Return To Index
Previous Section: 3). Why Marx needed to Define a Radical Material Reality
4). How Marx Encountered and Expressed his Understanding of Buddhism
Known writings (and other activities) concerning Buddhism by Marx and Engels:
1836-1840: Association between Karl Marx and Karl Koppen (future expert in Buddhism) at Berlin University.
1845: Marx and Engels write ‘The German Ideology’ - which mentions Buddhism – particularly that of the Dalai Lama.
1854: Marx writes an article for the New York Tribune – which mentions Buddhism in Mongolia.
1857: Marx writes an article for the New York Tribune – which mentions Buddhism as a ‘rational’ form of Brahmanism.
1861: Marx meets with Karl Koppen in Berlin and Koppen gives Marx copies of his books on Buddhist research.
1866: Marx writes a letter discussing his practice of ‘emptying his mind’ through the practice of Buddhist meditation – to Antionette Philips.
1877: Engels writes his book ‘Anti-Duhring’ which contains dialectical descriptions of material reality very similar to Buddhist descriptions (as preserved within extant Chinese language texts of Chinese Buddhism).
1883: Engels writes his book ‘Dialectics of Nature’ within which he states that the dialectics employed by Early Buddhist philosophers is on a par with that of the most developed dialectics of ancient Greece.
1885: Engels writes in his text entitled ‘Feuerbach and End of Classical German Philosophy’, (Section III), that although ‘Buddhism, Christianity and Islam’ are three dominant religions - Christianity and Islam are only involved in minor Revolutions activity (‘Buddhism’ is not included in this list of ‘reaction’).
It seemed to myself (and a number of other academics), there was at least a ‘similarity’ between Early Buddhism and Classical Marxism, and as such, evidence was required. When this project was first conceived, the general consensus was that it was unlikely that Karl Marx had any direct knowledge (or experience) of Buddhism. After a few years of steadfast research, however, it became clear that in fact Marx had a long (and authoritative) association with Buddhism. Marx encountered Buddhism through the work of his close friend Karl Koppen – an early European expert upon Early Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism. Marx met Koppen at Berlin University which he attended from 1836-1840 – as they were both Young Hegelians and eventually members of the Doctors’ Club. Marx may well have encountered the subject of Buddhist philosophy at Berlin University, either as a subject taught in the lecture hall, or recorded in the University library. Karl Koppen may have sparked this interest through their association and friendship. In 1845, in his book entitled ‘The German Ideology’, Marx makes a number of comments about ‘Buddhism’ and the ‘Dalai Lama’ whilst criticising ‘Stirner’, (specifically on the grounds that Stirner should recognise the ‘validity’ of other religious views of the world and stop his ‘Eurocentric’ limiting of debate). In March, 1854, Marx wrote the following despatch for the New York Tribune:
‘...the religion of the Tartars is Buddhism, and Tibet, the seat of the great Lama ... is the sanctuary of the Buddhist faith… Now on both sides of the Himalayas Buddhism is confessed and as England cannot but support the new Chinese dynasty, the Czar is sure to side with the Tartar tribes, put them in motion against England and awake religious revolts in Nepal itself.’
On the 1st of September, 1857, Marx wrote another article for the New York Daily Tribune within which he described Buddhism as a kind of ‘rational Brahmanism’. This was two-years prior to the publication of ‘Grundrisse’ (1959), a precursor to ‘Das Kapital’ the latter of which was published eight-years later (in 1867). Just as Marx mentions the negative effect of freemasonry upon Socialism in his personal correspondence (but never in his published work), there might well be other mentions of Buddhism tucked away in obscure corners of his output, perhaps recorded in his dialogues remembered by other people.
Koppen is recorded as meeting with Marx every so many years after leaving University, and in giving Marx copies of his books containing very good research on the origins of Buddhism (in 1861). In 1866, Marx wrote to a friend (Antoinette Philips) stating that he had tried emptying his mind using Buddhist meditative techniques. In his book entitled ‘Anti-Duhring’ (1877), Fredrich Engels makes a statement (in the 1885 Preface) that has been noted within Chinese academia as sounding very ‘Buddhistic’ in essence. I give the Chinese rendering translated in the English language:
‘Dialectics is the general law of nature, human society and thinking, or the science of development laws.... Dialectical thinking is based on the flow of movement-occurrence, existence, development, elimination-to grasp things, not in the static state of things; to observe phenomena in all existences and intricate connections, rather than to observe phenomena as isolated, unrelated, fixed observations.’
