Return To Index
Previous Section: 1). Preamble – The Case for the Buddha Influencing Marx
2). Introduction – How the Buddha Influenced Marx
Marx is scathing within his collected works when discussing established religion. Indeed, he never has a good word to say about religion. Marx equates the very epicentre of the political power of the bourgeoisie with religion, even within a secular society, and when religionists advocate a ‘Socialist’ outlook upon life, Marx is dismissive, intolerant and disrespectful (for good reason according to his ideology). Although Christian monastic communities reject the capitalist notion of ‘private property’, Marx will not forgive the idealism that underlies the theology that sustains the self-sacrifice and ultraism of these monks and nuns. For Marx, it is the mind of humanity that creates all images of god (materialism), and it is never the situation that a god creates humanity and the universe humanity inhabits (idealism). Mistaking thoughts in the head for real objects in the environment is exactly the ‘inverted’ process that generates theistic religions, and sustains the illogical (and greed-ridden) capitalist system of the bourgeoisie. For Marx, the ‘inverted’ ideology of ‘idealism’ interprets reality the wrong way around and is the basis of all human ignorance and suffering in the real world, despite being used to generate religious systems that purport to ‘rescue’ humanity from its own suffering at some distant and unknown point in the future. Until that time, religion is used by the ruling classes to keep the toiling masses firmly within the constraints of their servitude. Indeed, the religion itself takes on the class structure of the bourgeoise society it serves. Marx contends that although there may well be numerous well-meaning and sincere individuals adhering to religions, nevertheless, such an adherence is also supporting the capitalist system as a whole, and is responsible for perpetuating the very suffering in life that it claims to be alleviating. Marx rejects this ‘idealistic’ inversion of reality as it does not truthfully reflect or explain material reality, and it is within material reality that all suffering occurs, and where all suffering will end. This is why Marx developed a ‘materialist’ conception of history that differs from virtually every other type of materialist thinking. Where did Marx get his inspiration from to develop his unique theory of materialism. Marx views the dialectics as developed by Hegel as being both ingenious and thoroughly deployed in the wrong manner. Hegel depicts spirit as ‘thesis’, world as ‘antithesis’ and a ‘spiritualised-worldliness’ as ‘synthesis’. This process – Marx declares is ‘inverted’ - and needs to be ‘reversed’ (or ‘placed the right way around’) so that the material world becomes ‘thesis’, the living, thinking individual becomes the (‘antithesis), and ‘self-consciousness’ emerges as the (‘synthesis’). Why did Marx reverse this process? The question seems obvious but might well be far more difficult to answer than it first seems. This paper suggests that the Buddha’s recognition of the deluded mindset of humanity (which operates in an ‘inverted’ manner through the habitual presence of greed, hatred and delusion), and the Buddha’s answer to this ‘inversion’ of perception – namely the ‘Chain of Dependent Origination’ (which explains how the inverted mind operates), profoundly influenced Marx (and Engels), as it seemed to concur with Hegel’s ‘inverted’ view. The answer for Marx lay in the Buddha’s ‘enlightened’ (or ‘non-inverted’) version of the ‘Chain of Dependent Origination’ - defined as the ‘Chain of Non-Dependent Origination’. This ‘non-inverted’ chain manifests when a ‘false consciousness’ is removed through the correct practice of prescribed Buddhist methods of disciplined psychological and physical training. Marx is not concerned with this Buddhist training per se (although I am sure he fully understands it), but only its (perfected) end result – which might be better described as a thoroughly de-religionised (Buddhist) ‘historical materialism’ - or Hegel turned ‘the right way around’. It may be that Early Buddhism (as a non-theistic philosophy) was not meant to be included in the general criticism of religion as devised by Marx and Engels on the grounds that it is not a product of the Judeo-Christian religiosity that dominated the 19th century, although its later Mahayana variant (which Marx knew from the research of Karl Koppen as ‘Tibetan Buddhism’), probably does contain certain ‘religious’ elements that require criticising and deconstructing. Certainly, Marx does criticise the Dalai Lama in The German Ideology’:
‘He found that in Hegel the Mongols and, in particular, the Chinese appear as the beginning of history and since for Hegel, too, history is a history of spirits (but not in such a childish way as with “Stirner”), it goes without saying that the Mongols brought the spirit into history and are the original representatives of everything “sacred”. In particular, on page 110, Hegel describes the “Mongolian kingdom” (of the Dalai-Lama) as the “ecclesiastical” realm, the “kingdom of theocratic rule”, a “spiritual, religious kingdom” — in contrast to the worldly empire of the Chinese. “Stirner”, of course, has to identify China with the Mongols. In Hegel, on page 140, there even occurs the “Mongolian principle” from which “Stirner” derived his “Mongolism”. Incidentally, if he really wanted to reduce the Mongols to the category of “idealism”, he could have “found established” in the Dalai-Lama system and Buddhism quite different “spiritual beings” from his fragile “heavenly ladder”. But he did not even have time to look properly at Hegel’s Philosophie der Geschichte. The peculiarity and uniqueness of Stirner’s attitude to history consists in the egoist being transformed into a “clumsy” copier of Hegel.’
