Marxist Critique of Buddhist Enlightenment
By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD
‘Monks, if having addressed himself to the structure and configuration of these thoughts, (such states still persist), then that monk, teeth clenched, tongue pressed against the palate, is to retrain, subdue, and dominate the mind by means of the mind. (From doing that these states) pass away and come to an end. From their passing away the mind is inwardly settled and quietened, focused and composed. It is like a powerful man who, grasping a weaker man by the head or the shoulders, retrains, subdues, and dominates (him).’
(The Buddha – Configuration of Thoughts)[1]
What relevance, if any, does an ancient developmental philosophy have for Marxist theory? If it were a theology such as that found within gnostic Christianity, for instance, then the answer would undoubtedly be none whatsoever (as finding and merging with a god-concept does not free the toiling masses), but what about philosophical Buddhism? Buddhism is in reality, an ancient system of philosophy designed to rectify an ‘inverted’ mind-set, an inverted mind-set that Marx perceived as operating throughout bourgeois society. Buddhism is of course, of ancient Indian origin, and regardless of its revolutionary and transcendent nature, grew out of that essentially Brahmanic cultural milieu. Theological religion is declared by Marx to be ‘inverted’ and of no interest or relevance to his theory of Scientific Socialism. A religionist, as Marx explains, view reality the wrong way around, and therefore possesses no correct intellectual basis to assess reality. Instead, religionists withdraw into a ‘mythic’ reality of imagined divine beings, and cosmic realms of punishment and reward. One aspect of theistic religions that is found nauseating by Marx, is its exploitative and dominating nature, which is led by a church (or some other religious authority) that supports the ruling Bourgeois State. The masses are kept in ignorance through the study of scripture – which their mind’s power to assess and critique must not develop beyond. A group of men known as the ‘church’ ascribe to themselves a status of being god’s representatives upon earth, and the exploited masses have no choice but to react with deference, subservience and respect. The Buddha, by way of contrast, thoroughly rejected the prevailing Brahmanic theology of his day. As Brahmanism was the dominant (and defining) social force throughout India, the Buddha’s position was nothing less than the total ‘rejection’ of Indian culture in its feudalistic form (i.e. caste system). This Buddhist deconstruction extended to other schools of philosophical speculation that had also developed out of (and away from) Brahmanic thinking. The Buddha stamped his intellectual authority through the use of a Western-like logic and reason, in numerous ‘debating’ encounters recorded in the Buddhist suttas (or recorded sayings). The Buddha’s philosophical premise is that all of humanity is born with a mind that functions through the three psychological-emotional taints of greed, hatred, and delusion. Although the Buddha is critiquing the historical conditioning of the Indian mind-set, the underlying assumption is that his conclusions are ‘universal’ in scope, and as a form of ‘secular’ psychology, are applicable to all ethnic and cultural groupings, regardless of the historical distinctiveness of those groupings. The Buddha proposes that through psychological and physical discipline (which must be voluntarily self-imposed), an individual can radically alter the functionality of the brain-mind nexus.
Is this assumption logically correct? Can the functionality of the human mind be ‘changed’ through a self-imposed regimen of inner (mind), and outer (body) discipline? Marx, in a letter to Antoinette Philips in 1866, states that he was keeping his mind ‘empty’ of all thoughts (just like a Buddhist), during a holiday by the seaside.[2] Marx does not elaborate as to whether the method worked, or if it was successful in anyway, but he certainly does not turn against Buddhism in the manner he generally does when discussing theistic religion and its ‘inverted’ assumptions. Marx understood that the mind can be changed by education, and viewed education as one of the most powerful weapons the workers could utilise in their development of a true consciousness, and the eradication of false consciousness. In principle, Marx acknowledges that educational discipline and direction does possess the ability to radically alter the human mind, and direct all human activity into a more profound and worker-friendly direction. Once establishing that the Buddha’s basic educational principle is sound, how far can this credibility be taken? This is an important question for both Buddhism and Marxism. Both Marx and Buddha place the cause and effect of material existence as being primary to their respective developmental systems. Furthermore, both Marx and Buddha acknowledged that reality as it presents itself to the human senses is somehow deficient, and not indicative of how a better existence could be. Therefore, perception of matter (i.e. external stimuli acting upon the body senses), and perception of inner processes, (which is, of course, still within the realm of matter), must be radically transformed if an individual is to leave behind the deficient reality, and head toward a more optimised existence. The Buddha defines reality as being materially derived, whereby perception of matter must be refined, so that the function of perception can penetrate its own perceiving process. Marx states that in a capitalist society, greed for profit is preeminent, but within a Socialist society, the external stimuli are premised upon non-greed and the altruistic development of humanity. In a Communist society, the transition from capitalism, through Socialism, is completed and an entirely new order is achieved beyond that of ‘class’ or ‘state’. However, Marx also made it clear that workers must free their minds through education BEFORE the external physicality can be reformed through Revolution. By way of contrast, the Buddha rejected theistic Brahmanic society and chose to live as a beggar on its periphery, presumably aiming to bring-down the Brahmanic system not by direct confrontation, but rather by persuading all beings to simply chose to ‘leave’ Brahmanic society and take up the Buddhist life-style. If enough people dropped-out in this fashion, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Brahmanic culture would collapse on its own, and the ‘inverted’ religious mind-set abandoned as a result.
The Buddha’s enlightenment aims at an inner clarification through concentrated awareness. His method dispels old modes of thinking by uprooting the essence of said thinking, i.e. greed, hatred and delusion. When the mind is thus ‘stilled’ as all thought is brought to an end, the Buddhist practitioner can then penetrate ‘perception’, as if viewing it from within. The Buddha’s method appears to re-set the functionality of the mind, so that all thought processes now operate from a pristine and highly knowledgeable, secular understanding. This loss of theological existence, and the embracing of secular logic, appears to be the Buddhist realisation of a non-inverted mind-set – as described by Marx. In other words, a key marker of similarity for both Marxism and Buddhism is the recognition of psychological inversion, and its removal and replacement with a more efficient functionality of the mind that is better suited to directly perceive, and therefore understand reality as it actually is, rather than as religion ‘imagines’ it to be. A more precise exploration of the Buddha’s schematic may be expressed as being a map of consciousness and consciousness development, if the principle of ‘consciousness’ is taken as a definition of what it is to be physically ‘alive’ and able to psychologically ‘cognise’ the inner and outer environment:
Buddha’s Schematic
1) From a Marxist perspective, this may be referred to as the ‘objective’ (thesis) phase of Buddhist analysis. The physical world exists, and humanity exists within it, by consciously perceiving the external environment through sensory stimulus directed into the brain-mind nexus, via the senses of the body. In effect, this is exercising the ‘conscious’ awareness of sensory stimuli, with the receiving brain-mind nexus assuming various ‘conditioned’ responses to the stimuli received. The Buddha’s position is that human beings are generally born in an unevolved mental state, that can function for survival purposes, but which does not see beyond its own assumptions and habit of interpretation. The brain-mind nexus is ‘conscious’ of course, but its awareness is limited in scope and depth, and tends to ‘grasp’ its impressions of external stimuli, and become ‘attached’ to said impressions. This state of mind lacks wisdom because it does not understand its own functionality.
2) From a Marxist perspective, this may be referred to as the ‘subjective’ (antithesis) phase of Buddhist analysis. The physical world is the basis for the experiences of humanity on the inner, (conscious) psychological plain. Experiences on the outer plain are reflected inwardly by a ‘mirroring’ psychological response. These inner responses are triggered by the information received by the bodily senses, and interpreted either directly, or in modified form, depending upon the previous experiences of the individual concerned. Outer stimuli is reflected in the interior of the conscious mind both literally, and figuratively. The conditionality of past experiences allows for existential events to be interpreted far beyond their literal or apparent definition. Humanity is born creating this psychological interior (which at its base is comprised of greed, hatred and delusion according to Buddha), but remains generally unaware of its process and functionality.
3) From a Marxist perspective, this may be referred to as the ‘integrative’ (synthesis) phase of Buddhist analysis. The Buddha’s method is often obscured within long lists of logical assumptions, explanations, and interpretations – commonly referred to as the Buddhist suttas or sutras, etc. It is believed that the Buddha explained his method for over 45 years, (some texts say 49 years), and he did so to many hundreds of differing individuals that all needed precise guidance from their differing starting points, to access the Buddha’s use of dialectical assessment and practice. The Buddha stated that the deluded consciousness was not strong enough to understand a) its own predicament, and b) the true nature of its own functionality. He advocated a specific type of education, but one premised upon ‘method’, rather than ‘content’. This interpretation is taken from the fact that the Buddha’s method is not designed to fill the mind-up with various chunks of disparate knowledge (as a means to expel ignorance about various subjects), but is in fact a method of radically altering how the brain-mind nexus operates with regard to the conscious perception of the outer and inner world. The faculty of conscious awareness is strengthened through certain meditative exercises that wilfully limit the function of the mind and bodily activity. The experiences of the body are severally ‘limited’ on the outer plain, so that the inner psychological plain is freed from the usual stimuli. The thoughts are ‘stilled’ as the external stimuli is withdrawn. When the inner psychological plain is rendered ‘still’, the meditator is able to perceive the ‘empty’ essence of the psychic fabric itself. This radically ‘alters’ how the mind interprets any further stimuli, particularly in the later stages of the re-engaging of the physical world. Once the meditator’s awareness has been permanently transformed, it is no longer confused by the outer physical stimuli it receives. This implies that the outer stimuli (absorbed from the environment) ‘merges’ or ‘integrates’ with the empty psychic fabric of the mind, in a manner that cannot be regressed to the earlier level of ‘not knowing’. The Buddha considers this the ‘enlightened’ state because in his view it is free of greed, hatred, and delusion, and as all contradictions have been resolved, it can no longer fall into ‘thesis’ or ‘antithesis’. This is the Buddhist pre-eminence of a fully developed consciousness awareness, optimally functioning within the physical world.
If the concept of human consciousness is taken as a ‘special arrangement of matter’, then there is no reason to assume that the Buddha’s method, at least in its earliest and most pristine manifestation, contradicts this understanding of reality. The Buddha never denies that consciousness only exists because of the presence of material reality. In fact, the Buddha clearly states (in his Four Noble Truths) that consciousness (of stimuli) ceases when the sense organs (of the body) are permanently removed from contact with sense objects. Of course, this can happen whilst the body (and mind) are still alive through the loss of a limb or a dysfunctional inner organ, but of course, at the point of complete physical death – ALL consciousness ceases. There is no after-life, and even the Buddha admits that those who have realised the essence of perception, eradicate all notions of the existence of gods, as well as all ideas of conscious and physical retribution (i.e. ‘karma’), and of course, any notions of rebirth (all of which are associated with the Brahmanism the Buddha rejects). If assessed free of the error of idealism, the three aspects of the Buddha’s schematic are nothing other than the assessment of matter to varying degrees of conscious penetration. The Buddha appears, by abandoning theistic religion, to have arrived at a secular mind-set which sees an optimised functionality of the brain-mind nexus. He did this as a matter of will, and he achieved this as an individual living thousands of years ago. The Buddha appears to have developed a method of perceptual science, that through analysis and careful practice, is able to break the individual ‘free’ of the prevailing historical epoch and its conditionality. This is similar in function, (but of course highly condensed in practice), to the long-term requirement of the proletariat to educate themselves out of the mire of bourgeois oppression. The difference lies in the fact that for the proletariat, the concept of ‘desire’ acts as the mechanism through which revolution is both planned and achieved. A working class revolutionary ‘burns’ with the desire to free his or her own class from the oppression of the capitalism system. The Buddhist eradication of ‘greed’ and ‘delusion’ are positive principles well within the scope of Scientific Socialism. For a successful revolution to occur, desire is useful, whereas greed and delusion are not. However, it is entirely possible that after a revolution is successfully achieved, ‘desire’ of this kind may no longer be necessary or appropriate. Considering the radical and anti-establishment nature of the Buddha’s method, in its day it was entirely ‘revolutionary’ as it completely rejected the prevailing culture and system it emerged from within. Original Buddhism was very different from those countries today that consider themselves ‘Buddhist’, as the Buddha’s method rejected all forms of feudalism, fascism and capitalism. In fact, the Sangha, or community of monks and the lay community that supports it, operates on a ‘Communist-type’ methodology. Today, Buddhist traditions and movements that collaborate with capitalism are contradicting the Buddha’s actual message of meditative revolution. If Buddhists deviate away from the Buddha’s message of material dialectics, they fall into ‘idealism’, and in so doing are acting as ‘counter-revolutionaries’, and opposing the Buddha’s ‘wise’ assessment and interpretation of reality. Marx advised the use of historical and dialectical materialism, but he did not limit existence to the physical plain, as he also acknowledged the existence and use of consciousness. Of course, consciousness in this context is not separate from matter, but is viewed as a special type of functioning matter (generated from the brain). The Buddha’s understanding of the ‘integrated’ nature of mind and matter is useful, particularly with his emphasis upon the notion of ‘emptiness’ being the reality of matter. This does not negate matter, and neither does it resort to idealism. The Buddha’s understanding is entirely free from idealism, but it does move the debate onto a more profound interpretation of matter – as it appears to be integrated with ‘space’ – which is itself far more prominent in the universe-multiverse interpretation of existence. This has led to modern Buddhists living in Communist China, for instance, to state that reality cannot be limited to a one-sided interpretation of ‘matter’ as opposed to ‘emptiness’ (as if the two states are not related),
as modern science explains that all apparently solid matter is in fact comprised of non-solid energy. In other words, reality is an integration of ethereal (empty-like) energy and (solid-like) matter which operates continuously, and that the Buddha’s method prepares the mind, through a philosophical language and methodology relevant to its time, to understand this unified reality.[3]
A Marxist critique of Buddhist enlightenment, is in reality an examination of how the Buddha’s system of thought relates to the concept of physical matter. The Buddha’s message is unique in the ancient world, as he definitely places the concept of ‘mind’ within the realm of physical matter, and did not recognise as correct, the theistic concept of a ‘spirit’ existing in opposition to a physical realm. The Buddha defines matter (in the five aggregates as found within his Four Noble Truths), in the following manner:
‘The first is the Aggregate of Matter (Rupakkhandha). In this term ‘Aggregate of Matter’ are included the traditional Four Great Elements (cattari mahabhutani), namely, solidarity, fluidity, heat and motion, and also Derivatives (upadaya-rupa) of the Four Great Elements. In this term ‘Derivatives of Four Great Elements’ are included our five material sense-organs, i.e., the faculties of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body, and their corresponding objects in the external world, i.e., visible form, sound, odour, taste, and tangible things, and also some thoughts or ideas or conceptions which are in the sphere of mind-objects (dharmayatana). Thus the whole realm of matter, both internal and external, is included in the Aggregate of Matter.’[4]
Like Marx, the Buddha states that reality, as experienced by living humanity, is an integration of physical form and conscious mind. It is important to note that whilst rejecting ‘idealism’ as a means of correctly interpreting reality, Marx does not reject the existence of consciousness. This may be compared to the Buddha’s rejection of ‘attachment’ to external forms existing in the physical world, whilst not rejecting the ‘existence’ of that physical world. Both Marx and Buddha advocate the education of the conscious mind as a means to illicit positive ‘change’ both in the mind itself, and (through behaviour modification), the environment. Early Buddhism posits a real and existing physical world that is sensed by a human mind that, due to its inverted functionality, interprets reality the wrong way around. This inversion is premised upon the ‘internalisation’ of external forms, within the interior mind itself. These internalisations are grasped (by the mind) as if they are ‘real’, when in fact they are nothing but fabrications, or illusions. This process is maintained by the agency of ‘desire’, or ‘greed’ for ever more sensual and psychological experiences of this nature. Any attempt to dislodge or prevent the fulfilment of this desire, leads to the emergence of an intense ‘dislike’, or ‘hatred’ aimed at the apparent object attempting the disruption. The fact that the mind remains entirely ‘unaware’ of this process, and is led by desire and hatred, constitutes the ‘ignorance’ or ‘delusion’ through which the mind operates. The Buddha’s answer to this predicament is to strengthen ‘awareness’ in the mind by gathering and focusing that facility upon a single bodily or psychological function or sensation. A simple example is the following of the breath in and out of the body, in all its experiential aspects. Another, is using the mind so that it is continuously ‘aware’ of every emotional reaction or response as it arises within the mind, or any bodily sensation as it manifests in the body. This process of ‘meditation’ eventually allows the Buddhist practitioner to become fully ‘aware’ of the functionality of the inverted (or ‘deluded’) mind, and to be able to bring that inner and outer process to an ‘end’, by ‘stilling’ the mind. This means that the cycle of dependency between inner and outer experience is permanently broken and transcended, and that the Buddhist practitioner is able to clearly perceive the ‘empty’ nature of the psychic fabric of the mind, as it goes about its natural function of ‘sensing’ and ‘processing’ external data through the senses. Furthermore, continued meditation practice literally (through an act of will) ‘uproots’ all old habits of mind, so that there is no return to the old and inverted functionality of the mind. This is achieved by the awareness being continuously drawn to focus upon the actual ‘empty’ nature of the mind’s interior, and in so doing, understand that thoughts in the mind are generated from within the deepest recesses of the psychic fabric, and regardless of how clear or precise those thoughts, they are not ‘real’ objects (in the material sense), but only internalised approximations of external reality. When this is fully understood, and the mind is no longer led by ‘blind’ desire, the Buddhist is said to abide in the state of permanent enlightenment. What has to be understood is that the Buddha interprets the environment, the biological body and the psychological mind as being various and distinct aspects of material reality.
