The Case for Revolutionary [Secular] Monasticism!
Author’s Note: Human perception exists irrespective as to whether it is muddled by the fog of religion – as Lenin would put it – or not. As human-beings, so-to-speak – we are stuck with it. Before becoming a great Revolutionary – Joseph Stalin attended Seminary School in Georgia. The mother of Mao Zedong was a devout Buddhist and was often seen taking a young Mao to various temples (during China’s long struggle for freedom, the People’s Liberation Army often found sanctuary within the grounds of Buddhist Temples). Throughout (modern) Socialist China and North Korea, religion has adapted to perform two distinct functions:
1) Assist the Socialist Revolution.
2) Maintain and preserve its own traditions free of greed, hatred and delusions, and any pretensions to political power and wealth.
The awareness of “that which perceives” (essentially by constructively “looking within”) has nothing do with “looking without” with envious eyes. When observed in this manner, the Socialist Revolution returns religion to its pristine “spiritual” function – a situation all religionists should rejoice at hearing - but of course, this is not always the case - as can be seen with the usual reaction of any bourgeois ideologue. In this case, the bourgeois lament the loss of political power and wealth the Church used to wield (or would like to wield) if given half the chance.
Within Asia, there is the added (historical) complication of “racism” - and the spread of an unfamiliar (Eurocentric) religion acting in the service of a hostile foreign power. Perhaps what is being said in this article is that “spiritually” should be viewed as distinct from “religion” – and that the usefulness of the former over the latter for the working-class should be recognised in the fight for Liberation and Socialism. Whatever the case, (each reader must decide for themselves), I would recommend the (2002) book by John Raines entitled “Marx on Religion” – as well as seeking-out reliable knowledge concerning the good research work carried-out in the USSR – particularly during the tenure of Joseph Stalin (at least three Soviet Republics were “Buddhist”).
Having visited the former home of Charles Darwin (Down House) a number of times over the years, I have seen the copy of Das Kapital presented to him by Karl Marx during the 1870s (the pages “cut”, opened, and read) – and have read some extracts of the still unpublished letters exchanged between the two. The Darwin family appear reticent to go public in admitting the true extent of the friendship, good-will and agreement that existed between the two thinkers (the author John Raines is of the opinion the Darwin family prevented Marx dedicating Das Kapital to Darwin). The Darwin family, however, did accept a medal from the USSR in 1959 commemorating the 100th year anniversary of the publishing of “On the Origin of the Species” – whilst issuing a statement rejecting and repudiating any right-wing associations. Finally, a decisive argument against theistic religion can be found in a logical assessment of the content of “Leviticus” in the Old Testament. This content purports to be comprised of divine instruction regarding illness and treatment – and yet its content is primitive, superstitious, and ignorant – indeed, not transcending in anyway the basic level of human knowledge prevalent at the time. Surely, an all-knowing and timeless theistic entity would be able to provide the “chosen” people with a knowledge that transcends even the most advanced scientific understanding (even greater than that yet to be developed in the secular world). The fact that this did not happen proves that this text was conceived in the minds of men - and written-down using their hands. The most advanced human knowledge (circa 500 BCE) is obviously ridiculous in its ignorant content - when compared to what is understood to be true today.
In reality, (accordig to Engels) the Judeo-Christian God is an imagined slave master. This is because Christianity emerged from a Jewish population enslaved by the Romans (it can be similarly argued that the tribal polytheism of early Judaism evolved into a monotheistic entity for exactly the same reason). God, like the slave master, possesses the power of life and death over those he enslaves. Therefore, it is in the best interests of those enslaved not to act (or think) in a manner that invites his wrath. Christian monastics have developed this pious attitude to a fine point of institutional deference. A good monk expects nothing and yet provides God (his imagined slave master) with everything he requires. A good slave must maintain the status quo of his master by only interacting with others in a manner which continuously represents his owner's will. This is the humility of Christian monasticism. A Christian monk or nun volunteers to live like a slave.
