Author’s Note: I was shown a far-right propaganda post online which attempts to project modern notions of ‘White Supremacy’ backwards thousands of years into cultures that have no association with such ahistorical and pseudoscientific concepts! The far-right has become ‘efficient’ at issuing sound bites which are simple, straightforward, compelling and which remove the requirement for their intended audience to ‘think’. My article below replaces that need to ‘think’ by providing in depth and accurate academic knowledge. The far-right ‘lies’ to its audience. This stems from Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ - within which he advocates ‘lying’ about everything as a means to leverage political advantage, control and influence. The Sanskrit terms ‘Shakya’, ‘Buddha’ and ‘Aryan’, etc, have absolutely NOTHING to do with the modern notions underpinning the ideology of ‘White Supremacy’! As the average person lacks the specialist knowledge required to navigate this complex territory in the West – the far-right ideologues deceitfully take advantage of this fact and attempt to fill the vacuum with inaccurate, misunderstood or misleading information! As the saying goes - ‘The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!’ ACW (25.6.2023) Shakya (Sanskrit-Pali) = शाक्य Shakya (Chinese) = 释迦 (Shi Jia) Shakya is the Sanskrit name of the high-ranking clan of the historical Buddha who lived in Northeast India. The historical Buddha was of the ‘Warrior and King’ (Kshatri) Caste – which was (in the era he was born) the highest of the various Hindu castes. Eventually, five Hindu castes would formulate with the ‘Brahmins’ being the highest caste and the ‘Warriors and Kings’ being the second highest. Far-right (anti-intellectual) ideologues attempt to subordinate material fact to their own ‘inverted’ (ideological) machinations – in support of ‘White Supremacist’ mythology. For instance, such attempts often perpetuate the false assertion that the Sanskrit name ‘Shakya’ equates to non-Indian designation of ‘Scythia’ or ‘Scythian’. This is an attempt to superimpose an imagined ‘Greek’ racial identity into North India and thus claim that ‘Europe’ (rather than ethnic Indians) are responsible for the development of Indian thought. This myth is easily dispelled through a brief moment of research: Hindi term for ‘Scythia’ = सीथिया Sanskrit term ‘Shakya’ = शाक No structural connection between these two (written) Indian terms. Chinese term for ‘Shakya’ = 释迦 (Shi Jia) Chinese term for ‘Scythia’ = 斯基泰 (Si Ji Tai) No structural connection between these two (written) Chinese terms. If there was some ‘hidden’ conceptual unifier between these two terms (i.e., ‘Shakya’ - ‘Scythia’) – then it is logical to assume that this identity would be transmitted through the word structures formed within the same language development. Furthermore, as the early Chinese scholars would be looking for a ‘connection’ between these foreign terms should such a connection exist (as a means to generate ‘clarity’ of translation and transliteration) - it also follows that the Chinese ideograms chosen would indicate this supposed ‘connection’ - but the chosen Chinese ideograms clearly do NOT record any such connectivity. Therefore, simply based upon the objective assessment of Sanskrit, Hindi and Chinese word structure (and meaning transmission) – there is NO connection between the non-Indian name ‘Scythia’ and the Indian designation of ‘Shakya’. In other words, the historical Buddha was NOT ‘Greek’, was not ‘White’ and his ideology was NOT simply a version of Greek thought! Other far right myths involve the following terms: Aryan (Hindi-Sanskrit) = आर्य Aryan (Chinese) = 雅利安人 (Ya Li An Ren) Indeed, the Chinese transliteration literally means the ‘People whose culture imposes ‘Refinement, Benefit and Peace’ upon society! This alludes to those Indians who followed the teachings of the Vedas – and more to the point - could understand the language these teachings were recorded within. The Scriptures could be understood, verbally (or inwardly) recited, and could be read by the Brahmin Priests (although originally these texts were transmitted only by word of mouth and were ‘remembered’ only by a chosen few from one generation to the next – at a time when reading and writing was very rare)! As this meditative and reflective culture disciplined the mind and body – society was externally and inwardly ‘well-ordered’. Those who applied these teachings were renowned for their great, accumulated wisdom which made them ‘noble’ in the eyes of their peers. Those who followed the ‘Vedas’ were ennobled by these teachings (as opposed to those who did NOT follow these teachings) and were further ‘ennobled’ when a personal wisdom was accrued (above and beyond the Scriptures) through self-cultivation. Although the Buddha rejected the Vedas – he made use of the term ‘Aryan’ to refer to his followers of the Dharma who had achieved a similar understanding as his own (as the Buddha was illiterate – his teachings were passed on only through the agency of ‘memory’ and public ‘recital’). This term was applied freely to any member of the Indian caste system and broader society (including ‘Untouchables’) and therefore had NO association with skin colour or ‘Whiteness’. Strictly speaking, within its narrow Hindu usage – the term ‘Aryan’ – refers to someone who can ‘speak’ and ‘understand’ the language of the Vedas. Those who could not understand this language were excluded from this thought community and were referred to as ‘Anaryan’. As there were people with a light skin tone who were referred to as ‘Anaryan’ - this proves that the term ‘Aryan’ did not (and does not) refer to a ‘White’ skin colour. Buddha (Sanskrit-Pali) = बुद्ध Buddha (Chinese) = 佛 (Fo) The left-hand particle of the Chinese ideogram is ‘亻’ (ren2) which refers to a ‘person’. The right-hand particle is ‘弗’ (fu2) - which breaks down into the following three elements: 1) 弓 (gong1) = A bow – an arched (stringed) weapon used in hunting and warfare. 