Author’s Note: I was shown a far-right propaganda post online which attempts to project modern notions of ‘White Supremacy’ backwards thousands of years into cultures that have no association with such ahistorical and pseudoscientific concepts! The far-right has become ‘efficient’ at issuing sound bites which are simple, straightforward, compelling and which remove the requirement for their intended audience to ‘think’. My article below replaces that need to ‘think’ by providing in depth and accurate academic knowledge. The far-right ‘lies’ to its audience. This stems from Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ - within which he advocates ‘lying’ about everything as a means to leverage political advantage, control and influence. The Sanskrit terms ‘Shakya’, ‘Buddha’ and ‘Aryan’, etc, have absolutely NOTHING to do with the modern notions underpinning the ideology of ‘White Supremacy’! As the average person lacks the specialist knowledge required to navigate this complex territory in the West – the far-right ideologues deceitfully take advantage of this fact and attempt to fill the vacuum with inaccurate, misunderstood or misleading information! As the saying goes - ‘The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!’ ACW (25.6.2023) Shakya (Sanskrit-Pali) = शाक्य Shakya (Chinese) = 释迦 (Shi Jia) Shakya is the Sanskrit name of the high-ranking clan of the historical Buddha who lived in Northeast India. The historical Buddha was of the ‘Warrior and King’ (Kshatri) Caste – which was (in the era he was born) the highest of the various Hindu castes. Eventually, five Hindu castes would formulate with the ‘Brahmins’ being the highest caste and the ‘Warriors and Kings’ being the second highest. Far-right (anti-intellectual) ideologues attempt to subordinate material fact to their own ‘inverted’ (ideological) machinations – in support of ‘White Supremacist’ mythology. For instance, such attempts often perpetuate the false assertion that the Sanskrit name ‘Shakya’ equates to non-Indian designation of ‘Scythia’ or ‘Scythian’. This is an attempt to superimpose an imagined ‘Greek’ racial identity into North India and thus claim that ‘Europe’ (rather than ethnic Indians) are responsible for the development of Indian thought. This myth is easily dispelled through a brief moment of research: Hindi term for ‘Scythia’ = सीथिया Sanskrit term ‘Shakya’ = शाक No structural connection between these two (written) Indian terms. Chinese term for ‘Shakya’ = 释迦 (Shi Jia) Chinese term for ‘Scythia’ = 斯基泰 (Si Ji Tai) No structural connection between these two (written) Chinese terms. If there was some ‘hidden’ conceptual unifier between these two terms (i.e., ‘Shakya’ - ‘Scythia’) – then it is logical to assume that this identity would be transmitted through the word structures formed within the same language development. Furthermore, as the early Chinese scholars would be looking for a ‘connection’ between these foreign terms should such a connection exist (as a means to generate ‘clarity’ of translation and transliteration) - it also follows that the Chinese ideograms chosen would indicate this supposed ‘connection’ - but the chosen Chinese ideograms clearly do NOT record any such connectivity. Therefore, simply based upon the objective assessment of Sanskrit, Hindi and Chinese word structure (and meaning transmission) – there is NO connection between the non-Indian name ‘Scythia’ and the Indian designation of ‘Shakya’. In other words, the historical Buddha was NOT ‘Greek’, was not ‘White’ and his ideology was NOT simply a version of Greek thought! Other far right myths involve the following terms: Aryan (Hindi-Sanskrit) = आर्य Aryan (Chinese) = 雅利安人 (Ya Li An Ren) Indeed, the Chinese transliteration literally means the ‘People whose culture imposes ‘Refinement, Benefit and Peace’ upon society! This alludes to those Indians who followed the teachings of the Vedas – and more to the point - could understand the language these teachings were recorded within. The Scriptures could be understood, verbally (or inwardly) recited, and could be read by the Brahmin Priests (although originally these texts were transmitted only by word of mouth and were ‘remembered’ only by a chosen few from one generation to the next – at a time when reading and writing was very rare)! As this meditative and reflective culture disciplined the mind and body – society was externally and inwardly ‘well-ordered’. Those who applied these teachings were renowned for their great, accumulated wisdom which made them ‘noble’ in the eyes of their peers. Those who followed the ‘Vedas’ were ennobled by these teachings (as opposed to those who did NOT follow these teachings) and were further ‘ennobled’ when a personal wisdom was accrued (above and beyond the Scriptures) through self-cultivation. Although the Buddha rejected the Vedas – he made use of the term ‘Aryan’ to refer to his followers of the Dharma who had achieved a similar understanding as his own (as the Buddha was illiterate – his teachings were passed on only through the agency of ‘memory’ and public ‘recital’). This term was applied freely to any member of the Indian caste system and broader society (including ‘Untouchables’) and therefore had NO association with skin colour or ‘Whiteness’. Strictly speaking, within its narrow Hindu usage – the term ‘Aryan’ – refers to someone who can ‘speak’ and ‘understand’ the language of the Vedas. Those who could not understand this language were excluded from this thought community and were referred to as ‘Anaryan’. As there were people with a light skin tone who were referred to as ‘Anaryan’ - this proves that the term ‘Aryan’ did not (and does not) refer to a ‘White’ skin colour. Buddha (Sanskrit-Pali) = बुद्ध Buddha (Chinese) = 佛 (Fo) The left-hand particle of the Chinese ideogram is ‘亻’ (ren2) which refers to a ‘person’. The right-hand particle is ‘弗’ (fu2) - which breaks down into the following three elements: 1) 弓 (gong1) = A bow – an arched (stringed) weapon used in hunting and warfare. 