However, this ‘material’ reality is not a metaphysical construct (within either Buddhism or Marxism), but is subject to analysis and interpretation. Within early Buddhism, the Buddha states that there is no permanency in the material world, and that all physical matter is subject to ‘change’. Physical matter continues to exist outside of the mind that perceives it, but given a long enough time-scale, even the hardest rock is worn-down by such elements as the weather and the sea, etc. The Buddha explains that the world of matter is not ‘solid’ and ‘unchangeable’, but is subject to change from moment to moment. Just as the physical world appears to be permanent to the deluded mind, the same mind internalises this apparent consistency, and gives rise to the notions of theism and a permanent ‘soul’, or some other spiritual essence that links individuals to a god-construct. Just as the physical universe is ‘empty’ of any permanency, the mind is also ‘empty’ of any permanency. Of course, an obvious demonstration of the impermanency of existence, is the fact that the human body ‘ages’ from the moment it is born, and eventually ceases to function in old age. The physical substance of the body continues to exist after death, but in a broken-down material state. As the body rots, the bones are exposed, but in the end, even bones can turn to dust, etc. The cycles of nature, exhibited in spring, summer, autumn and winter, also display this coming into and out of existence. (The renewal observed within the cycles of nature may have given the theoretical justification for the Buddhist notion of ‘rebirth’, borrowed as it was from the theism of Brahmanism, but it must be noted that the Buddha stated on numerous occasions that rebirth only appears to exist in the deluded state, and that when the mind is enlightened, all notions of rebirth come to an end.) The Buddha’s description of existence delivered in his first sermon entitled ‘Setting in Motion the Wheel of Truth’ (Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta), states categorically that existence is physical matter, and enlightenment is achieved through the proper analysis of physical matter. However, physical existence, according to the Buddha, is not just matter in its external form (the Aggregate of Matter mentioned above), but is inclusive of the other four of the Aggregate of Sensation, the Aggregate of Perception, the Aggregate of Mental Formations, and the Aggregate of Consciousness. The first aggregate states the material reality of existence, whilst the other four aggregates explain how the conscious mind interacts with the external world through the bodily senses. None of this Buddhist analysis lays outside of the material realm, even though the Buddha (like Marx) acknowledged that a ‘conscious’ mind exists (within matter). It is only through a misinterpretation of Buddhism (prevalent in the West), that the Buddha is ‘inverted’ from an ordinary man and into a representation of a god-construct, and his teaching of practical knowledge about the world of matter and conscious awareness, is distorted into an ‘idealistic’ theology emphasising a non-existent (and entirely ‘imagined’) realm beyond the physical.
Marx interprets the inequality and injustice (i.e. ‘suffering’) in the bourgeois system that is physically and psychologically inflicted upon the working class. Marx states that due to historical and dialectical forces, the working class will solve this experience of ‘suffering’ by fighting to change the socio-economic nature of the external world, and it will achieve this through a blend of inner education (i.e. mental transformation), and outer action (i.e. Revolution). For Marx, freedom from suffering is a product of inner educational transformation (i.e. changing how the mind works), and outer transformation (i.e. changing how the external world functions). For Marx and Buddha, there is an agreement that ‘mind’ and ‘body’ exist in the material realm. This is the first agreement. The second agreement is that the functionality of the mind must be transformed to illicit change on the physical (behavioural) plain (with the understanding that a transformed environment always assists the mind to alter its functionality). The third agreement is that the mental state of humanity in the ignorant or non-emancipated state, is fundamentally deluded or inverted. The fourth agreement is that the ignorant or inverted mind must be eradicated through educational and behavioural transformation. The fifth agreement is the rejection of theistic religion. The sixth agreement is the rejection of the prevailing socio-economic order. The seventh agreement is the advocation of mental and physical action in the world (as opposed to ‘quietism’). The eighth agreement is the rejection of ‘greed’ as a legitimate motivating force for psychological and social change.
It is important to appreciate that when the Buddha formulated his path and methodology, it stood in stark contrast to the prevailing Indian culture, derived as it was from the theology of Brahmanism. The Buddha rejected the caste system (and the racism it institutionalised), and devised a path that all humans could follow, both male and female. In the patriarchal society of Brahmanic India, ascribing any kind of equality to women was a Revolutionary act. The Buddha rejected working for a living (for monastics), and instead advocated begging as a means to sustain the body. For lay people still living within the social structures of Brahmanic society, the Buddha advised an integration of his teachings with the prevailing culture, with an emphasis of ‘moving away’ from what he considered the ‘deluded’ Brahmanic culture. The impression is that whereas Buddhist monastics were expected to live on the periphery of cities or towns, (usually within walking distance of begging opportunities), it fell to lay people to change Brahmanic society through the power of reasoned argument, and the example of good (and different) behaviour (after-all, it was the ‘Buddhist’ laity that were responsible for feeding the ‘begging’ Buddhist monks). The fact that certain Buddhist Schools (that developed after the Buddha’s death) chose to give a greater weight to monastic practice over lay practice, appears to be a monkish distortion of the Buddha’s teaching. Another misconception is that the Buddha taught the complete abandoning of society. Not only is this incompatible with the greater bulk of Buddhist scripture (outside of the hermitic literature), but it is illogical to assume that lay people living within society, are simultaneously able to ‘abandon’ the casual circumstance they inhabit. Disagreeing with greed, hatred and delusion (coupled with the rejection of the idealism of theism), does not correlate with the abandonment of humanity, or human society, although it is true that from time to time, getting away from the disturbances of the world was advised by the Buddha in the early stages of meditational development. Whereas a monk might sit at the foot of a quiet tree (which gives shelter from the rain and wind, and shade from the sun), the lay person may retire to a quiet room, or perhaps a place in society conducive to inner development. Just as it is illogical from a Buddhist perspective to state that an enlightened mind has ‘left’ the physical realm it inhabits, it is equally illogical to assert that the Buddha taught the abandoning of society or the leaving of humanity. Whilst living (and whilst dead), it is impossible not to be part of the material realm. A monastery or temple lies firmly within the realm of matter, and represents a special manifestation of human society. Just as these special places do not lie outside of the realm of matter, they also do not exist outside of the society that created them. Conducive meditation areas can be a small room in a domestic setting, or a large room in a specially built setting, either way, neither are outside of the realm of matter or society – regardless of what each practitioner might think or interpret his or her surroundings. This is not to negate the idea that a change of circumstances might be productive for a Buddhist practitioner, or that there are certain circumstances that are more conducive to meditational practice than others (in the initial stages of Buddhist training). The developed (Mahayana) School of Chinese Ch’an Buddhism, for instance, preserves an old tradition of the Buddha’s teaching, which states that after an empty and all-embracing mind has been attained, the practitioner must re-enter mainstream society and integrate this enlightened realisation (and wisdom) with the mundanity of everyday existence. There is no reason to doubt that this interpretation was prevalent during the time of the Buddha, even though the original teachings of the Buddha are still open to much debate and disagreement today, due primarily to the diversity of Buddhist Schools, and the influence of Western culture and Christianity (imposed through European imperialism and colonisation).
The Buddha describes the ‘enlightened’ state in the following manner:
‘If greed, hatred, and delusion have been completely destroyed, insofar is Nibbana visible here and now, not delayed, inviting of inspection, and directly experienceable by the wise.’
(Anguttara Nikaya 3:55)[5]
The Pali Buddhist term ‘Nibbana’ refers to a state of mind (and body), whereby there is a cessation of all destructive desire that being implicit within greed, hatred and delusion, drives humanity forever onward in a state of ignorance, and inverted mentality. Therefore, through the meditative practice, coupled with physical discipline, this type of destructive or burning desire is eradicated from the mind (and behaviour), as the taints of greed, hatred and delusion are uprooted by ‘stilling’ the mind, and correctly cognising the inner terrain. The Buddha is of the opinion that this experience permanently transforms those who experience it, so that the previously ‘inverted’ mind-set is eradicated. This eradication of the inverted mind-set is the same achievement referred to in the Mahayana Buddhist teaching entitled the Lankavatara Sutra, as the ‘turning about’ of the mind at its deepest recesses. It is a permanent transformation because the usual patterns of the mind’s functionality are modified to the point of acting in a completely new manner, free of any delusion or ignorant manifestation. There is no doubt that experience as a concept alters and transforms behaviour within human beings. The Buddha’s method is ‘scientific’ in this regard, in that what he advocates is clearly mapped-out by himself, and realisable by others who correctly apply his path of inner and outer observation of phenomena. When practised correctly, the Buddha’s method not only changes outward behaviour, but also transforms the mind’s functionality that underlies and inspires such behaviour. Therefore, it might be reasonably stated that the Buddha’s method is a science of perception, and certainly not a ‘religion’ in the conventional sense. The Buddha abandons completely all reliance upon religiosity throughout his teachings, and continuously steers his disciples away from such influences. The Buddha does this because he completely understands the religion he has abandoned. He has abandoned religious teachings not because of a prejudice against such teaching, but rather, like a scientist exploring the efficacy of a theory, he has practised the religious methods and found-out for himself that they are limited, and do not achieve the transformation that they assume to provide. As this is the case, the Buddha’s method is ‘trans-religious’, and this description holds even if he borrows certain religious terms, because the manner in which he uses such terms is ‘revolutionary’, and inclined toward the use of (modern or secular) logic and reason, and away from (inverted) theology. The Buddha philosophically rejects and undermines the religious teachings by thoroughly rejecting the presumed existence of a permanent ‘soul’ theory. As there is no soul (anatta), there can be no corresponding theistic entity, or divine realm or process within which this ‘soul’ is said to exist. What is interesting is that the Buddha does allude to a polytheistic imagery in some of his teachings, but states that gods only exist in the ‘deluded’, or ‘inverted’ state of mind. In other words, gods only exist if there is an inverted belief in theistic entities, but do not actually exist in reality. This is why the Buddha’s rejection of religion can be correctly ‘atheistic’ or ‘non-theistic’ in nature. Whatever the description, the Buddha’s path rejects any reliance upon, or belief in, a theistically based ‘faith’ system. It is not through blind faith that the Buddha’s enlightenment is achieved, but rather through the clarity of insight. This is the advanced use of the human intellect to better the human condition. Despite faulty translations and interpretations to the contrary in the West, the Buddha’s path does not rely on any form of theistic faith, as the Buddha rejects the notion of believing in things that cannot be personally verified as ‘existing’ (of course, as he advocates a logical path, the Buddha also criticises those who do not acknowledge things that obviously do exist, due to their desire for peddling mythological or dogmatic paths).