2) 丨(gun3) = To pass through – travel up and down – a unifier as in ‘number one’. 3) 丿(pie3) = To raise one’s head – to move from right to left (as in a ‘dropping’ stroke) - to abandon and discard that which is not needed. As the ancient scholars of China had to translate the unfamiliar Indian Buddhist terms very carefully – they often sought the guidance of visiting Indian Buddhist monks. This was a process of transmission that developed from the 1st century CE onward – and was still ongoing during the 5th and 6th centuries CE and beyond. These scholars were told EXACTLY what Buddhist terms meant and if they did not know – they would wait patiently for guidance. Eventually correct knowledge would arrive. This is why the original ‘meaning’ of the Sanskrit terms used within Buddhist ideology is clearly retained within the body of traditional Chinese ideograms. In the case of ‘Buddha’ (佛) is defined as someone (亻) who has mastered a complex art (such as ‘archery’ [弓] - which the Buddhist Suttas state the Buddha did study as a youth) - through which an ‘arrow’ (丨) is skilfully affixed. Then an appropriate effort is applied so that the two ends of the bow are drawn (taut) down toward the centre - and the ‘arrow’ is let fly so that it directly ‘hits’ (丿) the intended target. In the Buddhist Suttas – the Buddha describes self-cultivation as being similar to stringing an instrument. If the strings are too loose – the correct note cannot be produced. If the strings are too ‘tight’ - then the strings might ‘snap’ when played! Self-cultivation, therefore, requires the ‘correct’ amount of effort so that the required result is achieved. As the Buddha ‘knows’ this is the objective – and ‘knows’ how to achieve this objective – this correct ‘knowing’ is two-fold. There is the ‘knowing’ of the correct path and its methodology – and there is the ‘knowing’ that the following of this correct path bestows upon the earnest seeker. Although the Sanskrit term ‘बुद्’ (Aryan) is ‘phonetical’ - like the Western alphabet - no real internal structure regarding inherent (or historical) meaning can be gleamed from the dissecting of its constituent parts. For that meaning it is the corresponding Chinese ideogram that is used. As can be seen, basic dictionary definitions do not convey the full or intended meaning of the Sanskrit term ‘Buddha’ (बुद्). This word is said to be derived from the Sanskrit term ‘बुत’ (But) doubled – whilst also being related to the doubled term ‘बुद्ध’ (Buddh): a) बुत (But) = Idol and mistress. This implies a correct spiritual positioning (such as that implied through a religious icon or statue) and the corresponding social influence such an inner orientation generates in the outer world (similar as the power a strong woman accrues through her scheming and planning). b) बुद्ध (Buddh) = The ability to ‘understand’ - and to apply that understanding in the outer world. This suggests a perfect integration of ‘methodology’ and ‘application’ - of ‘theory’ and ‘objective’. The Sanskrit term ‘Buddha’ (बुद्) is generally taken to mean: i) Consciously ‘aware’. ii) Wise. iii) Intelligent. iv) Transcendentally ‘awake’. The Chinese ideogram 佛 (Fo) also suggests that a ‘bent’ arrow’ (丿) must be made ‘straight’ by tightly binding it with an already correct arrow (丨) - until the task is completed. There is a peculiar negative connotation associated with the Chinese term suggesting the term ‘no’ is being implied. This is not surprising as the Buddha taught exclusively by explaining what enlightenment ‘is NOT’ - and not what enlightenment IS’! Nirvana, therefore, is the state of mind, body and environment generated when greed, hatred and delusion is no longer present in the mind and body of the practitioner. Although the far-right ideologues cherry-pick to attempt to make material reality match their deficient academic model – the spurious ‘linguistic’ associations that may (or may not) exist between ancient Indian words and words deriving from other cultures – does NOT automatically correspond to those different ethnic groupings sharing any systemic cultural link with India or its spiritual practices. Apparent linguistic associations can be found throughout the different and diverse cultures of the world – but this fact in itself does NOT mean that Yoga, Hinduism, Jainism or Buddhism or any cultural construct - existed (or originated) in these non-Indian places. What this phenomenon might suggest is that humanity once possessed a common (unified) culture before it diversified into the ethnic-specific variations observable today.