Engels (probably with the knowledge of Marx) stated in his 1883 book entitled the ‘Dialectics of Nature’ that Buddhist dialectics is advanced like that developed by the philosophers of ancient Greece. Marx favoured Epicurus whilst at University (believing him to be an enlightened European), whilst Karl Koppen was first to write a book about Frederick the Great. Koppen would build-up his knowledge about Buddhism slowly but surely, and pass this knowledge on to Marx and Engels. Indeed, some commentators in Asia are of the opinion that the criticism of religion formulated by Marx and Engels only applies to the Judeo-Christian tradition, and not specifically Buddhism (although most religions do share similar characteristics). In 1885, writing in his text entitled ‘Feuerbach and End of Classical German Philosophy’, (Section III), Engels states that although ‘Buddhism, Christianity and Islam’ are three (extant) religious still prevalent in the world, Christianity and Islam are only involved in minor Revolutions when not acting in a reactionary manner (Engels does not include ‘Buddhism’ in this list of ‘reaction’).
The above timeline, however, is only part of the puzzle, as it only proves that Marx and Engels possessed a surprising knowledge of Buddhism at a time when such knowledge was unusual amongst Europeans, and nothing else. At his grave on March 17th, 1883, Engels said that the genius of Marx had bequeathed the world two theories; namely ‘historical materialism’, and ‘surplus value’. Surplus value is found in Das Kapital Vols. I-IV and is the core critique of capitalism as developed by Marx and Engels. Surplus value shall be placed to one-side, as this is the single most ingenius insight of Karl Marx. It is the area of ‘historical materialism’ where Classical Marxism interfaces ‘theoretically’ with the philosophy of Early Buddhism through the ‘Chain of Dependent Origination’ (paticca-samuppada). Most of the extant academic work – both East and West – includes research that specifies how Marxism views Buddhism, or how Buddhism views Marxism. Outside of Europe, and the USA, this is a substantial body of work (particularly within China). What is missing is any exploration of ‘how’ Buddhism may have ‘directly’ influenced the development of Classical Marxism.
Next Section: 5). How Marx Viewed the Buddha’s Chain of Dependent Origination
Return To Index
Previous Section: 3). Why Marx needed to Define a Radical Material Reality
4). How Marx Encountered and Expressed his Understanding of Buddhism
Known writings (and other activities) concerning Buddhism by Marx and Engels:
1836-1840: Association between Karl Marx and Karl Koppen (future expert in Buddhism) at Berlin University.
1845: Marx and Engels write ‘The German Ideology’ - which mentions Buddhism – particularly that of the Dalai Lama.
1854: Marx writes an article for the New York Tribune – which mentions Buddhism in Mongolia.
1857: Marx writes an article for the New York Tribune – which mentions Buddhism as a ‘rational’ form of Brahmanism.
1861: Marx meets with Karl Koppen in Berlin and Koppen gives Marx copies of his books on Buddhist research.
1866: Marx writes a letter discussing his practice of ‘emptying his mind’ through the practice of Buddhist meditation – to Antionette Philips.
1877: Engels writes his book ‘Anti-Duhring’ which contains dialectical descriptions of material reality very similar to Buddhist descriptions (as preserved within extant Chinese language texts of Chinese Buddhism).
1883: Engels writes his book ‘Dialectics of Nature’ within which he states that the dialectics employed by Early Buddhist philosophers is on a par with that of the most developed dialectics of ancient Greece.
1885: Engels writes in his text entitled ‘Feuerbach and End of Classical German Philosophy’, (Section III), that although ‘Buddhism, Christianity and Islam’ are three dominant religions - Christianity and Islam are only involved in minor Revolutions activity (‘Buddhism’ is not included in this list of ‘reaction’).
