opposite. Theistic religion is criticised by Marx and Lenin because it is the basis of bourgeois inverted mind-set that keeps the working class enslaved through bourgeois use of ‘anti-logic’. This culminates in the workers doing all the work and yet being paid a very small proportion of the profit they create through their labour. The actual profit they create goes straight into the off-shore account of the bourgeois person who owns the place of work. This type of religion is attacked by Marxist-Leninism because it is the bedrock of bourgeois capitalism. This is religion that has had its theology promoted to the level of State dogma, and which became highly ‘politicised’ as a result. This is a political ‘creed’ masquerading as a ‘religion’ that was originally designed for Jewish groups and individuals to ‘spiritually’ combat Roman imperialism. This is, of course, Judaism and its reformist off-shoot known as Christianity. The philosophy of Jesus Christ is essentially Utopian Socialist in nature, and was designed to be highly disruptive of the imperialist Roman State, whilst confronting the Roman military occupation with religious fanaticism and self-sacrifice. When Rome converted to Christianity, the Christian bible was altered and the teaching of Christ distorted into a State supporting, politicised theology that even directly contradicts the teachings of Jesus into a philosophy that supported the very Roman imperialism Christianity sought to bring-down through religious activism. This reversal from anti-imperialism to pro-imperialism is a contributing factor in the critique of religion found in Marxist-Leninism. The political institutes of the Church had gone too far in misrepresenting the teachings of Jesus Christ, and so Marx and Lenin roundly condemned the Christian Church as being rotten to the core, and the very foundation upon which bourgeois, capitalist society is built and perpetuated. Marxist-Leninism (contrary to a popular misconception) does not intend to ‘abolish’ or ‘destroy’ religion, but rather immediately expel its institutions from the political arena, and disinvests its priests of all political power. This is correct as theistic religion was first intended as a personal pathway to the realisation of god(s) and Marxist-Leninism returns this function to all religions. Religion, in the Marxist-Leninist sense, is a personal matter that has no place in the political arena. It is thought that as every need of the worker will be eventually be met by Socialism – the need to believe in a theistic god(s) will become ever less until it finally fades away.
What does this mean for Buddhism? Theistic religion is viewed by Marxist-Leninism as a superstitious belief system developed in more primitive times, which seeks to explain universal existence from an ‘imagined’ perspective that has no basis within verifiable science. This is not to say that individuals who hold religious viewpoints are not sincere, or to deny that many have good intentions and pure characters, but that such individuals are associated with Church-structures that are part and parcel of the bourgeois political system. As bourgeois politics and religion go hand in hand, the working class are told to ‘infect’ their minds with theistic religion (which deliberately perceives the world the wrong way around), and to accept bourgeois capitalist oppression as being ‘god’s will’. This mystification of the material fact that the bourgeois class took power in a violent manner, and then set-about ruthlessly exploiting the working class, demonstrates the ahistorical ‘lie’ that is theistic religion. Politicised theistic religion encourages the individualisation of the worker so that there can be no organised Unionisation amongst the workers and throughout society. The workers are psychologically and physically enslaved to such a point that they take on and internalise the bourgeois mind-set – and mistake this ‘brain-washing’ as being an exercise in their own ‘free-will’. Everywhere the worker turns, the opiate of religion is crying-out with the demand that ‘faith’ must replace ‘science’ at every turn. Buddhists should take note of this all important and entirely comprehensive point, as it suggests that Buddhists should get their philosophical house in order, and firmly side with Marx and Lenin in this vitally important manner. This is not a difficult thing to do, as the Buddha’s method of deconstructing theistic religion is entirely compatible with Marxist-Engelism and Marxist-Leninism and does not depart from this incisive philosophy in anyway.