The concept of ‘consciousness’ as found within Buddhist thinking, is not a metaphysical concept. This understanding is important if a correct interpretation of the Buddha’s message is to be ascertained. Whereas in the modern, bourgeois West, consciousness is interpreted as being separate and distinct from the physical world (much like the ancient Brahmanic concept the Buddha rejected), and to continuously exist in an independent manner, the Buddha clearly denies the validity of this idea. A consciousness that exists outside of the physical world, is, for the Buddha, a philosophical absurdity, and something akin to a secular interpretation of the equally fallacious concept of ‘spirit’ (or ‘soul’). This is an important observation that feeds-in to the Buddhist concept of ‘mind’ (found within the Four Noble Truths) as defined by the Buddha. Walpola Rahula explains:
‘A word about what is meant by the term “mind” (manas) in Buddhist philosophy may be useful here. It should clearly be understood that mind is not spirit as opposed to matter. It should always be remembered that Buddhism does not recognise a spirit opposed to matter, as accepted by most other systems of philosophies and religions. Mind is only a faculty or organ (indriya) like the eye or the ear. It can be controlled and developed like any other faculty, and the Buddha speaks quite often of the value of controlling and disciplining these six faculties. The difference between the eye and the mind as faculties is that the former senses the world of colours and visible forms, whilst the latter senses the world of ideas and thoughts and mental objects. We experience different fields of the world with different senses. We cannot hear colours, but we can see them. Nor can we see sounds, but we can hear them. Thus with our five physical senses - eye, ear, nose, tongue, body – we experience only the world of visible forms, sounds, odours, tastes and tangible objects. But these represent only a part of the world, not the whole world. What of ideas and thoughts? They are also a part of the world. But they cannot be sensed, they cannot be conceived by the faculty of the eye, ear, nose, tongue or body. Yet they can be conceived by another faculty, which is mind.’[6]
Of the Five Aggregates, one represents the physical world, another represents the ability to ‘sense’ the physical world (through the senses), but the other three aggregates, namely perception, mental formations and consciousness, deal specifically with psychological events. Perception, for instance, is the ability to discern the difference between a physical object or a mental object (in relation to the six sense organs and six sense objects), with mental formations representing what the Buddha described as ‘volitional’ (and self-conditioning) cycles of thought constructs (i.e. ideas and habitual patterns of thinking), that motivate specific actions (i.e. ‘karma’) and their consequences (in the mind) and physical environment. Where does consciousness fit-in to this schematic? All six sense organs are subject to conscious awareness, but conscious awareness does not exist as a separate construct ‘outside’ of the six sense organs. The Buddha defines ‘consciousness’ as being the ‘awareness’ of the presence of an object. With regards to the eye, for instance, if the colour blue is present, eye-consciousness is ‘aware’ of the presence of a colour, but eye-consciousness is unable to distinguish just what colour is present (as that is a matter of perception and mental formation). Eye-consciousness is the ‘awareness’ of the presence of visual stimulus, just as the agency of ‘consciousness’ performs exactly the same function for the other five sense organs. The Buddha states that specific conscious awareness exists only as long as a sense organ is in contact with its corresponding sense object – when that causal link is broken, then that specific type of consciousness ceases to exist. Walpola Rahula explains:
‘It must be repeated here that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no permanent, unchanging spirit which can be considered “Self”, or “Soul”, or “Ego”, as opposed to matter, and that consciousness (vinnana) should not be taken as “spirit” in opposition to matter. This point has to be particularly emphasised, because a wrong notion that consciousness is a sort of Self or Soul that continues as a permanent substance through life, has persisted from the earliest time to the present day.’[7]
For the Buddhist, (as for the Marxist), consciousness is not a spirit (opposed to matter), is not permanent, and neither pre-exists physical conception (in the womb), or survives the process of physical death. Therefore, the concept of ‘consciousness’ cannot be used as a replacement for theistic notions of mythological permanent entities, that reside in a non-disclosed location ‘somewhere’ within physical matter. Physical matter has its cycles, just as the mind (the product or function of the physical brain) possesses its cycles of thought. Life unfolds to certain laws of flux and causality, and due to fortunate accidents of natural selection, human beings have become ‘aware’ of their own existence. Whereas Marx provides a sophisticated and subtle meta-narrative critiquing the capitalist system, the Buddha, whilst rejecting the feudal system of his day, offers an equally compelling critique of human perception, that can only be described (like the work of Marx) as being ‘scientific’ in nature. In fact, the Buddha has this to say about his approach to assessing valid knowledge:
‘Believe nothing because a so-called wise man said it.
Believe nothing because a belief is generally held.
Believe nothing because it is written in ancient books.
Believe nothing because it is said to be of divine origin.
Believe nothing because someone else believes.
Believe only what you yourself judge to be true.’
(Buddha: Kalama Sutta)[8]
In the modern West, this statement by the Buddha, (and others like it), is misinterpreted so as to suggest a state of self-absorbed hedonism. This is incorrect and partly the product of an incomplete understanding of the Buddha’s philosophy, and the context within which it is designed to operate. The above statement appears to be a ‘rejection’ of all authority, but within the Buddha’s schematic, this is a false assumption. It is curious that the above Pali Sutta extract mentions things written in ancient books, as it is believed that although writing was known during the life-time of the Buddha (used primarily by the government of the day as a means to record laws and imperial educts, etc), most ordinary people (including the Buddha), did not read or write, but instead preferred to rely upon the old oral tradition, where those who knew passed on their wisdom by word of mouth, and those who followed these wise people, committed these oral teachings to memory (preserving them for future generations). Indeed, this is exactly how the Buddha’s teachings were passed down through various generations (and lineages) of Buddhist monastic communities, before finally being written-down hundreds of years following the Buddha’s death. It is clear, then, that the Buddha certainly did not ‘reject’ all forms of knowledge, but did advocate an approach to learning premised (like modern science) upon personal experience and repeatable experimentation. What the Buddha was opposed to, was the conditioned response of believing in things due to the habit of ‘blind-faith’ that involved no verification process. Within the received traditions of monastic Buddhism, the teachings are conveyed through the concept of a ‘Triple Gem’, which is the Buddha himself, his teachings (Dharma), and the Vinaya (monastic) discipline. A Buddhist is said today to take ‘refuge’ in this ‘Triple Gem’, but of course, during the time of the Buddha, this was only limited to the ‘Double Gem’ – or Dharma and Vinaya, as the Buddha did not include his physical presence to be anything special (as he was not a ‘god’, and he taught that all material existence was subject to change and decay). This explains why in very early iconology, depictions of the Buddha do not include his physical body, which is replaced with an ‘empty’ chair or throne, a wheel, a tree or even foot-prints. The idea that the Buddha’s physical body was to be venerated, developed many hundreds of years after his death, and may be viewed as a digression away from the early (and original) tradition that emphasised the ‘empty’ (and non-substantial) nature of reality, over that of misplaced notions of ‘permanence’ and ‘substantiality’. The Vinaya rules developed during the life-time of the Buddha as a means to mediate the life of his monks and nuns, particularly in relation to how they interacted with the lay-community and governmental authorities. These rules accumulated over-time, and were not part of the Buddha’s original teaching which emphasised a frugal lifestyle and regular meditation practice whilst sat under a tree. The Vinaya rules, therefore, are supplementary guidelines designed for (monastic but not ‘lay’) disciplinary purposes, and are not to be considered the Buddha’s primary instruction. This is why it is generally agreed that it is the Buddha’s enlightened ‘teachings’ (or ‘Dharma’) that is to be taken as the core of his science of perceptual psychology, and that the Buddha himself, and the Vinaya rules, as important as these aspects are, are to be taken as secondary aspects of his teachings, and treated accordingly. Therefore, a Buddhist is not a ‘hedonist’, (i.e. attached to sensory stimulus), but in fact applies a sophisticated means of assessing reality, with regards to its sensing and its perception. This is why Charles Luk described the Buddhist path in the following terms:
‘The illusion of form which includes the body and mind made of the five aggregates and the visible world is tackled first by returning each of its aspects to where it arises to prove its unreality. Then the illusion of perception is wiped out by revealing its essence, or alaya, which like a second moon is also an illusionary creation.’[9]
It is also interesting that in his English translation of the Chinese language Surangama Sutra, Charles Luk explains the unenlightened mind as being ‘inverted’. In fact, this interpretation is used extensively throughout the first part of this sutra, and is used to set the self-cultivating agenda throughout the rest of the text. It is this ‘inverted’ mind-set that the Buddha’s philosophical path is designed to rectify. In other words, the ‘dysfunctional’ inverted mind-set must be put right by turning the functionality of the mind the right way around. This analysis hints that humanity – in its unenlightened state – operates through a ‘false consciousness’ that must be remedied, if humanity is to realise its ‘true potential’. This certainly seems to be the case in the Lankavatara Sutra, where the Buddha talks of a ‘turning about’ at the deepest levels of the mind, as an indication about how the enlightening process works. Something changes in the fundamental perceptibility of the mind, that permanently ‘alters’ how the individual experiences the inner and outer terrains, and how the two interact and appear to ‘merge’ without compromising the distinct ‘sensibility’ of each inherently linked realm. Of course, the anatomy of the brain does not change in any discernible manner, but what is observable from a scientific perspective, is the difference in measured brain-wave activity, between those who regularly meditate, and those who do not. This means that science can record that ‘something’ is happening (because it is observable and replicatable) in the mind during the activity of a sustained meditational practice. As people from many different religious and philosophical backgrounds (both atheist and theist) regularly meditate for psychological health and hygiene purposes, objective science cannot (and does not) confirm or deny any philosophical or theological interpretations regarding how these different systems interpret the experience of meditation. However, as the Buddha applies an analytical mind-set to his experiences, the Buddhist assessment of perceptual reality certainly retains an air of the ‘scientific’ about it. This would suggest that Buddhist enlightenment is the permanent altering of the frequency of brain-wave activity (or ‘functionality’) of the mind, in such a manner that the perception and experience of reality is completely and radically ‘transformed’ to such a profound extent, that there exists no possibility of any ‘regress’ to an earlier (or less evolved) state of being. This is because the psychological basis for that lesser reality has been ‘removed’ through an act of concentrated will. Marx achieves exactly the same effect through his written work, because his work is the product of a non-inverted mind-set assessing dialectical reality. For the Marxist, the profound act of transformation from ‘inversion’ to ‘non-inversion’, stems from the psychological act of physically encountering the works of Marx. Marx uses his powerful intellect to set the mind the right way around, and it is the exposure to this radical re-alignment that eradicates the ‘false consciousness’ that defines the working class as it exists under capitalist oppression. A worker may read Marx for his or her own personal educational needs, or be exposed to others reading Marx aloud, or explaining (and discussing) what Marx has said about particular issues, but regardless of the issue at hand for the working class (and there are many), Marx always presents reality the right way around, and never mistakes the cart for the horse. Marx passes-on the ‘non-inverted’ mind-set through the agency of its direct educational experience, in other words, a worker is shown how to place the mind the right way around whilst criticising the capitalist system. The worker does not ‘retire’ from the world as does the classical Buddhist, but stays exactly where he or she happens to be, firmly rooted in the exploitative industrialised system. As the workers change their inner terrain through education, they change their outer terrain through activism. As the outer circumstances are transformed for the better through struggle, the state and quality of the inner terrain is thereby transformed. Constructive actions change corresponding thought processes, and profound ‘non-inverted’ thoughts give rise to enlightened action (which in the case of the Worker’s State invariably means better working conditions and pay, as well as advanced scientific education and endeavour). This is how Marx dispels ‘ignorance’ and ‘superstition’ from the human mind.
A Buddhist monastic, of course, is not engaged in manual labour that produces tangible (and usable) products – such as those that are manufactured in a mill, factory, or bakery, etc, but they do reject the greed, hatred and delusion that underlay accumulative commerce, whilst adhering to a very strict psychological and physical moral discipline. They consume the spiritual teachings of the Buddha, and produce the spiritual (meditative) states the Buddha described as being attainable, whilst behaving in a manner suitable to Buddhist notions of prescribed morality. The Buddhist monastic community also functions as a depository of Buddhist knowledge and wisdom – which is shared freely (to a lesser or greater extent), with the lay community. Perhaps the far greater number of Buddhist practitioners reside not in monastic communes, but rather in domestic homes. These lay people are not celibate and generally work for a living – these are ‘producers’ in the Marxist sense. They must live within a commercial social setting, whilst pursuing the Buddha’s teaching along the lines that he laid-out and established. This means that a lay Buddhist may well live within a greed-orientated society, but must live free of greed, hatred and delusion, whilst doing so. More to the point, as the lay Buddhists must share their food with the begging Buddhist monastics, sharing as a general attitude is encouraged within society. In this regard, the Buddhist monastics seem to occupy a position similar to that of a political commissar (in as much as they preserve, transmit and explain a complex body of knowledge), and are responsible for teaching the laity how to practice and behave appropriately. The Buddha’s doctrine may not be Scientific Socialism in the strict Marxist sense of the concept, but it is certainly anti-capitalist because it is inherently anti-greed. Moreover, as Buddhist philosophy disrupts and rejects the prevailing concept of society, it may also be interpreted as being both radical and revolutionary. (It is only in the bourgeois West where Buddhism is ‘inverted’ to become a vehicle for supporting the status quo). The Buddha rejects a society premised upon greed and theistic imaginations, and concentrates upon ‘method’. Marx, for his part, rejects a certain notion of society, and seeks to evolve that rejected society into a better manifestation. In this aspiration, Marx concentrates upon reconstruction. The Buddha’s method is exact and static, whilst the Marxist method is fluid and open to interpretation. A sticking point seems to involve the fact that Marx embraces society (and social change), whilst the Buddha rejects and avoids the (deluded) structures of society, but this may be resolved in part, by the fact that the greater number of Buddhists in the world are in fact workers who raise families and live within society. Certainly the Buddha’s method is compatible with Marxism, and it may be that the Marxist teaching of Scientific Socialism might well serve to supply a social plan that early Buddhism is lacking, and that the Buddha’s method supplies a means for individual workers to ‘break’ psychologically free of the snare of capitalist existence, that is not easily observed in Marx’s emphasis upon group (i.e. ‘class’) action. Although it is obvious that society can and does change, it is not so obvious that the underlying functionality of the mind can change due to the will-power of the individual. However, logic dictates that an individual mind can (and does) evolve over-time simply due to the accumulated experiences of aging, and therefore it is entirely logical that given the correct stimulus, the functionality of the human mind can be deliberately altered in a manner that is the product of existential will-power. After-all, it was such an act of will that propelled the functionality of the Buddha’s mind thousands of years ago, into what is easily recognised as ‘modern’ in its use of analytical thought. Of course, the ancient Greeks were developing a similar approach to the assessment of material and psychological existence around the time of the Buddha, and it is this transformative state of mind that the West re-engaged with, thousands of years later during the renaissance and enlightenment (through the Greek tradition preserved within Islamic libraries). This explains is why both Marx and Engels held Buddhist and Greek dialectics in such high regard.