Karl Marx: The German Ideology (1845) - C. The Impurely Impure History of Spirits - a) Negroes and Mongols
The Buddha’s primary influence upon Marx is that his method of interpreting the human mind functioning in a material world, could very well have been the developmental blue-print upon which Marx built the edifice of historical materialism. This influence could have been implicit and generally unrecognised despite its contribution, or deliberately obscured after its use due to its association to an Asian religion. Marx and Engels had to weigh up the possibilities of how their finished work would be received, interpreted and applied to society. The historical materialism of the Buddha could be easily ‘camouflaged’ behind all kinds of similar (although not identical) Western theories. Obviously, Marx and Engels wanted to avoid the possibility of large sections of the Western working class attempting to convert to Buddhism en masse, as a means to make ‘Revolution’! Despite this, Buddhism did seem to re-appear in their dialogues and discourses at regular intervals throughout their lives!
Next Section: 3). Why Marx needed to Define a Radical Material Reality
Return To Index
Previous Section: 1). Preamble – The Case for the Buddha Influencing Marx
2). Introduction – How the Buddha Influenced Marx
Marx is scathing within his collected works when discussing established religion. Indeed, he never has a good word to say about religion. Marx equates the very epicentre of the political power of the bourgeoisie with religion, even within a secular society, and when religionists advocate a ‘Socialist’ outlook upon life, Marx is dismissive, intolerant and disrespectful (for good reason according to his ideology). Although Christian monastic communities reject the capitalist notion of ‘private property’, Marx will not forgive the idealism that underlies the theology that sustains the self-sacrifice and ultraism of these monks and nuns. For Marx, it is the mind of humanity that creates all images of god (materialism), and it is never the situation that a god creates humanity and the universe humanity inhabits (idealism). Mistaking thoughts in the head for real objects in the environment is exactly the ‘inverted’ process that generates theistic religions, and sustains the illogical (and greed-ridden) capitalist system of the bourgeoisie. For Marx, the ‘inverted’ ideology of ‘idealism’ interprets reality the wrong way around and is the basis of all human ignorance and suffering in the real world, despite being used to generate religious systems that purport to ‘rescue’ humanity from its own suffering at some distant and unknown point in the future. Until that time, religion is used by the ruling classes to keep the toiling masses firmly within the constraints of their servitude. Indeed, the religion itself takes on the class structure of the bourgeoise society it serves. Marx contends that although there may well be numerous well-meaning and sincere individuals adhering to religions, nevertheless, such an adherence is also supporting the capitalist system as a whole, and is responsible for perpetuating the very suffering in life that it claims to be alleviating. Marx rejects this ‘idealistic’ inversion of reality as it does not truthfully reflect or explain material reality, and it is within material reality that all suffering occurs, and where all suffering will end. This is why Marx developed a ‘materialist’ conception of history that differs from virtually every other type of materialist thinking. Where did Marx get his inspiration from to develop his unique theory of materialism. Marx views the dialectics as developed by Hegel as being both ingenious and thoroughly deployed in the wrong manner. Hegel depicts spirit as ‘thesis’, world as ‘antithesis’ and a ‘spiritualised-worldliness’ as ‘synthesis’. This process – Marx declares is ‘inverted’ - and needs to be ‘reversed’ (or ‘placed the right way around’) so that the material world becomes ‘thesis’, the living, thinking individual becomes the (‘antithesis), and ‘self-consciousness’ emerges as the (‘synthesis’). Why did Marx