The Grundrisse of the Buddha
By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD
Author’s Note: The Buddha’s method tends to be ‘inverted’ in the West so that it takes on the familiar Christian theological outlook. This misrepresentation is compounded by such Asian commentators as DT Suzuki who insisted on interpreting the Yogacara School as being ‘idealist’, when in fact the founders of this school agreed with the Buddha when he stated the mind is ‘impermanent’. If the mind is impermanent (according to the Buddha), then how can reducing everything to the ‘mind’ be considered an answer to anything? Genuine Buddhism is non-theistic and rejects the inverted mindset of the religionists and the bourgeoisie. The inverted mindset is yet another area where Buddhism and Marxism interface, as both the Buddha and Marx rejected idealism. Idealism is the mistaking of an image generated in the mind, for a real image existing in the environment. This is how Marx critiques the 'inverted' religious mindset in Grundrisse:
'In this way Hegel fell into the illusion of conceiving the real as the product of thought concentrating itself, whereas the method of rising from the abstract to the cocrete is only the way in which thought appropriates the concrete, reproduces it as the concrete in the mind. But this is by no means the process by which the concrete itself comes into being.'
A typical saying of the Buddha states:
'If a monk while walking, standing, sitting or reclining, is free from greed amd hate, from sloth and torper, from restlessness and worry, and has discarded sceptical doubt, then his will has become strong and impregnable; his mindfulness is alert and unclouded; his body calm and unexcited; his mind concentrated and collected. A monk who in such a manner ever and again shows earnest endeavour and moral shame, is called enegetic and resolute.'
Religionists imagine a god I their mind, and then assume that this psychic construct exists in the external world independent of the mind that created it. The Buddhist Suttas are full of examples where the Buddha states that a ‘soul’ (atman) does not exist, and to believe there is a soul is to exercise ‘wrong thought’. More than this, however, but the Buddha’s method posits material reality as a prerequisite for the existence of the mind. From physical conception in the womb sensation, perception, thought formation and consciousness are generated. Although there are a number of versions of the Chain of Dependent Origination throughout the Buddhist Suttas, all suggest a cause and effect schematic in the physical world. For Marx and Buddha it is physical production that is the underlying key to reality. ACW (22.6.2020)
'In this way Hegel fell into the illusion of conceiving the real as the product of thought concentrating itself, whereas the method of rising from the abstract to the cocrete is only the way in which thought appropriates the concrete, reproduces it as the concrete in the mind. But this is by no means the process by which the concrete itself comes into being.'
A typical saying of the Buddha states:
'If a monk while walking, standing, sitting or reclining, is free from greed amd hate, from sloth and torper, from restlessness and worry, and has discarded sceptical doubt, then his will has become strong and impregnable; his mindfulness is alert and unclouded; his body calm and unexcited; his mind concentrated and collected. A monk who in such a manner ever and again shows earnest endeavour and moral shame, is called enegetic and resolute.'
Religionists imagine a god I their mind, and then assume that this psychic construct exists in the external world independent of the mind that created it. The Buddhist Suttas are full of examples where the Buddha states that a ‘soul’ (atman) does not exist, and to believe there is a soul is to exercise ‘wrong thought’. More than this, however, but the Buddha’s method posits material reality as a prerequisite for the existence of the mind. From physical conception in the womb sensation, perception, thought formation and consciousness are generated. Although there are a number of versions of the Chain of Dependent Origination throughout the Buddhist Suttas, all suggest a cause and effect schematic in the physical world. For Marx and Buddha it is physical production that is the underlying key to reality. ACW (22.6.2020)
‘Consumption is also immediately production, just as in nature the consumption of the elements and chemical substances is the production of the plant. It is clear that in taking in food, for example, which is a form of consumption, the human being produces his own body. But this is also true of every kind of consumption which in one way or another produces human beings in some particular aspect. Consumptive production. But, says economics, this production which is identical with consumption is secondary, it is derived from the destruction of the prior product. In the former, the producer objectified himself, in the latter, the object he created personifies itself. Hence this consumptive production – even though it is an immediate unity of production and consumption – is essentially different from production proper. The immediate unity in which production coincides with consumption and consumption with production leaves their immediate duality intact.’
