Many impoverished Asian countries possess ancient cultures and profound Buddhist traditions. The “impoverished” attribute stems from the modern Western system which has spread across the world from Great Britain. This system reduces every citizen to a competing individual whose self-worth is measured solely by the size of a bank account. Similarly, countries that follow this system act like inidividuals in the international arena – making strategic alliances with other State actors designed to protect this status. Just as an individual “purchases” every service and attribute required for a comfortable life – a modern Nation State develops and purchases weaponry, dominates locations and projects its will around the globe. The accumulation of money is the prime-mover of this system which causes various degrees of misery for everyone living within its confines – whilst a few live very well and possess the greatest measure of choice due to the monetary wealth they control. The acquisition and control of money is the entire purpose of predatory capitalism. As this is the only recognisable method for living – every citizen is broughtup to habitally cultivate “greed” as the highest virtue for modern living. Of course, as the Buddha states that greed, hatred, and delusion are the basis of all human suffering – the answer to this human suffering is to uproot these taints through the practice of meditation and physical discipline. Therefore, Buddhists diverge from the demands of predatory capitalism through the requirement to cultivate non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion. The practice of genuine Buddhism, therefore, is a contradiction to the reality of predatory capitalism. This explains why places such as Thailand – which is currently dominated by US Neo-Imperialism – possesses both a vibrant Theravada Buddhist tradition as well as large areas of abject (material) poverty. As Thailand is NOT a Socialist country (and is still a victim of Western colonial and imperial conquest) – its society offers an interesting dichotomy between two systems of self-worth, one ancient and Buddhist, whilst the other modern and entirely foreign. An individual might not possess any monetary wealth – but could be well-educated in Buddhist Studies. This aligns with the Buddha’s statement that the gift of Dharma excels all other gifts! A Buddhist monastic (or a devout lay-Buddhist) might well live a life of non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion – and therefore possess NO position within the predatory capitalist system. This is true regardless of whether an individual lives within an impoverished Asian country or an affluent Western country. Conversely, an Asian country that has successfully taken the path of monetary wealth accumulation must accommodate citizens who which to practice the Dharma to a greater degree within their everyday lives. Although it is doubtful that a capitalist country would ever allow any type of non-profit based existence – the superior morality of Socialism must ensure that individuals who which to practice the Dharma must be given the right to do this with the State facilitating this lifestyle as a matter of right.
0 Comments
(KPL) Many thousands of Buddhist followers gathered at the annual almsgiving ceremony of the That Luang Festival, the biggest religious ceremony of the country on 27 November morning. (KPL) Many thousands of Buddhist followers gathered at the annual almsgiving ceremony of the That Luang Festival, the biggest religious ceremony of the country on 27 November morning. The alms giving ceremony was attended by President Thongloun Sisoulith, President of the Lao National Assembly Xaysomphone Phomvihane, along with their spouses. The religious ceremony aims to pay homage to That Luang stupa. The final day of the celebration of the That Luang Festival also witnesses an alms giving ceremony in the morning. Several hundreds of monks are invited to the ceremony.
They represent all temples in the Capital. The traditional game Tee Khee is played in the afternoon and the candlelit procession takes place in the evening to pay homage to the grand stupa. 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.
Art is useful to uplift the spirit (mind) and generate a broader perspective through which the world can be understood! Marx and Engels discussed often how the external world conditions the inner being - whilst the Buddha explained in detail how to identify and uproot the 'imprints' projected into the mind in the form of greed, hatred and delusion - the tripartite cornerstones of ancient Indian feudalism and modern (predatory) capitalism! This relationship between the 'old' and the 'new' explains WHY Buddhism retains its importance in the modern world and can be a useful developmental tool for the contemporary Proletariat! Of course, the Bourgeoisie also claims Buddhism for itself - the paedophile 14th Dalai Lama springs to mind - but so do any of the so-called 'Western' Buddhist movements of appropriation! Just as soon as a monetary 'price' is charged for what amounts to regulating the breathing process - it is clear the true path of Dharma has been abandoned! Capitalist endeavour is NOT the uprooting of greed, hatred and delusion - but its EXACT opposite! The White intellection that justifies this process in the numerous so-called 'journals', 'magazines' and special interest 'books' - is surely the very definition of pure evil! An example of racism through the written word! The message is simple - the White Bourgeoisie has appropriated Buddhism for its own deceptive ends - and the developing (non-White) Bourgeoisie throughout the Asian countries is prepared to 'sell' their traditional culture to the Europeans as a means to fuel this racist addiction! Buddhism, when it is successful, is the end of predatory capitalism and the end White domination! This reality is true of both the 'inner' and the 'outer' world simultaneously!