0 Comments
The Buddha developed a system that generates the conditions of ‘inner’ Socialism by uprooting greed, hatred and delusion from the functionality of the ordinary human mind. Through a corresponding physical behaviour that is ‘free’ of greed, hatred and delusion, Socialism In the ‘outer’ world is built. The Buddha’s path is an expression of early Socialism that places the emphasis upon the individual ‘freed’ from the collective tyranny of the faceless caste-system. Marx and Engels, by way of contrast, denies the ultimate validity of the individual, and instead defines the collectivity of ‘class’ as the only genuine driving-force behind any and all genuine Revolutionary action. Things are not quite this simple, for instance, as the Buddha (whilst advocating the ‘disciplining’ of the individual mind) describes how the notion of ‘self’ (that is, the ‘individual’) is a culturally conditioned concept with no basis in material reality. The ‘Sangha’ in Early Buddhism may well be an indication of the formation of an early-class system. In this case, made-up entirely of ordained Buddhist monastics whose function was to preserve, practice and convey the ‘Dhamma’, or Buddha’s enlightened Teaching. The non-ordained laity, by way of contrast, circumnavigated the Sangha and drew inspiration, guidance and support from it. The Sangha of Early Buddhism was a primitive ‘Communist Party’ defined around the concept of ‘membership’ and ‘non-membership’. The ‘members’ (monastics) conditioned the ‘non-members’ (laity) to develop to the extent where they were psychologically and physically prepared to become Buddhist monastics themselves. Although all Buddhist monastics are ‘equal’, it is also true that the Buddhist monastic community is led by the eldest (and ‘wiser’) strata of the population. This is generally comprised of those monks and nuns who have been ‘ordained’ the longest and not necessarily those who are the eldest in the (literal) chronological sense. These qualified elders had spent a lifetime carefully studying the Dhamma, teaching and advising others, as well as personally putting into practice each minute element of the teaching. In this sense, this ‘inner core’ of the Buddha’s elite disciples formed what might be termed a ‘Polit-Buro’ concerned with the perpetuation of an ideological purity and orthodoxy.
Later, with the liberalisation of Buddhism, the term ‘Sangha’ was expanded to include not only the ordained Buddhist elite, but now also included all lay-people who considered themselves a ‘follower of the Buddha’ (but not those ordinary people who did not support Buddhism). This expanded the membership of this primitive ‘Communist Party’ to include a non-ordained laity. Furthermore, Buddhist monastics lost their ‘elite’ status and became quite literally ‘beggars’ who existed in a privileged position (where they did not have work or participate in family life), that was ‘inferior’ to the lowest lay-person! Why was this? Everything each monk or nun used was not owned by them per se, but was the collective property of the monastic community ultimately provided by the hard-work of the lay-community that had provided it! Now, with the biographies of Hui Neng (the Sixth Patriarch of the Chinese Ch’an tradition), and the Indian merchant Vimalakirti (the ‘married’ contemporary of the historical Buddha) were well-known, lay-practice within Buddhism was transformed into ‘matching’ or even ‘transcending’ that of the Buddhist monastics. Although a profound example of democratisation, Buddhism today is still led by an elite monastic core, although with one or two lay-practitioners now included in the ‘Polit-Buro’! As the Buddha ‘rejects’ greed, hatred and delusion, it is inherently anti-capitalist. It is a philosophical and ideological impossibility for Buddhism to follow or advocate the predatory capitalist system. Buddhist meditation is a Proletariat device for clearing the human mind of the conditioned (habitual) patterns that generally define human society. As the Buddha states that ‘rebirth’ and ‘karma’ do not exist in the post-enlightened state – it is logical to assume that ‘rebirth’ and ‘karma’ do not exist in the pre-enlightened state. These two concepts only appear to exist because they are common elements of pre-Buddhist (Indian) religion that many Buddhist practitioners brought with them when they decided to approach the Buddha for discipleship. The Buddha used these terms to inspire morally ‘pure’ actions on the physical plane so that the inner mind could be more readily transformed through meditation. Only when advising advanced practitioners did the Buddha decide to ween them off of these childish concepts of religiosity. As there is no ‘rebirth’ or ‘karma’, the Buddha’s path is a purely material ideology centred around the Vinaya Discipline which modifies the external behaviour so that the inner mind (and its functionality) can be permanently modified into a Proletariat (enlightened) state. |
AuthorAdrian Chan-Wyles PhD - Political Commissar and BMA (UK) Historian & Researcher. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|