Living within the capitalist West, the existential reality for a young worker is that of family which serves as a cocoon within larger society. A young worker exists to have their minds and bodies ‘exploited’ by the Bourgeois State within which they live. The purpose and function of each generation of the working-class is the maintenance of the (historical) production of continuous ‘profit’ which is ‘stolen’ and ‘usurped’ by the controlling-bourgeoisie – and used to a) construct a sound nest and b) feather that nest with every available comfort known to humanity! As the bourgeoisie control the means of production, they also control the political system, the judicial system and the type of law-making they prefer which moulds the interior of society to their liking. The predatory capitalist system is presented as ‘inevitable’ with the best the working-class can hope for is to secure semi-stable employment and save a little of their wages for a rainy day. Of course, as the bourgeoisie now ruthlessly controls the management of business and has systematically ‘crushed’ and ‘disempowered’ the Unions over the last four-decades, attaining a job is a) not that easy, and b) maintaining a job once secured for any length of time is just as hazardous. This is because the bourgeoisie use capitalist society as a trading-floor where they buy and sell working-class (human) flesh for the lowest possible prices, for the minimum of any sort of ‘guarantee’. The bodies and minds of the workers are set adrift in this sea of habitual aggression and brutal exploitation with only the agency of ‘death’ (natural or otherwise) offering a permanent ‘break’ with the system! As the ‘Communist Party’ hardly figures on the daily radar of the contemporary working-class (even though the Communist Party is the only legitimate way out of predatory capitalism for the working-class) – as it is the bourgeois system that is pumped into the living room of the average family through the TV, radio and print, media, etc. Schooling provides a sound basis in eulogising the capitalist system and in demonising Socialism and capitalism, whilst further and higher education only serves to strengthen this view through ever more sophisticated models of fabrication, disinformation and exaggeration, etc. In other words, the mind and body of the worker is assailed on every side by the pro-capitalist rhetoric of the bourgeoisie! As it takes time to dialectically work their way out of this ensnarement, coming into contact with the works of Marx and Engels, and getting to grips with the disparate nature of the post-1991 Communist situation (following the collapse of the USSR), a worker is left with the only viable option of working on the state of their own mind. As both Buddha an Marx defined human-suffering as emerging from ‘inverted’ thinking, it can be argued that by embracing an Early Buddhist approach to mind-control and bodily discipline – the greed, hatred and delusion upon which the bourgeoisie construct their society are uprooted from the mind of the individual worker – eventually [producing (through labour) a ‘new’ Socialist individual who has broken the false isolating individuality preferred by the bourgeoisie (as an isolated individual is easier to control than an empowered collective) and has opened their mind to a ‘collective’ and ‘all-embracing’ reality which allows for an inrush of correct class consciousness! This is where a worker can acquire knowledge of Buddhist meditation from a book or documentary, or locate and attend a local Buddhist temple. The point is not to embrace a community of religion, but rather utilise the Buddhist method to break free of bourgeoise conditioning and use this as an embarkation point on the sea of a new proletarian politics! A worker who has achieved this ‘breaking’ with the bourgeoisie system can then approach the complicated world of Socialist and Communist ideology with a sense of confidence and assuredness!
0 Comments
The German Ideology - Part I: Feuerbach.Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook9/22/2021 [7. Summary of the Materialist Conception of History]
This conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real process of production, starting out from the material production of life itself, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this and created by this mode of production (i.e. civil society in its various stages), as the basis of all history; and to show it in its action as State, to explain all the different theoretical products and forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. etc. and trace their origins and growth from that basis; by which means, of course, the whole thing can be depicted in its totality (and therefore, too, the reciprocal action of these various sides on one another). It has not, like the idealistic view of history, in every period to look for a category, but remains constantly on the real ground of history; it does not explain practice from the idea but explains the formation of ideas from material practice; and accordingly it comes to the conclusion that all forms and products of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism, by resolution into “self-consciousness” or transformation into “apparitions,” “spectres,” “fancies,” etc. but only by the practical overthrow of the actual social relations which gave rise to this idealistic humbug; that not criticism but revolution is the driving force of history, also of religion, of philosophy and all other types of theory. It shows that history does not end by being resolved into “self-consciousness as spirit of the spirit,” but that in it at each stage there is found a material result: a sum of productive forces, an historically created relation of individuals to nature and to one another, which is handed down to each generation from its predecessor; a mass of productive forces, capital funds and conditions, which, on the one hand, is indeed modified by the new generation, but also on the other prescribes for it its conditions of life and gives it a definite development, a special character. It shows that circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances. This sum of productive forces, capital funds and social forms of intercourse, which every individual and generation finds in existence as something given, is the real basis of what the philosophers have conceived as “substance” and “essence of man,” and what they have deified and attacked; a real basis which is not in the least disturbed, in its effect and influence on the development of men, by the fact that these philosophers revolt against it as “self-consciousness” and the “Unique.” These conditions of life, which different generations find in existence, decide also whether or not the periodically recurring revolutionary convulsion will be strong enough to overthrow the basis of the entire existing system. And if these material elements of a complete revolution are not present (namely, on the one hand the existing productive forces, on the other the formation of a revolutionary mass, which revolts not only against separate conditions of society up till then, but against the very “production of life” till then, the “total activity” on which it was based), then, as far as practical development is concerned, it is absolutely immaterial whether the idea of this revolution has been expressed a hundred times already, as the history of communism proves. 