Many people are surprised to learn that Thich Nhat Hanh’s main teacher was ‘Thich Quang Duc‘ – a Vietnamese Buddhist monk who burned himself in protest to the Western (and ‘Catholic’) imperialist invasion of Vietnam. This is because Thich Nhat Hanh and his Western acolytes were highly successful in distancing his perceived history from this fact. Why did this happen? What drove an Asian Buddhist to side with his Western persecutors? The West has appropriated Asian Buddhism with very little protest from the small number of ethnic Buddhists living in the West. This has nothing to do with condoning this process of what might be termed ‘spiritual theft’ and everything to do with the reality that Buddhism as conceived and practiced in the West is a perverse ‘inversion’ of what it is in Asian and has been throughout history for over 2,500 years or more. Most Westerners, for instance, are so used to reaching for their credit card when they pick up their ‘mala’ that most would be incredulous to learn that the historical Buddha himself, considered it a spiritual offense to demand money (or any form of payment) in exchange for receiving instruction in the ‘Dhamma’ or his understanding of reality. Indeed, whilst thousands of Westerners crammed into meditation halls ‘at a cost’, the only genuine Buddhists in the world were living in poverty-driven enclaves throughout Asia (these being the products of Western imperialism) and suffering from periodic bouts of ‘death’ caused by the tens of thousands of bombs dropped upon Asian countries by the US Airforce. This historical process of the aggressive West blowing the bodies of ethnic Buddhists to smithereens has happened throughout India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, China, Japan, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, etc. Individual Buddhists, their temples and their communities were thoroughly destroyed in the name of Eurocentric dominance and greed – whilst elements of that destroyed culture were imported into the West to be used in the process of capitalist exploitation – a preferred bourgeois mirror-image of the hellish reality generated out of sight and out of mind. The misrepresentation of Buddhism has been a lucrative business fie not only the White community, but also to those Asians who have aligned their minds and bodies with it, such as the 14th Dalai Lama, Li Hongzhi and Thich Nhat Hanh, etc. All these are examples of Asians who have sat at the head of a vast money-making empire that has ‘sold Buddhism’ to Westerners – whilst those same the governments elected by those same Westerners have chosen to blanket-bomb large swathes of Asia for ideological reasons. Surely, such Asian leaders in the West are guilty as Buddhists of breaking every one of the prohibitions and guidelines contained in the Noble Eightfold Path and the spiritual guidance contained in the Four Noble Truths. Not to mention the hundreds of moral restrictions formulated throughout the extensive Vinaya Discipline! This betrayal of Buddhism and the Asian people is exactly how I would like to remember the Traitor to the Vietnamese people – Thich Nhat Hanh – who sat quietly counting his money (a practice termed ‘pacifist’ by his Western admirers and hangers on), whilst the bombs paid for by the tax dollars of this followers were dropped by the governments those followers elected into power! This is the image I have of Thich Nhat Hanh and the image through Thich Nhat Hanh will be remembered by the vast majority of ethnic Buddhists living throughout Asia!
The Buddha developed a system that generates the conditions of ‘inner’ Socialism by uprooting greed, hatred and delusion from the functionality of the ordinary human mind. Through a corresponding physical behaviour that is ‘free’ of greed, hatred and delusion, Socialism In the ‘outer’ world is built. The Buddha’s path is an expression of early Socialism that places the emphasis upon the individual ‘freed’ from the collective tyranny of the faceless caste-system. Marx and Engels, by way of contrast, denies the ultimate validity of the individual, and instead defines the collectivity of ‘class’ as the only genuine driving-force behind any and all genuine Revolutionary action. Things are not quite this simple, for instance, as the Buddha (whilst advocating the ‘disciplining’ of the individual mind) describes how the notion of ‘self’ (that is, the ‘individual’) is a culturally conditioned concept with no basis in material reality. The ‘Sangha’ in Early Buddhism may well be an indication of the formation of an early-class system. In this case, made-up entirely of ordained Buddhist monastics whose function was to preserve, practice and convey the ‘Dhamma’, or Buddha’s enlightened Teaching. The non-ordained laity, by way of contrast, circumnavigated the Sangha and drew inspiration, guidance and support from it. The Sangha of Early Buddhism was a primitive ‘Communist Party’ defined around the concept of ‘membership’ and ‘non-membership’. The ‘members’ (monastics) conditioned the ‘non-members’ (laity) to develop to the extent where they were psychologically and physically prepared to become Buddhist monastics themselves. Although all Buddhist monastics are ‘equal’, it is also true that the Buddhist monastic community is led by the eldest (and ‘wiser’) strata of the population. This is generally comprised of those monks and nuns who have been ‘ordained’ the longest and not necessarily those who are the eldest in the (literal) chronological sense. These qualified elders had spent a lifetime carefully studying the Dhamma, teaching and advising others, as well as personally putting into practice each minute element of the teaching. In this sense, this ‘inner core’ of the Buddha’s elite disciples formed what might be termed a ‘Polit-Buro’ concerned with the perpetuation of an ideological purity and orthodoxy.