The Buddha, however, firmly rejected the Brahmanic equivalent of this Christian humility - and instead replaced an imagined slave master with a meditative method for realising how the mind functions. This is the foundation of logic and reason. This article suggests that a secular monasticism, similar to that found within Buddhism, possesses the potential of psychologically freeing the working class from the socio-economic conditions it happens to be born within. This is a useful attribute that could be used by certain branches of the working class in the pursuance of the establishment of a Socialist Revolution.
ACW (25.4.2024)
1) Assist the Socialist Revolution.
2) Maintain and preserve its own traditions free of greed, hatred and delusions, and any pretensions to political power and wealth.
The awareness of “that which perceives” (essentially by constructively “looking within”) has nothing do with “looking without” with envious eyes. When observed in this manner, the Socialist Revolution returns religion to its pristine “spiritual” function – a situation all religionists should rejoice at hearing - but of course, this is not always the case - as can be seen with the usual reaction of any bourgeois ideologue. In this case, the bourgeois lament the loss of political power and wealth the Church used to wield (or would like to wield) if given half the chance.
Within Asia, there is the added (historical) complication of “racism” - and the spread of an unfamiliar (Eurocentric) religion acting in the service of a hostile foreign power. Perhaps what is being said in this article is that “spiritually” should be viewed as distinct from “religion” – and that the usefulness of the former over the latter for the working-class should be recognised in the fight for Liberation and Socialism. Whatever the case, (each reader must decide for themselves), I would recommend the (2002) book by John Raines entitled “Marx on Religion” – as well as seeking-out reliable knowledge concerning the good research work carried-out in the USSR – particularly during the tenure of Joseph Stalin (at least three Soviet Republics were “Buddhist”).
Having visited the former home of Charles Darwin (Down House) a number of times over the years, I have seen the copy of Das Kapital presented to him by Karl Marx during the 1870s (the pages “cut”, opened, and read) – and have read some extracts of the still unpublished letters exchanged between the two. The Darwin family appear reticent to go public in admitting the true extent of the friendship, good-will and agreement that existed between the two thinkers (the author John Raines is of the opinion the Darwin family prevented Marx dedicating Das Kapital to Darwin). The Darwin family, however, did accept a medal from the USSR in 1959 commemorating the 100th year anniversary of the publishing of “On the Origin of the Species” – whilst issuing a statement rejecting and repudiating any right-wing associations. Finally, a decisive argument against theistic religion can be found in a logical assessment of the content of “Leviticus” in the Old Testament. This content purports to be comprised of divine instruction regarding illness and treatment – and yet its content is primitive, superstitious, and ignorant – indeed, not transcending in anyway the basic level of human knowledge prevalent at the time. Surely, an all-knowing and timeless theistic entity would be able to provide the “chosen” people with a knowledge that transcends even the most advanced scientific understanding (even greater than that yet to be developed in the secular world). The fact that this did not happen proves that this text was conceived in the minds of men - and written-down using their hands. The most advanced human knowledge (circa 500 BCE) is obviously ridiculous in its ignorant content - when compared to what is understood to be true today.
In reality, (accordig to Engels) the Judeo-Christian God is an imagined slave master. This is because Christianity emerged from a Jewish population enslaved by the Romans (it can be similarly argued that the tribal polytheism of early Judaism evolved into a monotheistic entity for exactly the same reason). God, like the slave master, possesses the power of life and death over those he enslaves. Therefore, it is in the best interests of those enslaved not to act (or think) in a manner that invites his wrath. Christian monastics have developed this pious attitude to a fine point of institutional deference. A good monk expects nothing and yet provides God (his imagined slave master) with everything he requires. A good slave must maintain the status quo of his master by only interacting with others in a manner which continuously represents his owner's will. This is the humility of Christian monasticism. A Christian monk or nun volunteers to live like a slave.