The first point that must established for both Buddhists and Marxists is that Buddhism is not a ‘religion’ and therefore does not fall into the category of the Marxist-Leninist critique of religion. Marx and Engels limited their critique of religion primarily to the Judeo-Christian tradition prevalent in the West both historically and during the 19th century. Although both Marx and Engels knew about Buddhism (and described it’s philosophy as an ‘advanced’ form of dialectics akin to that found within Ancient Greece), neither officially attempt a ‘religious’ critique of it (although Marx once referred to Buddhism as being similar to a form of ‘rational’ Brahmanism). Probably the main academic source for early Indian Buddhism (and Tibetan Buddhism) for the learned duo came from Marx’s friend (and emanate academic) Karl Koppen. Tibetan Buddhism is a much later development in India that saw elements of Brahmanism influencing the Buddha’s originally teaching. This is essentially a corruption of early Buddhism which Marx quite rightly (albeit briefly but ruthlessly) criticised (together with the institute of ‘Dalai Lama’) in his ‘The German Ideology’. What Marx was criticising was the ‘idealism’ that this form of Buddhism clearly exhibits. This type of Buddhism – taking root as it did within Tibet – is the nearest to a theistic religion as practised in the West, but it is by no means indicative of the Buddha’s original ‘non-theistic’ teaching. This type of Buddhism views the Dalai Lama as a ‘god’ and the Buddha as a ‘divine’ being – whilst teaching the non-Buddhist ideal of ‘reincarnation’. Within the original Buddhism as taught by the Buddha, gods and spirits only appear to be ‘real’ in the minds of deluded beings, but are known not to exist in the minds of those who are enlightened (to the true materialist nature of the universe). The Buddha dismissed the Brahmanic ideal of ‘reincarnation’ (which states that individuals can return as themselves, or their own recognisable personality – a false belief prevalent within Lamaism), but he did suggest that a type of ‘rebirth’ might be possible, but only in the minds of the deluded. When a human mind is fully enlightened, it is understood that no such rebirth occurs or is able to occur. The agency of ‘karma’ (i.e. ‘action’) was co-opted by the Buddha from Brahmanism (the religion of his birth), but radically altered. Whereas the Brahmanic concept of karma suggested that a person is subject to the effects of his or her actions, augmented by the desires of various gods and spirits (who can mysteriously influence individuals and groups from the ‘unseen’ spiritual realm), the Buddha stated that karma was in fact only cause and effect produced within a material world through actions that have their origination solely in the ‘intent’ aspect of the individual psyche. Early Buddhism (which is today practised in the Theravada, Mahayana and the Chinese Ch’an School), states that there is a material world that the human mind interfaces with through the senses. Buddhism, in this sense, is a very sophisticated science of perception which is in effect the study of the correct functionality of mind and body within a material environment. The Buddha even gave a teaching that provided the world’s first theory of evolution (over two thousand years before Darwin) in the form of the Aggama Sutta, which interprets the material world (and all life in it) as being the product of a slow evolutionary process. An important point to note here is that the Buddha’s philosophy is neither ‘idealistic’ nor is it ‘materialist’ in the vulgar or metaphysical sense. This is stated in Pali as ‘nama-rupa’, or the ‘mind-body’ nexus – a situation that dramatically mirrors the observations of Marx and Engels in the Theses of Feuerbach, and the corroborating work of Lenin. It is important to recognise that whilst emphasising the material environment (and its cause and effect in historical nature) as an antidote to the ahistorical idealism of theology, neither Marx, Engels nor Lenin denied that physical, human existence involves an interaction of mind and matter (with the scientific caveat that the agencies of human ‘awareness’ and ‘consciousness’ had evolved from the evolutionary operation and function of the structure of the brain - and not the other way around). This is because matter becomes aware of its own presence when evolutionary forces conspire to create a special arrangement.
Buddhists must avoid the trap of theism and not fall into the trap of religiosity. Buddhism in its pure form is not a religion, but a transpersonal philosophy that seeks to permanently uproot greed, hatred and delusion in the human mind and in society. As the Buddha firmly rejected the ancient Indian society premised upon Brahmanic theology, a true Buddhist should reject an essentially Judeo-Christian society (even in its secular form) which advocates and supports capitalism. Buddhism (like Marxist-Leninism) cannot compromise with the very greed it seeks to uproot. Of course, bourgeois Buddhism (such as that erroneously advocated by the pro-Tibetan movement in the West), is a distortion of Buddhism infected with the religiosity of the Judeo-Christian tradition (that co-ops all other cultures as a ‘fetish’ to entertain the lazy bourgeois mind), is undoubtedly an issue as it is often the ‘first’ Buddhism that Westerners (and Marxist-Leninists) encounter and either join as a ‘cult’ or quite rightly - harshly judge as being ‘religion’. Marxist-Leninists must understand that ‘pure’ Buddhism is a form of early Marxist critique relevant to the feudalistic Indian society of its time, and that many Asian Buddhists who inhabit economically deprived areas of the world, due to their Buddhist indoctrination, are quite often ardent Marxist-Leninists who seek revolution (albeit with a calm and compassionate mind). Both Mao Zedong and Ho Chih Minh forged ‘People’s Armies’ of devout Buddhists driven by compassion and loving kindness, which selflessly rose-up in the name of Marx and Lenin to change the world for the betterment of humanity. In both those countries today, (together with Laos) Buddhism serves as a firm pillar of Socialism throughout society, because the auspices of Scientific Socialism are in full agreement with the Buddha’s teaching of ‘Dharma’.
