Meditation and Party Discipline
The Interconnection Between Buddhist Mind Culture and Marxist-Leninist Discourse
By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD
1) Things exist independently of our consciousness, independently of our perceptions, outside of us, for it is beyond doubt that alizarin existed in coal tar yesterday and it is equally beyond doubt that yesterday we knew nothing of the existence of this alizarin and received no sensations from it.
2) There is definitely no difference in principle between the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself, and there can be no such difference. The only difference is between what is known and what is not yet known. And philosophical inventions of specific boundaries between the one and the other, inventions to the effect that the thing-in-itself is “beyond” phenomena (Kant), or that we can and must fence ourselves off by some philosophical partition from the problem of a world which in one part or another is still unknown but which exists outside us (Hume)—all this is the sheerest nonsense, Schrulle, crotchet, invention.
3) In the theory of knowledge, as in every other branch of science, we must think dialectically, that is, we must not regard our knowledge as ready-made and unalterable, but must determine how knowledge emerges from ignorance, how incomplete, inexact knowledge becomes more complete and more exact.
Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1908)
2) There is definitely no difference in principle between the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself, and there can be no such difference. The only difference is between what is known and what is not yet known. And philosophical inventions of specific boundaries between the one and the other, inventions to the effect that the thing-in-itself is “beyond” phenomena (Kant), or that we can and must fence ourselves off by some philosophical partition from the problem of a world which in one part or another is still unknown but which exists outside us (Hume)—all this is the sheerest nonsense, Schrulle, crotchet, invention.
3) In the theory of knowledge, as in every other branch of science, we must think dialectically, that is, we must not regard our knowledge as ready-made and unalterable, but must determine how knowledge emerges from ignorance, how incomplete, inexact knowledge becomes more complete and more exact.
Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1908)
If the mind and its functionality is interpreted as being part of the physical world, then the control and discipline of the mind is nothing other than a material exercise no different in principle than disciplining the body. Of course, the mind is not separate from the material world, but an integral part of it. This is a reality not only recognised within Marxist-Leninist ideology, but also within Early Buddhist philosophy, and throughout all the Buddhist Schools. Marx and Engels understood the foundation of Buddhist (material) philosophy, and Marx even claimed in a letter to have practised the Buddhist technique of emptying the mind. Whereas Engels compared Buddhist and Greek dialectics favourably – Joseph Stalin over-saw the creation of the Buddhist Institute for the Study of Buddhist Culture in 1928. The Soviet Union itself had at least three republics described as ‘Buddhist’, but these republics invariably practised atheism prior to the October Revolution (as the Indian Buddha rejected the ‘inverted’ thinking of theism and denied the existence of a ‘soul’). Although Buddhism is often misrepresented by the bourgeoisie as a ‘religion’, in reality there is nothing in the Buddha’s philosophy that can be truthfully construed as ‘religious’ in the theistic sense. When Buddhism is modified to suit a Western, Judeo-Christian (and fee paying) audience, the Buddha is distorted into a ‘god’, and his philosophy blurs into a theology, but none of this is a correct representation. In fact, so prolific has this misrepresentation of Buddhism outside of its native Asia, that many Westerners find it difficult to accept that the Buddha propagated a ‘materialist’ philosophy.
More to the point, Buddhism within Asia has invariably supported Socialist and Communist Movements, and Buddhist monks have added Marxist-Leninist ideology to their teaching sessions when in contact with ordinary people. Of course, the bourgeois ideologues have taken note of this phenomenon and tried to counter it by fabricating ‘Buddhistic’ Movements (such as certain rightwing groups in Japan, Islamophobic Buddhist groups in Southeast Asia, the Pro-Tibetan Movement and the Falun Gong Cult, etc), but genuine Buddhism continues unaffected. Within Communist China, for instance, the Chinese Buddhist Association fully supports the building of Socialism and sees no contradiction between the Communist ideology of Marx, Lenin and Mao, the Buddha and such modern teachers as Master Xu Yun (1840-1959), amongst many others. Where Buddhism exists unsullied by the forces of capitalism, the onus is also upon disciplining the body and mind, and sharing knowing and resources. Within this Buddhist practice there exist no contradictions to the application of Marxist-Leninist thought. As both the Buddha and Marx revealed the ‘inverted’ mind-set of the feudal theologists (that generated the racist caste system), and the modern bourgeoise that gave birth to the modern system of capitalism, a fundamental reality was exposed by each thinker in a manner suitable for the epoch within which they existed.
