The proposition is that both Marx and religion are correct within certain boundaries of definition. I suspect that what Marx is criticising is not genuine ‘religion’ per se, but rather what I identify as ‘pseudo-religion’ - or that which passes as religion within the capitalist system. Marx has no choice but to do this as pseudo-religion is a construct designed entirely to support capitalism and draw the spiritual aspect of humanity away from non-greed and firmly into the camp of pro-greed! There is no way that Marx could construct his theory if the structures of pseudo-religion were allowed to stand! This would mean the workers would over-throw the capitalist system only to have it continuously re-established everywhere that pseudo-religion influences! Marx has nothing to say about ‘genuine’ religion as it manifests exactly the same theoretical essence as does the completed historical mission that culminates in ‘Communism’. Obviously, Marx seeks to change the inner world of humanity by transforming the outer (material) world of habitation and activity, although he does recognise that if the workers are to change the outer world they must first wilfully change (or ‘alter’) their inner (conscious) world! This is nothing less than the ‘quest’ adventures found in many (if not all) genuine religious paths. Communism is not religion, however, and must be understood as an ideology entirely outside of religion – but genuine religion does possess the inherent ability to over-lap in places with the Communist quest without contradiction or paradox. A genuine religious path, therefore, can lead a dedicated practitioner to the state of ‘Communism’ within which ALL religiosity is transcended and left behind. In this model, religion becomes a launching pad that is left behind by the rocket of Communism that blasts-off into the space beyond! This suggests that Marxism and Marxist-Leninism must re-negotiate the place of genuine religion in the quest to establish Socialism and then Communism in the material world, as this transformation of humanity will have profound implications for the conscious development of humanity and the means through which humanity pursues existence and seeks-out challenges for the next step that stimulates human evolution!
0 Comments
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.’ Dear M
The BMA (UK) caters as a focal point for many different people of various backgrounds. As such, there is no rigid membership - just fluid ideas all heading away from capitalism and towards Socialism (as Marx and Engels explained). We all bring our own requirements, so to speak, and collectively work it all out! My job is that of key researcher for the BMA (UK) which involves stripping away all the bourgeois layers of misrepresentation and appropriation that is used to mislead the masses in the West! Basically, Buddha becomes Christ and enlightenment becomes God. The next step is to brainwash the practitioners into believing that there is no difference between the theism of Christianity and the non-theism of Buddhism! This prepares the psychological and physical ground for conversion to bourgeois Christianity, and on it goes! Genuine Buddhism is nothing like this and very close to the Dialectical approach of Marx and Engels! Indeed, these last ten years of my research has been to 'prove' this hypothesis and the evidence is clear. It is an association which is common place in China and I have made good contacts with professors over there - all of whom agree with this observation. In this regard, meditation becomes a means through which working class people can take control of their own minds and purge them of ALL bourgeois conditioning! This method can be used even before any type of formal education as anyone can sit and meditate and reorientate their minds toward a thoroughly proletariat world view. The Buddha dialectically discovered a form of Scientific Socialism 2,500 years ago and expressed it in a Revolutionary manner using concepts familiar to his culture and his Epoch - but like Marx and Engels, he also used the current situation, terms and common understandings to generate a new view of the world that only really makes sense to humanity today, and only then to individuals who have already studied Marx and Engels! When the mind is thoroughly emptied of its contexts, then the only remaining reality is that of Scientific Socialism! Of course, this turns out to be the only real reality when everything else is understood to be bourgeois, delusive nonsense! We can either live in our imaginations or clear our minds and occupy the dominant position of dialectical prominence and advanced understanding and behaviour! Best Wishes Adrian 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!