Karl Marl: Grundrisse, (1857-1858), Introduction
The German term ‘Grundrisse’ is often translated as ‘Foundation’, and although this is entirely correct, this title needs a greater examination, as ‘Grundrisse’ implies more than just a solid foundation. From a literal perspective, therefore, Marx used this term to denote a ‘floor-plan’, a ‘ground-plan’, or more succinctly a ‘grounding’ to his socio-economic theory. Grundrisse is both a) a solid foundation, and b) a definite ‘placement’ and ‘layout’ of its constituents. Grundrisse is nothing less than the ‘Ground-work’ for the socio-economic theory of Karl Marx. In this regard, the Grundrisse appears to be a preparation for - and forerunner - to the better known ‘Das Kapital’ published in 1867. Grundrisse is comprised of seven notebooks, the content of which was gathered in 1857 and 1858. This book was not translated and published until 1939-1941 in the Soviet Union, where it was known as the ‘Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy’. Grundrisse is important for Marxist studies as its content is believed to form a conceptual bridge between the earlier work of Marx and his finished (and fully ‘mature’) Das Kapital. As a consequence, many find the concepts of the Grundrisse easier to understand and to grasp, as a preparation to delving into the monumental Das Kapital (in its numerous volumes).
According to Marx himself, his socio-economic theory proves three distinct and unique aspects which are 1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production, 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that the dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society. Marx formulated ‘historical materialism’ as opposed to the historical trend of historical idealism. For Marx, physical existence has a ‘physical’ origination, with cause and effect regulating the procedure. Procreation is itself ‘production’, as the basic human unit of an individual is generated through the physical act of coitus. Coitus, as a form of labour even if it is distinguished by other human attributes such as ‘desire’, ‘attraction’ and ‘attachment’, etc. is nevertheless a product of volition, or ‘will power’. As a living worker is ‘conscious’ (and not ‘dead’), all labour performed with the body is the product of a mind that decides to perform the labour, and to direct the body in a certain creativity direction. Human bodies generate new human bodies through procreation (historical materialism), whereas the historical idealism that has been in operation since the dawn of time, has often ascribed a ‘mystical’, or ‘spiritual’ origin to each new life that ignores or plays down the significance of the sexual act (despite the fact that outside of theistic religion, no new life can start without physical conception).
Marx rejects historical idealism as being unrealistic and unscientific. The Buddha, too, also rejects historical idealism, but in his case, this idealism is that applicable to ancient India, involving polytheism, polygamy, human and animal sacrifice, and differing kinds of primitive worship (which often ascribe an essential spirit to inanimate objects of trees, etc). The Buddha claimed that he had psychologically and physically experienced all the known spiritual paths of his day, and that none were complete – there were levels of realisation beyond those suggested by these schools of thought. The thinking of Marx and Buddha interface at the point of ‘Grundrisse’ or ‘Ground-plan’. Of course, the recognition of these similarities between Early Buddhism and Classical Marxism is not the same as suggesting that both systems are the same, as they are not. However, the extent to which Marx and the Buddha reflect one another’s thought processes is impressive and at times stunning. I would suggest that the underlying (logical) structure of Marxist ideology and Buddhist thought are identical, even if the conclusions are diametrically opposed. The glaring contradiction is that where Marx seeks to change the physical world through Revolution, the Buddha, with an equal certainty, advises his disciples to ‘leave’ the very same physical world, or to seriously limit one’s participation within it. A Marxist-worker changes the world through their labour, whereas a Buddhist-worker changes the way he or she psychologically and physically ‘relates’ to the world. The former dynamically engages in the world and transforms it, whilst the latter passively withdraws from the world, and changes the interior of their minds. The Buddha and Marx recognise the physical world as the basis for existence, and both agree that directed ‘labour’ is the way within which change is made. Whereas the Marxian model positively changes the world, the Buddhistic model negatively seeks to change the world. Just as the Marxist enters the world, the Buddhist leaves it, but this is not achieved overnight and there is much overlapping common ground in play. These two methods are related versions of soft materialism (where consciousness and matter are acknowledged as working together).