A radical and transformative education is the key to understanding the nexus that exists between a Buddhist philosophy unsullied by inverted bourgeois considerations, and Marxist-Engels and Marxist-Leninist dialectical thinking. If Buddhism is presented ‘through the bourgeois filter’, so to speak, then it becomes an exotic extension of Judeo-Christian theology, and the criticism formulated by Marx against theistic religion (i.e. ‘the opiate of the masses’) is relevant to its deconstruction. However, if Buddhism retains its original and revolutionary nature, then it is obvious that the Buddha’s rhetoric is one of a dialectical materialism designed to empower an individual to ‘see through’ the psychological sleight of hand that is the basis of all religiously inspired and highly oppressive, socio-economic systems. Those who wish to over-come the ‘inverted’ historical conditioning that defines their psychological state, must expose their perceptual being to ‘non-inverted’ texts, and augment this corrective experience with joining together with other groups and associations, the members of which are pursuing the same political and developmental path. The Buddhist texts, for example, approach self-development through a fundamental and complete (albeit ‘peaceful’) rejection of the status quo in word, deed and thought. This is the a priori ‘revolutionary’ principle of Buddhism. Buddhist philosophy rejects theism, and any related society that encourages an individualism premised upon greed, hatred and delusion. To be clear, the Buddha states that the agencies of greed, hatred and delusion are imported into the interior of the mind from elsewhere, and this differs from the theory of Freudian Psychoanalysis (which assumes that all of humanity’s negative psychological traits are ‘inherent’). In this regard, the Buddha agrees with Marx that the human mind absorbs and reflects the socio-economic conditions of the outer world, which are historically generated and perpetuated as ever changing physical constructs. Once imprinted into the interior of the mind, these thought processes are conditioned to be formulated within and through specific patterns of psychological activity, which generate behaviour and speech, etc. All this is over-laid with emotionality which seals the conditioning. An individual, although locked-in to specific historical epochs of conditioning from birth, nevertheless possesses the ability to modify behaviour and thought through an act of developmental will. This is a point of progressive education that Buddha and Marx equally recognised. What is required is the ability to a) understand that conditioning exists, b) understand that conditioning can be changed, and c) understand the educational path that facilitates this change.
For the Buddha living within the cultural milieu of ancient India, his spoken teaching (or ‘Dharma’) became the de facto vehicle through which individuals could ‘undo’ historical conditioning, and realise a pristine state of mind (free of all historical conditioning). Now in written form, the Dharma (which comprises about 5000 individual texts), propagates a communality whereby all notions of bourgeois ‘self’ and ‘individuality’ are transcended by way of using ‘insight’ to see through the causes of all conditionality. Once the causes of all conditionality are understood, old habits are broken and new habits can be formulated. The ideal Buddhist community is premised upon the actualisation of non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion. As a consequence, it is philosophically impossible for the Buddhist point of view to be opposed to any form of Scientific Socialism. This is because the Buddha’s philosophy leads humanity toward Scientific Socialism and never away from its structures and conclusions. It is only by ‘inverting’ the Buddha’s philosophy and distorting his world view that Buddhism could ever oppose Scientific Socialism, but of course, such an ignorant path is not truly ‘Buddhist’. One issue that stands out when surveying the many Western groups of Buddhism, is the ‘greed’ ethic through which they function. Whereas the Buddha taught freely, and given that all genuine Buddhist Schools in Asia teach for free, the fact that Western Buddhist groups ‘charge’ for conveying the Buddha’s teachings demonstrates the full extent of their bourgeois and pro-capitalist perspective. The Buddha would refer to these groups as propagating ‘aDharma’, or corrupt and misleading teachings. Buddhist philosophy, when fully understood within it original and ‘materialist’ context, could well be thought of as a type of Marxism for a previous age, one which can still be useful today when considered in the light of modern Marxism. It is not that Buddhism is required so that modern Marxism can fulfil its mission of World Revolution, but rather that as it already exists, its teachings can be utilised by modern Marxists to influence large swathes of human populations in Asian, and perhaps even appeal to Westerners as a method of ‘freeing’ the mind (through meditative practice). The fact that the Buddha taught that thoughts in the mind are no different to objects in the environment (with both being ‘empty’ of any permanent or unchanging substance), and rejected the idea that mind stood in opposition to a material world, demonstrates the compatibility between Marxist-Engels and Marxist-Leninist ideology and Buddhist philosophy. Enlightenment, as defined by the Buddha, is the realisation of the non-dual nature of mind, body and environment.
