Of course, deficient Western discourse has imagined all kinds of false narratives about these times. Nevertheless, today the Kalmyk people are loyal members of the Russian Federation and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The Kalmyk people are NOT ethnically Tibetan - but like many ethnic Mongolians that live in China and Mongolia - the Kalmyk have adopted various aspects of Tibetan Buddhism. Since 1991, the CIA-controlled 'Pro-Tibetan Movement' has attempted to infiltrate Kalmyk Buddhism by fabricating all kinds of bizarre stories in the West (that have no currency in Russia - and which remain mostly 'unknown' in that country) involving the corrupt 14th Dalai Lama (who was filmed recently 'kissing' a young Indian boy) - stating that 'His Holiness' has 'recognised' a US Taxi-Driver as the 'reincarnation' of an important Lama! Mental-illness and sheer fantasy aside - for a non-White person, the fight against Neo-Nazism - and fascism in general - is a very important aspect of contemporary existence. Nobody in their right mind would want a war - but when war comes it must be fought and fought effectively and well!
Donbass: Russian Troops From Kalmykia Are Fighting Against Ukrainian Neo-Nazism! (15.8.2023)8/15/2023 The people of the Republic of Kalmykia practice Tibetan Buddhism. Indeed, the flag of this Russian Republic includes the 'Lotus' flower - a symbol which recurs throughout Mahayana, Vajrayana and Tantrayana Buddhism. The Republic of Kalmykia is located in the North Caucasus region of Southern Russia. The Kalmyk people are of Monoglian ethnicity and originate to the North of China's Xinjiang province - probably from the adjacent Mongolian region. There is much racially motivated lies and disinformation in the West (arising out of US 'Cold War' anti-intellectualism) regarding the Kalmyk people. These 'Buddhist' people fully supported the 1917 Russian Revolution, fought bravely in the Soviet Red Army between 1941-1945 - with many distinguishing themselves on the battlefield agsinst the Nazi Germans and their Catholic and Trotskyite allies. As the Nazi Germans were ethnically cleansing all non-White people in the USSR - the Kalmyks were relocated to a safer area. Of course, deficient Western discourse has imagined all kinds of false narratives about these times. Nevertheless, today the Kalmyk people are loyal members of the Russian Federation and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The Kalmyk people are NOT ethnically Tibetan - but like many ethnic Mongolians that live in China and Mongolia - the Kalmyk have adopted various aspects of Tibetan Buddhism. Since 1991, the CIA-controlled 'Pro-Tibetan Movement' has attempted to infiltrate Kalmyk Buddhism by fabricating all kinds of bizarre stories in the West (that have no currency in Russia - and which remain mostly 'unknown' in that country) involving the corrupt 14th Dalai Lama (who was filmed recently 'kissing' a young Indian boy) - stating that 'His Holiness' has 'recognised' a US Taxi-Driver as the 'reincarnation' of an important Lama! Mental-illness and sheer fantasy aside - for a non-White person, the fight against Neo-Nazism - and fascism in general - is a very important aspect of contemporary existence. Nobody in their right mind would want a war - but when war comes it must be fought and fought effectively and well! Russian Language Text:
0 Comments
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.
The 14th Dalai Lama was brought up in a Potala Palace (in Lhasa) that deliberately harboured Nazi German War Criminals. He was at the top of a ruthless 'Lamaist' hierarchy that raped, tortured and murdered the oppressed Serf population! These Nazi War Criminals had escaped from British POW Camps in India and had taken refuge in a Tibet that had been 'friendly' to these racists from Hitler's Germany! In return for their compliance in 'lying' about a forceful takeover of Tibet by the fabled 'Chinese' (the remit was that the 'Chinese' behaved like 'Nazi Germans') these Nazi German 'War Criminals' would be granted 'Immunity' from Prosecution! Indeed, they would write books (in English) and would receive immediate US Citizenship for their assistance in this grand scheme of deception! Part of this façade has involved the 14th Dalai Lama being presented to the West as a ‘Christ-like’ figure worthy of respect and worship! India has been part and parcel of this process of ‘lying’ and ‘misrepresenting’ China, its culture and its religious traditions! The US anti-intellectualism employed by the CIA was that 'China' had 'invaded' an integral part of its 'own' territory! By the time of the 1949 Socialist Revolution in China – and the 1959 'Liberation' of the Tibetan region - Tibet had been a part of geographical China for over a thousand years - with millions of Tibetans living throughout Southwest China after expanding into China proper! When the capitalist-friendly 'Nationalist' government ruled China between 1912-1949 - the US was absolutely fine with Tibet being an integral part of China! It was only when the anti-capitalist 'Socialist' government was brought to power in 1949 that a right-wing US (Truman) government had a problem with the new arrangement. This was when the myth-making machine chugged into action! When the ethnic Han (Chinese) Buddhist Master - Xu Yun (1840-1959) - visited the Tibetan region during the late 1880s - he was shocked and appalled by the 'decadence' he encountered! Many 'apologists' for Western imperialism tried to suggest that this movement away from the Vinaya Discipline (as laid down by the Buddha) was a necessary part of the Buddhist adaptation to the Tibetan environment, but the problem with this thinking is the 'Lamaism' is NOT Buddhism per se, but rather a ruthless manifestation of a system of Buddhist totalitarianism! These so-called 'High Lamas' were nothing but militarised Landlords who possessed numerous wives and concubines and passed on their vast estates to their children! Anyone who dared to question or challenge their authority often ended up having their eyeballs publicly 'gouged out' with a spoon! This was the corrupt system that Adolf Hitler was very interested in - as he was obsessed with the bizarre idea that the racially pure 'Aryans' had originated within Tibet - and that the naturally 'racist' high Lamas were somehow 'descendants' of these racially pure ancestors who had spread to Germany! This explains why numerous Nazi German archaeological expeditions were sent to the region - and why the young 14th Dalai Lama was ingratiated with Hitler's emissaries! These 'Aryan' representatives would soon be replaced by their CIA equivalents - as the Americans spirited the Dalai Lama away to India and a fabricated story of a 'Chinese invasion' was concocted! This falsehood is now masquerading as the 'norm' in the West - with only people across China (including the Tibetan region) - truly understanding the reality of the situation! The corruption of the 14th Dalai Lama is well-known – but the US follows a policy of never presenting his image in a negative light! He has been friends with mass murderers, has been involved with the hacking of US defence computers and has been caught demanding that everyone follows a vegetarian diet – whilst being caught ordering plates of ham sandwiches at the various five-star hotels he and his entourage frequents! Although he is supposed to be an impoverished Buddhist monk – it has been revealed that he receives a yearly allowance of $200,000 from the US govement! This maverick behaviour all fits in with the ‘Bourgeois’ (‘Christianised’) Buddhism he peddles in the West! Anyone can access the Buddhist Vinaya Discipline – even the far more liberal ‘Tibetan’ version – and see that the 14th Dalai Lama does NOT adhere to this very strict psychological and physical discipline that involves the upholding of hundreds of rules! Yet again his hypocrisy and corruption has been displayed in his ‘amorous’ behaviour (forbidden by the Vinaya Discipline) which involves him insisting upon ‘kissing’ those he meets – but only involving the touching of tongues!
