Author’s Note: I was shown a far-right propaganda post online which attempts to project modern notions of ‘White Supremacy’ backwards thousands of years into cultures that have no association with such ahistorical and pseudoscientific concepts! The far-right has become ‘efficient’ at issuing sound bites which are simple, straightforward, compelling and which remove the requirement for their intended audience to ‘think’. My article below replaces that need to ‘think’ by providing in depth and accurate academic knowledge. The far-right ‘lies’ to its audience. This stems from Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ - within which he advocates ‘lying’ about everything as a means to leverage political advantage, control and influence. The Sanskrit terms ‘Shakya’, ‘Buddha’ and ‘Aryan’, etc, have absolutely NOTHING to do with the modern notions underpinning the ideology of ‘White Supremacy’! As the average person lacks the specialist knowledge required to navigate this complex territory in the West – the far-right ideologues deceitfully take advantage of this fact and attempt to fill the vacuum with inaccurate, misunderstood or misleading information! As the saying goes - ‘The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!’ ACW (25.6.2023) Shakya (Sanskrit-Pali) = शाक्य Shakya (Chinese) = 释迦 (Shi Jia) Shakya is the Sanskrit name of the high-ranking clan of the historical Buddha who lived in Northeast India. The historical Buddha was of the ‘Warrior and King’ (Kshatri) Caste – which was (in the era he was born) the highest of the various Hindu castes. Eventually, five Hindu castes would formulate with the ‘Brahmins’ being the highest caste and the ‘Warriors and Kings’ being the second highest. Far-right (anti-intellectual) ideologues attempt to subordinate material fact to their own ‘inverted’ (ideological) machinations – in support of ‘White Supremacist’ mythology. For instance, such attempts often perpetuate the false assertion that the Sanskrit name ‘Shakya’ equates to non-Indian designation of ‘Scythia’ or ‘Scythian’. This is an attempt to superimpose an imagined ‘Greek’ racial identity into North India and thus claim that ‘Europe’ (rather than ethnic Indians) are responsible for the development of Indian thought. This myth is easily dispelled through a brief moment of research: Hindi term for ‘Scythia’ = सीथिया Sanskrit term ‘Shakya’ = शाक No structural connection between these two (written) Indian terms. Chinese term for ‘Shakya’ = 释迦 (Shi Jia) Chinese term for ‘Scythia’ = 斯基泰 (Si Ji Tai) No structural connection between these two (written) Chinese terms. If there was some ‘hidden’ conceptual unifier between these two terms (i.e., ‘Shakya’ - ‘Scythia’) – then it is logical to assume that this identity would be transmitted through the word structures formed within the same language development. Furthermore, as the early Chinese scholars would be looking for a ‘connection’ between these foreign terms should such a connection exist (as a means to generate ‘clarity’ of translation and transliteration) - it also follows that the Chinese ideograms chosen would indicate this supposed ‘connection’ - but the chosen Chinese ideograms clearly do NOT record any such connectivity. Therefore, simply based upon the objective assessment of Sanskrit, Hindi and Chinese word structure (and meaning transmission) – there is NO connection between the non-Indian name ‘Scythia’ and the Indian designation of ‘Shakya’. In other words, the historical Buddha was NOT ‘Greek’, was not ‘White’ and his ideology was NOT simply a version of Greek thought! Other far right myths involve the following terms: Aryan (Hindi-Sanskrit) = आर्य Aryan (Chinese) = 雅利安人 (Ya Li An Ren) Indeed, the Chinese transliteration literally means the ‘People whose culture imposes ‘Refinement, Benefit and Peace’ upon society! This alludes to those Indians who followed the teachings of the Vedas – and more to the point - could understand the language these teachings were recorded within. The Scriptures could be understood, verbally (or inwardly) recited, and could be read by the Brahmin Priests (although originally these texts were transmitted only by word of mouth and were ‘remembered’ only by a chosen few from one generation to the next – at a time when reading and writing was very rare)! As this meditative and reflective culture disciplined the mind and body – society was externally and inwardly ‘well-ordered’. Those who applied these teachings were renowned for their great, accumulated wisdom which made them ‘noble’ in the eyes of their peers. Those who followed the ‘Vedas’ were ennobled by these teachings (as opposed to those who did NOT follow these teachings) and were further ‘ennobled’ when a personal wisdom was accrued (above and beyond the Scriptures) through self-cultivation. Although the Buddha rejected the Vedas – he made use of the term ‘Aryan’ to refer to his followers of the Dharma who had achieved a similar understanding as his own (as the Buddha was illiterate – his teachings were passed on only through the agency of ‘memory’ and public ‘recital’). This term was applied freely to any member of the Indian caste system and broader society (including ‘Untouchables’) and therefore had NO association with skin colour or ‘Whiteness’. Strictly speaking, within its narrow Hindu usage – the term ‘Aryan’ – refers to someone who can ‘speak’ and ‘understand’ the language of the Vedas. Those who could not understand this language were excluded from this thought community and were referred to as ‘Anaryan’. As there were people with a light skin tone who were referred to as ‘Anaryan’ - this proves that the term ‘Aryan’ did not (and does not) refer to a ‘White’ skin colour. Buddha (Sanskrit-Pali) = बुद्ध Buddha (Chinese) = 佛 (Fo) The left-hand particle of the Chinese ideogram is ‘亻’ (ren2) which refers to a ‘person’. The right-hand particle is ‘弗’ (fu2) - which breaks down into the following three elements: 1) 弓 (gong1) = A bow – an arched (stringed) weapon used in hunting and warfare. 