Particularly within the Mahayana sutras in general, and the Surangama specifically, the three interconnected concepts of ‘samatha’ (all is void of substantiality), ‘samapati’ (all is unreal), and dhyana (which includes the integration of samatha and samapati), are extensively used to explain reality. What must be understood is that the Buddha rejected the concept of ‘idealism’ – that a god (or the mind) creates the material world through an act of will. This is despite the fact that many ‘Buddhist’ commentators in the West have often mistaken the Buddha’s analysis of how material phenomena is processed in the mind itself, with the incorrect assumption that the mind is ‘creating’ the phenomena of the material world that it is assessing. Although it is true that the mind generates (through sensory stimulus and historical memory) impressions of external phenomena deep within its psychic fabric, this process of data-assimilation does not necessarily equate with the mind literally ‘creating’ the physical world it observes at the point of contact. The logic of his position is simple. As the mind is comprised of four of the five aggregates (but which are inherently linked to the fifth aggregate of form), and given that all aggregates are given to change and dissolution, ‘mind’ as a Buddhist concept is impermanent and subject to change. Even the founders of the Yogacara School (which emphasises psychological training as the primary area of Buddhist practice), still recognise that the agency of mind exists within the world of conditionality, and is therefore subject to change. It is only erroneous to assume that the mind in Buddhism equates to a Brahmanic or Judeo-Christian god concept that is assumed to have created the physical universe – this assessment is correct despite such concepts as the indestructible ‘True Self’, or ‘Self Nature’ (and other such apparently ‘indestructible’ underlying concepts) creeping into various Mahayana sutras. Such underlying ‘permanent’ terms may be viewed as moving from the pristine nature of early Buddhism, which perceives a material world (with no discernible beginning or definite end), processed by a confused ethereal mind in the unenlightened state. Once this confusion of greed, hated and delusion is removed through meditative study, the material world is then correctly perceived by a mind that is no longer confused. This state of realisation, even within early Buddhism, involved ever greater appreciations of various stages of ‘emptiness’ realisation, and how this ‘emptiness’ integrates with the material world. It is this notion of ‘emptiness’ realisation that was extended within the Mahayana sutras beyond the original scope of the Buddha’s teaching, to take on an almost ‘metaphysical’ reality. Originally, the Buddha stated that the mind should be ‘emptied’ of greed, hatred, and delusion, and in so doing, the non-substantiality of physical existence would be realised and understood. Part of this understanding involved the ‘seeing through’ of any false notions of a permanent ‘self’ or ‘soul’, and there existed no god constructs outside of the minds that created them. The physical world, in the enlightened state, was realised to be ‘empty’ of ‘attachment’ to otherwise attractive sensory objects, god concepts and souls, etc. The Mahayana sutras adhere to this understanding, but extend the notion of ‘emptiness’ in the mind to equate with ‘emptiness’ as the true nature of material reality. This position, in and of itself, providing it does not sink into nihilism, is not necessarily a problem for Buddhist thought, providing that an illogical position is not set-up to justify this interpretative shift in emphasis. It is illogical to assume that the ethereal mind generates material reality, and any statements to this effect must be viewed as being in error. There is no evidence that the Buddha stated this view, explained this view, or defended this view in either early or later Buddhism, although it is true that certain Buddhist scholars have either assumed this to be the case, or through lack of suitable explanation, given the false impression that this is the case. Even in very good English translations from Chinese texts, certain nuances are often lost during the process of fitting concepts from one language (or thought community), into those of another. A common misconception in this regard, involves the Buddha explaining how thought impressions of the external world are generated within the mind, with this internal generative explanation being misunderstood as the Buddha implying that ‘thought’ creates the ‘material’ object it is assessing. This is inverted thinking, as it is the sense organ encountering the physical object, that generates the thought response, and not the other way around. This analysis demonstrates how the concept of Marxist dialectical assessment can reveal the correct or original teachings of the Buddha (that all follow the same non-inverted internal logic), and reveal where and when corruptive (or inverted) elements have been imported into Buddhist thinking overtime.
The Buddha’s teachings (whether earlier or later), assume a default setting that states that ordinary human perception is flawed. Human beings are born this way, and have been deluded for eons previously, (where the Buddha appears to ‘borrow’ the rebirth teaching found within the Brahmanic theology he so thoroughly rejects elsewhere). However, the Buddha offers a logical ‘way out’ of this cyclic dilemma, through meditative practice that removes this delusion (and the functionality of rebirth). It is clear from this that within the enlightened state, rebirth does not exist, but only appears to exist in the deluded minds of those historically conditioned by the theology of Brahmanism. It is also true that the Buddha’s agency of ‘karma’ (or ‘willed’ action on the behavioural realm), also only exists in the deluded state, with all deluded wilful thought ‘ceasing’ in the enlightened state. A genuine ‘Buddha’, or ‘enlightened being’ is free of karmic generation and the experience of subsequent karma fruit, as well as the agency of rebirth. The enlightened being, according to the Buddha, still occupies a ‘living’ body of five aggregates, until the previous binding karmic force dissipates (in the death of the body), but no more karma is generated in the mind – the seat of all Buddhistic karmic action in the physical world. This is all dependent upon the Buddhist practitioner using meditation to strip the mind of its delusive qualities, and penetrate ever further into ‘empty’ psychic fabric. This culminates in the realisation of a profound ‘emptiness’ (that must not be confused with ‘nothingness’), that ‘includes’ the entirety of all material existence, with the different traditions and lineages of Buddhism emphasising different aspects of this path and its realisation. This profound teaching upon depth psychology has a tremendous scope for misinterpretation and misunderstanding, but its central message derived from the Buddha remains constant. Essentially, the Buddha states that the surface perception that all humans participate in from birth is flawed, and not the optimum perception that humanity is capable of realising and operating through. The instructions of the Buddha (and subsequent Buddhist teachers) are replete with chastisements continuously criticising those that mistake ordinary (shallow) perception for profound (depth) perception. This careful deconstruction of shallow awareness has led to the development of a ‘special’ logic within the Buddhist interpretation of psychological events. The basic premise is that ‘quick’ intellectual stabs at realisation is simply not good enough, and no substitute for realisation of the depth mind that exists ‘beyond’ and behind’ the intellectual capacity (which lacks the ability to ‘see’ beyond its own functionality). This implies that the state of enlightenment is never what one ‘thinks’ it is, but is the product of the shifting of awareness, so that more of the all-round psychic functionality of the total mind is realised and understood.
The Pali language appears to have been a regional version of the official language of Sanskrit in ancient India, with Pali being viewed as a dialect of Sanskrit. Certain scholars have argued that Pali may well have been related to the Magadhi language the Buddha is believed to have spoken, although there is some indication that the Buddhist texts were also written (hundreds of years after the death of the Buddha) in the language of Prakrit, etc. The term ‘early’ Buddhism tends to refer to the Pali Suttas (and their interpretation) amongst the early schools of Buddhism, whilst later Buddhism is a term often used to refer to the Buddhist Sanskrit sutras – that are assumed to have appeared at a later historical date. There is an indication that the Pali Suttas represent the earliest layer of Buddhist thought, but that when these teachings were later recorded into Sanskrit, slight variations in interpretation crept into the texts. However, despite these interpretive differences, the Pali and Sanskrit texts retain exactly the same essential teaching, which in both incidences, is ascribed to the Buddha himself. In reality it seems that many of the Sanskrit innovations already existed in the Pali texts, but for doctrinal purposes, were played-down in some Buddhist schools, or played-up in others. Early Buddhism perceives the enlightened state to be one of a mind stripped of greed, hatred and delusion, which is free of all destructive desire (likened to a ‘fire’ by the Buddha), and thoroughly non-attached to all sense data. The unified perceptual root of the six senses is directly realised because all discursive movement in the surface mind is quelled through meditation (i.e. ‘mind control’) and physical discipline (or ‘moral’ behaviour). This is termed the enlightenment of the Arahant – or ‘noble’ being – and in its highest attainment is described as being beyond both perception and non-perception (as recorded in the teachings on the four, eight or nine Jhana meditative absorptions). This model is essentially an ever more rarefied realisation of perception whilst existing within a material world. The physical world is never denied as independently existing, but the Buddha carefully charts the ‘perceptual’ origination of this world in the mind, which of course, includes the physical body and the equally physical organ of the brain. Early Buddhism posits a quiet and tranquil mind (enlightened to its own essence and functionality), existing in a perfect equilibrium with a material environment, which does not engage that environment in any desirous manner, or ambitious degree. This status of Buddhist perfection stems from the Buddha’s method of non-identification with thought. Once this ‘non-identification’ is achieved, all attachment to the impressions of sensory data in the mind, also logically ceases. Later Buddhism develops this model further, and does not settle for a sense of ‘quietism’ in the face of a dynamic material universe, although its underlying philosophical premise remains exactly the same as that of early Buddhism, albeit in a much more elaborated version. In the deluded state, the six sense organs create impressions in the mind, which the mind is attached to, the strength of which is dependent upon past personal conditioning. The mind’s attention flits from one sensory impression to the next, and there is systemic confusion. The meditative method ‘detaches’ the mind’s awareness from all six sense organs (and sense impressions), and in so doing ‘stills’ the mind through lack of stimulation. This allows the meditator to ‘see through’ into the empty essence of the mind, and fully penetrate the unified perceptual root. However, this sense of ‘oneness’ is viewed as a ‘trap’ in later Buddhism that must be escaped through further development. This unified root of perception, if examined in a dynamic manner, is revealed to have a rootless root that allows the perception to appear to ‘expand’ and incorporate all six sense organs and the sense data (of the physical world) they collect. This sense of ‘oneness’ is expanded to include all physical perception, so that there is now the empty mind ground (or root of perception that is beyond perception), that instead of being ‘quiet’, includes the unsullied diversity of full sensory perception. The mind is non-attached and is all-embracing of its environment (through the awareness capacity fully penetrating and embracing the sense organs and sense data without stopping anywhere), as all inverted tendencies have been thoroughly identified and uprooted during the training process. This state is often described as being neither attached to the void (i.e. empty mind ground), nor hindered by phenomena (or the physical universe). Whereas early Buddhism quietens the mind in the face of sensory stimulation, later Buddhism develops the strength of awareness (or insight) to fully penetrate (and not avoid) all sensory stimulation. Early Buddhism tends to perceive the external world as potentially corrupt and suffering inducing, (advocating a path of avoidance and non-engagement), whilst later Buddhism, although acknowledging the suffer-inducing qualities of existence, nevertheless posits the idea that sensory perception can be permanently purified if an expansive enlightened awareness is generated in the mind of the practitioner. This change in emphasis allows the later Buddhist to fully re-engage with the world once enlightenment has been fully realised. The two models presented here of Buddhist meditational development, are not mutually exclusive, and with a careful analysis, both can be viewed as originating in exactly the same Buddhist teachings, with the apparent differences in approach being explained as historical origin, (and a matter of personal choice as regards where the ‘mind’ is placed in this developmental schematic). The final difference between early and later Buddhist enlightenment, lies entirely in how the enlightened mind relates to the physical world through the senses. Within earlier Buddhism, although the unified perceptual root of all six senses is realised, the senses themselves are still considered able to ‘sense’ environmental stimulus that is ‘delusionary’ in nature, and therefore the avoidance of these types of stimulus is required. Although within the Pali suttas, it is clear that lay men and women can (and do) realise enlightenment, it is the Buddha’s monastic community, separated as it is from conventional society by its life-style, that is pursuing the most direct path to enlightenment, and to exist in an environment conducive to the enlightened state of mind. Indeed, the received Theravada tradition today, has a teaching which says that should a layperson manage to realise enlightenment, then that person must ordain as a monastic as soon as possible. Later Buddhism rejects this premise, and the contemporary Mahayana School is replete with examples of lay enlightened beings, and lay-orientated movements and practice groups, etc. This is because within later Buddhism, the six senses are not only realised at the unified root, but are further developed by a permeating enlightened awareness, which once developed and present, permanently ‘alters’ the orientation with regard to the mind communicating with the physical environment. In this later Buddhist state of enlightenment, the senses ‘remain’ purified in all circumstances (post-enlightenment), and there are no longer any circumstances considered ‘delusionary’ (as explained in the Heart Sutra) to the enlightened being, although there remains morally ‘preferred’ or ‘defined’ types of behaviour and action, etc.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2017.
[1] Evans, W, David, Translator, Discourses of Gotama Buddha – Middle Collection, Janus Publishing Company, (1992), Pages 55-56. This is an extract from the Vitakkasaṇṭhāna Sutta that deals with the wilful uprooting of greed, hatred, and delusion as distinct thought patterns and processes in the functioning mind. If successful, these three taints are permanently removed and do not manifest as either thought in the mind, or behaviour in the body.
[2] See: Marx-Engels Correspondence 1866 - Marx To Antoinette Philips In Salt-Bommel
http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1866/letters/66_03_18.htm Accessed 16.11.2016
[3] My Understanding of Buddhism - By Deng Lai Song (邓来送) http://buddhistsocialism.weebly.com/my-understanding-of-buddhism.html Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD – Accessed 20.11.2016
[4] Rahula, Walpola, What the Buddha Taught, Gordon Fraser, (1978). Pages 20-21
[5] Nyanaponika Thera, The Vision of Dhamma, Rider, (1986), Page 219
[6] Rahula, Walpola, What the Buddha Taught, Gordon Fraser, (1978). Pages 21
[7] Ibid – Pages 23-24
[8] De Silva, Lynn, Buddhism Beliefs and Practices in Sri Lanka, The SIOLL School of Technology, (1980), Page 54.