reverse this process? The question seems obvious but might well be far more difficult to answer than it first seems. This paper suggests that the Buddha’s recognition of the deluded mindset of humanity (which operates in an ‘inverted’ manner through the habitual presence of greed, hatred and delusion), and the Buddha’s answer to this ‘inversion’ of perception – namely the ‘Chain of Dependent Origination’ (which explains how the inverted mind operates), profoundly influenced Marx (and Engels), as it seemed to concur with Hegel’s ‘inverted’ view. The answer for Marx lay in the Buddha’s ‘enlightened’ (or ‘non-inverted’) version of the ‘Chain of Dependent Origination’ - defined as the ‘Chain of Non-Dependent Origination’. This ‘non-inverted’ chain manifests when a ‘false consciousness’ is removed through the correct practice of prescribed Buddhist methods of disciplined psychological and physical training. Marx is not concerned with this Buddhist training per se (although I am sure he fully understands it), but only its (perfected) end result – which might be better described as a thoroughly de-religionised (Buddhist) ‘historical materialism’ - or Hegel turned ‘the right way around’. It may be that Early Buddhism (as a non-theistic philosophy) was not meant to be included in the general criticism of religion as devised by Marx and Engels on the grounds that it is not a product of the Judeo-Christian religiosity that dominated the 19th century, although its later Mahayana variant (which Marx knew from the research of Karl Koppen as ‘Tibetan Buddhism’), probably does contain certain ‘religious’ elements that require criticising and deconstructing. Certainly, Marx does criticise the Dalai Lama in The German Ideology’:
‘He found that in Hegel the Mongols and, in particular, the Chinese appear as the beginning of history and since for Hegel, too, history is a history of spirits (but not in such a childish way as with “Stirner”), it goes without saying that the Mongols brought the spirit into history and are the original representatives of everything “sacred”. In particular, on page 110, Hegel describes the “Mongolian kingdom” (of the Dalai-Lama) as the “ecclesiastical” realm, the “kingdom of theocratic rule”, a “spiritual, religious kingdom” — in contrast to the worldly empire of the Chinese. “Stirner”, of course, has to identify China with the Mongols. In Hegel, on page 140, there even occurs the “Mongolian principle” from which “Stirner” derived his “Mongolism”. Incidentally, if he really wanted to reduce the Mongols to the category of “idealism”, he could have “found established” in the Dalai-Lama system and Buddhism quite different “spiritual beings” from his fragile “heavenly ladder”. But he did not even have time to look properly at Hegel’s Philosophie der Geschichte. The peculiarity and uniqueness of Stirner’s attitude to history consists in the egoist being transformed into a “clumsy” copier of Hegel.’
Karl Marx: The German Ideology (1845) - C. The Impurely Impure History of Spirits - a) Negroes and Mongols
The Buddha’s primary influence upon Marx is that his method of interpreting the human mind functioning in a material world, could very well have been the developmental blue-print upon which Marx built the edifice of historical materialism. This influence could have been implicit and generally unrecognised despite its contribution, or deliberately obscured after its use due to its association to an Asian religion. Marx and Engels had to weigh up the possibilities of how their finished work would be received, interpreted and applied to society. The historical materialism of the Buddha could be easily ‘camouflaged’ behind all kinds of similar (although not identical) Western theories. Obviously, Marx and Engels wanted to avoid the possibility of large sections of the Western working class attempting to convert to Buddhism en masse, as a means to make ‘Revolution’! Despite this, Buddhism did seem to re-appear in their dialogues and discourses at regular intervals throughout their lives!
Next Section: 3). Why Marx needed to Define a Radical Material Reality
Return To Index