2023-02-19 Ecns.cn Editor:Jing Yuxin By Li Hanxue
(Journalist from CNS) (CNS)-- Since Buddhism was introduced from India to China more than 2,000 years ago, it has not only merged with Chinese culture and philosophy, but also deeply integrated into the daily lives of Chinese people without their noticing. Buddhism comprises three major schools: Han, Tibetan and Southern, each with a different language. Has the Sinicization of Buddhism been completed? Can the historical process be interpreted as the secularization and Sinicization of Buddhism? SHENG Kai, vice president of Tsinghua University's Institute of Ethics and Religion and deputy director of the Institute of Buddhist Culture of China, explored these topics in an exclusive interview with China News Service's "W.E. Talk". Excerpts from the interview: Buddhism Sinicization is a brand-new process China News Service: How can we accurately understand Sinicization of Buddhism? Why can't we take this as Sinicization and secularization? SHENG Kai: Buddhism was introduced to China from India around the beginning of the Christian Era. To take root and develop in China, Buddhism had to be compatible with the traditional inheritance of Confucian and Taoist cultures, blended into the faith and belief of the Chinese ritual culture, systematically accepted by the monarchy, sustained by the society through communication, and well supported by a booming economy. So discussion of the historical connotation of the Sinicization of Buddhism means exploring the process and laws of Buddhism’s transformation from an alien civilization to Chinese religion, recording the continuity, separation, heritage, and innovation between Indian and Chinese Buddhism, and examining the conflicts, interpretations, and fusions with Confucian and Taoist cultures as a result of interaction with Chinese society. In contrast to the migration of other religions, Buddhism from India to China has four fundamental characteristics. First, its cultural communication is characterized by a "missionary as communicator" mode. The linkage between Indian and Chinese Buddhism is mainly the translation and dissemination of classical texts. Monks acted as individuals and had no relationship with organizations of Indian Buddhism, so the propagation of Buddhism never caused any war. Second, it is the original cultural integration process. The traditional Chinese culture of Confucianism and Taoism is the background for the development of Buddhism in China. Although there were conflicts between monasticism and filial piety, the original classical interpretation and theoretical innovation of Chinese Buddhism resolved the ethical conflicts among the three religions. They promoted the cultural integration of the three on the common understanding that their distinctive beauties should all be preserved. Third, its cultural practice has mainly been undertaken by the elite and the public. The Sinicization of Buddhism for thousands of years is not simply a creation by elite Buddhists and literati but the joint work of worshipers in Chinese Buddhism. Fourth, an integration of globalization and localization. As a result of the Sinicization of Buddhism, Chinese Buddhism is not only a local transformation of religious civilization from overseas but also a rediffusion to East Asia and Southeast Asia. Indian Buddhism was introduced to the Central Plains of China around the beginning of the Christian Era, and Tibet in the 7th century, and Yunnan in the 11th. It blended with different cultures and regions, forming three primary schools of Chinese Buddhism with different temperaments, forms, and characteristics: Han Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, and Southern Buddhism. They use Chinese, Tibetan, and Dai languages to carry forward the significance of Mahayana, Tantra, and Theravada Buddhism. Therefore, the Sinicization of Buddhism is not based on any single nationality. For example, Southern Buddhism is practiced by the Dai, Blang, Deang, Achang, and some Wa and Yi ethnicities. Even Han Buddhism did not undergo the process of Sinicization because it was created by the monks of the Han, ethnic minorities, and even overseas Chinese expatriates. Foreign monks from West Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia, as well as those from Khotan, Qiuci, Shule, and other places in Xinjiang, traveled across China to translate Sutras and evangelize Buddhism. Of the eight primary schools of Buddhism in the Sui and Tang Dynasties, the Three Treatises, Vijnaptimatrata, Avatamsaka, Tantra, and Dhyana were founded directly by non-Han monks or with their joint efforts. Han Buddhism integrates the collective multiracial wisdom of the monks and the public. It blends pluralistic cultures with Buddhism and reflects the complicated characteristics created by multiple nations. Between Chinese Mahayana and Indian Mahayana, the relationship is a creative transformation and innovative development. Although the fracture is bigger than the continuity, they are not opposites. Innovation is greater than inheritance but still keeps the fundamental spirit of the Buddha. Thus, it is not possible to use the linear historical view to explore the relationship between the two by saying that the previous generation is always better than the present, nor can we use the word “secularization” to describe the development of Han Buddhism. The connotation of secularization in the contexts of Western culture is related to sacredness, as Mircea Eliade wrote in the preface of his book The Sacred and Profane: "Sacredness is the opposite of profane." The Western narrative of secularization is that the propagation and development of Buddhism in China is a process of constant degradation and decline. However, the Sinicization of Buddhism is not simply about Buddhism in China, but refers to a process of interpretation and creation of Indian Buddhism by Chinese Buddhists, which finally took root and developed into a new form of Chinese Buddhism. The ideology of human Buddhism is the right way tothe Sinicization of Buddhism CNS: Recently, the reform of human Buddhism has effectively changed the Buddhist community. It calls for self-salvation and renewal to adapt to contemporary society. Please describe the background and significance of the ideology and reform of human Buddhism. How do you see the relationship between Sinicization of Buddhism and the vitality of Buddhism in China today? SHENG: Buddhism encountered crises in different periods. In the Northern and Southern Dynasties, for example, Buddhism met the legitimacy problem of Dharma, and there was a debate about the relationship between Chinese and foreign cultures. In the mid-late Ming dynasty, talent lacunae and monastery malfunction happened. Masters like HanshanDeqing, YunqiZhuhong, ZibaiZhenke, and Yuyi Zhixu strongly advocated religious reform to rejuvenate Buddhism in the late Ming Dynasty. After the Opium War of 1840, the Chinese Buddhism community faced national peril and the decline of the religion. Human Buddhism was established and promoted as a way of modernizing Buddhism by consolidating doctrines, reforming teaching sources, and popularizing catechism. The announcement of human Buddhism has not only pushed forward the transformation of Buddhism from the old to the modern but also set an excellent example of retaining the past glory and inspiring future honor for the development of contemporary Buddhism. Human Buddhism was first advocated by Master Tai Xu as a correction to the unearthly ills of traditional Chinese Buddhism, which was guided by the principles of Buddhism doctrines and opportunities and focused on exposing and criticizing the accumulated ills of Buddhism and the decay of teachings during the Ming and Qing Dynasties. The theoretical construction and the practical development of human Buddhism are not only consistent with but also reinforce each other. After Master Tai Xu’s passing, many masters, such as Grha-pati Zhao Puchu and Master Jing Hui in Mainland China, Masters Yin Shun and Sheng Yen in Taiwan, and Masters Yan Pei and Lung Kan in Singapore, all adhere to the path of pluralistic and parallel development towards human Buddhism. Human Buddhism is a way of modernizing and synchronizing Buddhism, not a new Buddhism departing from tradition. It inherits traditional conventions, adapts current Buddhist thoughts, and underlines that religion shall conform to the national status quo and the current background of modern civilization. Sinicization of Buddhism has different historical connotations in different periods, such as the establishment of schools in the Sui and Tang dynasties, the religious reform in the late Ming Dynasty, and contemporary human Buddhism. Human Buddhism is a sensible choice for Buddhism to integrate its traditional inheritance with modern Chinese Buddhism. Summing up the historical experience of Buddhism Sinicization and the landmark of 100 years of human Buddhism, we realize that the Sinicization of Buddhism is continuing forever in a conscious and sustainable manner. It is the key to keeping Buddhism vital in China. Dual expectations and directions of self-renewal for contemporary Chinese Buddhism CNS: What challenges do you think Chinese Buddhism may encounter in today’s China? How does Buddhism continue to develop or rejuvenatealong the direction of Sinicization? SHENG: As part of Chinese traditional culture, Buddhism still exerts far-reaching influence in China and around the world, attracting the preference of Chinese today with its traditional charm. However, as an active religious society in contemporary China, its premodern institutional systems, customs and beliefs may contradict modern civilization. And some thoughts and doctrines are not in line with today's political and social situations. In the 21st century, Buddhism in mainland China faces a dilemma of dual expectations. The purity and tranquility of great monasteries in famous mountains are the spiritual home for people nowadays to heal their bodies and souls. But a big, invisible economic hand has reached out to the spiritual need and fostered the denounced commercialization of Buddhism. Following the development of the tourism economy, monasteries make for pure spiritual space but fail to meet the public's expectation of purity. At the same time, the Party and state authorities hope that Buddhist society will maintain traditional farming and praying daily and gear into the modern economy and social life norm. Adapting to the corporate system of assets and finance management is an example. The Buddhism community needs to solve its talent cultivation and survival issues. The discipline of religious life and the inheritance of doctrines are keys to enhancing the total quality and morale of Buddhist groups and to encouraging monks’ return to the fine Buddhist traditions, such as preaching, annotating scriptures, teaching the Dharma, educating people, meditating, chanting sutra and other inner practices with peace in mind. It is also necessary for the state and society to support the Buddhist community in working out its religious ways for monastic living and economic development. The Buddhist community should respond to the needs of society. The monastic groups shall be able to regenerate and benefit the public. Monasteries shall organize activities to promote the Dharma and the public interest and to help people in need with particular support for its charity businesses instead of conducting activities directed to the monasteries' interests. Buddhist society should respond to the concerns and needs of the Party and the state, adapting to the new situation and its requirementsfor a comprehensive modern socialist country.It should cultivate Buddhists of high quality, promote the contemporary interpretation of Buddhist classics, tamp down the ideological foundation for the Sinicization of Buddhism, develop and improve the internal standard of operation for modern Buddhism and strengthen the relevant policies of Buddhism's Sinicization. Historically, Buddhism has made important contributions to the formation and consolidation of a pluralistic society in China. Today, Buddhism still plays a significant role in unifying Chinese people and fostering a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation. In the meantime, it also has unique advantages in operating public charity businesses, facilitating the cross-strait relationship with peaceful development, and enhancing Sino-foreign friendship. (Translated by WANG Yunhong) LANZHOU, Feb. 3 (Xinhua) -- More than 76,000 believers and tourists from home and abroad attended a grand Tibetan Buddhist event, known as the "sunning of the Buddha" ceremony, held Friday at the Labrang Monastery in northwest China's Gansu Province.