The Buddha advises his disciples to ‘withdraw consent’ from actively supporting and participating in the socio-economic world around them. Although the Buddha’s path is non-violent on the physical plane, his thoughts and words are highly critical and maybe interpreted as ‘militant’. He is indifferent to the feelings or belief systems of others, and can be seen routinely dismissing all such worldly activity as the participation in a delusive way of living that induces suffering in the mind and in society. As the Buddha’s followers were few, and given that he owned no weaponry, physical violence would have been counter-productive, particularly within a culture that possessed a habit of being intrigued by holy men who ‘rejected’ the prevailing social order. Kings and Generals in the Buddha’s time tended to have more respect for Revolutionaries who operated outside the norms of usual diplomacy. A King or General could be swayed by a good and comprehensive (dialectical) argument, but would unleash ferocious military forces if confronted in a violent manner. Marxists in the modern era know this situation well, with many having to stay hidden or out of the way, until the time presents itself when decisive physical action is called for. Of course, within modern (capitalist) society things are very different, and no one respects a ‘wise’ argument that points-out the inherent flaws and injustices operating within predatory capitalism. The capitalist system is just as likely to use ‘force’ against anyone expressing a different idea, as it is to exclude such individuals from all access to the media or education system. This situation explains why modern Revolutionaries make use of the written words of Marx, Engels and Lenin, as well as many other Scientific Socialist leaders and activists. Whereas the ancient Buddha defended himself with robust wording, modern Marxists quite often have to defend themselves with an equally robust method of self-defence. This is just a matter of adapting to prevailing circumstances, and need not be used to drive a wedge between Buddhism and Marxism, after-all, within China (and presumably within ancient India), there existed warrior schools of Buddhists who trained only in self-defence, and even then, only in the service of the weak and vulnerable. In the modern world, the reality is that millions of Buddhists (who respect peace and non-violence in an ideal world), have had to participate in Revolutionary Wars that have defeated the forces of imperialism, and ensured freedom and safety from the destructive forces of predatory capitalism. This is particularly true of China, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (Kampuchea), etc, but also includes entire regiments in the Soviet Red Army. Throughout history, Buddhists have gone where they are needed to go, and adopted the Revolutionary roles that history has demanded. This does not mean that Buddhism or Buddhists are ‘special’ – they certainly are not – but rather that the dialectical use of the mind is the basis of all subsequent Revolutionary activity.