2) 丨(gun3) = To pass through – travel up and down – a unifier as in ‘number one’. 3) 丿(pie3) = To raise one’s head – to move from right to left (as in a ‘dropping’ stroke) - to abandon and discard that which is not needed. As the ancient scholars of China had to translate the unfamiliar Indian Buddhist terms very carefully – they often sought the guidance of visiting Indian Buddhist monks. This was a process of transmission that developed from the 1st century CE onward – and was still ongoing during the 5th and 6th centuries CE and beyond. These scholars were told EXACTLY what Buddhist terms meant and if they did not know – they would wait patiently for guidance. Eventually correct knowledge would arrive. This is why the original ‘meaning’ of the Sanskrit terms used within Buddhist ideology is clearly retained within the body of traditional Chinese ideograms. In the case of ‘Buddha’ (佛) is defined as someone (亻) who has mastered a complex art (such as ‘archery’ [弓] - which the Buddhist Suttas state the Buddha did study as a youth) - through which an ‘arrow’ (丨) is skilfully affixed. Then an appropriate effort is applied so that the two ends of the bow are drawn (taut) down toward the centre - and the ‘arrow’ is let fly so that it directly ‘hits’ (丿) the intended target. In the Buddhist Suttas – the Buddha describes self-cultivation as being similar to stringing an instrument. If the strings are too loose – the correct note cannot be produced. If the strings are too ‘tight’ - then the strings might ‘snap’ when played! Self-cultivation, therefore, requires the ‘correct’ amount of effort so that the required result is achieved. As the Buddha ‘knows’ this is the objective – and ‘knows’ how to achieve this objective – this correct ‘knowing’ is two-fold. There is the ‘knowing’ of the correct path and its methodology – and there is the ‘knowing’ that the following of this correct path bestows upon the earnest seeker. Although the Sanskrit term ‘बुद्’ (Aryan) is ‘phonetical’ - like the Western alphabet - no real internal structure regarding inherent (or historical) meaning can be gleamed from the dissecting of its constituent parts. For that meaning it is the corresponding Chinese ideogram that is used. As can be seen, basic dictionary definitions do not convey the full or intended meaning of the Sanskrit term ‘Buddha’ (बुद्). This word is said to be derived from the Sanskrit term ‘बुत’ (But) doubled – whilst also being related to the doubled term ‘बुद्ध’ (Buddh): a) बुत (But) = Idol and mistress. This implies a correct spiritual positioning (such as that implied through a religious icon or statue) and the corresponding social influence such an inner orientation generates in the outer world (similar as the power a strong woman accrues through her scheming and planning). b) बुद्ध (Buddh) = The ability to ‘understand’ - and to apply that understanding in the outer world. This suggests a perfect integration of ‘methodology’ and ‘application’ - of ‘theory’ and ‘objective’. The Sanskrit term ‘Buddha’ (बुद्) is generally taken to mean: i) Consciously ‘aware’. ii) Wise. iii) Intelligent. iv) Transcendentally ‘awake’. The Chinese ideogram 佛 (Fo) also suggests that a ‘bent’ arrow’ (丿) must be made ‘straight’ by tightly binding it with an already correct arrow (丨) - until the task is completed. There is a peculiar negative connotation associated with the Chinese term suggesting the term ‘no’ is being implied. This is not surprising as the Buddha taught exclusively by explaining what enlightenment ‘is NOT’ - and not what enlightenment IS’! Nirvana, therefore, is the state of mind, body and environment generated when greed, hatred and delusion is no longer present in the mind and body of the practitioner. Although the far-right ideologues cherry-pick to attempt to make material reality match their deficient academic model – the spurious ‘linguistic’ associations that may (or may not) exist between ancient Indian words and words deriving from other cultures – does NOT automatically correspond to those different ethnic groupings sharing any systemic cultural link with India or its spiritual practices. Apparent linguistic associations can be found throughout the different and diverse cultures of the world – but this fact in itself does NOT mean that Yoga, Hinduism, Jainism or Buddhism or any cultural construct - existed (or originated) in these non-Indian places. What this phenomenon might suggest is that humanity once possessed a common (unified) culture before it diversified into the ethnic-specific variations observable today.
