The Purpose of Buddhist and Marxist Atheism
By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD
‘The Buddhist conception of the universe and of the laws of cause and effect that govern it leaves no room whatever for the idea of a supreme deity in the rule of the creator or ruler. It is not even necessary for Buddhism to deny the existence of a Creator-god; its philosophy automatically excludes the theory.’ [1]
The philosophy of Classical Marxism, that is the evolved theory of Scientific Socialism as formulated by its founders Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), seeks to explore the psychological and physical world through the use of incisive rational investigation free from what it considers to be the hindrance of superstition and imagination premised upon human fear. This theory is considered an important stage in the evolution of consciousness and an essential development of the use of logic as a means to develop science in the name of humanity’s progression. Through this ongoing analysis, both the inner realm of psychology, and the outer realm of the physical world it reflects, transform into an optimum reality that favours every individual equally and which is not premised upon greed or exploitation of one group over another. All becomes pristine in its ongoing creativity, free of the ignorance that has marked human existence in its historical development. Part of this historical development has been the use of the human imagination to construct elaborate systems of religious theory. Religious theory creates interlocking psychological structures that are premised not upon empirical data and rational analysis, but rather upon fear of the unknown, which replaces reliable and correct knowledge of the world with ‘faith’. Faith is a belief in something that can not be scientifically proven to exist and its nature is stubborn and resistant to modification. Faith is an inverted world. If the premise of the faith is seen as incorrect and clearly disproven, this rational presentation is not accepted by the faithful person as an indicator that their belief system is not real, but on the contrary is rather utilised as a negative re-enforcement of that belief system. This leads to the highly illogical premise associated with theological thinking that the greater the evidence amassed against its validity, the more likely it is to be correct. Marx saw through this imagined irony and agreed with Feuerbach that it is the minds of humanity that have created religion, and at no time has a god or some other sort of divine being ever created physical matter out of nothing. Humanity generates the imagination that is religion; religion (as a mental construct) never creates humanity. The imaginations of humanity are created by a human brain that must pre-exist (in structure) the thoughts it creates. Once created and established, the belief in god, and its accompanying theology, is passed on from one mind to another, and from one generation to the next through an unbroken lineage. For Marx, religion represents a self-reliant, pre-scientific mode of thought that is the product of an earlier stage in human evolution. Those who are religious have had their minds trained to occupy a system of thought that is self-contained and obsessed with over-worldly superstitions and concerns. Such a religious mind-set is necessarily antagonistic to the development of a rational thought capacity that would expose the weaknesses of its own functioning.
Although those occupying a religious mind-set often adhere to some sort of moral code to one extent or another, and despite the fact that this moral code is believed to serve a divine purpose, they nevertheless accept without question the status quo of society and blame all the injustices perpetuated by one group of men over another, as being the product of a god who can not be questioned, and who moves throughout the physical (presumably spreading suffering and destruction as some kind of divine joke) with impunity. In the West it has been the Judeo-Christian religion that has supported the ruling classes in their exploitation of the masses, and it is this tradition that Marx has singled out for rational deconstruction. This is no more an attack upon religion, than is the correct assessing of a chemical chain reaction (that leads to the development of an effective medicine), is an attack upon nature. Through the method of Marxist analysis, rationality and reason are used to shed a logical light upon the fundamental ignorance that forms the basis of theology. Religion is exposed for the set of false assumptions it truly represents. When Marx looks at religion, a higher form of human evolutionary consciousness is looking upon a lower (more primitive) form of human consciousness. As the Judeo-Christian belief system is premised upon the belief in god, it is this principle that must be exposed, denied, and removed before rationality can take its place. This is why both Marx and Engels, as representatives of a higher stage in human consciousness profess an atheistic position, and it is this concept of atheism that must be historically assessed to gain what relevance, if any, such a Western term has for the Eastern philosophy of Buddhism. Needless