Buddhists are encouraged to read the works of Marx and Engels, as well as Lenin (and others), to become acquainted with the functioning of the non-inverted mind. Each Marxist tract is an exercise in the correct use of the mind. This should lead to an examination of the practice of Buddhism, so that it is deconstructed to remove any ‘theistic’ or ‘religious’ elements, and so that ‘fact’ replaces ‘faith’. With this study, knowledge of dialectics and historical materialism becomes both evident and internalised in the mind of the reader. This is exactly identical with early Buddhist teachings, but develops this ancient Indian thought and makes it relevant to the modern era. When meditating, Buddhists should examine what it is that they are actually doing. Are they reducing material existence to a ‘thought’ in the head? Is this in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching? If not, why not? Meditation for the Buddhist must become a matter of education and discipline, and not a theistic device of ‘escape’ from the real world. The Buddha taught meditation as a device for removing historical (i.e. ‘karmic’) conditioning from the mind through an act of will. He did this by modifying already existing modes of Brahmanic and Yogic meditational practises, and rather than attempting to find or locate a ‘divine entity’ through introspective concentration, he instead rejected the search for theism (as being false and pointless) and instigated a logical set of psychological exercises designed to identify the ingrained (and underlying) thought patterns of greed, hatred, and delusion. Once clearly identified, these ‘taints’ are isolated in the mind and prevented from manifesting in the world through the discipline of physical restraint. In the earliest Buddhism, concentrative strength is built-up through concentrating on the full inward and outward breath mechanism, as well as posture, mental states and emotional responses to various stimulus. This Buddhist practice (even within earlier Buddhism) included various and distinct ‘visualisation’ techniques designed to breakup misconceptions about material existence. This practice included the Buddhist monk sat meditating in graveyards (or ‘cremation temples’) observing overtime the slow rotting of corpses left lying about. This demonstrated what the human body looked like within its physical structure (i.e. its anatomy), and diminished attachment to its outer form even when alive. This led to meditation practises whereby a body is visualised in the mind, and its layers gradually stripped away until the bones are reduced to dust. A similar visualisation device was used by the Buddha to generate compassion and loving kindness in the mind toward all beings, a positive (and self-produced response) to all beings in the world, including those who are hateful, or those who are selfish and indifferent to the suffering of others. In later Buddhism, this visualisation practice developed to include theistic tendencies which need not detain us at this juncture. The Buddha taught that each psycho-physical moment is the product of cause and effect, and as such, its origin, manifestation, and eventual demise can be clearly discerned. The Buddha explained that everything exists in a continuous state of flux, and is therefore always changing. The problem with the human condition is that it assumes a ‘permanency’ where none exists, and the difference between ‘reality’ and its ‘misconception’ in the human mind serves as the essence of human suffering. Furthermore, the Buddha taught that it is possible through self-effort, to achieve a state described as ‘non-identification’ with thought, whilst fully participating in thought. Perhaps the most important aspect of prolonged Buddhist meditation is that the concentrative power of the mind is increased and greatly enhanced. This is to be logically expected if the functionality of the mind is gathered and strengthened. This is the state of ‘panna’ or ‘prajna’ which is likened to a light being switched-on that illuminates the entire surroundings. This insight manifests when the harsh conditionality of one’s culture and upbringing has been thoroughly ‘seen through’ and understood to have been simply the product of physical experience coupled with either positive or negative re-enforcement. Once this is understood, existence becomes powerfully ‘existential’ and ‘revolutionary’ in both essence and actuality. This is where Buddhists have an advantage over many other Marxist-Leninists in as much as Buddhist meditation offers the working class a method of throwing-off the bourgeois conditionality of their upbringing. The disadvantage of this situation is that Buddhism also has the tendency to degenerate into a bourgeois theism that simply serves to re-inforce the very same bourgeois conditionality. However, if