If a fall into the abyss of mysticism is to be avoid, then logic and reason must be applied to any and all Buddhist explanations of mind development. This process not only replicates the manner in which the ancient Greeks assessed reality, but also the method appears to make use of as recorded in the Pali Suttas. As an interesting aside, this would mean that any apparent talk of ‘rebirth’ or ‘polytheistic’ gods must be later additions to the texts, or inheritances from the past that contemporary readers (including Buddhists) do not know how to correctly ‘interpret’. Why should this be the case? If ‘rebirth’ in numerous other realms, together with the belief in ‘gods’ and a semi-spiritualised version of ‘karma’ are upheld as being a genuine part of Early Buddhism, then logic demands an answer to the question of ‘What is the point of Buddhism if it is just another version of Brahmanical teaching?’ In this regard, there is a ‘pull’ between the Buddha’s use of a pristine ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ - and the parts of the text that subtly try to undermine this reason and replace it with mythology and theology! In this regard, ‘gods’, ‘dimensions and ‘karma’ all fall under the categories of greed, hatred and delusion – or those psycho-physical traits which are thought to bind humanity to ‘Samsara’ - the ‘cycle of suffering’, etc. A living human body is created through two adult humans engaging in sexual intercourse. Nine to ten months later the woman gives birth to a child. As the child develops in the womb, he or she is receiving stimulus from the outside world through the mother’s body. This process continues at an increased pace after the baby is born and leaves the inside of the mother’s body. At this time, the mother’s body no longer gives direct protection from the physical environment. The human brain is a physical organ that sits inside the head of a physical body. From the brain emerges what is called the human mind. The mind can sense the thoughts it creates, is aware of the past, present and future, and is able to sort-through and make sense of the sense data received through the other five senses – the nose (smell), the ear (hearing), the tongue (taste), the eye (vision) and the body (touch). Each human mind is conditioned to think in patterns that reflect the outer conditions of the individual concerned. This process is believed to adjust the individual to ‘survive’ in whatever environment is present, (pleasant, unpleasant or neutral). An individual builds an inner image of the outer world through all kinds of experiences. Cultural considerations define what particular circumstances are ‘preferred’ as to what conditions should be ‘ignored’, etc. The ‘self-awareness’ that is an implicit part of the mind is taken in the modern world as comprising the foundation of the individual. This ‘individuality’ sits ‘juxtaposed’ to the five other sense-organs of the body and generates a ‘dualism’ of perception. A foundational and all-enveloping mind-awareness sits atop the five bodily-senses that continuously ‘receive’ information about the outside world. Human culture dictates how this ‘duality’ is to be perceived, managed and expressed. An individual traverses through life building-up a reservoir of knowledge and experience, ad seeking the best ways in which life can be lived, and other people interacted with. Yes, life is not always ‘good’ or ‘pleasant’ - but the good times are often understood as emerging from the bad times – and a compromise of experience is usually a key to a balanced life. However, throughout human history, some individuals have ‘rejected’ this cycle of human existence, and actively sort-out a different way of living – the historical Buddha was one such being. The point is that much of human life is defined by terrible poverty, illness and calamity. The daily psychological, emotional and physical pain is often unbearable, and reduces an individual into a shivering mass of suffering and stupidity! Much of this suffering pre-exists in areas of poor economic, social and cultural development. In the Greek model, for instance, ancient Greece was an affluent State within which most of the work was carried-out by male and female slaves. The philosophers had plenty to eat, did not have to work, and inhabited a warm climate! This is similar to the Buddha’s upbringing of luxury and opulence in a world of utter poverty and death! What the Buddha sought was a profound ‘indifference’ to physical circumstance premised upon a permanent inner calm. In other words, such a person would remain exactly the same both inwardly and outwardly regardless of whether their circumstances were considered ‘good’ or ‘bad’! To test this idea, the Buddha shifted his everyday experience to that of abject poverty – away from the opulence he had once routinely enjoyed. Continuous sexual indulgence was replaced with an absolute celibacy, etc. Enlightenment is the experience of an all-embracing and all-expansive conscious awareness that is permanent and ever-lasting. The five bodily-senses – ‘receive' data from the environment in an indifferent manner, and this data is processed by a mind that does not waiver and which is free of greed, hatred and delusion. Painful experiences are no longer viewed as something to be ‘avoided’ just as ‘pleasant’ experiences are not something to be sort-after. Bare attention free of greed, hatred and delusion generates wisdom, compassion and loving kindness. All this is verifiable and correct. However, what interests me here is the perception of ‘three-dimensional emptiness’ by the mind, which appears to permeate the inside of the human-body, and which expands outward into the environment (in an infinite ‘roundel’ shape or ‘circle’, etc). This perception of ‘all-embracing emptiness’ unites the inner body and the outer world in a totality of integrative interaction. An interesting question from a scientific perspective is ‘is this experience ‘real’ or an illusion created by the mind?’ Why could this perception of ‘all-embracing’ emptiness be an ‘illusion’? The mind possesses the ability to ‘generate’ and ‘sense’ thought. Thought is a concept or ripple in the psychic life of the individual. Although the mind can inwardly replicate any external image found in the environment – it can also amalgamate its many experienced impressions and generate entirely ‘new’ inner images (imaginations) that have no bearing on the existing outside world. Through a difficult and disciplined path of self-cultivation, an experience that is ‘real’ in the physical sense, it could well be that the objective of all this effort is that the human mind is ‘forced’ or ‘conditioned’ into generating a single but permanent ‘thought’ that it is experiencing as ‘three-dimensional’ empty space! This type of thought is different to everyday thoughts which traverse the surface mind – as it is singular, consolidating and apparently ‘underlying’ all other sensory activity generated in the mind. This ‘thought’ of ‘unified space’ is all-encompassing and seems to include the inner body and outer environment, and is ‘limitless’ in scope. It is as large as the universe is infinite – but suppose it exists nowhere else than in the individual human-mind that experiences it? If this is the case, then it is not the underlying reality of the universe and does not truly exist either within or outside of the body. It is, in reality, just another form of hard-earned delusion very different from the norm. As a state of mind this sense of ‘unified oneness’ brings inner and outer peace, and changes the human character and behaviour for good. Such a state rejects the more brutal aspects of human instinct and instead emphasises peace, love and tranquillity. The inner and outer life is ‘transformed’ because of this realisation (which is not easy to achieve). Although probably a by-product of the evolutionary process, the Buddha suggests that true enlightenment is beyond both ‘perception’ and ‘non-perception’, in other words, reality is beyond both ‘thought’ and ‘non-thought’. Perception and non-perception is stage four in the Caodong School of Ch’an’s Five Ranks of Prince and Minister – with stage five representing ‘that’ which is beyond ‘perception’ and ‘non-perception’. Although all-embracing emptiness is a difficult stage of reality to perceive – even so it must be ‘seen through’ and understood to be ‘empty’ even of ‘emptiness’! When the human-body ‘dies’ - then all perception and non-perception will quite naturally fall away. Given that this is the case, it seems that all-embracing unity is a difficult to acquire state of being which is rarefied and ultimately ‘empty’ of any permanent reality. It is a door-way through which a spiritual aspirant must pass, but which is an illusion just like any other. It heals and it cures but is not unexplainable or truly ‘mystical’ in the divine sense. Through achieving ‘enlightenment’ - a ‘new’ perceptual base is laid - through which the individual experiences the world. This achievement raises the individual from primordial instinct to a higher level of reasoning and interacting. All perception, regardless of its shallowness and depth is ultimately a delusion because it all falls away at the point of physical death. In reality, the organ of the brain exists in a dark and lonely place, but its capacity to generate ‘mind’ and then fill that mind with all kinds of interesting data serves to transform human existence. In-short, the ‘religious’ and ‘spiritual’ experience has nothing to do with the assumed presence of divine beings – and everything to do with a brain that has met the challenges of evolution in a most spectacular and meaningful way! Building an inner reflection of the outer world is an illusionary event – but which has been crucial for the evolution of humanity!
Although I do not believe in the literal reality of any religious teaching – my academic speciality is that of ‘religious thought’ and ‘religious practice’. This follows on in the Soviet tradition and the current situation in Mainland China. As various ethnic groups are required to be ‘integrated’ into the Socialist System, an expert knowledge of religious knowledge at the political level is required to implement this transition. A Socialist or Communist academic living in a Marxist-Leninist State, must be free of any religious ideology in the primitive sense, and be able to objectively study, understand and predict the behaviour of those who ‘literally’ believe in religious mythology. Such an academic is an advanced dialectical human-being who understands Marxist-Leninism (and its variants) exactly, and is no longer inhabiting the ‘inverted’ mind-sets that propagated religious ideology in the first place! The rational human mind must be brought into play to clear the ‘fog of religion’ as Lenin called it – whilst still understanding why religious groupings think and act as they do. This understanding is crucial to predict problems before they start, and to guide the religious communities into thoughts and behaviours more complicit with life in a progressive, Socialist society! Religion is transitioned into a ‘private’ affair for the masses, and is removed’ from the ‘public’ space. Religion is moved from all positions of political power and business interference! As religion was originally a vehicle for personal salvation in an indifferent world – these changes must be explained to the religious groupings in a manner that they understand without conflict or resistance! This is not always an easy task, but it is an essential task. Religion, like philosophy, can be fully understood by the secular and atheistic mind. Once it is understood, it can be guided and moulded so that it benefits from being within a Socialist States, and yet does not interfere in the political process. Furthermore, as the ‘classroom’ is separated from the ‘Church’ - religious leaders must be taught to understand the ‘new’ rights that his community now possess. Conservativism is now no longer required or allowed, and so a religious leader must take responsibility in guaranteeing that his community is able to register for welfare, housing, medical employment and education opportunities – offered either free of charge or highly subsidised by the Socialist State! All religions must now support the Socialist System and have no relationship with the bourgeois community or reactionaries of any kind. Should a religious leader enquire ‘how’ he or she is supposed to present these requirements to his or her community – a Political Commissar tasked with integrating religious groupings into the Socialist System must be ready with a profound and relevant answer that can be clearly explained and put into action!