[9] Luk, Charles, Surangama Sutra, Munshiram, (2001), Page xvii of Preface.
(The Buddha – Configuration of Thoughts)[1]
What relevance, if any, does an ancient developmental philosophy have for Marxist theory? If it were a theology such as that found within gnostic Christianity, for instance, then the answer would undoubtedly be none whatsoever (as finding and merging with a god-concept does not free the toiling masses), but what about philosophical Buddhism? Buddhism is in reality, an ancient system of philosophy designed to rectify an ‘inverted’ mind-set, an inverted mind-set that Marx perceived as operating throughout bourgeois society. Buddhism is of course, of ancient Indian origin, and regardless of its revolutionary and transcendent nature, grew out of that essentially Brahmanic cultural milieu. Theological religion is declared by Marx to be ‘inverted’ and of no interest or relevance to his theory of Scientific Socialism. A religionist, as Marx explains, view reality the wrong way around, and therefore possesses no correct intellectual basis to assess reality. Instead, religionists withdraw into a ‘mythic’ reality of imagined divine beings, and cosmic realms of punishment and reward. One aspect of theistic religions that is found nauseating by Marx, is its exploitative and dominating nature, which is led by a church (or some other religious authority) that supports the ruling Bourgeois State. The masses are kept in ignorance through the study of scripture – which their mind’s power to assess and critique must not develop beyond. A group of men known as the ‘church’ ascribe to themselves a status of being god’s representatives upon earth, and the exploited masses have no choice but to react with deference, subservience and respect. The Buddha, by way of contrast, thoroughly rejected the prevailing Brahmanic theology of his day. As Brahmanism was the dominant (and defining) social force throughout India, the Buddha’s position was nothing less than the total ‘rejection’ of Indian culture in its feudalistic form (i.e. caste system). This Buddhist deconstruction extended to other schools of philosophical speculation that had also developed out of (and away from) Brahmanic thinking. The Buddha stamped his intellectual authority through the use of a Western-like logic and reason, in numerous ‘debating’ encounters recorded in the Buddhist suttas (or recorded sayings). The Buddha’s philosophical premise is that all of humanity is born with a mind that functions through the three psychological-emotional taints of greed, hatred, and delusion. Although the Buddha is critiquing the historical conditioning of the Indian mind-set, the underlying assumption is that his conclusions are ‘universal’ in scope, and as a form of ‘secular’ psychology, are applicable to all ethnic and cultural groupings, regardless of the historical distinctiveness of those groupings. The Buddha proposes that through psychological and physical discipline (which must be voluntarily self-imposed), an individual can radically alter the functionality of the brain-mind nexus.
Is this assumption logically correct? Can the functionality of the human mind be ‘changed’ through a self-imposed regimen of inner (mind), and outer (body) discipline? Marx, in a letter to Antoinette Philips in 1866, states that he was keeping his mind ‘empty’ of all thoughts (just like a Buddhist), during a holiday by the seaside.[2] Marx does not elaborate as to whether the method worked, or if it was successful in anyway, but he certainly does not turn against Buddhism in the manner he generally does when discussing theistic religion and its ‘inverted’ assumptions. Marx understood that the mind can be changed by education, and viewed education as one of the most powerful weapons the workers could utilise in their development of a true consciousness, and the eradication of false consciousness. In principle, Marx acknowledges that educational discipline and direction does possess the ability to radically alter the human mind, and direct all human activity into a more profound and worker-friendly direction. Once establishing that the Buddha’s basic educational principle is sound, how far can this credibility be taken? This is an important question for both Buddhism and Marxism. Both Marx and Buddha place the cause and effect of material existence as being primary to their respective developmental systems. Furthermore, both Marx and Buddha acknowledged that reality as it presents itself to the human senses is somehow deficient, and not indicative of how a better existence could be. Therefore, perception of matter (i.e. external stimuli acting upon the body senses), and perception of inner processes, (which is, of course, still within the realm of matter), must be radically transformed if an individual is to leave behind the deficient reality, and head toward a more optimised existence. The Buddha defines reality as being materially derived, whereby perception of matter must be refined, so that the function of perception can penetrate its own perceiving process. Marx states that in a capitalist society, greed for profit is preeminent, but within a Socialist society, the external stimuli are premised upon non-greed and the altruistic development of humanity. In a Communist society, the transition from capitalism, through Socialism, is completed and an entirely new order is achieved beyond that of ‘class’ or ‘state’. However, Marx also made it clear that workers must free their minds through education BEFORE the external physicality can be reformed through Revolution. By way of contrast, the Buddha rejected theistic Brahmanic society and chose to live as a beggar on its periphery, presumably aiming to bring-down the Brahmanic system not by direct confrontation, but rather by persuading all beings to simply chose to ‘leave’ Brahmanic society and take up the Buddhist life-style. If enough people dropped-out in this fashion, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Brahmanic culture would collapse on its own, and the ‘inverted’ religious mind-set abandoned as a result.
The Buddha’s enlightenment aims at an inner clarification through concentrated awareness. His method dispels old modes of thinking by uprooting the essence of said thinking, i.e. greed, hatred and delusion. When the mind is thus ‘stilled’ as all thought is brought to an end, the Buddhist practitioner can then penetrate ‘perception’, as if viewing it from within. The Buddha’s method appears to re-set the functionality of the mind, so that all thought processes now operate from a pristine and highly knowledgeable, secular understanding. This loss of theological existence, and the embracing of secular logic, appears to be the Buddhist realisation of a non-inverted mind-set – as described by Marx. In other words, a key marker of similarity for both Marxism and Buddhism is the recognition of psychological inversion, and its removal and replacement with a more efficient functionality of the mind that is better suited to directly perceive, and therefore understand reality as it actually is, rather than as religion ‘imagines’ it to be. A more precise exploration of the Buddha’s schematic may be expressed as being a map of consciousness and consciousness development, if the principle of ‘consciousness’ is taken as a definition of what it is to be physically ‘alive’ and able to psychologically ‘cognise’ the inner and outer environment:
Buddha’s Schematic
1) From a Marxist perspective, this may be referred to as the ‘objective’ (thesis) phase of Buddhist analysis. The physical world exists, and humanity exists within it, by consciously perceiving the external environment through sensory stimulus directed into the brain-mind nexus, via the senses of the body. In effect, this is exercising the ‘conscious’ awareness of sensory stimuli, with the receiving brain-mind nexus assuming various ‘conditioned’ responses to the stimuli received. The Buddha’s position is that human beings are generally born in an unevolved mental state, that can function for survival purposes, but which does not see beyond its own assumptions and habit of interpretation. The brain-mind nexus is ‘conscious’ of course, but its awareness is limited in scope and depth, and tends to ‘grasp’ its impressions of external stimuli, and become ‘attached’ to said impressions. This state of mind lacks wisdom because it does not understand its own functionality.
2) From a Marxist perspective, this may be referred to as the ‘subjective’ (antithesis) phase of Buddhist analysis. The physical world is the basis for the experiences of humanity on the inner, (conscious) psychological plain. Experiences on the outer plain are reflected inwardly by a ‘mirroring’ psychological response. These inner responses are triggered by the information received by the bodily senses, and interpreted either directly, or in modified form, depending upon the previous experiences of the individual concerned. Outer stimuli is reflected in the interior of the conscious mind both literally, and figuratively. The conditionality of past experiences allows for existential events to be interpreted far beyond their literal or apparent definition. Humanity is born creating this psychological interior (which at its base is comprised of greed, hatred and delusion according to Buddha), but remains generally unaware of its process and functionality.
3) From a Marxist perspective, this may be referred to as the ‘integrative’ (synthesis) phase of Buddhist analysis. The Buddha’s method is often obscured within long lists of logical assumptions, explanations, and interpretations – commonly referred to as the Buddhist suttas or sutras, etc. It is believed that the Buddha explained his method for over 45 years, (some texts say 49 years), and he did so to many hundreds of differing individuals that all needed precise guidance from their differing starting points, to access the Buddha’s use of dialectical assessment and practice. The Buddha stated that the deluded consciousness was not strong enough to understand a) its own predicament, and b) the true nature of its own functionality. He advocated a specific type of education, but one premised upon ‘method’, rather than ‘content’. This interpretation is taken from the fact that the Buddha’s method is not designed to fill the mind-up with various chunks of disparate knowledge (as a means to expel ignorance about various subjects), but is in fact a method of radically altering how the brain-mind nexus operates with regard to the conscious perception of the outer and inner world. The faculty of conscious awareness is strengthened through certain meditative exercises that wilfully limit the function of the mind and bodily activity. The experiences of the body are severally ‘limited’ on the outer plain, so that the inner psychological plain is freed from the usual stimuli. The thoughts are ‘stilled’ as the external stimuli is withdrawn. When the inner psychological plain is rendered ‘still’, the meditator is able to perceive the ‘empty’ essence of the psychic fabric itself. This radically ‘alters’ how the mind interprets any further stimuli, particularly in the later stages of the re-engaging of the physical world. Once the meditator’s awareness has been permanently transformed, it is no longer confused by the outer physical stimuli it receives. This implies that the outer stimuli (absorbed from the environment) ‘merges’ or ‘integrates’ with the empty psychic fabric of the mind, in a manner that cannot be regressed to the earlier level of ‘not knowing’. The Buddha considers this the ‘enlightened’ state because in his view it is free of greed, hatred, and delusion, and as all contradictions have been resolved, it can no longer fall into ‘thesis’ or ‘antithesis’. This is the Buddhist pre-eminence of a fully developed consciousness awareness, optimally functioning within the physical world.
If the concept of human consciousness is taken as a ‘special arrangement of matter’, then there is no reason to assume that the Buddha’s method, at least in its earliest and most pristine manifestation, contradicts this understanding of reality. The Buddha never denies that consciousness only exists because of the presence of material reality. In fact, the Buddha clearly states (in his Four Noble Truths) that consciousness (of stimuli) ceases when the sense organs (of the body) are permanently removed from contact with sense objects. Of course, this can happen whilst the body (and mind) are still alive through the loss of a limb or a dysfunctional inner organ, but of course, at the point of complete physical death – ALL consciousness ceases. There is no after-life, and even the Buddha admits that those who have realised the essence of perception, eradicate all notions of the existence of gods, as well as all ideas of conscious and physical retribution (i.e. ‘karma’), and of course, any notions of rebirth (all of which are associated with the Brahmanism the Buddha rejects). If assessed free of the error of idealism, the three aspects of the Buddha’s schematic are nothing other than the assessment of matter to varying degrees of conscious penetration. The Buddha appears, by abandoning theistic religion, to have arrived at a secular mind-set which sees an optimised functionality of the brain-mind nexus. He did this as a matter of will, and he achieved this as an individual living thousands of years ago. The Buddha appears to have developed a method of perceptual science, that through analysis and careful practice, is able to break the individual ‘free’ of the prevailing historical epoch and its conditionality. This is similar in function, (but of course highly condensed in practice), to the long-term requirement of the proletariat to educate themselves out of the mire of bourgeois oppression. The difference lies in the fact that for the proletariat, the concept of ‘desire’ acts as the mechanism through which revolution is both planned and achieved. A working class revolutionary ‘burns’ with the desire to free his or her own class from the oppression of the capitalism system. The Buddhist eradication of ‘greed’ and ‘delusion’ are positive principles well within the scope of Scientific Socialism. For a successful revolution to occur, desire is useful, whereas greed and delusion are not. However, it is entirely possible that after a revolution is successfully achieved, ‘desire’ of this kind may no longer be necessary or appropriate. Considering the radical and anti-establishment nature of the Buddha’s method, in its day it was entirely ‘revolutionary’ as it completely rejected the prevailing culture and system it emerged from within. Original Buddhism was very different from those countries today that consider themselves ‘Buddhist’, as the Buddha’s method rejected all forms of feudalism, fascism and capitalism. In fact, the Sangha, or community of monks and the lay community that supports it, operates on a ‘Communist-type’ methodology. Today, Buddhist traditions and movements that collaborate with capitalism are contradicting the Buddha’s actual message of meditative revolution. If Buddhists deviate away from the Buddha’s message of material dialectics, they fall into ‘idealism’, and in so doing are acting as ‘counter-revolutionaries’, and opposing the Buddha’s ‘wise’ assessment and interpretation of reality. Marx advised the use of historical and dialectical materialism, but he did not limit existence to the physical plain, as he also acknowledged the existence and use of consciousness. Of course, consciousness in this context is not separate from matter, but is viewed as a special type of functioning matter (generated from the brain). The Buddha’s understanding of the ‘integrated’ nature of mind and matter is useful, particularly with his emphasis upon the notion of ‘emptiness’ being the reality of matter. This does not negate matter, and neither does it resort to idealism. The Buddha’s understanding is entirely free from idealism, but it does move the debate onto a more profound interpretation of matter – as it appears to be integrated with ‘space’ – which is itself far more prominent in the universe-multiverse interpretation of existence. This has led to modern Buddhists living in Communist China, for instance, to state that reality cannot be limited to a one-sided interpretation of ‘matter’ as opposed to ‘emptiness’ (as if the two states are not related),
as modern science explains that all apparently solid matter is in fact comprised of non-solid energy. In other words, reality is an integration of ethereal (empty-like) energy and (solid-like) matter which operates continuously, and that the Buddha’s method prepares the mind, through a philosophical language and methodology relevant to its time, to understand this unified reality.[3]
A Marxist critique of Buddhist enlightenment, is in reality an examination of how the Buddha’s system of thought relates to the concept of physical matter. The Buddha’s message is unique in the ancient world, as he definitely places the concept of ‘mind’ within the realm of physical matter, and did not recognise as correct, the theistic concept of a ‘spirit’ existing in opposition to a physical realm. The Buddha defines matter (in the five aggregates as found within his Four Noble Truths), in the following manner:
‘The first is the Aggregate of Matter (Rupakkhandha). In this term ‘Aggregate of Matter’ are included the traditional Four Great Elements (cattari mahabhutani), namely, solidarity, fluidity, heat and motion, and also Derivatives (upadaya-rupa) of the Four Great Elements. In this term ‘Derivatives of Four Great Elements’ are included our five material sense-organs, i.e., the faculties of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body, and their corresponding objects in the external world, i.e., visible form, sound, odour, taste, and tangible things, and also some thoughts or ideas or conceptions which are in the sphere of mind-objects (dharmayatana). Thus the whole realm of matter, both internal and external, is included in the Aggregate of Matter.’[4]
Like Marx, the Buddha states that reality, as experienced by living humanity, is an integration of physical form and conscious mind. It is important to note that whilst rejecting ‘idealism’ as a means of correctly interpreting reality, Marx does not reject the existence of consciousness. This may be compared to the Buddha’s rejection of ‘attachment’ to external forms existing in the physical world, whilst not rejecting the ‘existence’ of that physical world. Both Marx and Buddha advocate the education of the conscious mind as a means to illicit positive ‘change’ both in the mind itself, and (through behaviour modification), the environment. Early Buddhism posits a real and existing physical world that is sensed by a human mind that, due to its inverted functionality, interprets reality the wrong way around. This inversion is premised upon the ‘internalisation’ of external forms, within the interior mind itself. These internalisations are grasped (by the mind) as if they are ‘real’, when in fact they are nothing but fabrications, or illusions. This process is maintained by the agency of ‘desire’, or ‘greed’ for ever more sensual and psychological experiences of this nature. Any attempt to dislodge or prevent the fulfilment of this desire, leads to the emergence of an intense ‘dislike’, or ‘hatred’ aimed at the apparent object attempting the disruption. The fact that the mind remains entirely ‘unaware’ of this process, and is led by desire and hatred, constitutes the ‘ignorance’ or ‘delusion’ through which the mind operates. The Buddha’s answer to this predicament is to strengthen ‘awareness’ in the mind by gathering and focusing that facility upon a single bodily or psychological function or sensation. A simple example is the following of the breath in and out of the body, in all its experiential aspects. Another, is using the mind so that it is continuously ‘aware’ of every emotional reaction or response as it arises within the mind, or any bodily sensation as it manifests in the body. This process of ‘meditation’ eventually allows the Buddhist practitioner to become fully ‘aware’ of the functionality of the inverted (or ‘deluded’) mind, and to be able to bring that inner and outer process to an ‘end’, by ‘stilling’ the mind. This means that the cycle of dependency between inner and outer experience is permanently broken and transcended, and that the Buddhist practitioner is able to clearly perceive the ‘empty’ nature of the psychic fabric of the mind, as it goes about its natural function of ‘sensing’ and ‘processing’ external data through the senses. Furthermore, continued meditation practice literally (through an act of will) ‘uproots’ all old habits of mind, so that there is no return to the old and inverted functionality of the mind. This is achieved by the awareness being continuously drawn to focus upon the actual ‘empty’ nature of the mind’s interior, and in so doing, understand that thoughts in the mind are generated from within the deepest recesses of the psychic fabric, and regardless of how clear or precise those thoughts, they are not ‘real’ objects (in the material sense), but only internalised approximations of external reality. When this is fully understood, and the mind is no longer led by ‘blind’ desire, the Buddhist is said to abide in the state of permanent enlightenment. What has to be understood is that the Buddha interprets the environment, the biological body and the psychological mind as being various and distinct aspects of material reality.