Buddhists, Tibetan residents, and tourists gathered in the square in front of the monastery at around 9:00 a.m., waiting for the ceremony. Around one hour later, about 100 lamas carried a huge thangka scroll bearing the image of the Buddha to a nearby hill, where the thangka was unrolled at around 10:30 a.m. for believers to worship. After sunbathing for around an hour, the portrait was rolled up with loud cheers from the audience. The annual event is one of the most important ceremonies at Labrang Monastery, one of the six great temples of the Gelug Sect of Tibetan Buddhism, which was built in 1709. The centuries-old ceremony is held each year on the 13th day of the first lunar month. It is not only a grand festival for Buddhists, but also a platform to showcase the unique Tibetan culture and customs to tourists. The ceremony had been suspended since 2020 due to the COVID-19 epidemic. Dear A
Thank you for your email requesting data regarding the historical CPC in Tibet. The ethnic Tibetans (prior to their conversion to 'Buddhism') were a very violent 'warrior' ethnicity and invaded large swathes of Western and Southwestern geographical China during the 10th century CE - and continued to re-settle these vast areas (such as Sichuan and Yunnan, etc_, although both 'names' and 'boundaries have changed over the centuries as Dynasties have come and gone. This is why millions of Tibetans (the Tibetan 'diaspora') today live outside of geographical Tibet - inside of geographical China. It is also why (and 'now') Tibet became (politically) part of China. Why Did Democratic Reform Take Place in Tibet in 1959? YOUNGER BROTHER OF THE DALAI LAMA: “WHEN THE 14TH DALAI LAMA IS GONE, WE ARE DONE!” INTERNAL DIVISIONS IN THE DALAI CLIQUE INTENSIFY TIBET: YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE REACHES 160,000 MEMBERS WITH 6.700 ORGANISATIONS! (2012) Adapting to Socialist Society: Right Action - and the Development of Tibetan Buddhism When Serfs Stood Up in Tibet - Anna Louis Strong THE BRUTALITY AND BARBARISM OF FEUDAL TIBET (PRE-1949) BOOK REVIEW: EXPOSING ‘YOUNGHUSBAND’ BY PATRICK FRENCH (2022) Indeed, so unruly were the Tibetans in Southwest China under the 13th Dalai Lama (attacking and killing Westerners - as well as Chinese and Tibetan converts to Christianity whilst also destroying their Churches, etc) - that the new (post-1911) 'Nationalist' government gave-in to Western imperialist pressure and sent a substantial (punitive) field army (under the Command of one 'General Li') into the area only - to be diverted by the efforts of (Han) Chinese Buddhist Master Xu Yun (1840-1859) - who met with General Li and persuaded him to use peaceful means in quelling the Tibetan unrest. Note that this issue had nothing to do with geographical Tibet - which even then was considered 'remote', difficult to 'access' and culturally 'primitive' by comparison. However, although the British invaded Tibet a number of times during the late 1800s and early 1900s), the West in principle had no objection geographical Tibet being part of political China whilst under the political control of the Western-friendly Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) and the Western-friendly and Christian-friendly Nationalist Administration (1911-1949). The CIA-generated myth of 'Tibetan Independence' probably dates to the late 1950s - even though the 14th Dalai Lama was an ally of Nazi Germany both before and during WWII - continuing to grant asylum to Nazi War Criminals into the late 1950s, etc. Just as the Qing and Nationalist governments maintained a sophisticated political administrative network throughout geographical Tibet and the Tibetan diaspora living within Southwest China, it logically follows that there existed (at different times - centred in different places) numerous 'mirroring' branches of the 'Communist Party of China' (CPC) which were kept secret for security reasons, but which were often found-out and/or betrayed by bourgeois or imperialist spies and ultimately 'liquidated' from time to time. All we have left is a few very old Red Flags, and perhaps one or two 'written' reports in the National Archives of China. A similar situation exists with the Communist Party branch that once thrived in Taiwan - although it is 'illegal' today with all vestiges of it destroyed by orders of the occupying Japanese (1895-1945) and subsequently the Americans (1945-present)! We have included a link above to the work of US journalist - Anna Louis Strong - who witnessed first-hand the time periods you are interested in - namely before, during and after the peaceful (and by all accounts 'enthusiastic') Liberation of Tibet (c. 1959)! Best Wishes BMA (UK) Admin Dear M
Thank you for your interesting email: The Buddhology of Marx and the Development of Historical Materialism The above is the essence of my research over the years. Certainly, the USSR academics treated Buddhist philosophy with a certain deference - as did Marx and Engels. Modern China follows exactly the same path and has shown considerable interest in this work - as have academics from Laos and Vietnam, etc. The British academic Trevor Ling - independently to myself - also suspected some type of systemic link between the thinking of Marx and Buddha (Professor Zhao Yuezhi in China also shares my views). When Buddhism is stripped of all its accrued 'religiosity' (which is both 'alien' and 'contradictory' to the ideology of Early Buddhism) a system of proto-Marxism is laid bear. A soft materialism arises that recognises the material (and 'primary') reality of the physical world - whilst fully acknowledging the 'conscious' conundrum that defines the historical, existential and prophetic predicament that humanity finds itself within! The Buddha also provides the first ever human documentation of a theory of evolution in the 'Agganna Sutta' (which I am sure pre-dates anything the Greeks were churning out - probably by two-hundreds or more). Remember that in China the Buddha is around 500-years older than Western academics have decided - a position shared by a number of Indian scholars who reject the Eurocentric dating. Certainly, as wise as he was, the Buddha could not read or write and was 'illiterate' whilst remaining 'highly educated' in all practical and linguistically transmitted arts - a status of learning in accordance with his High Caste (Khaitriya) social positioning (he was taught martial arts, seduction, political studies and all the known spiritual learning - but through practical instruction which did not rely upon the written word). In this older dating, the Buddha lived between 1029/28 - 949/48 BCE - assuming he lived 80-years! If this was the case, then the Buddha's use of a logical, dialectical mind - pre-dates the Greeks by at least 500-years - and strongly suggests the flow of mind development was from East to West! As always, think for yourself! Kind Regards Adrian Chan-Wyles By Yang Chengchen LHASA, March 27, 2022 (CNS) -- March 28 is the 63rd anniversary of the liberation of millions of serfs in Tibet. The book "When Serfs Stood up in Tibet" was written by American writer Anna Louis Strong in 1965 and is still one of the best books for anyone to understand the history of Tibet’s democratic reform.
In 12 chapters, Strong makes an important observation about Tibet, the snowy plateau, as part of the foreign press in 1959, when the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) suppressed a rebellion seeking to overturn democratic reform. In the preface of its English version, Israel Epstein, the Polish-born journalist, commented that Strong’s narration was “close to the facts” and her "approach and the actual development of reality are in harmony." The book’s perspective is still valuable today 60 years after Tibetan serfs were emancipated. However, the description of Tibet has been distorted more or less from reality by some western media, converting Tibet into an imaginary and idealized place that never existed. Uncritical thinking, lazy reporting, and even deliberate misreading of Tibet are still prevalent in Western media sources. These are arm-chair writers who hold the view that Tibet is the one that exists only in their imagination, refusing to recognize or willing to admit "actual development" in the real Tibet. Since the 1990s, with the development of criticizing Orientalism, post-colonialism, and cultural hegemony, the impression of Tibet under the influence of the western context has aroused extensive reflection. People should realize that the so-called spiritual Tibet, like Shangri La, does not exist. This land, which was in the grip of the feudal serfdom for thousands of years, was never a spiritual land for most of its people. Exploitation, oppression and material concerns could be frequently witnessed here in the old society. The title "When Serfs Stood up in Tibet" was true for the vast majority of people in Tibet in 1959. According to Strong’s personal observations, Tibet was undergoing a dramatic reform, which rejuvenated this snowy plateau. The author witnessed youth coming back to the land, which had been unchanging for hundreds of years by the feudal serfdom. At that time a new vision was shared among the people, the fate of the land was in their own hands and a democratic Tibet was being built. In fact, this vision has largely been realized by the people of all the various ethnic groups in today’s Tibet. The people on this snowy plateau can see all of the possibilities, which are now revealed in the full development of the unique, mysterious, and rich Tibetan culture. Just a casual investigation into the history of Tibet would reveal that primitive feudalism controlled the land until the middle of the last century. Serf owners in Tibet, who accounted for less than 5% of the population, possessed all cultural and educational resources and monopolized material and spiritual wealth due to their control of political and religious power. Women, even of the upper class, and monks who were in charge of important temples such as Jokhang Temple, in Lhasa, were deprived of the right to education, and were not allowed to read newspapers or any modern books. The vitality of Tibet, which had been suppressed by this antiquated social system, found new life in this land due to socialistic democratic reform. Today, a new inclusive cultural system has been established in Tibet, with new shared wealth created with a value of more than 6 billion yuan. The illiteracy rate in the old Tibet was as high as 95%. After the establishment of a modern educational system, ordinary people can enjoy 15 years of free public education, and the average length of education has been increased to 13.1 years. To over romanticize, even "exoticize", Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism will not help anyone to understand Tibet or its place in the larger Chinese national community. "To build a paradise on the roof of the world" was a slogan hung on the streets of Tibet in 1959. At the time, the 10th Panchen Erdeni Lama, Chökyi Gyaltsen, told the press, which included Strong, "the Tibetan people are walking towards happiness from now on". Today, 63 years later, the actual development of Tibet demonstrates the truth in these words. The Chinese government is sparing no effort in continuously improving the roof of the world, which can be witnessed and welcomed by all people. A better Tibet belongs to China and the world. I have spent several months translating into English this (Chinese language) academic paper forwarded to me by the Chinese Buddhist Association - with the instruction of providing to the West an authoritative text concerning the history of Chinese Ch'an Buddhism that ALL can benefit from. The Chinese Buddhist Association would like it known that ALL Westerners are welcome to come to China and study in educational or religious institutions and to submit their own thoughts and understandings regarding Chinese Buddhism, Chinese culture, Chinese culture and Chinese philosophy, etc. I am please to fulfil this Bodhisattva task!