2) 丨(gun3) = To pass through – travel up and down – a unifier as in ‘number one’. 3) 丿(pie3) = To raise one’s head – to move from right to left (as in a ‘dropping’ stroke) - to abandon and discard that which is not needed. As the ancient scholars of China had to translate the unfamiliar Indian Buddhist terms very carefully – they often sought the guidance of visiting Indian Buddhist monks. This was a process of transmission that developed from the 1st century CE onward – and was still ongoing during the 5th and 6th centuries CE and beyond. These scholars were told EXACTLY what Buddhist terms meant and if they did not know – they would wait patiently for guidance. Eventually correct knowledge would arrive. This is why the original ‘meaning’ of the Sanskrit terms used within Buddhist ideology is clearly retained within the body of traditional Chinese ideograms. In the case of ‘Buddha’ (佛) is defined as someone (亻) who has mastered a complex art (such as ‘archery’ [弓] - which the Buddhist Suttas state the Buddha did study as a youth) - through which an ‘arrow’ (丨) is skilfully affixed. Then an appropriate effort is applied so that the two ends of the bow are drawn (taut) down toward the centre - and the ‘arrow’ is let fly so that it directly ‘hits’ (丿) the intended target. In the Buddhist Suttas – the Buddha describes self-cultivation as being similar to stringing an instrument. If the strings are too loose – the correct note cannot be produced. If the strings are too ‘tight’ - then the strings might ‘snap’ when played! Self-cultivation, therefore, requires the ‘correct’ amount of effort so that the required result is achieved. As the Buddha ‘knows’ this is the objective – and ‘knows’ how to achieve this objective – this correct ‘knowing’ is two-fold. There is the ‘knowing’ of the correct path and its methodology – and there is the ‘knowing’ that the following of this correct path bestows upon the earnest seeker. Although the Sanskrit term ‘बुद्’ (Aryan) is ‘phonetical’ - like the Western alphabet - no real internal structure regarding inherent (or historical) meaning can be gleamed from the dissecting of its constituent parts. For that meaning it is the corresponding Chinese ideogram that is used. As can be seen, basic dictionary definitions do not convey the full or intended meaning of the Sanskrit term ‘Buddha’ (बुद्). This word is said to be derived from the Sanskrit term ‘बुत’ (But) doubled – whilst also being related to the doubled term ‘बुद्ध’ (Buddh): a) बुत (But) = Idol and mistress. This implies a correct spiritual positioning (such as that implied through a religious icon or statue) and the corresponding social influence such an inner orientation generates in the outer world (similar as the power a strong woman accrues through her scheming and planning). b) बुद्ध (Buddh) = The ability to ‘understand’ - and to apply that understanding in the outer world. This suggests a perfect integration of ‘methodology’ and ‘application’ - of ‘theory’ and ‘objective’. The Sanskrit term ‘Buddha’ (बुद्) is generally taken to mean: i) Consciously ‘aware’. ii) Wise. iii) Intelligent. iv) Transcendentally ‘awake’. The Chinese ideogram 佛 (Fo) also suggests that a ‘bent’ arrow’ (丿) must be made ‘straight’ by tightly binding it with an already correct arrow (丨) - until the task is completed. There is a peculiar negative connotation associated with the Chinese term suggesting the term ‘no’ is being implied. This is not surprising as the Buddha taught exclusively by explaining what enlightenment ‘is NOT’ - and not what enlightenment IS’! Nirvana, therefore, is the state of mind, body and environment generated when greed, hatred and delusion is no longer present in the mind and body of the practitioner. Although the far-right ideologues cherry-pick to attempt to make material reality match their deficient academic model – the spurious ‘linguistic’ associations that may (or may not) exist between ancient Indian words and words deriving from other cultures – does NOT automatically correspond to those different ethnic groupings sharing any systemic cultural link with India or its spiritual practices. Apparent linguistic associations can be found throughout the different and diverse cultures of the world – but this fact in itself does NOT mean that Yoga, Hinduism, Jainism or Buddhism or any cultural construct - existed (or originated) in these non-Indian places. What this phenomenon might suggest is that humanity once possessed a common (unified) culture before it diversified into the ethnic-specific variations observable today.
0 Comments
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!
|
AuthorAdrian Chan-Wyles PhD - Political Commissar and BMA (UK) Historian & Researcher. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|