Later, with the liberalisation of Buddhism, the term ‘Sangha’ was expanded to include not only the ordained Buddhist elite, but now also included all lay-people who considered themselves a ‘follower of the Buddha’ (but not those ordinary people who did not support Buddhism). This expanded the membership of this primitive ‘Communist Party’ to include a non-ordained laity. Furthermore, Buddhist monastics lost their ‘elite’ status and became quite literally ‘beggars’ who existed in a privileged position (where they did not have work or participate in family life), that was ‘inferior’ to the lowest lay-person! Why was this? Everything each monk or nun used was not owned by them per se, but was the collective property of the monastic community ultimately provided by the hard-work of the lay-community that had provided it! Now, with the biographies of Hui Neng (the Sixth Patriarch of the Chinese Ch’an tradition), and the Indian merchant Vimalakirti (the ‘married’ contemporary of the historical Buddha) were well-known, lay-practice within Buddhism was transformed into ‘matching’ or even ‘transcending’ that of the Buddhist monastics. Although a profound example of democratisation, Buddhism today is still led by an elite monastic core, although with one or two lay-practitioners now included in the ‘Polit-Buro’! As the Buddha ‘rejects’ greed, hatred and delusion, it is inherently anti-capitalist. It is a philosophical and ideological impossibility for Buddhism to follow or advocate the predatory capitalist system. Buddhist meditation is a Proletariat device for clearing the human mind of the conditioned (habitual) patterns that generally define human society. As the Buddha states that ‘rebirth’ and ‘karma’ do not exist in the post-enlightened state – it is logical to assume that ‘rebirth’ and ‘karma’ do not exist in the pre-enlightened state. These two concepts only appear to exist because they are common elements of pre-Buddhist (Indian) religion that many Buddhist practitioners brought with them when they decided to approach the Buddha for discipleship. The Buddha used these terms to inspire morally ‘pure’ actions on the physical plane so that the inner mind could be more readily transformed through meditation. Only when advising advanced practitioners did the Buddha decide to ween them off of these childish concepts of religiosity. As there is no ‘rebirth’ or ‘karma’, the Buddha’s path is a purely material ideology centred around the Vinaya Discipline which modifies the external behaviour so that the inner mind (and its functionality) can be permanently modified into a Proletariat (enlightened) state. Nikunja Vihari Banerjee (1897-1982) was much respected as an 'original thinker' as a professional academic employed by Delhi University. I first came across his work through his book entitled 'The Dhammapada' (which appears to have been posthumously published in 1989). My academic background in the UK is in 'Spiritual Metaphysics' - which means I specialise in the study of the history, culture, philosophy and political thought associated with religious movements and their impact upon the material environment. As a 'non-theist' I do not subscribe to any theistic path even though it is my duty to understand 'what' and 'how' each particular school of thought operates in an objective and non-judgemental manner. This is why I was interested in the work of NV Banerjee, as he too also seemed to share an interest in Marxist ideology and its relation to Buddhist thought. As part of my broader political activities, my function is to persuade and reassure religious groupings about the importance of their siding with the rigours of a Socialist Revolution (Marxist-Leninist) and their contributing to the building of a 'Communist' society!