Marx discusses over and over again how production creates, maintains and changes the physical world that humanity exits within. He explains the world as it is – being the historical product of inherited socio-economic conditions – and explains how physical reality can be transformed into a state of a) Socialism, and b) Communism. Communism is nothing less than a collective nirvana – a perfected outer world within which perfected individuals enjoy a fulfilling and happy life! This is why every practising Buddhist is a Socialist in reality and a Communist in potential. The Buddha advocated a personally realised enlightenment attained within a supportive community (Sangha). Although all the hard work is individually carried-out on the meditation mat, this is no different to the individual worker carrying-out his or her allotted task in the factory, farm or shop, etc. Work is work. Marx aims his nirvana throughout the entirety of society and he frees that society from the yoke of formal religion. Indeed, conventional religion is viewed as a hindrance to this process due to its primitive attitudes, practices and beliefs. The Buddha also rejects conventional religion, and expresses a plan for his Dharma to spread throughout society and thereby transform the world. To be specific, the Buddha’s ‘Grundrisse’ is found in his Four Noble Truths, and the Chain of Dependent Origination. Marx and Buddha appear to be using the same methodological inner structure in similar but different ways. They are applying the same type of thinking to achieve distinct but related objectives. Marx and Buddha are advocating historical materialism in their own way, but whereas Marx rejects religion from the beginning, the Buddha (who also rejects religion), actually engages the religious thinking of those who still believe in what Marx would term historical idealism. Unlike Marx, the Buddha attempts to wean his disciples off of their reliance upon theism and superstition, etc. Marxism and Buddhism are expressed through very clear ‘Ground-plans’ (Grundrisse) that are materialist in nature, and logically designed and rationally presented. Indeed, an argument could be made that it was the Buddha who first developed the idea of ‘historical materialism’, and that Karl Marx borrowed this idea and more fully applied it to the socio-economic arena.
Whereas Marx strikes idealism down immediately, the Buddha is in a slightly different position. It is clear from the tone and direction of the Buddha’s teachings that he is attempting to construct a historical materialist interpretation of physical reality, and how-to achieve a psychological understanding of it. As a consequence, the Buddha carefully picks his way through many of the dominant ‘idealist’ concepts prevalent during his lifetime. He entertains the idea of polytheism – mentioning hundreds of different gods – but things are not what they seem. Many of the supposed gods he mentions do not exist within Brahmanism, and appear to be expressions indicating what today would be defined as ‘psychological’ states of mind. This is how the Buddha uses the superstition of previous eras to overcome this ignorance during his lifetime. His disciples are encouraged to stop seeing imaginary gods lurking in the physical shadows, and instead apply a critical thinking to their own minds (which are changeable and difficult to control). The Buddha dismisses the validity of a theistic construct, and very cleverly replaces it with a materialist simulation. From now on, a ‘god’ is nothing more than a recognisable inner state of mind, reflecting the conditions manifesting in the physical environment. In the fully enlightened state, according to the Buddha, gods are known not to exist, but until a disciple gets to this position of understanding, they are weaned off of the god concept which is replaced with the ‘Grundrisse’ of mental states. This is where the Buddha performs a materialist function rather similar to that of Marx in the Theses of Feuerbach. This is where Marx reiterates that it is the imagination of humanity which creates god – and not a pre-existing god which creates humanity. Marx and Buddha both identify an ‘inverted’ mindset in operation which must be rejected if reality is to be understood. Marx terms this the ‘inverted’ bourgeois mindset, whilst the Buddha describes it as the ‘deluded’ Brahmanic mindset.
