The Buddha’s explanation as to ‘why’ suffering and dissatisfaction exist within the human mind and the material environment is as good an explanation as any other theory found in Social Science, Psychology or Psychiatry. Past and present lives, when viewed genetically and collectively then take on a new scientific meaning when detached from the dogma of religiously motivated individualism – a mistaken mind-set which perfectly mirrors the Bourgeois ideal state of unbridled ‘individualism’ defined as being the ‘perfect’ (and preferred) mode of predatory capitalism! Of course, from a dialectical position, what we experience today will inevitably dictate how material life will unfold in the future. This intprets the past, present and future existences as taught by the Buddha as coinciding with the past from which the present as emerged – and the ‘future’ into which the present will ‘develop’. Indeed, outside of the superstitious meaning often encouraged amongst the Buddhist laity – it is an established fact that the Theravada Sangha of ordained monks and nuns discuss past, present and future lives in exactly this manner (Abhidhamma) – clarify this issue further by specify the ‘past’ life equals the past moment, the ‘present’ life equals the present moment, and the ‘future’ life equals the life yet to come. Around two to three-thousand years ago, when very few people could read and write, the ordained Buddhist monastic seemed a world apart from the average lay-person. There was good reason for this separation which probably does apply to contemporary life in all but the materially poorest of places. Whatever the situation, the agency of theistic ‘faith’ should NOT replace materially-derived ‘wisdom’. Of course, where literacy is unknown, then faith tends to be the strongest. Ancient India was both poor and illiterate and so the Buddha’s Enlightenment offered a strand of awareness which required the open rejection of ordinary existence. This was, in effect, the rejection of religious-based ‘faith’ – and yet amongst the ignorant masses – ‘faith’ continued to function as a very powerful force and still does. This misinterpretation is encouraged in the West as the theistic religions that have historically dominated these countries have been ‘faith’ based. This is why Buddhism in the West is falsely presented as just another version of the Judeo-Christian religion – when it is clearly (dialectically) far superior to these theistic paths. The philosophy of ancient India, particularly that found within Buddhist ideology, intersects perfectly with the thinking that undermines modern science. India, even before ancient Greece, is well-known to have developed a system of material interpretation of reality. The Buddha seems to have developed his system of interpreting reality from within this system of understanding and explaining existence. The Buddha, whilst experiencing material reality, purified his perceptual understanding so that he realised the ‘essence’ of the human conscious ability – which is used to ‘sense’ the world through the six-senses that comprise the inner and outer body and the physical environment within which it exists. Worshipping the Buddha as a ‘God’ – or continuing to worship the ‘polytheism’ of India – was to miss the dialectical point that the Buddha was making. Perceiving the ‘essence’ of perception is an interesting challenge.
0 Comments
The Buddha developed a system that generates the conditions of ‘inner’ Socialism by uprooting greed, hatred and delusion from the functionality of the ordinary human mind. Through a corresponding physical behaviour that is ‘free’ of greed, hatred and delusion, Socialism In the ‘outer’ world is built. The Buddha’s path is an expression of early Socialism that places the emphasis upon the individual ‘freed’ from the collective tyranny of the faceless caste-system. Marx and Engels, by way of contrast, denies the ultimate validity of the individual, and instead defines the collectivity of ‘class’ as the only genuine driving-force behind any and all genuine Revolutionary action. Things are not quite this simple, for instance, as the Buddha (whilst advocating the ‘disciplining’ of the individual mind) describes how the notion of ‘self’ (that is, the ‘individual’) is a culturally conditioned concept with no basis in material reality. The ‘Sangha’ in Early Buddhism may well be an indication of the formation of an early-class system. In this case, made-up entirely of ordained Buddhist monastics whose function was to preserve, practice and convey the ‘Dhamma’, or Buddha’s enlightened Teaching. The non-ordained laity, by way of contrast, circumnavigated the Sangha and drew inspiration, guidance and support from it. The Sangha of Early Buddhism was a primitive ‘Communist Party’ defined around the concept of ‘membership’ and ‘non-membership’. The ‘members’ (monastics) conditioned the ‘non-members’ (laity) to develop to the extent where they were psychologically and physically prepared to become Buddhist monastics themselves. Although all Buddhist monastics are ‘equal’, it is also true that the Buddhist monastic community is led by the eldest (and ‘wiser’) strata of the population. This is generally comprised of those monks and nuns who have been ‘ordained’ the longest and not necessarily those who are the eldest in the (literal) chronological sense. These qualified elders had spent a lifetime carefully studying the Dhamma, teaching and advising others, as well as personally putting into practice each minute element of the teaching. In this sense, this ‘inner core’ of the Buddha’s elite disciples formed what might be termed a ‘Polit-Buro’ concerned with the perpetuation of an ideological purity and orthodoxy.
Later, with the liberalisation of Buddhism, the term ‘Sangha’ was expanded to include not only the ordained Buddhist elite, but now also included all lay-people who considered themselves a ‘follower of the Buddha’ (but not those ordinary people who did not support Buddhism). This expanded the membership of this primitive ‘Communist Party’ to include a non-ordained laity. Furthermore, Buddhist monastics lost their ‘elite’ status and became quite literally ‘beggars’ who existed in a privileged position (where they did not have work or participate in family life), that was ‘inferior’ to the lowest lay-person! Why was this? Everything each monk or nun used was not owned by them per se, but was the collective property of the monastic community ultimately provided by the hard-work of the lay-community that had provided it! Now, with the biographies of Hui Neng (the Sixth Patriarch of the Chinese Ch’an tradition), and the Indian merchant Vimalakirti (the ‘married’ contemporary of the historical Buddha) were well-known, lay-practice within Buddhism was transformed into ‘matching’ or even ‘transcending’ that of the Buddhist monastics. Although a profound example of democratisation, Buddhism today is still led by an elite monastic core, although with one or two lay-practitioners now included in the ‘Polit-Buro’! As the Buddha ‘rejects’ greed, hatred and delusion, it is inherently anti-capitalist. It is a philosophical and ideological impossibility for Buddhism to follow or advocate the predatory capitalist system. Buddhist meditation is a Proletariat device for clearing the human mind of the conditioned (habitual) patterns that generally define human society. As the Buddha states that ‘rebirth’ and ‘karma’ do not exist in the post-enlightened state – it is logical to assume that ‘rebirth’ and ‘karma’ do not exist in the pre-enlightened state. These two concepts only appear to exist because they are common elements of pre-Buddhist (Indian) religion that many Buddhist practitioners brought with them when they decided to approach the Buddha for discipleship. The Buddha used these terms to inspire morally ‘pure’ actions on the physical plane so that the inner mind could be more readily transformed through meditation. Only when advising advanced practitioners did the Buddha decide to ween them off of these childish concepts of religiosity. As there is no ‘rebirth’ or ‘karma’, the Buddha’s path is a purely material ideology centred around the Vinaya Discipline which modifies the external behaviour so that the inner mind (and its functionality) can be permanently modified into a Proletariat (enlightened) state. 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
|