the pristine and original teachings of the Buddha are carefully discerned, then as a philosophy very similar in nature to Marxism, Buddhist meditation offers the working class a method of self-applied psychological transformation that can be easily integrated in the more tradition Marxist-Leninist tendency of reading, studying and discussing progressive political texts. The Buddha offers a pathway of directly uprooting bourgeois conditionality without the need for discussion (or even association with others on a similar path). This means that Marxist-Leninists should investigate Buddhist meditational practice as a form of cognitive science, and work to create a meaningful dialogue, connection and interaction with Asian Buddhism that is prevalent throughout large parts of the world. Buddhist meditation is an important tool for the working class that can be used anywhere and by anyone. It may well be that the Marxist-Leninist stateless state of ‘Communism’ in the outer world (as yet unattained) is synonymous with the Buddhist ‘realised’ state of inner ‘enlightenment’. If the working class (as individuals) can free their minds from bourgeois conditionality ‘here and now’, this could theoretically enhance and progress the working class (collectively). The Buddha’s method carefully traces the branches of conditioned existence back to the root, and this is exactly what the work Marx and Lenin does. More than this, however, both the philosophy of Buddhism (contained within the suttas and sutras), and the theory of Marxist-Leninism (contained within its writings), serve to demonstrate the advanced and progressive functioning of a ‘non-inverted’ mind. Such a mind-state marks the demise of the bourgeoisie, capitalism and all exploitation premised upon endless greed in the world.
For the Buddhist living in the modern age, it must be understood that any achievement of enlightenment is not complete without the embracing of Marxist-Leninism (a Buddhism for the modern age). This is because there is a tendency within all forms of traditional Buddhism for practitioners to fall into a theistic quietism. This is the mistaking of achieving a ‘still’ mind for a corresponding ‘non-activity’ in the world. This type of quietism is incomplete even within early Buddhism. A ‘still’ mind, if achieved, is only half the battle in the Buddhist system of self-transformation. Eventually the mind must re-activate and interact with the world (through action or labour) so that its transformation is complete. Early Buddhism does recognise this despite certain ‘quietist’ attitudes preserved within some branches of the Theravada School. In the Mahayana School of Chinese Ch’an Buddhism, returning to perform good deeds in the world is fully recognised, and explains why Ch’an Buddhism in Communist China is part of the political system striving to build and complete Socialism in that country (a functional Buddhism also serves in Communist Vietnam and Laos). As capitalism is the dominant economic system of this age, Buddhists should study the work of Marx and Lenin to gain a thorough understanding of it, and how it can historically be progressed into Socialism (and eventual Communism). For the Buddhist it should be understood that capitalism in the modern age, is a special form of a highly condensed and historically conditioned manifestation of greed, hatred and delusion. As the Buddha rejected all conditioned social, economic and political constructs as ‘impermanent’ and the product of ‘ignorance’, he did not deal with the agency of predatory capitalism simply because it did not exist in his era of life as the dominant or widespread economic system. The Buddha advised against dogmatism and entrenched ideologies, and encouraged his students to put his teachings into practice and decide for themselves. The Buddha’s deconstruction of the motivating forces within the human psyche appears relevant to all times and places, but in the modern (and post-modern age) it is insightful philosophy of Marxist-Leninism that continues the Buddhist project of universal caring and compassion for all life on earth, and just as the Buddha was accused of all kinds of corruption by his Brahmin enemies, so too is Marxist-Leninism subject to all kinds of lies and distortions by its bourgeois enemies. This is the very delusion that the Buddha seeks to undermine and uproot. This is how the Buddha assists the progress of the Red Flag throughout the world and assists in the emancipation of the oppressed and the exploited. This redefines the act of seated meditation as a revolutionary act as important as social action, for which it is a preparation. As Buddhists respect wisdom and knowledge, it is important to study the works of Karl Marx – the practical Buddha of our modern age.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2016.