The Buddha rejected the notion of caste as a defining criterion for ‘collectivity’ (because of its theistic basis), and instead advocated a ‘Sangha’ – or a ‘collectivity’ defined around the concept of a shared path of mind and body discipline. His teaching (Dharma) served as the theoretical framework, with those of more experience guiding those with less experience. The laity, or those men and women who did not renounce the world, shave their heads and live a life of celibacy, were encouraged to live their lives as best they could, applying certain aspects of the Dharma to their daily life. This often meant the retainment of caste, but with a modification to its interpretation, as well as a transformation of its underlying justification. Over-time, as Indian society changed and Brahmanism lost its power, a Buddhist society would emerge where caste would be abandoned (at least officially), creating a new type of ‘individualism’. Of course, as Buddhism spread to countries outside of India there was no caste to abandon, and purely Buddhist communities were established. A lay person, free of caste obligation – but not yet living in the monastic community of Buddhist monks and nuns – experienced probably the first ‘modern’ sense of individuality in Asia. This was not an individuality premised upon the bourgeois division of labour, but one entirely constructed around freedom of thought and self-determination. Having rejected theism as a way to organise the mind, body and society, the Buddha had abandoned the ‘inverted’ mind that had created the foundation of Brahmanic society. This ‘inverted’ mind in ancient India is exactly the same inverted mind that generated the theistic religions of the West. What is this ‘inverted’ mind? The concept of an ‘inverted’ mind-set denotes a particular and habitual a priori use of the mind that falsely assumes spirit creates matter, or to place it within the Buddhist context – that mind creates universe. This approach to interpretation is generally referred to as ‘idealism’. This is ‘inverted’ because it is diametrically opposed to the basis of modern science, and the use of dialectical logic and reason. Idealistic inversion suggests that the ‘thought’ creates the ‘mind’, or that the ‘thought’ somehow generates the ‘brain’. Logic dictates that a brain must already exist before it can generate a thought, and that the agency of ‘thought’ has never been recorded to exist outside of (or apart from) the brain-mind that has produced it. Thoughts do not ‘create’ matter as if by an act of will. The world of matter exists independently of the mind that perceives it, but as the mind is a function of the physical brain, the mind itself is part of the material world it observes. Enlightenment for the Buddhist, is the personal realisation of this fact. As the concept of ‘god’ is only a thought in the mind, and given that there exists no corresponding evidence in the material world, it is obvious that it is the human mind that has generated this idea. The idea of ‘god’ has formed in the mind’s eye and has been projected onto the external world. This is compounded by an ‘inversion’ of logic which loses the correct sequence of events. The correct (logical) sequence of events should be:
1) Mind generates thought construct of god.
2) Mind projects thought construct of god onto the physical world.
3) God is seen where no material evidence exists.
The ‘inverted’ and ‘illogical’ mind-set interprets the same set of events as:
a) God exists independently of the observer.
b) God created the material universe (and the observer).
c) God made himself known in the mind of the observer.
The Buddha (like Marx) interpreted the god concept as an inversion of logic. Marx held this view because a belief in god runs counter to the established logic of modern science. The Buddha held exactly the same view, but his was premised upon personal observation. Whilst looking into his mind during years of meditation practice, the Buddha stated that he did not ‘see’ any of the theistic constructs that the Brahmanic texts suggested existed. This was after attaining all the levels of spiritual insight and bliss. The Buddha appears to have retained an intellectual ability to objectivise his own psychological states, and not become lost in abstraction on the one hand, or intense emotional feeling on the other. He saw no psychological basis within himself to justify a belief in god (or gods), and consequently saw no god-like presence in the machinations of the material world. Through this process of self-observation, the Buddha was able to ‘see through’ the historical conditioning of his birth and caste, and in so doing, he rejected it as ‘untrue’. This is how the Buddha cognised the psychological inversion operating in his mind, abandoned it as illogical, and in so doing adopted a ‘non-inverted’ mind-set. Like the ancient Greeks and the modern scientists, the Buddha discovered the ‘correct’ and ‘non-inverted’ functionality of the human mind through the process of self-observation and logical analysis. This type of analysis can only be of assistance to the International Working Class, but the question remains one of context within non-Buddhist cultures. Within Asia, of course, Buddhism and Marxism are common collaborators.