The Buddha, however, firmly rejected the Brahmanic equivalent of this Christian humility - and instead replaced an imagined slave master with a meditative method for realising how the mind functions. This is the foundation of logic and reason. This article suggests that a secular monasticism, similar to that found within Buddhism, possesses the potential of psychologically freeing the working class from the socio-economic conditions it happens to be born within. This is a useful attribute that could be used by certain branches of the working class in the pursuance of the establishment of a Socialist Revolution.
ACW (25.4.2024)
Fear is the enemy of humanity – and all forms of life. If fear permeates existence – life is both shortened and its living is much harder. Fear equals enhanced and congealed suffering. Whereas, within natural science, all (physical) matter is light-energy slowed-down – the rubric of fear (which is the main [underlying] constituent of greed, hatred and delusion), encourages the fabric of existential life to be harsh, difficult and excessively oppressive. The environment of physical matter, when expressed as a human-designed society, is nothing but congealed fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of the known, fear of death, fear of pain, fear of hunger – and on it goes. Fear has motivated humanity to bond together and collectively strive to confront the non-certainty of existence as a means to build a wall – real or otherwise – to act as a barrier between the bodies of each human inhabitant and that which might do them harm.
Herein enters the concept of the primitive totem. Invariably a tree-trunk carved and chiselled to resemble a human-being or somekind of imagined being residing in a hidden dimension. Furthermore, no matter where the totem has emerged across the world – invariably it is associated with (successful) female conception, pregnancy, and birth. At a time when everything was mystical – there was no definitive knowledge regarding how biological processes operate and work. In China, for instance, women in ancient (matriarchal) China associated conception not only with the physical act of sexual intercourse – but assumed the Sun (which nourished the ground and every living creature) contributed to the generating of new life. The chain of logic is clear to see - even if it is predicated upon a false premise. There was an apparent and highly intricate connection between collective humanity and an embracing nature.
The human mind-set is embracing of the natural world it inhabits. Human identity is collective as a reaction to the all-embracing reality of the natural world. The human-body is constructed of matter and has emerged from biological processes inherent within the natural world. Human-awareness exists inside the physical body. The physical body acts as a barrier between human consciousness and the harsh reality of the material environment. The human mind reflects the harsh reality of the material environment as this compiles the imagined content generated in the brain’s interior. The human mind can remember (imagine) the past, perceive the present, and predict (imagine) the future. Two of these three perspectives are purely “imaginative” – with the third being a product of immediate cognition. Of course, within seconds that which is current soon becomes imaginary – and debatable as to interpretation. What may have happened soon becomes a matter of opinion - and quite often “disputed”.
Within modern reality, that is a contemporary Britain which is bourgeois and individualistic, the construction of society is primarily scientific-based – but the humanity which inhabits it still possesses an identical mind-set as that which operated around 10,000 years ago. Religion, although out-of-date for many people, still exercises an implicit (Judeo-Christian) influence. Religion no longer inhabits the privileged position it once did, mediating between humanity and nature. And yet for many, religion still exercises a relevance as a private activity. This is understandable – as bourgeois society separates humanity from itself (breaking-up cultural collectivity) – and removes humanity from possessing a direct relationship with nature. This ensures, through the agency of “Rights”, to ensnare humanity in a perpetual spiral of “individuality”. Religion, like nature, is no longer permitted to exercise its “collective” capability. This is why Marx identifies religion as being a matter of a “private” affair.
If religion is no longer a mediator of humanity and nature – why does it continue to survive? As an individualistic device, religion runs parallel with the art-science of psychology and the science of psychiatry. The strength of religion is that it is self-applied in the modern bourgeois State. Whereas the tribal and feudal society provides a religious understanding a priori – as an unquestioned view of the world that cannot be questioned, contradicted, given-up or altered in anyway – religion for the individual is a passing fad that can be pursued for decades, years, months, weeks, days, or hours – the choice is entirely up to individual choice. Furthermore, ALL religious material from any tradition can be individually appropriated and used in any discernible manner as needs demand. This activity springs from the idea that the bourgeois State grants a “Right” which permits “Freedom of Thought”. This allows for the private belief in religion – or for the individual to hold a non-belief (or atheistic) attitude toward religious teachings. Religion only exists if the individual allows such an entity to exist through the activity of their mind and body in the environment. The bourgeois State does not inherently believe that religion exists – and that individuals possess the right to reject it – but rather that the State takes the position of impartiality. Whether religion exists (or is relevant) for individuals – depends entirely upon the viewpoints and opinions of the individual who is exercising their rights. Religion is not banned – as it continues to exist in a disempowered manner compared to its totalitarian manifestation in the past – but whether its influence is permitted into individual lives is dependent upon choice.