The ICBI seeks to bring together the international community around the subject of Chinese Ch'an Buddhism - and its many strands of development that have spread across the world - often into very different cultural milieus, historical epochs and socio-economic categories! China is the historical and cultural epicentre of this type of Buddhism (which is a form of Indian Buddhism integrated with Confucian and Daoist influences), and due to politics, world history and different views of the destiny of humanity - the 'disconnect' between the academia of China and the West must be a) acknowledged and b) striven to be over-come. In the very interesting Conference on Ch'an Buddhism translated above - no Western scholars attended even though many were invited with all-expenses paid trips and free accommodation provided, etc. This did not stop the Conference from going ahead - as the work of Western scholars was discussed in their absence. A major achievement of this Conference can be seen in the fact that Mainland Chinese scholars sat in the same room as Japanese and Taiwanese scholars and a civilised and highly beneficial debate unfolded. Chinese Ch'an Buddhism never died-put in China (a common myth that still circulates like Halley's Comet), and is thriving today! Furthermore, Chinese Ch'an is a 'living-tradition' that has spread throughout the world and into many different places! I have made the point that suitably qualified Indian scholars need to do more in 'proving' the existence of 'Dhyana' Buddhism within South India - and isolate the strand of this Buddhism that Bodhidharma brought to China. This development would move the debate forward and counter the assumption that Ch'an is a purely Chinese invention that possesses no Indian roots. Peace in the Dharma Author’s Note: I compiled the following academic research paper with the determination to expose a) the baseless religiosity associated with monasticism, and b) the inverted and unscientific nature of the British ‘Society for Psychical Research’ - a vestige leftover from the Victorian obsession with ‘spiritualism’ and other such non-scientific nonsenses. My initial intention, if you excuse the pun, was to go straight into the lion’s den and get an academic paper published that on the surface appeared to be engaging and furthering the supposed debate surrounding psychic phenomena, whilst in reality was actually ‘undermining’ that reality and exposing it as being both ‘inverted’ and ‘unscientific’. Obviously, some way along the line of SPR review process, one or two of their Editors took exception to either part (or all) of the narrative of this exposing article and decided to ‘veto’ its publishing in their journal: From: Journal Editor <[email protected]> To: Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD <[email protected]> Subject: JSPR: Editorial Decision RE: Your Submission Date: Wednesday, 1 December 2021 09:08 Dear Adrian Chan-Wyles, The Editors have read and discussed your paper and after a careful review it has been decided not to accept your paper for publication in the journal. The content is not quite a match for our audience. We are sorry for any disappointment which this decision causes and wish you luck publishing it elsewhere. Best wishes, Tammy This failure is also indicative of its success, whereby these Editors felt compelled to ‘defend’ their moribund position by preventing any criticism of it. The point I make remains valid, nonetheless, in as much that only ‘emptiness’ remains at the end of any long path of religious purification – as it is empty of any ‘religious’ content – and full of the ‘material’ reality it attempted to escape. If the participant is honest – then even the religion that sustained his inner quest must ultimately give-way to the stark reality of the existence of the material world! There is a ‘wisdom’ tradition – which teaches which way an adherent to reality must traverse the abyss – but it is a ‘wisdom’ tradition that ultimately re-asserts its validity through its redundancy and the rejection of the threat of ‘nihilism’! Monasticism can serve as a fast-track to this reality whilst along the way jettisoning any and all patterns of false consciousness and inverted thinking – but it is a path which must ‘give-up’ (as Joseph McCabe did) any religious garb it was once dressed within! ACW (1.12.2021) Examining the Claims of ‘Monasticism’ as a Means to Achieve a Permanent Altered Perception That Transcends Manufactured Dissonance, Social Alienation, Self-Doubt and the Maintenance of Dualistic Realities.By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD Abstract. Reality - defined as a multifaceted - entity is open to manipulation due to the nature of its (simultaneous) construction and non-construction. As this is the case, it follows that a reality defined by the bodily senses alone (and which ignores the interior of the mind and the opposing dialectical forces evident in the material environment) cannot logically correspond to an ‘ultimate’ reality despite its usefulness as a momentary, expedient device which is designed to radiate ‘stability’ and cultural coherency. The issue examined in this paper is what happens when such expedient devices are used to define human existence and causes an alignment of ‘truth’ with those expedient structures so that a) reality and b) its definition becomes entirely skewed to the human perception. Furthermore, this ‘skewed’ interpretation of reality becomes a holographic representation of what it might (or might not) mean to ‘exist’ (and ‘not exist’) as the forces of dialectical reality continuously play-out their interactions without interruption or limit. Truth can only be known in its ‘momentary’ guise as this is all the limits of human sensory perception allows. Although truth and reality are usually confused, conflated and negated by one another’s presence, any genuine understanding of reality must be defined by (paradoxically) withdrawing the human senses ‘away’ from any direct contact with their intended sensory objects whilst the nature of this contact is considered, categorised and even transcended back into the ever-present moment that is the essence of the permanent ‘here and now’.
Reality is a continuously unfolding event that is far from neutral (Grahame Gardner, 2012) in the world of human affairs. What constitutes reality at any given time, that its viable ‘content’, is fought over by governments, businesses, militaries, State apparatus, medical providers, education establishments and even powerful political or financial figures. To this list must now be added social media platforms. All these controlling factors vie to catch your attention and influence your thinking. This is how models of reality are generated even though the model concerned does not have to reflect the actual reality of the material world or the machinations of the inner world. This type of reality is a construct and a fabrication that goes nowhere and which captures reality in a time-warp. This is because a contending reality is not a reality at all but a conduit for competing forces that may (or may not) become apparent at any given moment of observation (Gary Schwartz, 1997). The ‘control’ of this process decides entirely upon the type of reality that will manifest, and the preferred reality that the hidden controllers would like to see prevailing not only throughout the (external) material environment, but also within the interior of the mind itself. It is a ‘double bind’ process when reality is defined. Moreover, the process of reality defining absorbs the greater degree of material resources to maintain its dominance on the grounds that all realities, regardless of their apparent robust natures, are in fact entirely ‘momentary’ in nature and require a continuous process of rebirth and re-stabilisation so as to maintain the illusion of permanency. The dominant view is not necessarily that which is ‘correct’ or even ‘right’ - but rather that configuration of society which attracts the greater resources in its maintenance. Black will be defined as white – if that inverted configuration of reality is chosen to represent the mainstream viewpoint. A method of changing or altering perception (as the physical world remains the same in structure, content and direction) is that of ‘monasticism’ or ‘monachism’ as the esteemed Indian scholar Sukumar Dutt (1924) referred to it. One way of assessing an established practice is to assess the etymology of the term and see how close current practice reflects the intended meaning of the term. Obviously, the ‘meaning’ and the ‘practice’ of a term can converge or deviate a number of times, particularly if the term is of an ancient origin (Britannia 2021). The modern English term ‘monasticism’ has its historical roots within the ancient Greek language where it is expressed as ‘monachos’ (μοναχός) which is a descriptive term considered a ‘masculine noun’ - although just as many women are drawn to this practice as men, even if they are not as politically, culturally or socially empowered to the same extent. The most obvious contradiction is the inherent ‘patriarchy’ associated with a term that implies an individual voluntarily entering a profound state of psychological and physical isolation defined as being permanently ‘alone’ and living in a state of quiet ‘solitude’. This Greek term is rendered into the Chinese language by the ideogram ‘孤’ (gu1) denoting the state of being alone, solitary, orphaned, widowed and parentless. A person who pursues this path abandons his or her family as the bonds of filial duty are ‘cut’ so that parents lose their child just as the child loses his or her parents, and a spouse loses their significant other, etc. The cohesive forces that hold society together are broken when this model of monasticism involving an individual leaving society in search of higher knowledge is advocated. However, the monastic method does not have to be applied in this ‘conventional’ manner as the example of Vimalakirti demonstrates. Vimalakirti (within the Mahayana tradition) was a contemporary of the historical Buddha and despite having a number of wives, children and a successful business, his practice of ‘monasticism’ (by ‘looking within’ to seek ‘oneness’) was considered superior to many of the Buddha’s monastic disciples who had completely left the world of mundanity (Charles Luk, 1972). Another example can be found in the teachings of the Greek philosopher Plotinus (204–270 CE), who lived in society and taught at his own school. He lived in the mundane world, but everyone who knew him stated that he possessed no real interest in the physical world around him. This