As Buddhists are used to applying self-discipline, carrying-out Communist Party activities is not an issue. This might also mean carry-out no action in the right circumstances. Like the Buddhist communities of ‘Sangha’, the Communist Party is a group entity applying central democracy to social organisation. However, as all planned activity on the physical plane originates within the mind (as non-inverted thoughts and ideas), social activism also implies psychological discipline and correct direction of thought. As such, it is important to avoid or discourage ‘reactionary’ or ‘inverted’ (i.e. ‘bourgeois’) states of mind from sullying the procedure of progressive action and advanced narrative building (formulated by the Central Committee). This requires that the inversion of bourgeois selfishness be replaced by the non-inverted (and working-class friendly) reality of selflessness. This is the recognition of a ‘new’ historical narrative that represents the best interests of the working-class, and pursue those interests in the most logical manner suitable to the historical epoch and socio-economic conditions. For the Buddhist, this is cultivating the ability to clearly perceive trends of historical materialism present in the environment, and acting upon (and within) the mind and body. Once perceived, the individual can easily align him or herself with the most efficient manner of progressive advancement. This process of Buddhistic mind and body development invariably interconnects with Community Party discipline with no conflicts whatsoever. The only contradiction to this naturally unfolding process, is a Buddhist interpretation sullied by the inverted logic of bourgeois thinking. In such an interpretation, this narrative is no longer truly ‘Buddhist’, but rather a version of ‘theism’ that resents being termed as ‘inverted’ or ‘illogical’. However, as these distortions are easy to see and weed-out, such diversions need not detain the leftwing Buddhist for long.
At its centre, Buddhism remains anti-capitalist due to its ‘non-greed’ ethos. From a Buddhist philosophical point of view, the pointless accumulation of capital as a habit of mind and behaviour is impossible, and even within circumstances where Buddhists happen to enjoy an affluent lifestyle, the Buddhist advised the careful use of wealth to support the family and the community. The Buddha also taught against the excessive hoarding of material wealth for no purpose. This approach undermines the capitalist philosophy of self-interest in any and all of its manifestations. Whereas a Buddhist monk or nun is forbidden to receive or handle money (instead performing manual labour on a ‘voluntary’ basis), the lay-Buddhist community must work for a living in a manner that does not encourage or support human (or animal) cruelty, warfare or intoxication through alcohol or drugs, etc. Part of the income should be used to maintain a home and a reasonable living standard, part of the income should be used for community projects (such as alleviating poverty), and part of the income should be saved for emergencies. For the socially minded Buddhist, paying taxes is an important means of re-distributing wealth and meeting broader communal obligations. This stems from the Buddhist concept of karma, which essentially recognises the scientific principle of cause and effect, but adds to it a moral dimension. Caring for one another is the most efficient manner for ensuring care for the individual within society. Individuals exist of course, but from the Buddhist point of view, society is comprised of millions of minds and bodies all experiencing a profound interconnection through interaction that is as much psychological as it is physical. All thought and action is conditioned by past events, manifest (and shaped) through the socio-economic conditions of the present, and perpetuated into an as yet unformed future through habit. This being the case, the Buddha suggested that humanity should follow a path that eradicates psychological and physical suffering, and that this should be achieved by uprooting disparaging habits of thought in the mind, and destructive modes of behaviour in the body. As he defined a suffering existence as one riddled with greed, hatred and delusion, his logical antidote comprised the identification of these three poisons in the mind (as thought) and in the body (as actions). Once identified (during the meditative process), they could be cut-off at their root and a mind ‘empty’ of this obscuring delusion could be realised. This process of Buddhist purification is in reality the cleansing of the mind and body of the very essence of capitalistic thinking. A mind (and body) freed of greed, hatred and delusion, is a mind (and body) full of (potential) Socialist endeavour. The point is that anyone living within a capitalist society can carry-out this ‘inner’ Revolution and free themselves from the innate control of capitalist forces, whilst then being able to fully understand and profoundly embrace the dialectical work of Marx-Engels and Marx-Lenin as a means to generate ‘outer’ Revolution. Within a modern (or post-modern) capitalist society, a typical member of the proletariat does not have to take-on or ‘mimic’ the Asian culture of an ethnic Buddhist to directly benefit from the effectiveness of Buddhist meditational practice. What is required is good quality instruction that does not require any form of bourgeois identity shift, joining groups or travelling long distances. As most members of the proletariat are locked into a certain set of circumstances through generations of inherited poverty, the choices (and fetishes) enjoyed by the bourgeoisie simply do not exist. The daily grind of work, poverty and debt keep working class people firmly within the circumstances of their birth, whilst the bourgeois system that exploits them perpetuates the usual ‘rags to riches’ mythology as a means to pass the time. This is where education as a principle comes into play, particularly in the internet age. Good quality education can be gained from reliable websites providing an internet connection can be secured. Of course, this is not always an easy task as separating the wheat from the chaff can often be problematic, but it is possible and it is empowering. The Communist Party in the UK now has a permanent and far-reaching internet presence that joins millions of working class people together – even if they may not be Party Members.