A Socialist society once again unites a humanity enthused with scientific certainty with the natural world which it inhabits. The unnatural bourgeois separation of humanity from the natural world through the agency of controlling “Rights” is transcended and brought to an end. The bourgeois falsehood is class-related and is designed to keep 10% or 20% of society in a materially privileged position – through the oppression of the other 90% or 80%. Rights within a bourgeois society only operate fully if the individual has access to high levels of finance and political influence. Without these two important attributes, individuals are oppressed and kept in an impoverished and subordinate position. As a politicised religion has aligned itself (historically) with the capitalist system and the bourgeois political establishment – it is this politicised religion which Marx calls to be abolished as it has the ability to permeate every home and mind in a way unique within social manipulating ideologies. It is this edifice of corrupted religion that the working-class must dismantle. Whether this includes all the underlying aspects of historical religion is a matter of opinion. The more monastic or meditative elements of contemplative religion may well become a powerful weapon for those aspects of the Proletariat for which religion is still a powerful symbol for egalitarianism and progression.
The ”void” realised within Buddhist philosophy is in fact the essence of the immensity of the (surrounding) material universe - prior to its perceptual differentiation (”form”). Therefore, a mind devoid of differentiated content – is a mind resting in the timeless appreciation of a materialism yet to dichotomised into its myriad dimensions. Ordinary human perception, that is the manner in the way the human brain has evolved due to environmental pressure, allows only for “content” over “essence” – so that the empty essence of the material universe is permanently obscured by movement of the surface mind. Thoughts in the head (that possess no correspondence with external equivalents) – are mistaken for genuine objects (or distinct entities) existing as independent objects in the material universe. This is the “inverted” mind-set that Karl Marx identified as the essence of bourgeois hypocrisy and the underlying ideology that justifies a Church enthused with greed and a perpetual drive to continuously acquire political power. This is a clear inversion and diversion away from the Rule of St Benedict and the requirement of its monastic adherence to cultivate both inner and outer “silence” whilst the mind is “stilled” – why these Christian monks quietly await the “Grace” of God. Such a practice permits the immensity of matter to be realised – even if this immensity is mistaken as a “spirit” distinct from the very matter it most obviously represents.
The historical Buddha, particularly in such texts as the Lankavatara Sutra, discusses the transition of human perception as moving away from inversion to non-inversion (the “turning-about” within the deepest recesses). This position is not only apparent in the Mahayana Sutras – but is a consistent position throughout the (older) Pali Suttas of the Theravada School. Not only is this the case for the message implicit within the Dhamma – but is also found throughout the developed content of the Abhidhamma. Generations of wisdom developed by thousands of Buddhist monastics have maintained and refined this point of view. The default position of human perception is that of attachment to the thought obscuration of the surface mind whilst lacking no understanding (or experience) or the underlying “empty” essence that proceeds all ideation. Whereas Marx seeks to reform the thought processes through an education that develops a new perspective (the observation of concrete matter and its processes - replaces unfounded imagination and misplacement of attention) – the Buddha advocates the “stilling” of the surface thought processes so that the underlying “void” can be discerned. Once this new understanding is stabilised in the Buddhist system – then the surface mind is permitted to operate once again (so that the external environment is perceived) - without the inverted attention being present. Human perception integrates the “void” with the “form” so that matter (and its correct perception) is forever present. This realignment of perception develops knowledge and wisdom in the form of logic and reason. It is this logic and reason (arrived at through the adoption of a slightly different method) which Marxist education passes on to enlightened workers.