is the genuine state of ‘oneness’ with the inner realm that monastics try desperately to attain. A contemporary example that blends the old and the new with regards to monastic practice are the White Robed Monks of St Benedict in the US, which follows a modified ‘Zen Rule of St Benedict’, and which facilitates both lay and cloistered practice whilst profoundly integrating Catholic Christianity with Asian Buddhism. As monasticism is the finding of a new way to correlate and interpret sensory data, then it logically follows that the genuine achievements of monasticism are primarily psychical and psychological rather than physical, and although it is true that humanity exist within a material world that cannot be denied as being dominant and defining throughout human evolution, the inner fruits of monasticism must involve more than merely moving the physical body through the various structures of material society. As ‘awareness’ and ‘experience’ is the key to monastic growth, this paper explores the possibility of genuine monasticism being separate and distinct from the formal religious structures that have in many ways co-opted it and made it their own. Monasticism does not need to be associated with a formal religion to be effective, indeed, it does not need to be associated with religion at all. Through calming the mind and discipling the body (which anyone can do ‘here and now’) the frequency through which the mind and body senses reality and operates within it is thoroughly transformed. Reality is multifaceted and infinitely layered, and it requires tremendous amounts of directed resources to keep an apparent reality ‘static’ in-front of the human senses. This is partly because the human sense organs are integral to the reality being a) presented and b) artificially preserved. For the same waking-reality to ‘always be there’ requires the marshalling of mind-boggling amounts of productive forces throughout society and is far from what a normal fluid reality should be (Robin Lane Fox, 2006). Humanity has always striven to keep a preferred ‘reality’ static in-front of the perceiving senses (Charles Luk, 1984). This habit is so ingrained that much of humanity barely questions its efficacy today. Conservatism is inherently linked to ‘safety’ and successful ‘procreation’ when in reality the inherent structures of these stable realms of human behaviour and perception are far from ‘safe’ for the majority of those compelled to inhabit their interiors! This phenomenon may be referred to as the ‘tyranny of stability’ and the ‘dictatorship’ of the few over the many, etc. This closed system that defines reality has effectively removed the true nature of ‘unpredictability’ out of the process of reality-selection and into the peripheral fringes of the mind (depicted as a daemonic psychosis), and the proverbial wastelands of the material world of existence. Reality for most people has been reduced to merely a lack of instability, change and rebecoming. In other words, the true nature of human existence has been propagandised out of the normal sphere of human perception and sensory orientation. Limitation has become confused with infinite perception, whilst a mind unable to conceive of any reality other than the wall of perceptual data confronting its senses is mistaken as having realised all there is to be aware of in a world of competing immaterial and material realities. The mundanity of reality is the foundation from which all other realities emerge, manifest from, and dissolve back into. Although the nature of the human language used, often involves the negation of the transference of deep meaning at the point of contact between participants, nevertheless, words can perform their mission of ‘penetrating’ meaning into the mind and body of the recipient as the user expertly deploys these forces of literature to the greatest possible degree of efficiency. The recipient can be permanently ‘changed’ as a consequence of this experience, but more often than not be influenced to stay exactly the same – as this is a type of inverted or negative ‘change’ - a reality that artificially stays the same whilst folding in upon itself (WY Evans-Wentz, 1960). This process exhibits characteristics commonly encountered within descriptions of the dying process experienced primarily by human-beings (but also animals) which appear to suggest that the facility of human perception literally ‘folding-in’ upon itself – so that the experiencer becomes ‘less’ in the conventional sense, and far-more in the non-conventional sense (an experience commonly recorded throughout the wisdom traditions of the world). The modalities of reality are defined by the psychological frequency of ‘awareness’ required to be cultivated in the mind (and body) of the recipient so that these realities can be successfully ‘accessed’ and ‘viewed.’ Modality, indeed, is the key to human awareness and its development without the need to ‘alter’ and ‘adjust’ the perceptual parameters of human awareness – there will be no discernible ‘shift’ in the central positioning from the ‘point’ through which reality is experienced. Quite often, it is the specific ‘process’ involved in the training of the mind (and body) that facilitates this alteration in the ‘central-point’ from which each individual perceives reality. Whether training within a committed group (or ’exclusive’ community), or sat isolated in a cold and dark cave, if the applied method of ‘frequency alteration’ is successful, then the ‘central-point’ from which reality is a) perceived, and b) interpreted is entirely transformed. Whereas many become entrapped upon the thorny hedges of religious methodology and confined within this or that religious-defined modality, the true purpose of these ‘frequency-alteration’ exercises are to change ‘how’ and ‘why’ reality is perceived through the mind and bodily sense-organs. This is the successful process of permanently shifting the ‘central-point’ of awareness from one psycho-physical location to another. Traditionally, this is achieved through the expenditure of physical labour involving the application of spiritual and/or religious methodologies which are designed as ‘door-ways’ through which individuals travel to access and encounter new dimensions of reality. These processes essentially alter the frequency through which the mind (and body) processes the inner and outer data associated with conscious existence, and involve the voluntary ‘limitation’ of how the mind (and body) would usually function in a free-association (or ‘natural’) setting (John Ruskin, 1899). The perceived problem with everyday reality is that it remains more or less ‘the same’ every time an individual opens their eyes in the morning to face a new day! This type of apparently ‘deterministic’ reality appears like an unscalable (monolithic) wall that cannot be conquered or traversed by the rigours associated with normal levels of will-power and self-control. Indeed, passivity in the face of this wall of perception simply strengthens its presence and tells nothing about what ‘might lie beyond’. Of course, the ‘speculation’ of what might lie beyond this wall of perception has given rise to a lavish and highly diverse religious literature that no one trapped ‘this side’ of the perceptual wall can tell is correct or not. Faith that a certain reality might exist beyond the perceptual wall is quite often a product not of religious ideology (despite its obvious association), but is rather the result of various and certain societal forces that encourage this limited interpretation of reality and which act as a ‘conservative’ straightjacket placed around the mind (and body). This preserves the external status quo ‘this side of the perceptual wall’ whilst hinting that at some later point (probably when the individual's life is over and the death process is entered), what lies beyond the ‘perceptual wall’ will be fully experienced. In the meantime, and before then, the structures of outer society (with all their inherent injustices and limitations of perception) must continue to function ‘unchanged’ and ‘unchallenged’. The device of ‘monasticism’ has been with humanity in one form or another for millennia and should not be limited to the peculiarities of this or that religion. Indeed, anyone who disciplines their body and looks ‘within’ is practicing monasticism. This process of radically reassessing reality can be performed anywhere and by anyone. Although there most definitely does exist the more formal monastic paths associated with Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, etc, there are also the pathways associated with Daoism and Confucianism as well as the ancient Pagans, Picts and Celts, etc, not to mention the myriad forms of indigenous and tribal practices around the world (which might be indicative of humanity’s earliest attempts to ‘see’ beyond the wall of everyday perception). This being the case, then why doesn’t the forces that control society simply ‘proscribe’ monastic practice? The answer is twofold. Firstly, in the West monasticism is usually tucked safely away nowadays within Catholic monasteries that open their Cathedral grounds to the fee-paying public. This conformity to the conservative forces of society tends to negate any genuine ‘revolutionary’ tendencies that the practice of monasticism might imply. Secondly, as monasticism is now ‘permanently’ removed as an institution from the heart of modern society, many younger people perceive it as a strange and bizarre method that is hopelessly out of date and requires of its practitioners the acceptance of unnecessary suffering. In other words, the conservative forces of modern society tolerate a limited form of monasticism in the physical world as it is perceived as a more or less ‘pointless’ and therefore ‘harmless’ practice that possesses no real ability to influence current events or transform society for the better. As the device of monasticism is nothing less than the cultivated ability to communicate with and merge into a hitherto unknown reality, the religious garb that now surrounds the practice is not required. Indeed, one element of contemporary monastic practice is its ‘secular’ nature. This observation does not negate the usual religious vehicle through which the monastic method is communicated into the present, but it does indicate that neither religious faith or religious methodology are required for the monastic method of self-cultivation to be effective. The religious element may or may not be present, and the individual concerned may or may not draw inspiration from religious imagery – even if that individual is otherwise a committed ‘secularist’ through upbringing and inner orientation. A major problem is that religiosity and secularism are judged by their respective content and relation toward religious imagery when a case can be made that the apparently ‘empty’ nature of essential secularism is ‘identical’ to the most profound states of religious absorption that emphasis eternal love and boundless wisdom! Secularism at its deepest point of awareness is ‘empty’ of every conceivable thing and not just the imagery of religiosity. Moreover, many religiously motivated monastics often make the startling (to them) discovery that the essence of the mind, body and environment is thoroughly and completely ‘empty’ of any and all contrived political, social or cultural construction (including that of formal religious structure). For many, the essence of human perception turns-out to be very similar to the bare rock wall of the natural interior of the meditation cave, or the equally bare structured wall of the purpose-built monastic structure! Furthermore, as the developmental constraints of the training methods are gently ‘released’ with the attainment of genuine insight, the mind becomes ‘expansive’ in its awareness and perception – again, just like the spacious interior of a cave or the imposing inner structure of a Cathedral! The major difference being that the mind (and its ‘awareness’ capacity) is no longer limited to such arbitrary physical barriers. Indeed, the very nature of the realised mind (and body) is one of both boundless existential presence – which simultaneously links the past to the future (through the eternal present moment). The question is whether any of this achievement and perception is ‘real’ and reliable in the sense that it actually exists rather than being ‘imagined’ as existing. Understanding and experiencing the monastic process from ‘within’ as it were, does not necessarily mean that the claims of accomplished monastics are ‘true’ in the sense that they are materially ‘real’. If the ‘mind’ - being the sum-total of the functioning of the ‘brain’ - is nothing but a modern ‘faery -tale’, then how can humanity trust anything that emerges from it as being pertinent to the explanation of reality? Although it is true that religionists gain ‘certainty’ from associating themselves with the inner narratives of their chosen dogmas – this cannot be the case for those humans whose minds (and bodies) are not habitually entrapped within the formal structures of religion. It could be, for instance, that the Buddhist injunction to ‘empty the mind’ of all its contents is in fact an instruction to a) abandon all religious thought, and b) in so doing empty the functioning brain of all notions of the mind! The problem is that even if an all-embracing spatial awareness is realised, how does the individual concerned know if it is real or not? If the brain is able to generate the ‘mind’ as a means to communicate with inner and outer world, then logic dictates that the brain is also capable of generating the ‘illusion’ of all-embracing space, should the practitioner be successful in ‘stilling’ the activity of the surface mind and thereby ‘empty’ it of all intermediary content (which manifests as thoughts, feelings and memories, etc). Whereas in the past an ‘all-embracing space’ has been interpreted as a God-concept – the secular practitioner possesses no reason to ‘protect’ such a notion upon the surface mind as it goes about its many daily machinations. Whereas the ‘ordinary’ and ‘average’ individual goes about their business oblivious to the rigours of monastic training, their mind and body functions quite admirably from birth to death (regardless of the type of society they inhabit) without ever striving for or knowing any other psychological or physical state of being. All participate in the process of ‘living’ but what differentiates each distinct existence is the level of awareness and certainty that is developed within each. The understanding that the content of the human mind is only a facsimile of reality should be a ubiquitous realisation, but is this the reality? A ‘thought’ cannot be ‘isolated’ and then ‘extracted’ from the mind-flow so that it can be ‘weighed’ and ‘measured’. Although it is true that mind-activity can be observed as electronic impulses on a TV monitor – this is far from the associating each electronic pulse with the inner content of an individual thought – should such an entity exist. Indeed, why should such a thing exist at all? Certainly not on the grounds that humanity finds such an idea comforting and would like it replicated throughout the material world. An idea can only be ‘projected’ onto (and ‘into’) the physical environment providing that it has first established itself as an ‘unquestioned’ habit within the brain-mind nexus that produces it. Obviously, the more people who think this thought (and relate to its ideological appearance in the material world), appear to add credibility to a) the presence and reality of the thought, and b) its apparent ‘independent’ existence from the mind that originally gave birth to it as a distinct and separate psychical entity. Once such a thought becomes a natural ‘currency’ in the human world of culture and apparent self-determination, the inherent ‘inverted’ nature of the situation is not recognised and becomes something of a ‘taboo’ subject (as its recognition and acknowledgement tends to ‘undermine’ the socio-economic structures that have become established throughout the material world, and which privileges a certain class of human-being). Generally speaking, such an ‘inverted’ arrangement implies that a single human thought quite literally ‘thinks’ the human-mind that produces it. To be clear, the chain of observable events suggests that a) a single thought (regardless of content) pre-exists the mind from b) it originally emerged. In other words, the entire edifice that a certain aspect of human religious and philosophical thought stems from an inversion of reality which possesses the illogical ontological and epistemological foundation which oddly suggests that a single thought (and a set of related thoughts) existed independently – and then (for reasons unexplained) - gave-rise to and emitted the ‘human-brain’ into ‘existence’ that first experienced this thought (or corresponding set of thoughts). This is such an ancient misalignment of logic and reason in the realm of human culture that its antiquity is taken as ‘proof’ of its efficacy. Every single ancient human grouping has exercised this inversion of the logical chain of events and built the often substantial and massive constructs of religious representation upon it! Although religions are diverse and multitudinous in nature, and given that human-beings have been prepared to kill one another in the millions for whose idea of the divine is ‘correct’ or should be ‘dominant’ - the foundation of each and every religious and spiritual structure is premised upon the inverted idea that places the cart before the horse. How can a single ‘thought’ (or group of related ‘thoughts’) generate the mind from which they originally emerge? A single human thought cannot pre-exist the human-mind from which it emerges. Forevermore, at no time in human history has it been materially demonstrated that the human-brain has emerged from within the thoughts it produces. Evolutionary theory, of course, regardless of its incomplete narrative regarding the origins and development of physical humanity, is premised upon a non-inverted and logical view of the development of humanity. In this model of the unfolding evolution of humanity, the development of the physical brain precedes the manifestation of the human-mind - from which ALL human ‘thought’ subsequently ‘emits’. This contradicts the human (cultural) habit of assuming that human sentiment, emotion and thought precede all physical development of the human – being on the material plane. If the agency of ‘monasticism’ is to be taken seriously, then it must satisfactorily engage, reconcile and transcend both of these narratives – that is the ‘inverted’ and the ‘non-inverted’ - narratives that humanity has used to describe its own machinations! The main problem appears to be the lack of genuine knowledge within mundane human society of what ‘exactly’ monasticism ‘is’ and ‘is not’. Certainly, off the bat it must be said that monasticism ‘is not’ necessarily ‘religiosity’ despite its very close association with religious thought and religious convention over the passing millennia. The religious garb of monasticism may be viewed as a relatively ‘late’ development in its own evolution. It may also be interpreted as something of a misnomer to associate the presence and purpose of monastic practice with religiosity in the world, particularly as the most likely ‘outcome’ of such a long-term exposure of such training for the human mind and body is that ALL inverted thought is a) understood as such, and b) thoroughly abandoned and ‘given-up’ as a legitimate means to express the essential nature of the human existential and historical experience. Forms of structured monasticism that are designed to support the ‘inverted’ view of a particular religion, however, sells the developmental procedure short and cheats its human practitioners of the FULL benefits monasticism which although ironically often involving the sitting in a cell – also corresponds with an observable (and thoroughly ‘profound’) realignment of how the individual cellular-biology of the individual monastic manifests! This emergence of a renewed biological (and psychical) reality has no relationship with the maintenance of any inverted world-view. This often means that an individual clearly ‘succeeds’ at being a monastic – whilst simultaneously failing at being a religionist (as he or she clearly outgrows the supporting religious structure). In this respect, the 1960s phenomenon of The Beatles can be said to be ‘monastic’, in as much as a group of ordinary and non-descript young men traversed the summits of immense musical and lyrical creativity (as an expression of the four’s collective conscious and unconscious minds), whilst simultaneously embracing the hippie-enhanced notions of ‘love’ and ‘sharing’. This pathway included an apparent rejection of the conventional religiosity of the West, and saw The Beatles (no longer viewed as just ‘four ordinary young men’) travel to India and literally ‘embrace’ the Hindu teachings of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Together with experimentation involving recreational drug-taking – The Beatles embraced the transformation of the mind and body that is a prime indicator of the monastic path – before