The point is that Buddhist meditation is an act of scientific mind organisation that does require joining groups, changing cultural identity, travelling thousands of miles or paying large sums of money to ‘learn how to breath’. Why is it ‘scientific’? The Buddha employs an objective logic to subjective experience. This is particularly important due to his rejection of religion as a justifier for the inner (psychological) world and (outer) world of material processes. Existence is a ‘bundle’ of processes all conditioned by one another, and there is no definite (theological) beginning to the universe, and no perceivable end. The real issue for the Buddhist is to bring order to thought processes and patterns. As meditation is often pursued with the body held in a certain position, the body’s activities are curtailed for the duration of the exercise, and the body is thus disciplined. The mind, no longer required to chase after this or that experience in the material world, is free to be calmed and focused to ever greater degrees of sharpness and awareness. Of course, even with the body subdued and the mind calmed, the awareness of the mind is never fully detached from the body, but its emphasis profoundly changes. Awareness of the body becomes exact and precise with no excessive interpretations. Bodily sensations are known to be ‘pleasant’, ‘unpleasant’ and ‘neutral’, with the mind ‘aware’ but ‘detached’. The genius of the Buddha is that he applied exactly the same material analysis to thought processes and emotionality. Thoughts (and feelings) were clearly discerned as ‘pleasant’, ‘unpleasant’ and ‘neutral’. This led to a state of awareness which can be described as ‘non-identification with thought’. An individual is aware and present within their own body, but the habitual link of historical conditionality is permanently broken through strength of developed insight. Although it can be said that Buddhist monastics live within the artificial environment of a temple, monastery or some other equally designated ‘sacred space’, the Buddhist lay-person typically continues to exist in the ‘real’ world, and must integrate a calm mind empty of attachment to conditionality, with a material world that is nothing but the product of conditionality. This is a useful ability for a Communist to possess, as it allows full participation within bourgeois society, whilst remaining psychologically free to incite Revolution whenever and wherever historical (and dialectical) forces permit. In the case of already existing within a Socialist society (i.e. ‘post-Revolution’) such as China, Vietnam and Laos, this ability is used for unleashing the greatest and most efficient of progressive forces for the advancement and development of humanity in all fields of political, cultural and scientific endeavour. Whilst society is stuck in the mire of capitalist production, then Buddhist meditation, although not vital to the Marxist-Leninist project, is certainly not detrimental to it. Furthermore, the effective dynamics of Buddhist meditation does not require a practitioner to ascribe (in full or in part), to any of the accrued or associated Buddhist traditions or conventions that might be loosely construed as ‘religious’ in nature. Buddhist meditation, premised as it is on cause and effect, stands alone as the core of Buddhist teaching and might well represent its earliest layer. As and when the world society transitions into Socialism, Buddhist meditation might well be useful to ‘loosen’ the bonds of capitalist conditioning, but of course, when the world society attains the Communist existence, the inverted mind-set of humanity will dissolve into a fully functioning (and non-inverted) psychological and physical reality, within which religion and developmental philosophy will cease to have any meaning or relevance.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2018.