However, this ‘material’ reality is not a metaphysical construct (within either Buddhism or Marxism), but is subject to analysis and interpretation. Within early Buddhism, the Buddha states that there is no permanency in the material world, and that all physical matter is subject to ‘change’. Physical matter continues to exist outside of the mind that perceives it, but given a long enough time-scale, even the hardest rock is worn-down by such elements as the weather and the sea, etc. The Buddha explains that the world of matter is not ‘solid’ and ‘unchangeable’, but is subject to change from moment to moment. Just as the physical world appears to be permanent to the deluded mind, the same mind internalises this apparent consistency, and gives rise to the notions of theism and a permanent ‘soul’, or some other spiritual essence that links individuals to a god-construct. Just as the physical universe is ‘empty’ of any permanency, the mind is also ‘empty’ of any permanency. Of course, an obvious demonstration of the impermanency of existence, is the fact that the human body ‘ages’ from the moment it is born, and eventually ceases to function in old age. The physical substance of the body continues to exist after death, but in a broken-down material state. As the body rots, the bones are exposed, but in the end, even bones can turn to dust, etc. The cycles of nature, exhibited in spring, summer, autumn and winter, also display this coming into and out of existence. (The renewal observed within the cycles of nature may have given the theoretical justification for the Buddhist notion of ‘rebirth’, borrowed as it was from the theism of Brahmanism, but it must be noted that the Buddha stated on numerous occasions that rebirth only appears to exist in the deluded state, and that when the mind is enlightened, all notions of rebirth come to an end.) The Buddha’s description of existence delivered in his first sermon entitled ‘Setting in Motion the Wheel of Truth’ (Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta), states categorically that existence is physical matter, and enlightenment is achieved through the proper analysis of physical matter. However, physical existence, according to the Buddha, is not just matter in its external form (the Aggregate of Matter mentioned above), but is inclusive of the other four of the Aggregate of Sensation, the Aggregate of Perception, the Aggregate of Mental Formations, and the Aggregate of Consciousness. The first aggregate states the material reality of existence, whilst the other four aggregates explain how the conscious mind interacts with the external world through the bodily senses. None of this Buddhist analysis lays outside of the material realm, even though the Buddha (like Marx) acknowledged that a ‘conscious’ mind exists (within matter). It is only through a misinterpretation of Buddhism (prevalent in the West), that the Buddha is ‘inverted’ from an ordinary man and into a representation of a god-construct, and his teaching of practical knowledge about the world of matter and conscious awareness, is distorted into an ‘idealistic’ theology emphasising a non-existent (and entirely ‘imagined’) realm beyond the physical.
Marx interprets the inequality and injustice (i.e. ‘suffering’) in the bourgeois system that is physically and psychologically inflicted upon the working class. Marx states that due to historical and dialectical forces, the working class will solve this experience of ‘suffering’ by fighting to change the socio-economic nature of the external world, and it will achieve this through a blend of inner education (i.e. mental transformation), and outer action (i.e. Revolution). For Marx, freedom from suffering is a product of inner educational transformation (i.e. changing how the mind works), and outer transformation (i.e. changing how the external world functions). For Marx and Buddha, there is an agreement that ‘mind’ and ‘body’ exist in the material realm. This is the first agreement. The second agreement is that the functionality of the mind must be transformed to illicit change on the physical (behavioural) plain (with the understanding that a transformed environment always assists the mind to alter its functionality). The third agreement is that the mental state of humanity in the ignorant or non-emancipated state, is fundamentally deluded or inverted. The fourth agreement is that the ignorant or inverted mind must be eradicated through educational and behavioural transformation. The fifth agreement is the rejection of theistic religion. The sixth agreement is the rejection of the prevailing socio-economic order. The seventh agreement is the advocation of mental and physical action in the world (as opposed to ‘quietism’). The eighth agreement is the rejection of ‘greed’ as a legitimate motivating force for psychological and social change.
It is important to appreciate that when the Buddha formulated his path and methodology, it stood in stark contrast to the prevailing Indian culture, derived as it was from the theology of Brahmanism. The Buddha rejected the caste system (and the racism it institutionalised), and devised a path that all humans could follow, both male and female. In the patriarchal society of Brahmanic India, ascribing any kind of equality to women was a Revolutionary act. The Buddha rejected working for a living (for monastics), and instead advocated begging as a means to sustain the body. For lay people still living within the social structures of Brahmanic society, the Buddha advised an integration of his teachings with the prevailing culture, with an emphasis of ‘moving away’ from what he considered the ‘deluded’ Brahmanic culture. The impression is that whereas Buddhist monastics were expected to live on the periphery of cities or towns, (usually within walking distance of begging opportunities), it fell to lay people to change Brahmanic society through the power of reasoned argument, and the example of good (and different) behaviour (after-all, it was the ‘Buddhist’ laity that were responsible for feeding the ‘begging’ Buddhist monks). The fact that certain Buddhist Schools (that developed after the Buddha’s death) chose to give a greater weight to monastic practice over lay practice, appears to be a monkish distortion of the Buddha’s teaching. Another misconception is that the Buddha taught the complete abandoning of society. Not only is this incompatible with the greater bulk of Buddhist scripture (outside of the hermitic literature), but it is illogical to assume that lay people living within society, are simultaneously able to ‘abandon’ the casual circumstance they inhabit. Disagreeing with greed, hatred and delusion (coupled with the rejection of the idealism of theism), does not correlate with the abandonment of humanity, or human society, although it is true that from time to time, getting away from the disturbances of the world was advised by the Buddha in the early stages of meditational development. Whereas a monk might sit at the foot of a quiet tree (which gives shelter from the rain and wind, and shade from the sun), the lay person may retire to a quiet room, or perhaps a place in society conducive to inner development. Just as it is illogical from a Buddhist perspective to state that an enlightened mind has ‘left’ the physical realm it inhabits, it is equally illogical to assert that the Buddha taught the abandoning of society or the leaving of humanity. Whilst living (and whilst dead), it is impossible not to be part of the material realm. A monastery or temple lies firmly within the realm of matter, and represents a special manifestation of human society. Just as these special places do not lie outside of the realm of matter, they also do not exist outside of the society that created them. Conducive meditation areas can be a small room in a domestic setting, or a large room in a specially built setting, either way, neither are outside of the realm of matter or society – regardless of what each practitioner might think or interpret his or her surroundings. This is not to negate the idea that a change of circumstances might be productive for a Buddhist practitioner, or that there are certain circumstances that are more conducive to meditational practice than others (in the initial stages of Buddhist training). The developed (Mahayana) School of Chinese Ch’an Buddhism, for instance, preserves an old tradition of the Buddha’s teaching, which states that after an empty and all-embracing mind has been attained, the practitioner must re-enter mainstream society and integrate this enlightened realisation (and wisdom) with the mundanity of everyday existence. There is no reason to doubt that this interpretation was prevalent during the time of the Buddha, even though the original teachings of the Buddha are still open to much debate and disagreement today, due primarily to the diversity of Buddhist Schools, and the influence of Western culture and Christianity (imposed through European imperialism and colonisation).
The Buddha describes the ‘enlightened’ state in the following manner:
‘If greed, hatred, and delusion have been completely destroyed, insofar is Nibbana visible here and now, not delayed, inviting of inspection, and directly experienceable by the wise.’
(Anguttara Nikaya 3:55)[5]
The Pali Buddhist term ‘Nibbana’ refers to a state of mind (and body), whereby there is a cessation of all destructive desire that being implicit within greed, hatred and delusion, drives humanity forever onward in a state of ignorance, and inverted mentality. Therefore, through the meditative practice, coupled with physical discipline, this type of destructive or burning desire is eradicated from the mind (and behaviour), as the taints of greed, hatred and delusion are uprooted by ‘stilling’ the mind, and correctly cognising the inner terrain. The Buddha is of the opinion that this experience permanently transforms those who experience it, so that the previously ‘inverted’ mind-set is eradicated. This eradication of the inverted mind-set is the same achievement referred to in the Mahayana Buddhist teaching entitled the Lankavatara Sutra, as the ‘turning about’ of the mind at its deepest recesses. It is a permanent transformation because the usual patterns of the mind’s functionality are modified to the point of acting in a completely new manner, free of any delusion or ignorant manifestation. There is no doubt that experience as a concept alters and transforms behaviour within human beings. The Buddha’s method is ‘scientific’ in this regard, in that what he advocates is clearly mapped-out by himself, and realisable by others who correctly apply his path of inner and outer observation of phenomena. When practised correctly, the Buddha’s method not only changes outward behaviour, but also transforms the mind’s functionality that underlies and inspires such behaviour. Therefore, it might be reasonably stated that the Buddha’s method is a science of perception, and certainly not a ‘religion’ in the conventional sense. The Buddha abandons completely all reliance upon religiosity throughout his teachings, and continuously steers his disciples away from such influences. The Buddha does this because he completely understands the religion he has abandoned. He has abandoned religious teachings not because of a prejudice against such teaching, but rather, like a scientist exploring the efficacy of a theory, he has practised the religious methods and found-out for himself that they are limited, and do not achieve the transformation that they assume to provide. As this is the case, the Buddha’s method is ‘trans-religious’, and this description holds even if he borrows certain religious terms, because the manner in which he uses such terms is ‘revolutionary’, and inclined toward the use of (modern or secular) logic and reason, and away from (inverted) theology. The Buddha philosophically rejects and undermines the religious teachings by thoroughly rejecting the presumed existence of a permanent ‘soul’ theory. As there is no soul (anatta), there can be no corresponding theistic entity, or divine realm or process within which this ‘soul’ is said to exist. What is interesting is that the Buddha does allude to a polytheistic imagery in some of his teachings, but states that gods only exist in the ‘deluded’, or ‘inverted’ state of mind. In other words, gods only exist if there is an inverted belief in theistic entities, but do not actually exist in reality. This is why the Buddha’s rejection of religion can be correctly ‘atheistic’ or ‘non-theistic’ in nature. Whatever the description, the Buddha’s path rejects any reliance upon, or belief in, a theistically based ‘faith’ system. It is not through blind faith that the Buddha’s enlightenment is achieved, but rather through the clarity of insight. This is the advanced use of the human intellect to better the human condition. Despite faulty translations and interpretations to the contrary in the West, the Buddha’s path does not rely on any form of theistic faith, as the Buddha rejects the notion of believing in things that cannot be personally verified as ‘existing’ (of course, as he advocates a logical path, the Buddha also criticises those who do not acknowledge things that obviously do exist, due to their desire for peddling mythological or dogmatic paths).