I have found the work of VN Banerjee to be naïve, deficient and sometimes reminiscent of ‘Trotskyesque’ distortions of the truth! His work on the Dhammapada is arbitrary and shockingly moribund – as he even gets the Pali title incorrect! The term ‘Dhammapada’ literally translates as ‘Truthful Path’ - with ‘pada’ said to imply a ‘foot taking a step’, etc. VN Banerjee opts for translating ‘pada’ as ‘sayings’ - whilst completely negating the intended symbolism contained within this typically ‘Buddhist’ notion. This error is compounded when just a few pages on VN Banerjee admits that the Pali word ‘apadam’ actually means ‘trackless’ (as in ‘no footsteps’ are present)! He then continuously asserts that everything stated within Buddhism is evident within Christianity – whilst further suggesting that the Dhammapada has been ‘polluted’ by the very ‘theistic’ elements found in other religions! This observation is incorrect. The Dhammapada represents the diversity of the Buddha’s teaching even at the point of his death – when his community of monks certainly did not all agree on what ‘was’ and ‘was not’ said by the Buddha. Whilst pointlessly re-arranging the order of the 423 aphorisms which comprise the Dhammapada – VN Banerjee makes the only factual comments in the entire book when he observes that the Pali term ‘citta’ (mind) as used by the Buddha does not imply a ‘consciousness’ acting in opposition to ‘matter’ - but is rather a mind-concept which is itself a form of rarefied matter (an awareness ‘this side’ of matter). He also asserts that the Dhammapada – with its emphasis upon ‘right action’ as juxtaposed to ‘wrong action’ - probably aligns the Dhammapada Sutta with the Vinaya Discipline. Even so, and despite describing the thinking of Early Buddhism as ‘naive realism’, VN Banerjee fails to mention that the peculiarly ‘modern’ thought of the Buddha may well have preceded the Greeks and perhaps even influenced that development (particularly if the Buddha lived around 500-years earlier than many Western scholars assume). Another area of contention, is VN Banerjee’s equating of Buddhist ‘emptiness’ (sunyata) with ‘nihilism’ - an allegation clearly refuted by the historical Buddha at numerous times through his lifetime. Buddhist philosophy, regardless of school, rejects the extreme notions of ‘eternalism’ and ‘nihilism’ as flawed view of reality. In this regard, VN Banerjee’s viewpoint that the ‘Vijnanavada’ trend of thought within Mahayana Buddhism represents ‘subjective idealism’ denotes a Western-derived disregard for the correct interpretation of Buddhist ideology. Even the founders of the Yogacara (‘Yoga-practice’) School confirm that they agree with the Buddha that the ‘mind’ (citta) is ‘impermanent’ and is comprised of the forever fluctuating ‘five aggregates’. This being the case, nothing ‘permanent’ or ‘long-lasting’ can arise from ‘consciousness’ or ‘conscious-awareness’ of the external, material world. Human perception DOES NOT generate the material objects it senses in the external environment (as if ‘sensing’ is an act of ‘creation’) – but merely ‘registers’ that these objects are a) present and b) the qualities and characteristics of said objects. The ‘Vijnanavada’ therefore, emphasises that the pathway toward ‘Enlightenment’ is primarily through the mind (and secondarily through a disciplined body) - with an onus upon the rarefied arrangement of matter from which consciousness arises, manifests and eventually returns. None of this VN Banerjee ‘sees’, ‘understands’ or ‘acknowledges.’ VN Banerjee’s assessment of the Dhammapada is pointless as it is obvious that he possesses no genuine knowledge regarding the Buddhist teachings. This is why his book on the subject represents an exercise in futility. This brings me to VN Banerjee’s other book under consideration – namely his ‘Buddhism and Marxism – A Study in Humanism’ (1978). Again, this is a thorough (and probably ‘deliberate’) misreading of the work of Classical Marx, as contrary to the claims of VN Banerjee, Marx mentions throughout his work that human existence is a continuous interconnection between the ‘material world’ and the ‘conscious’ mind. This is obvious from a study of the ‘Theses of Feuerbach’ by Karl Marx – and numerous other works such as the ‘German Ideology’, etc. Throughout the Paris Manuscripts, for example, this idea is explored over and over again. Despite this very real acknowledgement of ‘consciousness’ - VN Banerjee writes that Marx possesses no teaching on consciousness and as a consequence, has evolved a thoroughly ‘materialist’ ideology. This is VN Banerjee falling into the trap of ‘Metaphysical Materialism’ that has been soundly rejected by all Marxist thinkers. Like the Buddha, Marx acknowledged that material reality is permanently entwined and integrated with humanity’s conscious striving to apprehend the environment for survival purposes. This being the case, it is