The Buddha has to furthermore, deconstruct the idea that unseen theistic entities direct and interfere with human destiny. Here, he is not so accommodating with the old ways, but emphasises the ‘Grundrisse’ of cause and effect applicable to one’s life here and now, which are determined by volition or will power. This is to say that each living individual is responsible for their own actions and are not subject to the mysterious control of an unseen theistic construct. The Buddha firmly explains that each material cause leads to a definite material effect, and that through our choices, we can create a good, indifferent or bad existence. Indeed, the Vinaya Code of moral discipline for the monastics is nothing other than an extensive list of preferred actions as opposed to behaviours that are to be avoided if a better life (and deeper understanding) is to be attained. Buddhist morality is entirely materialistic in the sense that it is designed to make the physical world (and its psychological reflection) a better place. On occasion, the Buddha does allude to past and future lives, as many of his disciples believed that rebirth (but not reincarnation) was a literal reality. As expedient moral lessons, the Buddha sometimes equates good, indifferent or bad past life actions as influencing this life, and uses this apparent observation as a means to encourage the disciple to making a greater effort to facilitate a more profound change in the state of their mind and the quality of their behaviour. Again, the Buddha uses a past idealistic concept to generate a better material reality here and now. It must be remembered, however, that ultimately the Buddha’s method seeks ‘escape’ from the cycle of samsara, or the rounds of habitual rebirth that cause suffering. Even this idea is not unique to Buddhism, but was very much part of the philosophical and cultural milieu of the Buddha’s lifetime.
It is at the attainment of complete enlightenment that the Buddha’s project of ‘Grundrisse’ is fully realised. When the inverted mindset (I.e. ‘false consciousness’) of Brahmanism is dissolved, then the human mind starts to operate in a thoroughly ‘modern’ manner, as a non-inverted mindset is the underlying premise of the transformative intelligence of modern science. The Buddha slowly but surely strips the ancient Indian mindset of its idealistic programming, and through an effort of sheer will, generates the inner conditions for the realisation of modernity. This is why the Buddha states over and over again, that in the state of full enlightenment, all notions of cause and effect (karma) which generate further rebirths is known to be ‘non-existent’. Simultaneously, all concepts of theistic beings are also perceived to be ‘unreal’. The Buddha states that cause and effect only exists in this lifetime, and that past and future lives no longer exist and are understood never to have existed. Now the human mind is operating in a modern sense, with habit of projecting various mind-states into imagined theistic entities is no longer required. This is how and why gods are understood not to ultimately exist. When de-mystified, Buddhist enlightenment is simply a complete break with the inverted mindset and concepts of historical idealism, through the realisation of the reality of historical materialism. This is the ‘Grundrisse’ of the Buddha.
How does all this Buddhistic philosophy, as a ‘Ground-plan’, correspond to the subject of ‘production’? The human body is the key element of production for both Buddha and Marx. Without a living, human being, there can be no volition in the mind, and labour activity in the body. Without each generation recreating itself anew, labour could not continue as it does, and the human species would collapse. Wherever humans are born, that is to say, wherever humans are ‘distributed’, labour activity exists. Although the Buddha entertained the superstition of ‘rebirth’ up to a point, suggesting to the uneducated laity that a past life laid the foundations for this current life, nevertheless, in the collection of teachings known as the Abidhamma, (which is reserved only for the education of the ordained monks and nuns), a literal belief in rebirth is rejected and is replaced with the idea that the Buddha was talking about a moment which has passed, a moment which in present, and a moment which will come In the future. This is what the Buddha actually meant, but which he taught to the laity through the metaphor of ‘rebirth’ which he did not intend to be taken literally. Once the Buddha’s philosophy is ‘purged’ of all imported religionism, misconceptions and misrepresentations, his original teaching shines through and it has more in common with Classical Marxism than any theistic religion. Buddhism is a materialist philosophy of production and the ceasing of production. The human mind habitually generates greed, hatred and delusion (in the unenlightened state), and this toxic mixture in the mind leads to all kinds of unwise and destructive behaviour in the outside world. The outside world then ‘reacts’ to this bad behaviour and patterns of environmental negativity are created which feed back into the human mind as a psychological reflection of the physical world. Greed, hatred and delusion are a product of human genetic programming during the process (and experience) of evolution. These three taints are the producers of human aggression, the same aggression that helped humanity survive as a species prior to the development of an advanced brain. The Buddha suggests that although all humans are born with these traits, whilst humanity possesses a fully functioning brain, these traits represent a ‘false consciousness’ which must be uprooted by an act of will. As with Marx, the Buddha suggests that the right kind of education (and corresponding) action solves this issue by permanently altering how the and body manifests within the physical environment. Sexuality between adults produces a new human being. New human beings participate (as productive forces) in whatever labour projects the epoch demands. Whilst Buddhist monastic seek to break the cycle of distribution and production, it is the Buddhist laity who are able to apply the Buddha’s teachings to assist the Marxists to change the world!