finally rejecting religiosity (and monasticism) and collectively settling for the conventional life of accumulating immense material wealth (harvested from their commercial success) upon the physical plane. Of course, the eventual outcome of the monastic journey does not negate the inherent ‘value’ of the journey itself. Four working-class young men from Liverpool experienced a monumental shift out of the psychical and physical world they were born into. No one else in the history of their families had ever experienced such a profound or sustained material change in their life-circumstances, and it is interesting to observe that this transformation in fortunes was primarily one of finance with an enhanced income granting a greater ‘choice’ movement on the physical (and psychological) plane. This, in-turn, initiated a growth in psychological awareness that explored new avenues of ‘being’ and ‘expression’. Whereas in the traditional (or conventional set-up) a monastic does not have to work for a wage in the physical sense, all his or her physical needs are taken care of – although not necessarily in a lavish sense. In-short, for the regular monastic attached to a conventional religion, the need to perform regular ‘work’ is negated by the communal set-up of continuous material support (usually provided free of charge by the guiding Church and the supportive laity). After writing their initial ‘hits’, of course The Beatles gained so much money that ‘working’ for them ceased to have any real connection to the mundane world. They quite literally became their own ‘Church’ and this is how millions of people still perceive their creative out-put today! The Beatles led an individual from the mundanity of ordinary existence to the heights of transcendent creativity – before finally dumping the traveller firmly back in the material world... Whatever ‘growth’ has been gained from following this process is very much a matter for personal interpretation. Most, if not all, is merely a ‘Revolution in the Head’ as Ian McDonald (2008) explained, and yet something ‘tangible’ does appear to be happening. An intriguing example of the monastic life succeeding in transforming the individual to new heights of being, also serves as a paradoxical example of monasticism ‘failing’ to support the very conventional religious structure within which it is preserved. Joseph McCabe (1867-1955) was the Chesire-born son of Irish-Catholic parents. In 1883 (aged-15-years-old) John McCabe was placed by his parents (and without his consent) into the (Franciscan) Gorton Monastery situated in Manchester, UK. This is where he trained as a committed Franciscan monk for twelve-years and eventually mastered the contemplative lifestyle and the entire academic syllabus. At this time, Joseph McCabe mentions in his biography, it never crossed his mind to question the decisions of those adults around him or protest against the lifestyle – as he was brought up to dutifully ‘accept’ and ‘do’ without question, comment or complaint (Joseph McCabe, 1897). He was thrust into the ‘straightjacket’ of formal (religious) monastic self-limitation that saw his mind and body squeezed into a very narrow expression of cloistered existence. This is because the hermit’s cell demands that the realisation of inner ‘oneness’ is pursued on one’s own and requires the outer ‘oneness’ of isolation even if those who seek it live collectively within a monastic community. Inner oneness and outer oneness (monos) are intrinsically linked and arise from within a common root of mind-body coordination and interaction. Although Joseph McCabe writes with a persistent vitriol against religion in general – and monasticism in particular – he arrived at this point of multitudinous ‘freedom of thought’, that is ‘unlimited’ thought, through the restrictions imposed upon his mind and body during his formulative years, that were the consequence of formal monastic training. In this instance, this formal monasticism required isolation, privilege, education, self-limitation, (discipline), and a commitment to the realisation of the idea that one particular religious view is absolutely and uniquely ‘correct’, and yet Joseph McCabe describes a certain ‘decadence’ existing at the heart of the training of what should have been the ‘poor friars.’ For instance, the faithful laity and Church Authorities provided the monastery with ample (and excessive) amounts of food and (alcoholic) drink. Mead, beer, port, sherry, wine and even champagne would be available (but not water) with each meal. Fish were allowed to be eaten – as were fowl (because, like ‘fish’ they lived in ‘water’). If one main meal was had during fast times at 12pm midday – the monks would ensure that it lasted until 4pm – with a partial meal added in the evening! Joseph McCabe explains how a corrupt ‘gluttony’ had become a manifestation in the monastery of what the Church culture now believed that ‘humility’ and ‘simplicity’ represented. Eating more became representative of ‘eating less’ by the Church Authorities (although this distortion has nothing to do with the principle of ‘monasticism’ in and off itself). There is also the ‘slippage’ of meaning within Joseph McCabe’s text where the post of ‘priest’ is continuously conflated with that of a ‘monk’, when they are two different roles. Originally, religious monastics owned nothing and where pious lay men and women living in isolation or communion in the search for inner and outer meaning. A ‘priest’ by comparison, is formally ‘ordained’ and is permitted to live within lay society whilst being qualified to perform the ‘sacraments’ to the lay community. For many centuries, priests were considered superior to the lowly monastic, and were even required to grant the ‘sacraments’ to the monastics themselves. As the monastic communities tended to develop in remote areas, priests were not always available to administer the ‘sacraments’ and so it was decided that the monastics themselves would receive an ‘ordination’ similar to that of the priest to solve this problem (with the ‘priest’ still holding a superior position with regards to dominance within the lay community. As matters transpired, the problem for the Catholic Church is that although Joseph McCabe’s developing mind and body was intensely subject to the strictures of formal monasticism, and despite him benefitting tremendously from the corresponding (intellectual) education, the agency of ‘monasticism’ developed the mind and body of Joseph McCabe to the point where he ‘transcended’ the need to be ‘controlled’ by a formal religion. Just as his mind left the Catholic Church through its development beyond theology – his physical body was soon to follow – and he left the Catholic Church completely. Despite his continuous attitude of disrespect and denigration of the monastic tradition, the argument can be made that the monastic lifestyle as applied to Joseph McCabe’s mind and body, performed its intended task admirably by generating a permanent sense of ‘transcendence’ within his character Transcendence, once attained, cannot be limited to the auspices of convention. Transcendence is itself an act of destructive creation. Whatever has followed in the past dissolves like the fuel that drives a machine forever onward. The non-certainty of reality is the heart of the genuine monastic experience. In 2009, the Western media reported the story of an ethnic Spanish boy who broke-away from and rejected the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism as espoused by the 14th Dalai Lama in the West (Guardian, 2009). Today, ‘Osel Hita Torres’ is 24-years-old and laments what he views as being a ‘wasted’ upbringing deprived of all the normal sensory stimulation associated with a normal childhood experienced within the modern world. Admittedly, there are disturbing undertones of emotional, psychological and physical child abuse attached to this story but no one from the Western Pro-Tibetan Movement has yet been arrested or charged (this includes the actor – Richard Gere who used to live in a hut next to this imprisoned child but did nothing to interfere). Osel Hita Torres is a European born in the West with no physical connection to Asia in general or Tibet specifically, and yet the Dalai Lama – who placed him on a throne to be ‘worshipped’ as a toddler – had him transported from his home in Granada to a Buddhist monastery in Southern India. As a grown man, Osel Hita Torres explains that none of this culture had any meaning to him and that he most definitely was NOT an incarnated lama as decreed by the Dalai Lama! Osel Hita Torres does not believe in the concept of reincarnation as preserved within Tibetan Lamaism (but which was rejected by the historical Buddha and distinguished from the limited concept of Buddhism that he preferred). Indeed, the Foundation to Preserve the Mahayana Tradition, which spends its time raising funds in the West possesses around 130 centres around the world, as of 2009, still published texts online ignoring the ‘suffering’ that Osel Hita Torres experienced and still eulogising him under the fabricated name of ‘Lama Tenzin Osel Rinpoche’. He was ‘enthroned’ at just 14-months-old by the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala, India, and lived next to Richard Gere at six-years-old. Although having no association with the Tibetan Buddhism extant within China today, the type of Tibetan Buddhism propagated in the West is highly Christianised to gain converts (and influence) in the West and is dominated by a form of ‘extreme’ devotionalism that is not present (or applicable) in the East (Liu Li, 2015). As he was so young when placed into this predicament, why was he not merely ‘conditioned’ into accepting the new situation? Indeed, Osel Hita Torres was so young that it is remarkable that he managed to remember his old life and understand that what was happening to him was not ‘correct’. Is it the case that the monastic structures within which he was trapped facilitated the development of his high-mind above and beyond that which would have been expected if Osel Hita Torres had ‘conformed’ to the conditions of his abusive imprisonment? Again, the straightjacket of religious dogma was left behind as the aspirant was able to transcend the situation he was in, and follow-up this psychological (and ‘psychical’) freedom with the physical body following suit by literally ‘extracting’ itself from the material situation at hand. Such is the murky world of religiosity and monastic endeavour. Freedom is not always what ‘others’ think it might be. A proposed ‘freedom’ into religiosity can just as well turn-out to be a ‘freedom’ from (or ‘outside’) of religiosity. Father Andre Louf (1929-2010) was an eminent (French-born) Trappist monk, prominent theologian and Retreat Master. He also wrote widely in the French language about all areas of the spiritual path. Father Louf represents something of an enigma to the modern mind. This man was both deeply religious and profoundly spiritual, and yet when he marshalled groups of committed young men through his meditation and contemplation hall during intense periods of spiritual retreat, one of the markers of his method was to ‘reject’ every notion of ‘God’ each of these men held regardless of the corresponding depth of commitment to the ‘belief’ involved. Indeed, Father Andre Louf was a firm believer that virtually ALL notions of God held in the minds of all those who came to train with him were nothing but culturally conditioned ‘false-constructs’. In other words, this type of ‘worship’ was not ‘worship’ at all but merely an ‘internalised’ snapshot of the particular ‘externality’ of the mundane society that had produced them. Working upon the assumption that ‘God’ is not a ‘reflection’ of mundane society – Father Andre Louf demanded that each of the monks under his care ‘discard’ the notion of ‘God’ entirely brought in from the outside world and start their search again for an entirely ‘new’ grasp of what ‘God’ may or may not be. In this regard Father Andre Louf demanded that each retreatant firmly cultivate an unassailable attitude of ‘atheism’ in their training as a means of completely uprooting and discarding the pious deluded ideas and notions they had arrived carrying in the very fabric of their minds and bodies. Without this extreme measure, there was no way of knowing what was and was not a glimpse of true grace as one went about their daily activities. Within this Catholic monastic structure – a Retreat Master was making use of the very ‘atheism’ that was said to be rampant throughout society, and which was making the Catholic Church struggle for converts. This suggests that ‘atheists’ are not exempt from the positive effects of a genuine monastic experience. The crux of this matter is that human psychical development should not and cannot be limited to the boundaries defined by infantile dualisms. Just because God might exist it does not necessarily follow that God does not exist. Equally true is the idea that even if God is proven as ‘not existing’ this does not have to mean that for humanity no God exists at all. Indeed, reality, even one with or without a divine essence, does not have to fit-in to the current level or standard of human (collective) knowledge and understanding. Truth, whatever this beast may or may not be, requires a mind and body trajectory that cuts-through all the baggage of cultural conditioning. Indeed, ‘truth’ in the transcendent sense may not exist at all just as some scientists and philosophers are of the opinion that the concept of the human ‘mind’ is nothing more than a modern reinterpretation of the religious notion of the ‘soul’ (or ‘psyche’). A proposed spiritual essence free of the tyranny of the association with established religion. As such, the ‘mind’ is nothing more than a contemporary ‘faery-tale’ told by adults to frighten children in their cribs! At least this is the position of the ‘eliminativists’. In other words, any state that appears to manifest within the interior of mind is until proven otherwise – an ‘illusion’ of perception – a phantom standing in the dark or lurking around the corner. The vestige of a far-off and far more profound primitive state of human existence. It is interesting that this often ‘extreme’ position of ‘materially’ understanding the mind does appear to reflect a certain transcendent theme central to virtually all hermitic traditions. This is because ‘emptiness’ (as opposed to ‘nothingness’) is often mentioned as being indicative of ‘advancing’ upon the monastic path, primarily for the reason that the aspirant is now considered to have realised the underlying ‘void=essence’ of all reality – whilst remaining ‘non-attached’ to the still existing phenomena indicative of the material world which appears unhindered within this ‘new’ and ‘all-embracing’ emptiness which seems as infinite as it is boundless. Of course, the language of the mystic is not the same language as used by the scientist – even if each is attempting to understand and discuss exactly the same reality. REFERENCES: Bacon, F. (1925). Essays of Francis Bacon with an Introduction by Oliphant Smeaton. London – New York – Toronto. JM Dent & Sons Ltd. Bakunin, M. (1970). God and the State – With a New Introduction and Index of Persons by Paul Avrich. New York. Dover Publications, Inc. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and Simulation – Translated by Sheila Faria Glaser. Michigan. The University of Michigan Press. Bharati, A. Britannica Monasticism Religion. Retrieved October 11, 2021, from, https://www.britannica.com/topic/monasticism Beilharz, P. (2001). The Bauman Reader. Oxford. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Bellamy, HS. (1928). The Atlantis Myth. London. Faber and Faber Ltd. Bose, Monastero Di. (2021). Father André Louf has passed from this world to the Father. Retrieved 9.11.2021, from https://www.monasterodibose.it/en/community/news/friends-in-the-everlasting-light/5078-father-andre-louf-has-passed-from-this-world-to-the-father Brunton, P. (1969). The Wisdom of the Overself. London. Rider & Company. Chalmers, JC. (2002). Philosophy of Mind – Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York – Oxford. Oxford University Press. Cowain, J. (2004). Desert Father – A Journey in the Wilderness with Saint Anthony. Boston. Shambhala. Dimitrov, G. (2002). Against Fascism and War. New York. International Publishers, Co., Inc. Dutt, S. (1924). Early Buddhist Monachism: 600 BC - 100 BC. London, UK. Kegan Paul, Trench, Thubner & Co, Ltd. Engels, F. (1883). Dialectics of Nature. Retrieved 12.11.2021, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/index.htm Evans-Wentz, WY. (1960). The TIBETAN Book of the DEAD or The After-Death Experiences on the Bardo Plane, according to Lama Kazi Dawa-Samdup;s English Rendering – Compiled and Edited by WY Evans-Wentz. London, Oxford, New York. Oxford University Press. Fox, RL. (2006). The Classical World – An Epic History of Greece and Rome. London, UK. Penguin Books. Fuchs, D. (2009). Boy Chosen by Dalai Lama Turns Back on Buddhist Order. Manchester, UK. Guardian Newspaper. Retrieved October 11, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/31/dalai-lama-osel-hita-torres Gardener, G. (2012). Dowsing Magic – from Water Finds to Dragon Lines – Book One “Basics”. Cornwall, UK. Penwith Press. Gilmour, D. (1982). Disposed – The Ordeal of the Palestinians. London. Sphere Books Ltd. Go, PG. (2004). Understanding Chinese Characters by Their Ancestral Forms. California. Simplex Publications. Hadot, P. (1989). Plotinus or Simplicity of Vision – Translated by Michael Chase – With an Introduction by Arnold I. Davidson. Chicago and London. The University of Chicago Press. Hannaford, I. (1996). Race – The History of an Idea in the West – Foreword by Bernard Crick. Balti-more – London. John Hopkins University Press. Heelas, P. Lash, S. & Morris, P. (1999). Detraditionalization – Critical Reflections on Authority and Identity – Centre for the Study of Cultural Values at Lancaster University. Oxford. Blackwell Publications Inc. Jayatilleke, KN. Prof. (1987). Facets of Buddhist Thought – Book One – Two Essays. Chiangmai – Thailand. S. Sapkanpim Press. Joyce, P. (1995). Class. Oxford – New York. Oxford University Press. Kazantzakis, N. (1975). The Last Temptation – Translated by PA Bien. London – Boston, faber and faber. Lang, JF. (1971). Old Cockington – Volume I. Plymouth. Western Litho Co. Leedbeater, CW. Archbishop (1957). The Science of the Sacraments (Illustrated Edition). Gloucestershire – UK. The Dodo Press. Liu, L. (2015). Dalai Lama’s Younger Brother: When the Dalali Lama Leaves the World We Will Be Free. Tibet Net, China. Retrieved October 11, 2021, from https://news.sina.cn/gn/2015-12-14/detail-ifxmpnqi6478089.d.html?from=wap Louf, L. (2004). In the School of Contemplation by Andre Louf, OCSO – Translated by Paul Rowe, OSCO. Collegeville, Minnesota. Liturgical Press. Luk, C. (1990). The Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra – Translated and Edited by Charles Luk (Lu K’uan Yu) - Foreword by Taizan Maexumi Roshi. Boston & Shaftsbury. Shambhala. Luk. C. [Translator] & Hunn, R. [Editor] (1988). Empty Cloud – The Autobiography of the Chinese Zen Master Xu Yun. Dorset. Element Books. MacDonald, I. (2008). The Revolution in the Head – The Beatles Records and the Sixties – Third Edition. London, UK. Vintage Books. Marx, K. (2012). The Poverty of Philosophy. Kansas. Digireads.com McCabe, J. (1897). Twelve Years in a Monastery [First Edition]. London, UK. Smith, Elder & Co. Nabar V & Tumkur S Professors. (1997). The Bhagavad-Gita. Hertfordshire. Wordsworth Classics. Narada, T. (1993). The Dhammapada – Pali Text and Translation with Stories in Brief and Notes. Taiwan - China. The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation. Noonan, DPM. (2020). The Grace To Desire It – Meditations on St Benedict’s Twelve Degrees of Humility. Australia. Cana Press. Robert, FA. (2021) White Robed Monks of St Benedict. Retrieved 9.11.2021, from http://www.whiterobedmonks.org Ruby, JG. (1996). Wordsworth and the Zen Mind – the Poetry of Self-Emptying. Albany. State University of New York Press. Ruskin, John. (1899). The Seven Lamps of Architecture, Architecture and Painting – Aldine Eldine Edition – The World’s Great Books. New York, USA. D. Appleton and Company. Schwartz, G. (1997). First Impressions - Hieronymus Bosch. New York, USA. Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Strathern, P. (2003). The Essential Derrida. London. Virgin Books Ltd. Stevens, J. (2007). Zen Bow, Zen Arrow – The Life and Teachings of Awa Kenzo, The Archery Master from Zen in the Art of Archery, Boson & London. Shambhala. Vivekananda, S. (1991). Monasticism – Ideal and Traditions. Chennai, India. Sri Ramakrishna Math. Weiner, J. (1995). The Beak of the Finch – Evolution in Real Time. London. Vintage. White, P. (2017). Druids in the South-West? Ilkley – UK. Bossiney Books Ltd. Yu, Lu Kuan [Charles Luk]. (1984). The Secrets of Chinese Meditation – Self-Cultivation by Mind Control as taught in the Ch’an Mahayana and Taoist schools in China. York Beach, Maine (USA). Samuel Weiser, Inc. |
AuthorAdrian Chan-Wyles PhD - Political Commissar and BMA (UK) Historian & Researcher. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|