The concept of ‘consciousness’ as found within Buddhist thinking, is not a metaphysical concept. This understanding is important if a correct interpretation of the Buddha’s message is to be ascertained. Whereas in the modern, bourgeois West, consciousness is interpreted as being separate and distinct from the physical world (much like the ancient Brahmanic concept the Buddha rejected), and to continuously exist in an independent manner, the Buddha clearly denies the validity of this idea. A consciousness that exists outside of the physical world, is, for the Buddha, a philosophical absurdity, and something akin to a secular interpretation of the equally fallacious concept of ‘spirit’ (or ‘soul’). This is an important observation that feeds-in to the Buddhist concept of ‘mind’ (found within the Four Noble Truths) as defined by the Buddha. Walpola Rahula explains:
‘A word about what is meant by the term “mind” (manas) in Buddhist philosophy may be useful here. It should clearly be understood that mind is not spirit as opposed to matter. It should always be remembered that Buddhism does not recognise a spirit opposed to matter, as accepted by most other systems of philosophies and religions. Mind is only a faculty or organ (indriya) like the eye or the ear. It can be controlled and developed like any other faculty, and the Buddha speaks quite often of the value of controlling and disciplining these six faculties. The difference between the eye and the mind as faculties is that the former senses the world of colours and visible forms, whilst the latter senses the world of ideas and thoughts and mental objects. We experience different fields of the world with different senses. We cannot hear colours, but we can see them. Nor can we see sounds, but we can hear them. Thus with our five physical senses - eye, ear, nose, tongue, body – we experience only the world of visible forms, sounds, odours, tastes and tangible objects. But these represent only a part of the world, not the whole world. What of ideas and thoughts? They are also a part of the world. But they cannot be sensed, they cannot be conceived by the faculty of the eye, ear, nose, tongue or body. Yet they can be conceived by another faculty, which is mind.’[6]
Of the Five Aggregates, one represents the physical world, another represents the ability to ‘sense’ the physical world (through the senses), but the other three aggregates, namely perception, mental formations and consciousness, deal specifically with psychological events. Perception, for instance, is the ability to discern the difference between a physical object or a mental object (in relation to the six sense organs and six sense objects), with mental formations representing what the Buddha described as ‘volitional’ (and self-conditioning) cycles of thought constructs (i.e. ideas and habitual patterns of thinking), that motivate specific actions (i.e. ‘karma’) and their consequences (in the mind) and physical environment. Where does consciousness fit-in to this schematic? All six sense organs are subject to conscious awareness, but conscious awareness does not exist as a separate construct ‘outside’ of the six sense organs. The Buddha defines ‘consciousness’ as being the ‘awareness’ of the presence of an object. With regards to the eye, for instance, if the colour blue is present, eye-consciousness is ‘aware’ of the presence of a colour, but eye-consciousness is unable to distinguish just what colour is present (as that is a matter of perception and mental formation). Eye-consciousness is the ‘awareness’ of the presence of visual stimulus, just as the agency of ‘consciousness’ performs exactly the same function for the other five sense organs. The Buddha states that specific conscious awareness exists only as long as a sense organ is in contact with its corresponding sense object – when that causal link is broken, then that specific type of consciousness ceases to exist. Walpola Rahula explains:
‘It must be repeated here that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no permanent, unchanging spirit which can be considered “Self”, or “Soul”, or “Ego”, as opposed to matter, and that consciousness (vinnana) should not be taken as “spirit” in opposition to matter. This point has to be particularly emphasised, because a wrong notion that consciousness is a sort of Self or Soul that continues as a permanent substance through life, has persisted from the earliest time to the present day.’[7]
For the Buddhist, (as for the Marxist), consciousness is not a spirit (opposed to matter), is not permanent, and neither pre-exists physical conception (in the womb), or survives the process of physical death. Therefore, the concept of ‘consciousness’ cannot be used as a replacement for theistic notions of mythological permanent entities, that reside in a non-disclosed location ‘somewhere’ within physical matter. Physical matter has its cycles, just as the mind (the product or function of the physical brain) possesses its cycles of thought. Life unfolds to certain laws of flux and causality, and due to fortunate accidents of natural selection, human beings have become ‘aware’ of their own existence. Whereas Marx provides a sophisticated and subtle meta-narrative critiquing the capitalist system, the Buddha, whilst rejecting the feudal system of his day, offers an equally compelling critique of human perception, that can only be described (like the work of Marx) as being ‘scientific’ in nature. In fact, the Buddha has this to say about his approach to assessing valid knowledge:
‘Believe nothing because a so-called wise man said it.
Believe nothing because a belief is generally held.
Believe nothing because it is written in ancient books.
Believe nothing because it is said to be of divine origin.
Believe nothing because someone else believes.
Believe only what you yourself judge to be true.’
(Buddha: Kalama Sutta)[8]
In the modern West, this statement by the Buddha, (and others like it), is misinterpreted so as to suggest a state of self-absorbed hedonism. This is incorrect and partly the product of an incomplete understanding of the Buddha’s philosophy, and the context within which it is designed to operate. The above statement appears to be a ‘rejection’ of all authority, but within the Buddha’s schematic, this is a false assumption. It is curious that the above Pali Sutta extract mentions things written in ancient books, as it is believed that although writing was known during the life-time of the Buddha (used primarily by the government of the day as a means to record laws and imperial educts, etc), most ordinary people (including the Buddha), did not read or write, but instead preferred to rely upon the old oral tradition, where those who knew passed on their wisdom by word of mouth, and those who followed these wise people, committed these oral teachings to memory (preserving them for future generations). Indeed, this is exactly how the Buddha’s teachings were passed down through various generations (and lineages) of Buddhist monastic communities, before finally being written-down hundreds of years following the Buddha’s death. It is clear, then, that the Buddha certainly did not ‘reject’ all forms of knowledge, but did advocate an approach to learning premised (like modern science) upon personal experience and repeatable experimentation. What the Buddha was opposed to, was the conditioned response of believing in things due to the habit of ‘blind-faith’ that involved no verification process. Within the received traditions of monastic Buddhism, the teachings are conveyed through the concept of a ‘Triple Gem’, which is the Buddha himself, his teachings (Dharma), and the Vinaya (monastic) discipline. A Buddhist is said today to take ‘refuge’ in this ‘Triple Gem’, but of course, during the time of the Buddha, this was only limited to the ‘Double Gem’ – or Dharma and Vinaya, as the Buddha did not include his physical presence to be anything special (as he was not a ‘god’, and he taught that all material existence was subject to change and decay). This explains why in very early iconology, depictions of the Buddha do not include his physical body, which is replaced with an ‘empty’ chair or throne, a wheel, a tree or even foot-prints. The idea that the Buddha’s physical body was to be venerated, developed many hundreds of years after his death, and may be viewed as a digression away from the early (and original) tradition that emphasised the ‘empty’ (and non-substantial) nature of reality, over that of misplaced notions of ‘permanence’ and ‘substantiality’. The Vinaya rules developed during the life-time of the Buddha as a means to mediate the life of his monks and nuns, particularly in relation to how they interacted with the lay-community and governmental authorities. These rules accumulated over-time, and were not part of the Buddha’s original teaching which emphasised a frugal lifestyle and regular meditation practice whilst sat under a tree. The Vinaya rules, therefore, are supplementary guidelines designed for (monastic but not ‘lay’) disciplinary purposes, and are not to be considered the Buddha’s primary instruction. This is why it is generally agreed that it is the Buddha’s enlightened ‘teachings’ (or ‘Dharma’) that is to be taken as the core of his science of perceptual psychology, and that the Buddha himself, and the Vinaya rules, as important as these aspects are, are to be taken as secondary aspects of his teachings, and treated accordingly. Therefore, a Buddhist is not a ‘hedonist’, (i.e. attached to sensory stimulus), but in fact applies a sophisticated means of assessing reality, with regards to its sensing and its perception. This is why Charles Luk described the Buddhist path in the following terms:
‘The illusion of form which includes the body and mind made of the five aggregates and the visible world is tackled first by returning each of its aspects to where it arises to prove its unreality. Then the illusion of perception is wiped out by revealing its essence, or alaya, which like a second moon is also an illusionary creation.’[9]
It is also interesting that in his English translation of the Chinese language Surangama Sutra, Charles Luk explains the unenlightened mind as being ‘inverted’. In fact, this interpretation is used extensively throughout the first part of this sutra, and is used to set the self-cultivating agenda throughout the rest of the text. It is this ‘inverted’ mind-set that the Buddha’s philosophical path is designed to rectify. In other words, the ‘dysfunctional’ inverted mind-set must be put right by turning the functionality of the mind the right way around. This analysis hints that humanity – in its unenlightened state – operates through a ‘false consciousness’ that must be remedied, if humanity is to realise its ‘true potential’. This certainly seems to be the case in the Lankavatara Sutra, where the Buddha talks of a ‘turning about’ at the deepest levels of the mind, as an indication about how the enlightening process works. Something changes in the fundamental perceptibility of the mind, that permanently ‘alters’ how the individual experiences the inner and outer terrains, and how the two interact and appear to ‘merge’ without compromising the distinct ‘sensibility’ of each inherently linked realm. Of course, the anatomy of the brain does not change in any discernible manner, but what is observable from a scientific perspective, is the difference in measured brain-wave activity, between those who regularly meditate, and those who do not. This means that science can record that ‘something’ is happening (because it is observable and replicatable) in the mind during the activity of a sustained meditational practice. As people from many different religious and philosophical backgrounds (both atheist and theist) regularly meditate for psychological health and hygiene purposes, objective science cannot (and does not) confirm or deny any philosophical or theological interpretations regarding how these different systems interpret the experience of meditation. However, as the Buddha applies an analytical mind-set to his experiences, the Buddhist assessment of perceptual reality certainly retains an air of the ‘scientific’ about it. This would suggest that Buddhist enlightenment is the permanent altering of the frequency of brain-wave activity (or ‘functionality’) of the mind, in such a manner that the perception and experience of reality is completely and radically ‘transformed’ to such a profound extent, that there exists no possibility of any ‘regress’ to an earlier (or less evolved) state of being. This is because the psychological basis for that lesser reality has been ‘removed’ through an act of concentrated will. Marx achieves exactly the same effect through his written work, because his work is the product of a non-inverted mind-set assessing dialectical reality. For the Marxist, the profound act of transformation from ‘inversion’ to ‘non-inversion’, stems from the psychological act of physically encountering the works of Marx. Marx uses his powerful intellect to set the mind the right way around, and it is the exposure to this radical re-alignment that eradicates the ‘false consciousness’ that defines the working class as it exists under capitalist oppression. A worker may read Marx for his or her own personal educational needs, or be exposed to others reading Marx aloud, or explaining (and discussing) what Marx has said about particular issues, but regardless of the issue at hand for the working class (and there are many), Marx always presents reality the right way around, and never mistakes the cart for the horse. Marx passes-on the ‘non-inverted’ mind-set through the agency of its direct educational experience, in other words, a worker is shown how to place the mind the right way around whilst criticising the capitalist system. The worker does not ‘retire’ from the world as does the classical Buddhist, but stays exactly where he or she happens to be, firmly rooted in the exploitative industrialised system. As the workers change their inner terrain through education, they change their outer terrain through activism. As the outer circumstances are transformed for the better through struggle, the state and quality of the inner terrain is thereby transformed. Constructive actions change corresponding thought processes, and profound ‘non-inverted’ thoughts give rise to enlightened action (which in the case of the Worker’s State invariably means better working conditions and pay, as well as advanced scientific education and endeavour). This is how Marx dispels ‘ignorance’ and ‘superstition’ from the human mind.
A Buddhist monastic, of course, is not engaged in manual labour that produces tangible (and usable) products – such as those that are manufactured in a mill, factory, or bakery, etc, but they do reject the greed, hatred and delusion that underlay accumulative commerce, whilst adhering to a very strict psychological and physical moral discipline. They consume the spiritual teachings of the Buddha, and produce the spiritual (meditative) states the Buddha described as being attainable, whilst behaving in a manner suitable to Buddhist notions of prescribed morality. The Buddhist monastic community also functions as a depository of Buddhist knowledge and wisdom – which is shared freely (to a lesser or greater extent), with the lay community. Perhaps the far greater number of Buddhist practitioners reside not in monastic communes, but rather in domestic homes. These lay people are not celibate and generally work for a living – these are ‘producers’ in the Marxist sense. They must live within a commercial social setting, whilst pursuing the Buddha’s teaching along the lines that he laid-out and established. This means that a lay Buddhist may well live within a greed-orientated society, but must live free of greed, hatred and delusion, whilst doing so. More to the point, as the lay Buddhists must share their food with the begging Buddhist monastics, sharing as a general attitude is encouraged within society. In this regard, the Buddhist monastics seem to occupy a position similar to that of a political commissar (in as much as they preserve, transmit and explain a complex body of knowledge), and are responsible for teaching the laity how to practice and behave appropriately. The Buddha’s doctrine may not be Scientific Socialism in the strict Marxist sense of the concept, but it is certainly anti-capitalist because it is inherently anti-greed. Moreover, as Buddhist philosophy disrupts and rejects the prevailing concept of society, it may also be interpreted as being both radical and revolutionary. (It is only in the bourgeois West where Buddhism is ‘inverted’ to become a vehicle for supporting the status quo). The Buddha rejects a society premised upon greed and theistic imaginations, and concentrates upon ‘method’. Marx, for his part, rejects a certain notion of society, and seeks to evolve that rejected society into a better manifestation. In this aspiration, Marx concentrates upon reconstruction. The Buddha’s method is exact and static, whilst the Marxist method is fluid and open to interpretation. A sticking point seems to involve the fact that Marx embraces society (and social change), whilst the Buddha rejects and avoids the (deluded) structures of society, but this may be resolved in part, by the fact that the greater number of Buddhists in the world are in fact workers who raise families and live within society. Certainly the Buddha’s method is compatible with Marxism, and it may be that the Marxist teaching of Scientific Socialism might well serve to supply a social plan that early Buddhism is lacking, and that the Buddha’s method supplies a means for individual workers to ‘break’ psychologically free of the snare of capitalist existence, that is not easily observed in Marx’s emphasis upon group (i.e. ‘class’) action. Although it is obvious that society can and does change, it is not so obvious that the underlying functionality of the mind can change due to the will-power of the individual. However, logic dictates that an individual mind can (and does) evolve over-time simply due to the accumulated experiences of aging, and therefore it is entirely logical that given the correct stimulus, the functionality of the human mind can be deliberately altered in a manner that is the product of existential will-power. After-all, it was such an act of will that propelled the functionality of the Buddha’s mind thousands of years ago, into what is easily recognised as ‘modern’ in its use of analytical thought. Of course, the ancient Greeks were developing a similar approach to the assessment of material and psychological existence around the time of the Buddha, and it is this transformative state of mind that the West re-engaged with, thousands of years later during the renaissance and enlightenment (through the Greek tradition preserved within Islamic libraries). This explains is why both Marx and Engels held Buddhist and Greek dialectics in such high regard.