When the workers seize control of the means of production, then the inverted nature of bourgeois society will come to an end. The majority (i.e. the ‘working class’) will take-over control of the means of production and all class distinctions will quite naturally dissolve. The ignorance of religion will be taken out of the political and education system, and society will be collectively organised along the lines of Scientific Socialism. Eventually, as all vestiges of bourgeois society are transcended, a state of Socialism is developed whereby each individual is given the means (by the Socialist State) to develop to the best of his or ability for the benefit of all! As this physical transformation of outer society penetrates the human psyche, (and the interior of the mind of humanity is permanently changed through the Revolutionary process), then society will enter the condition of Communism which sees the natural withering away of the formal State mechanism. As humanity becomes self-sustainably ‘Communist’, there is no need for the State to provide support. In this advanced, evolutionary position, human society becomes self-sufficiently Communistic, compassionate, wise and dedicated to fulfilment and progression, but this process is as much psychological as it is physical. An interesting difference between Marx and Buddha is where the emphasis for this profound change is placed. Both Marx and Buddha agree that humanity’s relationship with the inner world of the mind and the outer world of (physical) society must radically change. Marx emphasises the radical transformation of the outer world as a means to change the inner world, whereas the Buddha takes the opposite position of transforming the inner world (of the human mind), as the means to change the outer (physical) world. Marx enters fully into the outer world, where the Buddha leaves it, or at least sets himself apart from it. However, Buddha recognises that in the quest for enlightenment the Buddhist laity will not live the life of a Buddhist monastic. The Buddhist laity continue to participate within society very much along the lines of the ordinary (Revolutionary) worker! As the lay-Buddhist pursues a path of radical progression whereby the forces of naked capitalism are replaced by compassion and loving kindness, and aggression and fear are replaced by a cultivated wisdom. Now, although the Buddhist monastic is on the fast-track to enlightenment, his or her presence in the physical world generates spiritual strength for the lay-Buddhist community to carry-on and be an example of cultivated Socialism for the world! Buddhism, in essence, is anti-capitalist and can be nothing else. Every Buddhist is an anti-capitalist, and Socialist activist. The ideology of Marxism assists the modern Buddhist to apply the Buddha’s teaching in the modern world to a greater effect, providing that Buddhism is not subsumed by the forces of religiosity. Enlightenment for the Buddha is the ability of a practitioner of the Dharma to fully penetrate and completely comprehend the differences between ‘perception’ and ‘non-perception’.
Bourgeois scholars (who cannot see beyond the limitations of their historical epoch), tend to view predatory capitalism and liberal democracy as the highest or most complete modes of human existence. These same commentators project this sentimentalist (reactionary) view of apparent completion upon the various past forms of feudal, hierarchical or tyrannical epochs, as if everyone alive then, lived in a fairy-tale existence free of suffering and the complications of modern living! This is particularly true of primitive Buddhism and its backward conditions. In those far-off days, people died at birth, died young, died of illness or died of injury. Many died of starvation, drought and war. Life was precarious as the work of Marx and Engels demonstrates. In many ways, the suffering of the past has become condensed and highly focused within capitalist society, whilst simultaneously being swept under the carpet. Many ordinary people within capitalist society suffer terribly whilst being ignored by the affluent middle class that is busy benefitting from the profit generated by the working class (through its incessant labour). The Buddha rearranged how the human mind engaged the ruthlessness of the feudal world, withdrawing from direct participation and altering physical behaviour as a means of modifying reality. Given the very basic and comparatively poor socio-economic development of ancient Indian society, the Buddha’s response was exactly right, and may be viewed as ‘Marxism’ for 500 BCE! Even today, within capitalist India, the pockets of relative wealth are cancelled-out by the continuing widespread starvation and grinding abject poverty! Buddhism in its primitive form is not the answer to poverty or injustice in the modern world as its teachings arose within a totally different historical epoch to that of the work of Marx and Engels. However, when the progressive elements of Buddhism are combined with the ideology of Marx and Engels, a blueprint for Buddhist modernisation is attained.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2020.