As a political commissar, one of my main tasks is to assist existing religious practitioners and institutes to ‘align’ their ideology with that of Marxist-Leninism. This is not a ‘choice’ but rather a ‘necessity’. The reality is that millions of people follow a religion of some type, and given that religion is not ‘out-lawed’ in a Socialist Society – but rather ‘guaranteed’ - it is important that the two ideologies understand one another and know how to constructively interact. This process is already far advanced within the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and North Korea (DPRK), etc, but is still not understood as a concept amongst many areas of Western Marxist thinking. One thing is certain – Marxist-Leninism does not ‘out-law’ or ‘oppress’’ religion in any way, but rather shifts the place within society within which religions operate. Religion is moved from the ‘public’ to the ‘private sphere for its own protection and security. Religious institutions are shifted out of the political arena and will play no further role in that direction (as the Communist Party develops society through the use of modern science). As religion was founded around the principle of finding existential ‘freedom’ within (or outside of) society, it has no place interfering in the political process. As such, by relocating it into the ‘private’ sphere it may reassert its speciality of providing a vehicle for individual ‘freedom’ from whatever issue or reality it deems responsible for human suffering. In reality, this places religion in a much stronger traditional setting and encourages freedom of worship and tolerance of difference. As no single religion is permitted to ‘dominate’ society (or any other religion), existing in the ‘private’ sphere is a new position of ‘empowerment’ for the religiously minded. As Western religions are in bed with the forces of predatory capitalism, these people resent any attempt at interfering with the positioning of religion within society. From this profit-seeking perspective, moving religion from the ‘public’ to the ‘private’ sphere is deliberately interpreted as ‘oppressive’ - because these people equate ‘religion’ with material ‘profit-seeking’ here on Earth! None of this matters, of course, but Marxist-Leninists must be aware of the process of administering religion within a Socialist society.
For Marx religion is like a fix of opium designed to take the minds (and bodies) of the collective working-class off of the daily suffering implicit within the life of a capitalist society! Whilst for Lenin, religion of any sort is nothing but a ‘fog’ which distorts the collective thinking of the working-class. Furthermore, Marx exposes the underlying philosophical premise of any form of theism as being the product of ‘inverted’ thought processes, or to put it another way, a body of knowledge built upon a foundation of illogical thinking and incorrect conclusions. Marx explains that the idea of an ‘all-knowing’ God is nothing but a ‘thought’ in the human mind – a product of wishful thinking and imagination – which is then mistaken as existing ‘independently’ somewhere ‘out there’ in the universe. This argument is as powerful as it is simplistic and straightforward. For Marx, the vast body of theological literature does not matter – as it is all premised upon a false understanding of reality that relies upon ‘blind faith’ to exist and continue to exist. This is where religion receives its greatest support, as ‘faith’ does not require logical though or correct scientific scrutiny to ‘exist’ and ‘function’ throughout society. The Church Authorities are political entities that support the predatory capitalist system, and they sustain this influence (regardless of its obvious ‘corruption’) through the propagation of the agency of ‘faith’. Just as the Medieval Church gained its political power by aligning itself with the imperial Roman apparatus – modern Christianity has been developed by the bourgeoisie to represents its own best class interests – and grew-out of the process of industrialisation over the last four-years or so. Modern Christianity, therefore, exists as a statement of class dominance by the bourgeoisie which masquerades as a vehicle for personal development and deliverance. By transferring ‘religion’ from the ‘public’ to the ‘private’ sphere – as Marx and Lenin agree – the power-mongering of its modern priesthood is dismantled and disempowered. Religious doctrine is then replaced into a position of its founding – where it becomes a vehicle for self-cultivation with NO political ambitions or political power. An argument can be made that by placing religion into the ‘private’ sphere – religion is being returned to its ‘genuine’ state and purpose of being a vehicle for ‘inner’ development. This private-undertaking should be the only ‘lawful’ function that religious possesses. The ideology of Marxist-Leninism suggests that as times unfolds throughout a ‘Socialist’ society (which sees the working-class seizing control of the means of production) - it is believed that the ‘impulse’ toward religion will eventually die-out quite naturally as society is transformed from one of exploitation’ to that of ‘collective co-operation' - from ‘daily suffering’ to ‘daily collective and personal empowerment’! As the outward aspect of social organisation becomes ‘classless’, ‘just’, ‘productive’ and ‘equalitarian’, etc, the ‘inner’ health and vibrancy of the human-condition will becomes so ‘purified’, ‘positive’ and ‘progressive’ that there will no longer appear the impulse for the need for religion to arise as a psychological, emotional and physical habit. Therefore, Marxist-Leninist ideology offers a critique of religion that is so devastating to the Bourgeois Church that its power-brokers would rather support the ideology of ‘fascism’ and declare Marxism to be ‘evil’ than honestly and truthfully face the allegations levelled by Marx and striving to work with its conclusions rather than propagandising against it. Religion, if handled the right-way, can be useful for the development of a Socialist society, with any Socialist government possessing the moral responsibility of ‘integrating’ religionists into a new Socialist world-order with as little friction as possible. ACW (15.4.2021)
|
AuthorAdrian Chan-Wyles PhD - Political Commissar and BMA (UK) Historian & Researcher. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|