It seemed to myself (and a number of other academics), there was at least a ‘similarity’ between Early Buddhism and Classical Marxism, and as such, evidence was required. When this project was first conceived, the general consensus was that it was unlikely that Karl Marx had any direct knowledge (or experience) of Buddhism. After a few years of steadfast research, however, it became clear that in fact Marx had a long (and authoritative) association with Buddhism. Marx encountered Buddhism through the work of his close friend Karl Koppen – an early European expert upon Early Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism. Marx met Koppen at Berlin University which he attended from 1836-1840 – as they were both Young Hegelians and eventually members of the Doctors’ Club. Marx may well have encountered the subject of Buddhist philosophy at Berlin University, either as a subject taught in the lecture hall, or recorded in the University library. Karl Koppen may have sparked this interest through their association and friendship. In 1845, in his book entitled ‘The German Ideology’, Marx makes a number of comments about ‘Buddhism’ and the ‘Dalai Lama’ whilst criticising ‘Stirner’, (specifically on the grounds that Stirner should recognise the ‘validity’ of other religious views of the world and stop his ‘Eurocentric’ limiting of debate). In March, 1854, Marx wrote the following despatch for the New York Tribune:
‘...the religion of the Tartars is Buddhism, and Tibet, the seat of the great Lama ... is the sanctuary of the Buddhist faith… Now on both sides of the Himalayas Buddhism is confessed and as England cannot but support the new Chinese dynasty, the Czar is sure to side with the Tartar tribes, put them in motion against England and awake religious revolts in Nepal itself.’
On the 1st of September, 1857, Marx wrote another article for the New York Daily Tribune within which he described Buddhism as a kind of ‘rational Brahmanism’. This was two-years prior to the publication of ‘Grundrisse’ (1959), a precursor to ‘Das Kapital’ the latter of which was published eight-years later (in 1867). Just as Marx mentions the negative effect of freemasonry upon Socialism in his personal correspondence (but never in his published work), there might well be other mentions of Buddhism tucked away in obscure corners of his output, perhaps recorded in his dialogues remembered by other people.
Koppen is recorded as meeting with Marx every so many years after leaving University, and in giving Marx copies of his books containing very good research on the origins of Buddhism (in 1861). In 1866, Marx wrote to a friend (Antoinette Philips) stating that he had tried emptying his mind using Buddhist meditative techniques. In his book entitled ‘Anti-Duhring’ (1877), Fredrich Engels makes a statement (in the 1885 Preface) that has been noted within Chinese academia as sounding very ‘Buddhistic’ in essence. I give the Chinese rendering translated in the English language:
‘Dialectics is the general law of nature, human society and thinking, or the science of development laws.... Dialectical thinking is based on the flow of movement-occurrence, existence, development, elimination-to grasp things, not in the static state of things; to observe phenomena in all existences and intricate connections, rather than to observe phenomena as isolated, unrelated, fixed observations.’
Engels (probably with the knowledge of Marx) stated in his 1883 book entitled the ‘Dialectics of Nature’ that Buddhist dialectics is advanced like that developed by the philosophers of ancient Greece. Marx favoured Epicurus whilst at University (believing him to be an enlightened European), whilst Karl Koppen was first to write a book about Frederick the Great. Koppen would build-up his knowledge about Buddhism slowly but surely, and pass this knowledge on to Marx and Engels. Indeed, some commentators in Asia are of the opinion that the criticism of religion formulated by Marx and Engels only applies to the Judeo-Christian tradition, and not specifically Buddhism (although most religions do share similar characteristics). In 1885, writing in his text entitled ‘Feuerbach and End of Classical German Philosophy’, (Section III), Engels states that although ‘Buddhism, Christianity and Islam’ are three (extant) religious still prevalent in the world, Christianity and Islam are only involved in minor Revolutions when not acting in a reactionary manner (Engels does not include ‘Buddhism’ in this list of ‘reaction’).
The above timeline, however, is only part of the puzzle, as it only proves that Marx and Engels possessed a surprising knowledge of Buddhism at a time when such knowledge was unusual amongst Europeans, and nothing else. At his grave on March 17th, 1883, Engels said that the genius of Marx had bequeathed the world two theories; namely ‘historical materialism’, and ‘surplus value’. Surplus value is found in Das Kapital Vols. I-IV and is the core critique of capitalism as developed by Marx and Engels. Surplus value shall be placed to one-side, as this is the single most ingenius insight of Karl Marx. It is the area of ‘historical materialism’ where Classical Marxism interfaces ‘theoretically’ with the philosophy of Early Buddhism through the ‘Chain of Dependent Origination’ (paticca-samuppada). Most of the extant academic work – both East and West – includes research that specifies how Marxism views Buddhism, or how Buddhism views Marxism. Outside of Europe, and the USA, this is a substantial body of work (particularly within China). What is missing is any exploration of ‘how’ Buddhism may have ‘directly’ influenced the development of Classical Marxism.
Next Section: 5). How Marx Viewed the Buddha’s Chain of Dependent Origination
Return To Index