0 Comments
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 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. 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.’ I fully recognise that the human species is communal and has evolved from an extended family base that became tribal. Indeed, human collectivity has been the strength underlying human (biological) evolution in general, and cultural development specifically. What, then, is the purpose, value and meaning for humanity (as a whole), for an individual pursuing a solitary path? What does it mean to be 'solitary'? Can a human being be truly isolatory? Is it possible to leave human society completely or even partially? What is it that is being left? From what is the individual removing him or herself from? To where are they relocating? What changes when an individual supposedly 'leaves' society? From a philosophical position it would seem that 'leaving society' might be a 'tautology' - more of a convention than a practical reality, and yet something tangible does appear to 'change'. Firstly, there is an inner change in orientation usually coupled with a concerted change in behavioural patterns. Indeed, 'leaving society' seems to be primarily a decision about abandoning one set of behaviours whilst embracing another. What is abandoned is the ordinary or expected patterns usually associated with the conventions of everyday life. Although there are grades of disengagement from everyday life - the more stringent examples include the rejecting of commercial labour (that is labour for profit), but not usually labour in principle. Personal (amorous) relations are purged from the expectations of the mind and body - as are any associations and interactions with family members and family structures. These are remarkable realignment of outward behaviour, but their purpose is to create an external (sensory) environment that generates the conditions for a profound change to occur in the functionality of the inner psychological and biological processes of the body. An outer physical transformation is required because without this impetus it is doubtful that will power alone could furnish the requisite strength of purpose required to permanently 'change' the frequency through which the mind and body operates. This being the case, is living in isolation in reality simply another definition of collective existence, albeit existing 'outside' of the convention that usually defines what many believe communal living actually is? If course, as the individual living in isolation still inhabits exactly the same physical world after supposedly 'leaving' it - and given that no one disappears or that anything changes to any great extent - it must be the case that 'leaving society' is really a redefinition of the physical phenomena of the world and of the manner in which these processes interact. Nothing changes except how the physical world is interpreted. However, although this may appear to be a superficial definition, throughout human history, it is clear that great historical and dialectical forces have been unleashed and harnessed that have brought down (and established) dynasties, empires, religious movements and social orders, all premises on markers of outer differences and distinctive modes of inner thought. Gods have come and gone, spirits have emerged and been exorcised and many different types of nature worship have come and gone. Yet the ability for a man and woman to live peacefully in the metaphorical (and actual) hills has often provided the inner (and outer) stimulus for great spiritual, artistic and engineering achievements to be conceived in the mind, built through the control of the body and put to use for the benefit of humanity. In this model, the direction of travel is easy to discern - from isolatory inspiration to purposeful application to collective human society in general. How did this happen? What is the pattern that grants this kind of inspiration? It seems that by consciously ‘withdrawing’ an individual is entering a ‘different’ type of collectivity – one that is not necessarily common or obvious to the rest of humanity. There appears to be a ‘gathering’ of inner and outer energy – a combination of psychological creativity and physical strength and healthy robustness! This intensification of the over-all energy available to the participating individual is ‘focused’, ‘directed’ and ‘intensified’ through the act (and experience) of ‘isolation’. It is as the ‘herd’ is seen better from a distance and understood to a greater degree. As an individual is part of the herd – it is the same as stating that the ‘herd is looking at itself in a particular manner’ - and none of this at this juncture has to have anything to do with ‘religion’ as such or even specifically. Taking a step back allows for the human mind to adopt a wider scale of observation and thereby ‘select’ a more effective mode of interactive behaviour that is designed to alleviate the greatest amount of collective suffering with the least (or most ‘efficient’) amount of individual effort. Although perhaps associated with the monkish disciplines – even those undergoing specialist education in the secular world still have to ‘withdraw’ from regular society to attend a school and become a ‘student’. A certain ‘isolation’ from mainstream reality is acquired to define what is a ‘different’ approach to understanding and interpreting reality! It could be that by adopting the meditative style of the monastic – a style of being considered the most ‘efficient’ for self-isolating – the secular student could achieve a much more profound appreciation of their subject matter! The forces of historical materialism, for instance, together with the waves of dialectical transformation could be easily perceived as unfolding through the inner and outer world! Surely, this is the Revolutionary power of isolating for self-education.
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!
|
AuthorAdrian Chan-Wyles PhD - Political Commissar and BMA (UK) Historian & Researcher. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|