Particularly within the Mahayana sutras in general, and the Surangama specifically, the three interconnected concepts of ‘samatha’ (all is void of substantiality), ‘samapati’ (all is unreal), and dhyana (which includes the integration of samatha and samapati), are extensively used to explain reality. What must be understood is that the Buddha rejected the concept of ‘idealism’ – that a god (or the mind) creates the material world through an act of will. This is despite the fact that many ‘Buddhist’ commentators in the West have often mistaken the Buddha’s analysis of how material phenomena is processed in the mind itself, with the incorrect assumption that the mind is ‘creating’ the phenomena of the material world that it is assessing. Although it is true that the mind generates (through sensory stimulus and historical memory) impressions of external phenomena deep within its psychic fabric, this process of data-assimilation does not necessarily equate with the mind literally ‘creating’ the physical world it observes at the point of contact. The logic of his position is simple. As the mind is comprised of four of the five aggregates (but which are inherently linked to the fifth aggregate of form), and given that all aggregates are given to change and dissolution, ‘mind’ as a Buddhist concept is impermanent and subject to change. Even the founders of the Yogacara School (which emphasises psychological training as the primary area of Buddhist practice), still recognise that the agency of mind exists within the world of conditionality, and is therefore subject to change. It is only erroneous to assume that the mind in Buddhism equates to a Brahmanic or Judeo-Christian god concept that is assumed to have created the physical universe – this assessment is correct despite such concepts as the indestructible ‘True Self’, or ‘Self Nature’ (and other such apparently ‘indestructible’ underlying concepts) creeping into various Mahayana sutras. Such underlying ‘permanent’ terms may be viewed as moving from the pristine nature of early Buddhism, which perceives a material world (with no discernible beginning or definite end), processed by a confused ethereal mind in the unenlightened state. Once this confusion of greed, hated and delusion is removed through meditative study, the material world is then correctly perceived by a mind that is no longer confused. This state of realisation, even within early Buddhism, involved ever greater appreciations of various stages of ‘emptiness’ realisation, and how this ‘emptiness’ integrates with the material world. It is this notion of ‘emptiness’ realisation that was extended within the Mahayana sutras beyond the original scope of the Buddha’s teaching, to take on an almost ‘metaphysical’ reality. Originally, the Buddha stated that the mind should be ‘emptied’ of greed, hatred, and delusion, and in so doing, the non-substantiality of physical existence would be realised and understood. Part of this understanding involved the ‘seeing through’ of any false notions of a permanent ‘self’ or ‘soul’, and there existed no god constructs outside of the minds that created them. The physical world, in the enlightened state, was realised to be ‘empty’ of ‘attachment’ to otherwise attractive sensory objects, god concepts and souls, etc. The Mahayana sutras adhere to this understanding, but extend the notion of ‘emptiness’ in the mind to equate with ‘emptiness’ as the true nature of material reality. This position, in and of itself, providing it does not sink into nihilism, is not necessarily a problem for Buddhist thought, providing that an illogical position is not set-up to justify this interpretative shift in emphasis. It is illogical to assume that the ethereal mind generates material reality, and any statements to this effect must be viewed as being in error. There is no evidence that the Buddha stated this view, explained this view, or defended this view in either early or later Buddhism, although it is true that certain Buddhist scholars have either assumed this to be the case, or through lack of suitable explanation, given the false impression that this is the case. Even in very good English translations from Chinese texts, certain nuances are often lost during the process of fitting concepts from one language (or thought community), into those of another. A common misconception in this regard, involves the Buddha explaining how thought impressions of the external world are generated within the mind, with this internal generative explanation being misunderstood as the Buddha implying that ‘thought’ creates the ‘material’ object it is assessing. This is inverted thinking, as it is the sense organ encountering the physical object, that generates the thought response, and not the other way around. This analysis demonstrates how the concept of Marxist dialectical assessment can reveal the correct or original teachings of the Buddha (that all follow the same non-inverted internal logic), and reveal where and when corruptive (or inverted) elements have been imported into Buddhist thinking overtime.
The Buddha’s teachings (whether earlier or later), assume a default setting that states that ordinary human perception is flawed. Human beings are born this way, and have been deluded for eons previously, (where the Buddha appears to ‘borrow’ the rebirth teaching found within the Brahmanic theology he so thoroughly rejects elsewhere). However, the Buddha offers a logical ‘way out’ of this cyclic dilemma, through meditative practice that removes this delusion (and the functionality of rebirth). It is clear from this that within the enlightened state, rebirth does not exist, but only appears to exist in the deluded minds of those historically conditioned by the theology of Brahmanism. It is also true that the Buddha’s agency of ‘karma’ (or ‘willed’ action on the behavioural realm), also only exists in the deluded state, with all deluded wilful thought ‘ceasing’ in the enlightened state. A genuine ‘Buddha’, or ‘enlightened being’ is free of karmic generation and the experience of subsequent karma fruit, as well as the agency of rebirth. The enlightened being, according to the Buddha, still occupies a ‘living’ body of five aggregates, until the previous binding karmic force dissipates (in the death of the body), but no more karma is generated in the mind – the seat of all Buddhistic karmic action in the physical world. This is all dependent upon the Buddhist practitioner using meditation to strip the mind of its delusive qualities, and penetrate ever further into ‘empty’ psychic fabric. This culminates in the realisation of a profound ‘emptiness’ (that must not be confused with ‘nothingness’), that ‘includes’ the entirety of all material existence, with the different traditions and lineages of Buddhism emphasising different aspects of this path and its realisation. This profound teaching upon depth psychology has a tremendous scope for misinterpretation and misunderstanding, but its central message derived from the Buddha remains constant. Essentially, the Buddha states that the surface perception that all humans participate in from birth is flawed, and not the optimum perception that humanity is capable of realising and operating through. The instructions of the Buddha (and subsequent Buddhist teachers) are replete with chastisements continuously criticising those that mistake ordinary (shallow) perception for profound (depth) perception. This careful deconstruction of shallow awareness has led to the development of a ‘special’ logic within the Buddhist interpretation of psychological events. The basic premise is that ‘quick’ intellectual stabs at realisation is simply not good enough, and no substitute for realisation of the depth mind that exists ‘beyond’ and behind’ the intellectual capacity (which lacks the ability to ‘see’ beyond its own functionality). This implies that the state of enlightenment is never what one ‘thinks’ it is, but is the product of the shifting of awareness, so that more of the all-round psychic functionality of the total mind is realised and understood.
The Pali language appears to have been a regional version of the official language of Sanskrit in ancient India, with Pali being viewed as a dialect of Sanskrit. Certain scholars have argued that Pali may well have been related to the Magadhi language the Buddha is believed to have spoken, although there is some indication that the Buddhist texts were also written (hundreds of years after the death of the Buddha) in the language of Prakrit, etc. The term ‘early’ Buddhism tends to refer to the Pali Suttas (and their interpretation) amongst the early schools of Buddhism, whilst later Buddhism is a term often used to refer to the Buddhist Sanskrit sutras – that are assumed to have appeared at a later historical date. There is an indication that the Pali Suttas represent the earliest layer of Buddhist thought, but that when these teachings were later recorded into Sanskrit, slight variations in interpretation crept into the texts. However, despite these interpretive differences, the Pali and Sanskrit texts retain exactly the same essential teaching, which in both incidences, is ascribed to the Buddha himself. In reality it seems that many of the Sanskrit innovations already existed in the Pali texts, but for doctrinal purposes, were played-down in some Buddhist schools, or played-up in others. Early Buddhism perceives the enlightened state to be one of a mind stripped of greed, hatred and delusion, which is free of all destructive desire (likened to a ‘fire’ by the Buddha), and thoroughly non-attached to all sense data. The unified perceptual root of the six senses is directly realised because all discursive movement in the surface mind is quelled through meditation (i.e. ‘mind control’) and physical discipline (or ‘moral’ behaviour). This is termed the enlightenment of the Arahant – or ‘noble’ being – and in its highest attainment is described as being beyond both perception and non-perception (as recorded in the teachings on the four, eight or nine Jhana meditative absorptions). This model is essentially an ever more rarefied realisation of perception whilst existing within a material world. The physical world is never denied as independently existing, but the Buddha carefully charts the ‘perceptual’ origination of this world in the mind, which of course, includes the physical body and the equally physical organ of the brain. Early Buddhism posits a quiet and tranquil mind (enlightened to its own essence and functionality), existing in a perfect equilibrium with a material environment, which does not engage that environment in any desirous manner, or ambitious degree. This status of Buddhist perfection stems from the Buddha’s method of non-identification with thought. Once this ‘non-identification’ is achieved, all attachment to the impressions of sensory data in the mind, also logically ceases. Later Buddhism develops this model further, and does not settle for a sense of ‘quietism’ in the face of a dynamic material universe, although its underlying philosophical premise remains exactly the same as that of early Buddhism, albeit in a much more elaborated version. In the deluded state, the six sense organs create impressions in the mind, which the mind is attached to, the strength of which is dependent upon past personal conditioning. The mind’s attention flits from one sensory impression to the next, and there is systemic confusion. The meditative method ‘detaches’ the mind’s awareness from all six sense organs (and sense impressions), and in so doing ‘stills’ the mind through lack of stimulation. This allows the meditator to ‘see through’ into the empty essence of the mind, and fully penetrate the unified perceptual root. However, this sense of ‘oneness’ is viewed as a ‘trap’ in later Buddhism that must be escaped through further development. This unified root of perception, if examined in a dynamic manner, is revealed to have a rootless root that allows the perception to appear to ‘expand’ and incorporate all six sense organs and the sense data (of the physical world) they collect. This sense of ‘oneness’ is expanded to include all physical perception, so that there is now the empty mind ground (or root of perception that is beyond perception), that instead of being ‘quiet’, includes the unsullied diversity of full sensory perception. The mind is non-attached and is all-embracing of its environment (through the awareness capacity fully penetrating and embracing the sense organs and sense data without stopping anywhere), as all inverted tendencies have been thoroughly identified and uprooted during the training process. This state is often described as being neither attached to the void (i.e. empty mind ground), nor hindered by phenomena (or the physical universe). Whereas early Buddhism quietens the mind in the face of sensory stimulation, later Buddhism develops the strength of awareness (or insight) to fully penetrate (and not avoid) all sensory stimulation. Early Buddhism tends to perceive the external world as potentially corrupt and suffering inducing, (advocating a path of avoidance and non-engagement), whilst later Buddhism, although acknowledging the suffer-inducing qualities of existence, nevertheless posits the idea that sensory perception can be permanently purified if an expansive enlightened awareness is generated in the mind of the practitioner. This change in emphasis allows the later Buddhist to fully re-engage with the world once enlightenment has been fully realised. The two models presented here of Buddhist meditational development, are not mutually exclusive, and with a careful analysis, both can be viewed as originating in exactly the same Buddhist teachings, with the apparent differences in approach being explained as historical origin, (and a matter of personal choice as regards where the ‘mind’ is placed in this developmental schematic). The final difference between early and later Buddhist enlightenment, lies entirely in how the enlightened mind relates to the physical world through the senses. Within earlier Buddhism, although the unified perceptual root of all six senses is realised, the senses themselves are still considered able to ‘sense’ environmental stimulus that is ‘delusionary’ in nature, and therefore the avoidance of these types of stimulus is required. Although within the Pali suttas, it is clear that lay men and women can (and do) realise enlightenment, it is the Buddha’s monastic community, separated as it is from conventional society by its life-style, that is pursuing the most direct path to enlightenment, and to exist in an environment conducive to the enlightened state of mind. Indeed, the received Theravada tradition today, has a teaching which says that should a layperson manage to realise enlightenment, then that person must ordain as a monastic as soon as possible. Later Buddhism rejects this premise, and the contemporary Mahayana School is replete with examples of lay enlightened beings, and lay-orientated movements and practice groups, etc. This is because within later Buddhism, the six senses are not only realised at the unified root, but are further developed by a permeating enlightened awareness, which once developed and present, permanently ‘alters’ the orientation with regard to the mind communicating with the physical environment. In this later Buddhist state of enlightenment, the senses ‘remain’ purified in all circumstances (post-enlightenment), and there are no longer any circumstances considered ‘delusionary’ (as explained in the Heart Sutra) to the enlightened being, although there remains morally ‘preferred’ or ‘defined’ types of behaviour and action, etc.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2017.
[1] Evans, W, David, Translator, Discourses of Gotama Buddha – Middle Collection, Janus Publishing Company, (1992), Pages 55-56. This is an extract from the Vitakkasaṇṭhāna Sutta that deals with the wilful uprooting of greed, hatred, and delusion as distinct thought patterns and processes in the functioning mind. If successful, these three taints are permanently removed and do not manifest as either thought in the mind, or behaviour in the body.
[2] See: Marx-Engels Correspondence 1866 - Marx To Antoinette Philips In Salt-Bommel
http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1866/letters/66_03_18.htm Accessed 16.11.2016
[3] My Understanding of Buddhism - By Deng Lai Song (邓来送) http://buddhistsocialism.weebly.com/my-understanding-of-buddhism.html Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD – Accessed 20.11.2016
[4] Rahula, Walpola, What the Buddha Taught, Gordon Fraser, (1978). Pages 20-21
[5] Nyanaponika Thera, The Vision of Dhamma, Rider, (1986), Page 219
[6] Rahula, Walpola, What the Buddha Taught, Gordon Fraser, (1978). Pages 21
[7] Ibid – Pages 23-24
[8] De Silva, Lynn, Buddhism Beliefs and Practices in Sri Lanka, The SIOLL School of Technology, (1980), Page 54.
[9] Luk, Charles, Surangama Sutra, Munshiram, (2001), Page xvii of Preface.