When King Henry VIII deprived his English subjects of their ancient monastic traditions during the 1530s onwards – a great and cohesive fabric was abruptly removed from the land. This “Catholic” institution had provided a collective organisation of English society from top to bottom and affected virtually every component of an English person’s inner and outer existence. The subsequent development of Protestantism – the Western Church that denies Papal Authority and strips its altars of all Catholic influence – denies the validity of monasticism as a method of self-cultivation. For hundreds of years, the English – and by implication all other Protestants – have been seeking a substitute for this Catholic institution that caters to their sense of “individualism”, profit-seeking and sense of supposed intellectual superiority. Today, this influence engulfs much of the Western world and explains why Buddhism appears to be the replacement institute of choice. Things are not as straightforward as they may seem, as this appropriation of Buddhism has stripped the Dhamma of all its Asian identity. Buddhism, despite being a collective (Asian) and anti-greed ideology – has been co-opted and distorted so that all its Asian influence (other than the superficial) has been removed – including the (non-White) authority structures that define what Buddhism “is” and “is not”. The natural (sharing) collectivity of Asian Buddhism has been replaced with the stark “individualism” that defines a ruthless, capitalist society. This explains how superficial Buddhism outside the control of the Asian community functions in the West – as a vehicle for play-acting and pseudo-monasticism (which confirms but does not diminish the capitalist status quo). Westerners who train in an authentic Buddhism tradition either in the West or Asia – often achieve an appropriate understanding of the Dhamma and become proficient in the practice of Buddhist monasticism (which uproots all greed, hatred and delusion). This is how an individualist might well re-discover the collectivity his or her culture has transitioned away from. A collectivity that is the essence of Scientific Socialism.
Being told what to do (guidance) - and knowing what to do (leadership) - are two vitally important components of both the Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary condition. This is the opposite of bourgeois inversion and the pinnacle of this delusion as found in the functioning of US anti-intellectualism. Capitalist oppression is dependent upon the masses being thoroughly controlled in mind, body and environment – with this control mechanism being premised upon disinformation, diversion and distraction. For instance, the two awful books written by the British Trotskyite – George Orwell – namely “1984” and “Animal Farm” are modes of disinformation (falsely disguised as “good literature”) designed to inoculate the minds of English-speaking children against (Marxist-Leninist) Socialism. What Orwell is deceitfully doing is reflecting the very real corrupt heart of predatory capitalism and misplacing it into the centre of a theoretical Socialist State. Every demeaning attribute of capitalism cured by Socialism – is incorrectly presented as being generated and perpetuated from within Socialism. According to the utter stupidity of Orwell – the medicine is causing the disease – such is the inverted mind-set of the bourgeoisie. This explains why these two terribly written books are perennially re-published from one generation to the next – whilst well-researched tomes exposing the deliberate misrepresentation of Socialist history are quietly shifted to one-side and then hidden away never to be seen again. Realising that this is happening is an important factor that empowers Proletariat understanding. This is why the Proletariat must cultivate reliable and appropriate knowledge and wisdom (prajna). In other words, a pristine grasp of how dialectics operate within a society, why such a functionality is happening, and what action must be undertaken to put things right from a working-class perspective. Although it is the physical world where decisive action must be taken – much of this battle unfolds within the fabric of the mind.
