Karl Marx: Body Within A Body
By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD
Email: Marx and Religion by John Raines (26.2.2021)
Dear Gillian
‘Imagine a being which is neither an object itself nor has an object. In the first place, such a being would be the only being, no other being would exist outside it, it would exist in a condition of solitude. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another, a reality other than the object outside me. For this third object I am therefore a reality other than it, I.e. its object. A being which is not the object of another being therefore presupposes that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for its object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous, merely thought, i.e. merely conceived being, a being of abstraction. To be sensuous, i.e. to be real, is to be an object of sense, a sensuous object, and thus to have sensuous objects outside oneself, objects of one’s sense perception. To be sensuous is to suffer (to be subjected to the actions of another).’
Marx and Religion by John Raines (2002), Temple University – Loc 103-109
Footnote 5: Critique of Hegel’s Dialectical and General Philosophy, P. 84
Dear Gillian
‘Imagine a being which is neither an object itself nor has an object. In the first place, such a being would be the only being, no other being would exist outside it, it would exist in a condition of solitude. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another, a reality other than the object outside me. For this third object I am therefore a reality other than it, I.e. its object. A being which is not the object of another being therefore presupposes that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for its object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous, merely thought, i.e. merely conceived being, a being of abstraction. To be sensuous, i.e. to be real, is to be an object of sense, a sensuous object, and thus to have sensuous objects outside oneself, objects of one’s sense perception. To be sensuous is to suffer (to be subjected to the actions of another).’
Marx and Religion by John Raines (2002), Temple University – Loc 103-109
Footnote 5: Critique of Hegel’s Dialectical and General Philosophy, P. 84
If you have the time – please consider reading the excellent book entitled ‘Marx on Religion’ by John Raines. This is an extraordinary work. It has to be read (and absorbed) rather than argued about at this juncture – as its profound content has to be both understood and fully understood. I have a similar attitude to this thinker. I suspect the State of Communism is a secular arrival at the highest state of religiosity without the attending dogma. Religionists can adhere to this dogma if they wish - as that is a matter of self-determination – but Marx gives hope to ordinary people by stating that there is a ‘secular’ pathway to exactly the same profound insight which does not require the embracing of traditional religious modes of self-cultivation. Quid pro quo - If I can read about exorcisms you can read about Marx and religion! Besides, the psychological architecture of the book is exquisite. It is like sharing the viewing of a work of art - rather than any attempts at 'influencing' one another.
Of course, you do not have to read it, it is just a suggestion. The author quotes Marx - but the above quote seems to directly echo the Buddha! It is a quote I am not familiar with (even though I am the leading researcher in the West on this issue) and involves Marx describing human existence as involving two distinct bodies. The first 'body' is the biological body we inhabit as a conscious being. This has no 'root' (like a plant) and is able to 'self-propel'. The second 'body' is the material world. A 'body' within a 'body', so-to-speak. Why does Marx think this? It is because the human-body is composed of elements of the material-environment - the living-body is made of the same 'stuff' as the physical universe. Inert matter 'evolved' into 'living' matter with no direct or obvious 'link' between the two.
Marx then states that as the human-body communicates with the external environment through the 'senses' - invariably this 'dualism' or 'dichotomy' ensures that the basic human condition is that of 'suffering'. The 'dissonance' between the living-body and the non-living outer world generates the conditions of human psychological and physical 'suffering' on the grounds that 'consciously aware' humanity is permanently 'alienated' from the inert matter from which it evolved - with no practical means to reconcile this on the physical plane - other than through adjusting the 'inner vision' capacity so that the subject-object dichotomy (which is theoretically useful) is 'transcended' in the mind so that human-beings no longer have to 'live' within this chasm of perception.
This is how Marx identifies and reconciles what he terms the 'false consciousness' - although, of course - a 'false consciousness' is not just about fundamental perception per se, but includes how the working-class erroneously aligns itself with the destructive bourgeois mentality and its derisive policies - as if the inherent discrimination is in its best interests! As a scholar investigating the possible links between Classical Marxism and Early Buddhism - I am very interested in how Marx uses the specific term 'suffering'. In Pali, the Buddha uses the term 'dukkha'. It is often translated into English as 'suffering' and I suspect that Karl Koppen used the German word 'Leiden' - I suspect Marx was influenced by this usage and concept.
Dukkha, of course, does include the notion of 'suffering', but many Asian Buddhist Masters nowadays, state that a more specific rendering is 'dissatisfaction' - as the Buddha defines ALL sensation (pleasurable, neutral and painful) as 'dissatisfaction' when experienced in the 'dualistic' and 'unenlightened' state. The Buddha defines 'enlightenment' as transcending 'dualism' - or the apparent separation between the physical body and the material universe. In my view, the evidence that Karl Marx may have been influenced by the philosophy of Early Buddhism is building by the moment, but many researchers interested in Marx today, do not have a similar interest or knowledge of Early Buddhism. This is due in-part, to many people incorrectly believing that Marx rejected religion out of hand and advocated its eradication. This is a completely false interpretation.
Best Wishes
Adrian
Adrian