interesting that VN Banerjee claims that both Buddhism and Marxism have ‘failed’ to save humanity from its self-imposed suffering. How would he know? What is his objective framework of reference? The reality is that Marxism and Buddhism are alike in many ways and I suspect that VN Banerjee is busy representing the Western (capitalist) view of reality which attacks and denigrates any opposition to its dominance. This is why he has targeted ‘Buddhism’ and ‘Marxism’ in his work, because he knows that in this instance East and West are in full accord and that this alliance must be broken and discredited at its source. The problem haunting VN Banerjee is that he does not appear to possess enough knowledge of either subject to ‘pull-off’ his mission’s objective! He has no idea that Marx and Engels learned about Buddhism from their friend Karl Koppen, that both Marx and Engels praised Buddhist philosophy (equating it to the thinking associated with the Classical Greek World) - or that Marx once practiced the ‘emptying the mind’ meditation practice of Early Buddhism when recuperating his health whilst resting by the sea. My own research suggests that the Buddha’s theory of ‘Dependent Origination’ (as the ‘Chain of ‘Becoming’) equates philosophically with Marx’s theory of ‘Historical Materialism’ - suggesting that Marx may well have been influenced by the underlying thinking of Buddhist ideology – albeit modified for the contemporary, Western world. To finish with, I would like to reject VN Banerjee’s assertion that Marxism sanctifies violence. Both Marx and Buddha defined a ‘false consciousness’ as comprising of an ‘inverted’ (habitual) mind-set which interprets the chain of events involving material processes as being the ‘wrong way around’, or ‘back to front’, etc. To remedy this, the Buddha changes the way the interior of the mind interprets the outer world – whilst Marx advocates the changing of the outer world as a means to change the functionality of the inner world. The bourgeois, capitalist system – which VN Banerjee undoubtedly represents – inflicts a continuous policy of psychological and physical violence against the working-class as a means to keep the masses firmly in their place and performing their task of generating profit from their labour. When the workers attempt to ‘resist’ this continuous level of inner and outer violence inflicted upon them – the controlling bourgeoisie ‘intensifies’ its violent actions and issues the accompanying propaganda statements that it is the oppressed workers who are being ‘violent’ and the bourgeoisie they are attacking are the ‘victims’. This is a classic example of an ‘inverted’ reality. This is the preferred interpretation of reality for the bourgeoisie (as it hides their true objectives) - but its logic is entirely ‘back to front’! Therefore, contrary to the ridiculous assertion of VN Banerjee that ‘Marxism is violent’ - it is the bourgeois status quo that routinely uses violence against the masses. All that Marx added to this interpretation is that the ‘working-class has a right to defend itself from these attacks!’ The ability for the working-class to defend itself is a legal right as it pre-supposes an already existing physical threat to safety that must be ‘resisted’ if survival is to be assured! Again, with VN Banerjee ‘blaming the victim’ as he expertly does throughout his work – this Is yet another clear example of his ‘inverted’ thinking and instinctive support for the bourgeoisie and their system of predatory capitalism! Although VN Banerjee’s assessment of the work of Karl Marx is deficient in my opinion, as it lacks many of the basic insights that most bourgeois academics take as granted even if they are instinctively opposed to Socialism. In this regard, VN Banerjee privileges Western (bourgeois) thinking as if he were a ‘White’ European who has settled in India and established a curious and inquisitive colony! He is, in this instance, an Asian mouth expressing a distinctly ‘Eurocentric’ attitude! In this regard, VN Banerjee appears to reflect that other victim of European colonisation – Hu Shih – who as a youth was taken from China as a punitive measure against Chinese resistance to Western invasion, and quite literally ‘brain-washed’ into rejecting ALL Sinocentric-thinking and into adopting as his own opinion the implicit attitude that ALL Asian thinking is ‘deficient’, ‘inferior’ and ‘sub-standard’ when compared to ALL forms of bourgeois ‘Western’ thinking (that is not ‘Marxist’ or sympathetic to ‘Marxism’). Hu Shih was the product of (Western) bourgeois social engineering as he grew-up to instinctively support ALL Eurocentric attitudes, assessments and interpretations, and give the false impression that Eurocentric imperialism was both morally ‘right’ and spiritually and physically ‘good’ for the minds and bodies of the Asian people – an attitude that directly opposes the views of Karl