With the advent of the internet – US anti-intellectualism has permeated the Western world with no limit – as the bourgeois Western governments view American Exceptionalism as a main plank in the bourgeois class war. Bourgeois class war is designed to take-on and destroy any attempt by the proletariat to develop and to form hegemony in any political sphere. The destruction of indigenous United Kingdom and Western European culture is viewed by the bourgeoisie as a price worth paying in the class war of preventing a Socialist Revolution - and the means of production changing hands. The workers will remain powerless and subject to bourgeois domination and tyranny. The cultivation of inner stillness allows the cognitive space for this reality to be understood. This class warfare monasticism allows the working class to outmanoeuvre the oppressive (outer) bourgeois system from within. This is an important observation as the bourgeoise places all its forces in the outer world – concentrated in a single and predictable formation. Yes – this formation is formidable and dangerous if confronted – but falls apart from within (and below) when its structure is understood. It is this realisation that allowed Kim Il Sung, Mao Zedong and Nyugen Giap to inflict terrible military defeats upon the US – a defeat that undermined the stability of the psychology of the US. It allowed Marshal Zhukov and Joseph Stalin to defeat the Nazi Germans (and their allies) – as well as VI Lenin and MI Kalinin – both of whom inflicted humiliating military defeats upon the invading Western Forces of the “Entente” (1918-1921) in Soviet Russia. Only a greedy Church not interested in the spirituality it advocates – would resist the reality of this demanded inner development. Inner development is as politically powerful as a barrel of a gun!
Secular monasticism is the (non-theocratic) act of being aware of the existential moment without any distraction from psychological models of the past, present, or future existence. This scientific approach to cognitive hygiene deconstructs past psycho-physical conditioning and removes unhealthy tension from the physical structures of the body. Of course, history records that a number of theocratic seekers from various spiritual traditions have transcended the very religious teachings that guided their practice – arriving in exactly the same free and all-embracing realisation. Indeed, from the advanced literature of some of these paths – this might well be the preferred outcome. However, it is also true that the religious impulse can be ignored completely or bypassed if the (secular) science of monasticism is applied to the mind and body (avoiding the trap of religious “cults” such as that surrounding the murderous antics of the 14th Dalai Lama or Li Honghi, etc). This sees physical discipline combined with some type of psychological method of self-cultivation (whatever that might be). Perhaps this is a more substantial method of self-applied psycho-therapy. Whatever the case, power is added to this endeavour when the prevailing society recognises and supports the validity of such a practice. In reality, secular monasticism is a modification of the need to perform disciplined labour geared toward a specific objective. Like any form of mind-body training – the technique must be properly mastered through repetition and correct guidance. Until Socialism replaces capitalism – and Communism emerges – secular monasticism might well serve as an interesting option to assist in the overcoming of alienation. In the meantime, the example of the ancient Irish Chieftan “Miliucc” can be bought to mind. Instead of agreeing to convert himself (and his Celtic tribe) to the alien teachings of the marauding Catholic Church (led by the former Scottish slave “Patrick”) – he instead preferred to barricade himself into his home – and set fire to it – such was his strength of resistance. After-all, the monasteries of Celtic Christianity (spread throughout Eire and the West of Britain) maintained very good relations with the surrounding non-Christian people – but this was not the case with the later (invading) Catholic Churches which actively oppressed the followers of indigenous belief systems (Catholic monasteries would not arrive for some time).
John Raines states that the bulk of Karl Marx’s writings upon the subject of religion were produced between 1844-1849 – between his marriage and eventual exile to England (where Marx spent the rest of his life). This is true in one sense (these writings are quite condensed) but not entirely accurate - as Marx wrote about religion throughout nearly all of his writings premised upon the fact that the bourgeois operates from exactly the same inverted consciousness that defines religious theism. For instance, religious comments can be located throughout his Grundrisse (1857) and Das Kapital (1867), etc, with Buddhism being specifically mentioned in his “The German Ideology” (completed in early 1946), and again in his 1857 article for the New York Tribune, entitled “Sepoy Revolt in India”. Not only this, but the work of Friechrich Engels must not be ignored whilst assessing the subject of religion. John Raines states that Engels’ work entitled the “Dialectics of Nature” was written in 1873 – but evidence suggests that Engels in fact contributed to this manuscript between 1872-1882 – before finally publishing the finished text during 1883 (the year of the death of Marx). Within this text, Marx and Engels discuss Early Buddhist philosophy – comparing it favourably with the dialectics of Classical Greek philosophy. Prior to this, however, Marx had received German translations regarding Buddhist philosophy from his friend Karl Koppen in 1861 – and in 1866 confided to his friend - Antoinette Philips – that he (Marx) had been “emptying his mind” of all its content following the Buddhist method (surely an early example of ‘lay’ Buddhist monasticism in the West). Not only does Marx mention the subject of religion to a far greater degree than John Raines suggests, but Marx also discusses both Buddhism and Hinduism (including Islam upon occasion) – proving that neither Marx nor Engels were trapped within a Eurocentric model – even though reliable knowledge about the “other” was thin on the ground.