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.’ If the mind is cleared of its conditioned clutter, then the pristine thought processes that are exposed are able to engage the intellectual world with a far greater clarity and understanding! This ability to think with a greater strength and power of thought is referred to in within Buddhist thinking as developing the capacity of ‘prajna’ (panna) which is usually translated from the Sanskrit (and Pali) as ‘wisdom.’ Wisdom appears to be the ability to use the human mind to ‘think’ in a three-dimensional manner. This maybe compared to the normal psychological functioning of ‘two-dimensions’, etc. After clearing the mind of greed, hatred and delusion, and purging the opinion-capacity of false-thinking – then the human-mind functions at its optimum evolutionary output! Although some people, assisted by the power of the ruling class, have used their intellect to make tremendous strides in human-understanding, much of the time their developed knowledge remains obscure and difficult to access by the majority of human-beings who are part of the ‘oppressed’ class and who have no access to such empowering and progressive forces. Academic speciality tends to separate the workers from the bourgeois intellectuals but Buddhist meditation can serve as a self-administered programme of working-class ‘self-strengthening’ whereby the average worker can be transformed into an extra-ordinary thinker existing within typical proletariat conditions! Through ‘seeing beyond’ the oppressive conditions that define daily existence, the ‘enlightened’ worker can maximise the experience of life for him or herself and for everyone (and everything) living within the environment. This process can be used as part of the working-class self-organisation through unity toward Revolution and the transformation of society! Buddhist meditation gives the worker a means to transform their mind in their own time and outside of group activity or the daily grind of work. The average worker is conditioned as an individual and as a member of a class. Whereas joining the Communist Party and unionising to achieve class emancipation – the worker can sit and meditate in their own time to purposefully ‘uproot’ all historical conditioning from their own individual which has been implanted through family, community, education and employment, etc!
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!
Although the Buddha’s assessment of physical reality seems very ‘modern’ in its use of logic and reason, is his notion of enlightenment relevant to a modern world that is dominated by science? What relevance does a Buddhist viewpoint have in a world that no longer accepts religious dogma in a blind and one-sided manner? Even if the Buddhist philosophy is placed to one-side and Buddhist enlightenment is reduced to perceiving the empty essence of the thinking mind, so what? How does this ability assist humanity in a world of measuring matter, observing processes and continuously striving to understand more about material existence? How does the Buddha’s idea of leaving the world help a person living in the modern world understand that world better? Of course, the honest answer is that it does not. Seeing into the empty fabric of the mind does not build houses, feed people or cure diseases. As an ability, it does not generate an income and cannot pay the bills. Leaving the world does not offer any contribution to making the world a better place. For the Buddha, an individual removes themselves from the most obvious causes of physical and psychological suffering. This suffering he associates with the conventional life of a lay-person participating in marriage, child-rearing and working for a living. This includes the activities of commerce, politics and warfare, etc. Interestingly, the Buddha advocates a moving further into abject poverty as all work is abandoned as a manifestation of desire. Once a regular income is denied, then it becomes a matter of sustaining the life of the individual through the indifferent eating of waste-food acquired by the monastic through the act of begging. Even so, as begging does not guarantee a daily meal, a semi-state of starvation becomes the norm. What is the point of this lifestyle? The Buddha states that all of humanity’s suffering stems from the traits of greed, hatred and delusion continuously operating in the mind, which manifest without end through a corresponding set of physical behaviours in the outside world. Cutting-off and uproot these three traits in the mind and the corresponding behavioural patterns will cease to function in the outside world. When the root of humanity’s suffering is permanently uprooted in the mind and purged from the body, then there exist no more suffering-inducing conditions to plague the individual. However, as life in a capitalist society relies entirely upon ‘greed’ and ‘selfishness’, the Buddhist path is obviously ‘anti-capitalist’ and renders the individual impotent and unable to effectively participate in a greed-orientated society. Of course, things are different within a Socialist society, as a ‘selfless’ individual who profoundly cares for the ‘welfare’ of others is exactly this type of ‘altruistic’ society requires for each of its citizens. An enlightenment achieved within a capitalist society proves to the experiencer that all greed is thoroughly incorrect and counter-productive toward the achieving of human happiness. In other words, a genuine Buddhistic experience grants the insight that the