Marx! For the Western (bourgeois) world to succeed in its project of ‘wiping-out’ an ‘independent’ Asia that can stand alone in its opposition to any and all Western hegemony! Through people like VN Banerjee quite naturally allowing himself to be influenced by the Western system – he is assisting the passive colonisation process that ‘inverts’ the Marxist project of ‘exposing’ it at every turn! This ‘inverts’ Marxist ideology and gives the false impression that Marxism is the ‘illness’ rather than the ‘medicine’! The irony is that VN Banerjee’s translation of the Dhammapada Sutta does have merit when compared with the others available (generated by scholars sympathetic to the Buddhist world-view). He provides the Pali text in both the Devanagari and Roman script. This follows the Western tradition of presenting the original Pali text in (Western) phonetic transliteration – whilst presenting an Indian alphabet, so that certain scholars can check the accuracy with the original ‘source’ material. The Dhammapada Sutta is organised to inform the average reader in ancient India of the Buddha’s path from ignorance to ‘Enlightenment’ - and from the ‘mind’ being the central-point of where the training is carried-out once the physical body is suitably ‘disciplined.’ Once the experiences of everyday life are explained and dealt with – then the chapters traverse toward the ‘Enlightened’ state as a ‘monk’, an ‘Arahant’ and a ‘Brahmin’, etc. This is by no means an unusual organisation for a Buddhist text in the Pali tradition – and yet VN Banerjee states that he ‘sees no reason’ for this structure! This is similar in dereliction of opinion to VN Banerjee stating that Marxism is a ‘religion’ when in fact Marx firmly ‘rejected’ the ‘inverted’ thinking that underlies ALL theistic religiosity. This aligns with the usual bourgeois disinformation that says Marxism ‘rejects’ religion and is atheist – whilst simultaneously asserting that Marxism is a ‘secular’ ideology that ‘mimics’ all aspects of established religion whilst denying the validity of the theistic construct. Again, this assertion makes no logical sense. The religionists – according to Marx – construct images and patterns that exist ‘nowhere’ than within the psychic fabric from which they emerge, and then ‘mistake’ these images and patterns as independently ‘existing’ in the external universe (free of any connection to the mind that creates them). Established religions then construct powerful political and physical structures designed to control society and privilege the Church! None of it is ‘true’ as its entire edifice is premised upon a false theory of reality. This thinking is ‘inverted’ because a fallacious ‘thought in the head’ is mistaken for a real ‘structure in the external world.’ As Marx advocates ‘material’ science over religious ‘superstition’, the only ‘truth’ worth knowing is that of the correct, scientific understanding of the material universe, and the results of this reflected in the mind as cultivated patterns of thought manifestation. Therefore, a ‘non-inverted’ mind-set according to Marx is the consequence of the scientific analysis of the environment and the ‘correct’ corresponding thought patterns that are ‘conditioned’ into the thinking mind as a consequence. Marxism, by logical definition, therefore, cannot be truthfully referred to as a ‘religion’ in any sense of the word. Marx rejects the inverted thinking that defines a) religious thinking, and b) the maniacal search for profit that defines the bourgeois system of predatory capitalism. The point missed by VN Banerjee is that modern manifestations of established religiosity fully support the predatory capitalist status quo and its liberal political structure – as such an arrangement privileges and maintains the Church in its dominant and anti-working-class position. Marx supports the working-class seizing the means of production and depriving the bourgeois system and its religious structures of ALL political power and influence – this is why Marx ‘rejects’ the inverted thinking that defines the bourgeois system and its religious structures. The Buddha, oddly enough, also defines ‘delusion’ as an ‘inverted’ mind-set which is polluted by a false duality that misinterprets the external world and generates suffering-inducing (internal) mind-states that are riddled with the three-taints of greed, hatred and delusion, etc. For Marx and Buddha – it is the ‘removal’ of this inverted mind-set through education which sets humanity on the path of true peace, tranquillity and freedom from suffering. Communist ideology firmly rejects ‘terrorism’ or unwarranted violence as the vast majority of the victims of such violence are invariably the working-class! Whenever terrorists attack the bourgeois system – it is the bodies of the working-class that are torn asunder by bourgeois weaponry! Furthermore, overtime the bourgeois punish the working-class through systems of education that ‘brain-wash’ working-class children into unquestionably accepting their own exploitation at the hands of the bourgeois as being ‘normal’ and being ‘beyond’ any reforming or alteration. Again, VN Banerjee applies his ‘inverted’ thinking by falsely stating that it is Marxism which is inherently ‘violent’ - when in fact the truth is the other way around! Whereas Marxism rejects the inherent violence of the bourgeoisie – it is VN Banerjee who is using his expertise to ‘blame the victim.’ Although the Buddha expresses a logic and reason very similar to that exhibited by the Greeks, he is emerging from a very different socio-economic base. Marx saw this and referred to Buddhist philosophy as being a ‘rational Brahmanism’. As with everything Marxian, this description is comprised of a far greater depth of meaning than the surface words appear to denote and the length of sentence suggests! ‘Rational’ in that like the Greeks, the Buddha is attempting to distinguish his method from the historical religiosity of India, and create a method that appears thoroughly ‘modern’ in its assessment of matter and psychological and physical processes. The term ‘Brahmanism’ denotes the vast and ancient religiosity within which the Buddha was born, out of which his mind and body eventually ‘grew’. The Greeks, of course, possessed a pantheon of gods just as the Brahmans were polytheistic. In this respect, the two systems were similar. The Greeks expected to find numerous gods being worshipped by the various (non-Greek) peoples of the world and made allowances for encountering these unknown entities. (This is why the Greeks possessed a ‘god with no-name' as a matter of accommodation). The Brahmins – like the Jews, however – viewed their system as already complete and essentially intolerant of any other religious system of religious organisation. The Jews would eventually develop the notion of monotheism whereas the Greeks would not. The Buddha would emerge out of Brahmanism and declare it ‘incorrect’ - just as the Jew known as Jesus Christ would emerge out of Judaism and declare his religion incomplete and ready for transformation! The Greeks would make a clean break with religiosity by developing ‘philosophy’ - which like the Buddha’s ideology is always moving away from religious thought. It would be the later Christian who would seize Greek philosophy and distort its underpinnings and interpretation so that it could be superimposed upon a new form of Judaism and referred to as ‘Christian theology’! This is why Greek terms are found all the way through Christian theology but used in a thoroughly incorrect manner. Even amongst modern philosophers there is the habit of using the pagan Germanic term ‘soul’ in place of the Greek ‘psyche’ - which was co-opted by the Christians as they tried to convert these tribal people. Soul originally referred to the spirituality of water (an idea common in pre-Christian Europe), but the Christians took this term and transposed it with the term ‘psyche’ (‘breathe of life’) which the Greeks used to describe the ‘spark’ of existence that explodes into physical and conscious life at the point of conception in the womb! For the Christian missionary, the German ‘soul’ became that spiritual entity which existed separate and distinct to the physical body and mind, and which entered the mind and body at conception and left the mind and body at death! As the Christian first borrowed the Greek ‘psyche’ to describe this entity, they soon became dissatisfied with its close approximation to Greek thought and decided to obscure reality further by co-opting yet another alien concept in a drive designed to demonstrate both ‘uniqueness’ and ‘difference’ from Judaism! The Buddha, of course, understood that all religious thinking depended upon an imagined spiritual entity existing somewhere out-there – which was intimately linked to each individual human through an ‘atma’ (atman) or ‘soul’. Through this ‘connection’, the Brahmins stated that the supreme God Brahma controlled a) each individual life, and b) ensured the functioning of Indian society through the caste system. Any obvious or deliberate attempt to contradict this ‘will of god’ would be met with a terrible re-birth and a hellish karma. Conform to the injustices of Brahma’s will – or face a terrible re-birth! The Buddha decided to see if any of this was true and embarked upon a number of well-known spiritual paths all linked to the religion of Brahma. He followed at least six distinct meditative and ascetic paths to their full completion and realised they did not go where their teachers claimed they went, and did not bestow the knowledge the teachers claimed they did. Through submitting his mind and body to the severe discipline required of these paths – an undertaking many others could not do – the Buddha empirically ‘proved’ that the Brahmanical religion was incorrect!