As the followers of Christianity make no secret of the supposed "superiority" of the theology that defines their beliefs - it is imporrtant to juxtapose these assumptions with the teachings of the very different Buddhist philosophy. The question is whether all forms of monasticism can arrive at a common-knowledge of agreement. The empty mind ground of Buddhism is not a God - but a natural force of nature - like gravity. As such, although it is realisable - it is indifferent to the presence of human beings and human perception. The developed theology of the Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that God cannot be realised through an act of will. God can only be worshipped whilst faith assumes he exists (hidden in a different dimension). A monastic might empty their mind and body to patiently wait for God to grace them with his presence - but such monastics cannot directly realise God through will power alone. God is the empty mind ground misunderstood by theists. The empty mind ground has no will or special powers. It cannot act independently upon the world or bestow blessings upon the faithful. The gap between observer and observed is artificially filled with false dogma and misleading theology. This is what happens when reality is misunderstood. Through an act of will the Buddhist can realise and integrate with the empty mind ground. As the Buddha realised, there is no need for theology - or a belief in Gods - when false dichotomies are not supported.
If an individual is relatively "free" in the bourgeois sense - that is to say lives a life of individualistic self-worth with personal suffering being at a minimum level - then what does it mean to voluntarily become a monastic? Is it the case that a free person is chosing to live like a slave - or could such an undertaking be viewed as an exercise in a stern self-discipline? As the inner fabric of the human mind is "collective" in nature - does the act of monastic introspection suggest an active seeking of "Socialism" within the heart of capitalist exploitation? The only way monasticism can lead to individualism (and right-wing politics) is if the system guiding and directing the training regimen is inherently corrupt. In such a case, the inner fabric of the mind is not cultivated - but rather purposely ignored and obscured by a delusive intellection. Corrupt monastic institutions in Buddhist countries (usually situated in - or near - large cities full of rich Western tourists) are like this - whilst the Roman Catholic Church is notorious for openly supporting the political far-right. Delusive distortions of monasticism should not distract from the fact that monasticism can, if used correctly, clear and strengthen the mind and body, whilst generating a Socialist friendly interior from which an outer Socialist society can be developed.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2024.
Further Reading:
Friedrich Engels: Works of Frederick Engels 1894 - On the History of Early Christianity (www.marxists.org)
Sukumar Dutt, Early Buddhist Monachism, Asia Publishing House, (1924)
Paul Delatte, Rule of St Benedict - A Commentary, Burns Oats and Washbourne Limited, (1921)
Trevor Ling: Buddha, Marx and God, MacMillan, (1979)
Trevor Ling: The Buddha, Temple Smith, (1973)
Trevor Ling: Karl Marx and Religion in Europe and India, (1980)
David Lyon: Karl Marx - A Christian Appreciation of His Life and Thought, Lion, (1979)
John Raines, Marx on Religion, Temple Univesity Press, (2002)
Sri Ramakrishna Moth, Monasticism - Ideals and Traditions, Sri Ramakrishna Moth Press, (1991)
Paul Delatte, Rule of St Benedict - A Commentary, Burns Oats and Washbourne Limited, (1921)
Trevor Ling: Buddha, Marx and God, MacMillan, (1979)
Trevor Ling: The Buddha, Temple Smith, (1973)
Trevor Ling: Karl Marx and Religion in Europe and India, (1980)
David Lyon: Karl Marx - A Christian Appreciation of His Life and Thought, Lion, (1979)
John Raines, Marx on Religion, Temple Univesity Press, (2002)
Sri Ramakrishna Moth, Monasticism - Ideals and Traditions, Sri Ramakrishna Moth Press, (1991)