to say, it is an established Marxist principle that a belief in god concept is incompatible with a scientific perspective, and a revolutionary mind-set. The oppressors in a society can not be over-come when those who believe in religion support their every move as being ‘divinely inspired’. This is why Marx made a point of concentrating on the deconstruction (and exposure) of religion (as a false interpretive paradigm), so that the human mind could be prepared for advancement toward the generation (and perception) of true self-knowledge. The criticism of religion is central to Marxist theory, as Marx believes that from religion, all supportive cultural aspects, conventions, establishments, and institutions emerge within a bourgeois society. Marx perceives the philosophical consequence of his developmental method – Socialism – as being a stage of development that does not have to deny the existence of a god-concept, or indeed possess a need to assert atheism, as its entire premise is a priori non-theological. Marxist atheism appears to be a transient stage of development required to free the mind from the grasps of a bourgeois, capitalist society. Once the human mind (and society) are ‘freed’ from the trap of religiosity, the negation (or assertion) of a god-concept becomes irrelevant as the true nature of reality is fully understood. Marx defines atheism in this developmental context in the following manner:
‘Atheism, as a denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man, but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation; it starts from the theoretical and practical sense-perception of man and nature as the true reality.’ [2]
From this, and many other similar statements, it can be seen that atheism is a transitional requirement designed as a means to clear the mind of the effects of its historical conditioning with regard to religious indoctrination. It is a means to an end, and once it has achieved its function, it becomes obsolete as a concept. However, before the evolving of Socialism, and whilst the religion-riddled bourgeois state still exists, atheism is a key weapon in the philosophical armoury of Marxist inspired revolutionaries. Atheism as a concept appears to have three stages of historical usage:
1) Within the ancient and classical Greek and Roman worlds, the term atheism referred to anyone who did not recognise the state sanctioned pantheon of gods, and who subsequently did not frequent the temples at the proper times of year and show the expected levels of pious respect. In this context, ‘atheism’ literally meant a ‘non-belief’ in the existence or effectiveness of the gods. This was considered a very serious criminal offence, as it called into question the very spiritual foundation of the state, and the plausibility of its divine originations. Those found guilty of this offence were either banished, or sentenced to death for impiety.
2) Following the rule of Emperor Constantine (306-337 CE), Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman empire. Prior to this, the Romans worshiped many gods and more or less ignored Christianity which was viewed as just another fringe religion. However, once assuming political power, the Catholic branch of Christianity, premised as it is upon intolerance to other faiths and belief systems, set about destroying other forms of less virulent Christianity, as well as attacking Judaism and the worshippers of Rome’s polytheistic gods. The result of this change meant that ‘atheism’ as a legal construct came to represent anyone who did not believe in the Christian concept of a mono-theistic entity. Ironically, in the days before Constantine, Christians were often accused of ‘atheism’ for not showing the proper respect to the Roman gods, but after Constantine they took the term and distorted it as a means to pursue their own violent ends.
3) Marx, typical of many men of science who inhabited his era, saw a belief in a self-contained and illogical theology as a barrier to the developmental progress of humanity. As this was the case, theology and its central (and justifying) god-concept were fully rejected. Humanity could not progress into the next epoch of evolutionary development whilst still having a psychological foot in the superstitious beliefs of the past. Marx uses the term ‘atheism’ not in a manner that stands in opposition to a god, but as a means of expressing what might more correctly be termed as a non-theistic position. Non-theism can be defined as the understanding and acceptance of material reality as it actually is, rather than as humanity would imagine it to be. Therefore the proponents of non-theism can firmly state that a god-concept that does not exist, does not have to be either opposed or denied. For the evolved Marxist, reality is a state where no god has ever existed and this is exactly the position found within early Indian Buddhism.
The eminent Theravada Buddhist monk and Sri Lankan scholar – the venerable Walpola Rahula - explains the human condition and why there is often an ignorant tendency in humanity to believe in a god and soul concept (i.e. theology):
‘Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parents. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically.