world of predatory capitalism is immoral, backward and the source of all human suffering! Capitalism is clearly perceived as existing entirely due to an unquestioning of human ignorance! Once the mind is cleared of its capitalist corruption, then the individual acquires the ability to comprehend not only the higher teachings of the Buddha but also the dialectical meaning contained within the work of Marx, Engels and Lenin! This would suggest that the Buddhist ideology, if pursued within its proper Asian context, leads the practitioner to an innate understanding and comprehension of the ideology of Scientific Socialism as formulated by Marx and Engels, and developed by thousands of other Revolutionary leaders ever since! Of course, bourgeois Buddhism – or that teaching which is mixed with the Judeo-Christian tradition to exclusively serve the socio-economic system of predatory capitalism – is nothing but a ‘bogus’ Buddhism used by privileged ‘White’ people as a leisure activity and simple play-thing. As this is the most common Buddhism functioning in the West, Buddhism in this guise has no relevance for freeing humanity or in the appreciation of Communist ideology. This is the fake Buddhism of ‘feeling good’ and of temporarily ‘escaping’ from the woes of everyday life for short periods of time. No one practicing this ogre of misrepresentation can ever clear their minds of greed, hatred and delusion, as all this ‘playing’ does is strengthen the functioning of greed, hatred and delusion! This shadow of Buddhism ‘strengthens’ capitalism and gives it’s a greater stability in the minds of the practitioners. This is why bourgeois Buddhism is nothing other than a collaboration with capitalism and the exploitation of the working-class! Anyone can read the Pali and Sanskrit Buddhist teachings, and apply the teachings themselves as part of their study of Marxist-Leninist ideology. Indeed, meditating and calming the mind allows for a preparation of the intellect so that it can more readily ‘absorb’ the profound lessons inherent within the teachings of Scientific Socialism and the work of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara and Thomas Sankara, etc. Ethnic Buddhist communities in China, Laos and Vietnam use this method to integrate their communities into the Socialist System! It is exactly the same method used by the three or four Buddhist Republics that were part of the Soviet Union! Although Buddhism is certainly not required for the successful learning of Marxist-Leninism, nevertheless, if it already exists it can be useful as a method of working-class empowerment!
Marx and Engels correctly observed that external conditions influence the type of inner psychological and emotional terrain an individual experiences, whilst the functioning mind-set – through thought and action – can influence (and change) how the external environment manifests and operates! These observations can be read in the ‘Theses on Feuerbach’. The type of society a child is born into – conditions the ‘type’ of mind-set the child develops – whilst how an individual ‘thinks’ (following education and other experiences of life) can influence the type of behaviour (and interaction) the individual exerts upon the physical environment. Obviously, the logical suggestion is that a fully functioning physical environment pre-exists the ‘birth’ of each individual – and serves as a ‘rich’ depository of influences that channel the human-mind into a particular frequency of functionality. However, as the human-mind can be further influenced by all kinds of stimulus which direct its thinking-process into multitudinous directions, it is possible that given the right kind of influence, the ‘true’ reality of the external world can be clearly grasped, and a Revolutionary direction of behaviour embarked upon! The thinking is that once a Socialist Revolution is successfully achieved in the outer world – then an entirely ‘new’ inner terrain for humanity is experienced! Where meditation is useful is that it can ‘clear’ the inner mind of the ‘delusion’ and ‘confusion’ caused by the external environment of a capitalist society! Meditation can achieve this as an ‘act of will’ which allows an individual to ‘detach’ themselves from the strictures of predatory capitalism, and whilst still living in a capitalist society, and mould their behaviour in such a way so as to live in a progressive manner that helps assist the development of physical conditions that bring a successful Socialist Revolution ever-closer! This can happen because Buddhist meditation ‘uproots’ the essence of the capitalist system from deep within the habits of the mind. What is this ‘essence’ of the capitalist system? Is is greed, hatred and delusion. Being outwardly ‘non-attached’ to physical stimulus and inwardly ‘calm’ and ‘still’ can only result in the reality of Socialism! This means that by realising ‘empty’ space in the mind is directly linked to perceiving the ‘empty’ space of the physical environment – with the two experiences ‘integrating’ into one reality. This is how Buddhist meditation can bring a further layer of developmental structure to Marxist and Marxist-Leninist ideology. Buddhist meditation allows for the idea that individuals can ‘free’ their minds and bodies from being ‘directly’ influenced by capitalist ideology whilst still physically existing within a capitalist society! Of course, the external reality is still ‘capitalist’, but individuals can ‘detach’ their psychological processes and sensory reactions from the habitual ‘predatory’ nature of the capitalist system. Such an achievement propels the individual into a permanent state of ‘transition’ which has the tendency of moving all thought and behaviour into the direction of Socialism. This is a ‘new’ state of achieving ‘Socialism’ that acts in accordance with the thinking of Marx and Engels – but which was not developed in their writings during their lifetimes. This is despite the fact that Marx and Engels knew about Buddhism (via their friend ‘Karl Koppen’), but never had to time (or experience) to develop a ‘theory’ in this direction. Buddhist meditation, as a method of ‘uncoupling’ the inner-being from the outer capitalist system could well be developed into an objective science free of all religiosity no different to studying the written works of Marx and Engels!
|
AuthorAdrian Chan-Wyles PhD - Political Commissar and BMA (UK) Historian & Researcher. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|