The ‘national flag’ of Laos was originally the flag of the Laos Patriotic Front (LPF) which was a ‘united front’ opposing Western imperialism in Laos pre-1975 – and which resisted the many (illegal) military incursions into Laos by the US Military! The ‘red’ rectangles represent the victory of the ‘Socialist’ Revolution paid for with the blood of the Laotian people! The ‘blue’ rectangles represent the beautiful land of Laos – and the peaceful and laid-back attitude of the people! The ‘white’ circle symbolises the ‘unity’ of the Laotian people under the leadership of the Laotian Communist Party – and the ‘bright’ future the country has under ‘Socialism’! The ‘white circle’ also symbolises the ‘bright moon’ shining over the Mekong River. Due to the devastation caused to the country by the (illegal) US blanket-bombing campaigns and other military operations into the area during the 1960s and 1970s – the actual number of Laotian casualties remains unknown. Speculations suggests the low thousands to the high hundreds of thousands (and even millions)! These US War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity have never been ‘acknowledged’ or properly ‘investigated’ by the United Nations (UN). Although the Laotian Communist Party successfully militarily defeated the colonial French, the imperialist US (and their allies) - bringing a permanent ‘end’ to these mass-killings of Laotian people – it is now the US that falsely accuses the Laotian Government of committing ‘atrocities’ against its own people (whilst providing no evidence) as a means to ‘camouflage’ its own historical criminality in the area! In August 1991, the Supreme People's Assembly enacted the First Constitution of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. The Constitution clearly stipulates that the Lao People’s Democratic Republic is a (Socialist) People’s Democratic Country. As the Soviet Union was being dismantled and reverted to the predatory capitalist system (causing all kinds of suffering to the Russian people) the Laotian Marxist-Leninists were determined that their young Socialist State (founded on December 2nd, 1975) would stay vibrant through ‘reform’. This is why it was confirmed that ‘All Power Belongs to the People’ - and that this will not change! People of all ethnic groups were guaranteed to continue exerciing their rights as equal citizens under the leadership of the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party (LPRP). Furthermore, although the ‘national emblem’ of Laos was altered in 1991 – removing the red star, axe and sickle and replacing these icons with examples of Luang-type architecture – this symbol (and many others) remains distinctly ‘Marxist-Leninist’ meaning. The two ears of rice denote an affluence of the national crop under Socialism: the large tower represents historical Laotian architectural and a future achievement of construction under Socialism, there are also symbols Laotian engineering in the modern sense; there is a gear, a dam, forests, fields and other industrial icons as well as clean water and abundant forestry; The ear of rice symbolizes success in agriculture. The ribbons on both sides read "Peace, Independence, Democracy, Unity, Prosperity", and the ribbon at the bottom reads "Lao People's Democratic Republic". The Laotian people favour Theravada Buddhism which has retained much of the flavour of ‘Early Buddhism’. As Buddhist teaching is known to be friendly toward ‘Socialist’ ideology – the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party (LPRP) has recognised the importance of Buddhism acting as a cohesive cultural force amongst ALL the Laotian people – and a unifying factor that spreads evenly through the rich and poor areas created by historical exploitation associated with outmoded feudalism and Western imperialism. The economic damage inflicted on Laos by the Europeans and Americans will probably take decades to eradicate – but the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party (LPRP) has been instigating widespread educational, welfare, medical, housing and employment reform (in-part) through the already existing infrastructure of widespread Buddhist temples, monasteries and shrines. Traditional Buddhist education, of course, emphasises the similarities and compatibilities between Early Buddhist philosophy and the ideology of Classical Marxism and Marxist-Leninism! This is how Buddhist monks living in the most remote areas of the Laotian countryside directly assist the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party (LPRP) by bringing much need Socialist education and reform to these areas! In this regard, Buddhism is a major component of Laotian Marxist-Leninism and Communist ideology! Many people from China travel to Laos for relaxing holidays to another ‘Socialist’ country where they will be ‘safe’ and very ‘welcomed’. The travel blogs penned by these tourists offer a rare insight into the everyday life of Laotian people which the Americans and Europeans (aided and abetted by the English-language Wikipedia) would like you not to know about – simply because it tends to demonstrate the success of a ‘Socialist’ country and contradicts all the usual ‘racist’ lies propagated by the anti-Asian and anti-Socialist Western media. In this case, a husband-and-wife couple set-off from Shenzhen in China and flew to Vientiane – the capital city of Laos – spending six days exploring the country during April, 2018! The Chinese blogger stated that although the Laotian ‘Socialist State’ has only existed since 1975 (a mere 43-years of reconstruction) - much had already been achieved! The country of Laos is peaceful, clean and populated by a happy and content people! Wealth and infrastructural development have been developing within city areas and spreading outward into the countryside. This socio-economic development is slow but continuous for a country with just a seven-million population. However, the remote Buddhist temples (and other centres) have served as ‘re-distribution’ points for resources and services into villages areas that do not yet have a developed infrastructure. This has allowed for some villages and towns to develop ‘oases’ of Socialist reform even amongst areas (and peoples) who have suffered abject poverty in the past. The Buddhist monks then assist such developed village and town to ‘link together’ to combine the benefits of their ‘Socialist’ development! Of course, this dramatic success of integrating Buddhism and Socialism is ignored in the West – and flatly ‘denied’ by the forces of bourgeois Buddhism which is in the service of the capitalist exploiters! Chinese Language Sources:
https://you.ctrip.com/travels/laos100105/3659273.html https://baike.baidu.com/item/老挝 |
AuthorAdrian Chan-Wyles PhD - Political Commissar and BMA (UK) Historian & Researcher. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|