The Buddha’s teaching does not support this ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, but aims at making man enlightened by removing and destroying them, striking at their very root. According to Buddhism, our ideas of God and Soul are false and empty. Though highly developed as theories, they are all the same extremely subtle mental projections, garbed in an intricate metaphysical and philosophical phraseology. These ideas are so deep-rooted in man, and so near and dear to him, that he does not wish to hear, nor does he want to understand, any teaching against them.’ [3]
Theistic religion defends itself from the intrusion of knowledge and wisdom from outside of its theoretical constructs by resolutely resisting any attempts at its deconstruction. Such attempts are perceived as an ‘attack’ on the belief system which is an excuse used by the adherents to become ever more deluded and violent in their behaviour. The Buddha, in agreement with Marx, interprets the belief in a permanent soul, (and the god-concept it supports) as the essence of ignorance in the world, and the cause of human suffering. Although the Buddha completely freed his mind from the historical conditioning of his time, nevertheless the ancient India that he inhabited was enmeshed in a Brahmanic theology that advocated a bewildering array of gods that supported a society predicated upon a ruthless caste system. The Buddha, whilst denying the validity of the god-concept (as well as the notion of the associated ‘divine first cause’ for everything in the universe), made use of the idea of a pantheon of gods – even adding divine entities to the list of already existing and well known Brahmanic constructs – but he did so in a way that negated the power of divinity, and reduced the gods to nothing other than ordinary beings playing-out various stages of karmic evolution.
This seems to be an educational device designed to lead his brahmanically educated (and influenced) students away from the misguided notions of that religious system. This must be the case, as the Buddha states time and again (and particularly in the Brahmajala Sutta) that the notion of Brahma creating the universe through a ‘first cause’ is nonsense, and that by implication (and indication) there can not be any divine beings that exist outside the law of karma and the teaching of dependent origination (i.e. the chain of causation). Furthermore, in other suttas, (such as the Maha Parinibbana Sutta), the Buddha clearly teaches that in the fully enlightened state, gods do not exist. As gods do not exist in the enlightened state, it is only logical to assume that they do not exist in the unenlightened state, and that the Buddha’s teachings to unenlightened students are merely expedient devices preparing their minds for the final break with the historical conditioning of religiosity. As the Buddha both acknowledges the existence of gods in one sense, and definitely denies their validity or ability to save human beings in another, his approach to the notion of divine beings should more correctly be described as ‘non-theistic’, rather than ‘atheistic’. For the Buddha, gods are an irrelevance, but due to the prevalence of the belief of such entities during his lifetime, it seems that he was expected to make some kind of statement as to their possible existence or non-existence. As the Buddha teaches that only individuals can save themselves from suffering through self-effort, the notion of gods (and their associated heavens) becomes superfluous as developmental concepts. The Buddha’s willingness to engage with the prevalent religious views of his time, whilst firmly rejecting those views, should not detract from the essential ‘atheism’ of his teaching in principle. The apparent recognition of gods is not the point of the Buddha’s teaching; but the transcendence of such entities through insight most definitely is. The Buddha uses the concept of god to negate the concept of god. This reality ensures that the Buddha’s ‘non-theism’ is in effect identical with the ‘atheism’ of Marx and Engels. The entire edifice of the plausibility of the Buddha’s schematic for escape from suffering evolves around the concept of evolved consciousness that has no place for the taint of religiosity.
