Update: Directive Number 13 – The BMA (UK) Supports Russia’s Anti-Fascist ‘Special Operation’3/8/2022
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.’ |
AuthorAdrian Chan-Wyles PhD - Political Commissar and BMA (UK) Historian & Researcher. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|