For the over-coming of suffering in society, Buddhism and Marxism offer an identical curative methodology. Society in all its aspects is recognised as being fundamentally flawed, as it favours the well-being of a privileged minority which is sustained through the continuous suffering of the majority. The religious, political, commercial and cultural aspects of this society are set to disempower, oppress and exploit the masses. This imbalance is perpetuated by the institutions of the Brahmanic system in ancient India, and the psychological and behavioural vestiges of the Judeo-Christian tradition in 19th century Europe. The suffering of the masses in ancient India and modern European society is religiously derived, and this fact serves as the basis of both the Buddhist and Marxist critique. Implied within both systems is the fact that even those in the majority who hold all the political and cultural power, trapped as they are in a highly exploitative web of their own creation, are suffering on a very subtle psychological level, despite their control of material resources and lack of apparent physical suffering. As the bourgeois continuously face the possibility of either sudden revolution from the uprising masses, or a gradual withering away of their privilege through political and cultural reform, their minds can never be fully at rest in their opulence. Change as an ongoing reality of existence is central to the theories of Buddha and Marx and serves as the historical driving force for transformation, which is fuelled through the antagonisms (and injustices) that exist in society and within the human psyche. The principles of ‘change’ and ‘evolution’ are synonymous. The structures of oppressive society appear to be set in stone from one generation to the next, but this is an illusion. The oppressive society is only as strong as the minds of those who perpetuate and support its structures. It is replicated from one generation to the next as a matter of privileged course. Unevolved Human self-interest (i.e. greed, hatred and delusion) ensures that the structures of privilege are maintained. With regard to the formation and perpetuation of Bourgeois society, Marx comments:
‘Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. And just when they seem engaged in revolutionising themselves and things, in creating something entirely new, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from them names, battle slogans and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this time-honoured disguise and this borrowed language. Thus Luther donned the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789 to 1814 draped itself alternately as the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, in turn, 1789 and the revolutionary tradition of 1793 to 1795. In like manner the beginner who has learnt a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he has assimilated the spirit of the new language and can produce freely in it only when he moves in it without remembering the old and forgets in it his ancestral tongue,’ [4]
The Agganna Sutta is the 27th listed in the Digha Nikaya collection, (or collection of long discourses) taught by the Buddha. The term ‘Agganna’ may be translated as ‘knowledge of beginnings’, [5] and records the conversation that occurred between the Buddha and two former Brahmins - Bharadvaja and Vasettha – who had relinquished their privileged Hindu lifestyles, and renounced caste, to become ordained monks in the Buddha’s Sangha. The Buddha, using rational and logical thought, deconstructs the validity of the Brahmanic society and thought, and re-affirms that his break with conditioned history and the ignorance of religiosity is the correct path. Through the following extracts it is clear that the Buddha is criticising a reality premised upon religious authority, whilst simultaneously building a case for evolution thousands of years before Charles Darwin in 19th century Europe.
‘Then the lord said to Vasettha: ‘Vasettha, you two are Brahmins born and bred, and you have gone forth from the household life into homelessness from Brahmin families. Do not the Brahmins revile and abuse you?’ ‘Indeed, lord, the Brahmins do revile and abuse us. They don’t hold back with their usual flood of reproaches.’ ‘Well, Vasettha, what kind of reproaches do they fling at you?’ ‘Lord, what the Brahmins say is this, "The Brahmins caste is the highest caste—other castes are base; the Brahmin caste is fair, other castes are dark; Brahmins are purified, non-Brahmins are not, the Brahmins are the true children of Brahma, born from his mouth, born of Brahma, heirs of Brahma. And you, you have deserted the highest class and gone over to the base class of shave-ling petty ascetics, servants, dark fellows born of Brahma’s Foot! It’s not right, it’s not proper for you to mix with such people!" That is the way the Brahmins abuse us, lord.’ ‘Then, Vasettha, the Brahmins have forgotten their ancient tradition when they say that. Because we can see Brahmin women, the wives of Brahmins, who menstruate and become pregnant, have babies, and give milk. And yet these womb-born Brahmins talk about being born from Brahma’s mouth…These Brahmins misrepresent Brahma, tell lies and earn much demerit. ‘There are, Vasettha, these four castes: The Khattiyas, The Brahmins, the merchants and the artisans. And sometimes a Khattiya takes life, takes what is not given, commits sexual misconduct, tells lies, indulges in slander, harsh speech or idle chatter, is grasping, malicious, or of wrong views. Thus such things as are immoral and considered so, blameworthy and considered so, to be avoided and considered so, ways unbefitting an Ariyan and considered so, black with black result and blamed by the wise, are sometimes to be found among the Khattiyas, and the same applies to Brahmins, merchants, and artisans. ‘Sometimes too, a Khattiya refrains from taking life, does not take what is not given, refrains from sexual misconduct, speaks truth, shuns slander, harsh speech or idle chatter, is not grasping, malicious, or of wrong views. Thus such things are moral and considered so, blameless and considered so, to be followed and considered so, ways befitting an Ariyan and considered so, bright with bright results and praised by the wise, are sometimes found among the Khattiyas, and likewise among Brahmins, merchants, and artisans. ‘Now since both dark and bright qualities, which are blamed and praised by the wise, are scattered indiscriminately among the four castes, the wise do not recognize the claim about the Brahmin caste being the highest. Why is that? Because, Vasettha, anyone from the four castes who becomes a monk, an Arahant who has destroyed the corruptions, who has lived the life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached the highest goal, destroyed the fetter of becoming, and become emancipated through superknowledge—he is proclaims supreme by virtue of Dhamma and not of non-Dhamma.'
The beginning of Humankind
‘There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after a long period this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma World. And there they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self luminous, moving through the air, glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time. But sooner or later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand again. At a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara Brahma world, having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in this world. Here they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time.'
Biology of Human Race
‘At that period, Vasettha, there was just one mass of water, and all was darkness, blinding darkness. Neither moon nor sun appeared, no constellations or stars appeared, night and day were not yet distinguished, nor months and fortnights, nor years and seasons; there was no male and female, beings being reckoned just as beings. And sooner or later, after a very long period of time, savoury earth spread itself over the waters where those beings were. It looked just like the skin that forms itself over hot milk as it cools. It was endowed with colour, smell, and taste. It was the color of fine ghee or butter and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey.'
From Darkness to Day & Night
‘Then some being of a greedy nature said: "I say, what can this be?" and tasted the savoury earth on its finger. In so doing, it became taken with the flavour, and craving arose in it. Then other beings, taking their cue from that one, also tasted the stuff with their fingers. They too were taken with the flavour, and craving arose in them. So they set to with their hands, breaking off pieces of the stuff in order to eat it. And the result was that their self luminance disappeared. And as a result of the disappearance of their self luminance the moon and the sun appeared, night and day were distinguished, months and fortnights appeared, and the year and its seasons. To that extent the world re-evolved.'
Evolution Cycle in Human Race
‘And those beings continued for a very long time feasting on this savory earth, feeding on it and being nourished by it. And as they did so, their bodies became coarser, and a difference in looks developed among them. Some beings became good looking, others ugly. And the good looking ones despised the others, saying: "We are better looking than they are." And because they became arrogant and conceited about their looks, the savoury earth disappeared. At this they came together and lamented, crying, "Oh, that flavour! Oh, that flavour!" and so nowadays when people say, "Oh, that flavour!" when they get something nice, they are repeating an ancient saying without realizing it.'
The Human Food Chain
‘And then, when the savoury earth disappeared, a fungus cropped up, in the manner of a mushroom. It was of good colour, smell, and taste. It was the colour of fine ghee or butter, and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey. And those beings set to and ate the fungus. And this lasted for a very long time. And as they continued to feed on the fungus, so their bodies become coarser still, and the difference in their looks increased still more. And the good looking ones despised the others…and because they became arrogant and conceited about their looks, the sweet fungus disappeared. Next, creepers appeared, shooting up like bamboo…and they too were very sweet, like pure wild honey. ‘And those beings set to and fed on those creepers. And as they did so, their bodies became even coarser, and the difference in their looks increased still more…and they became still more arrogant, and so the creepers disappeared too. At this they came together and lamented, crying: "Alas, our creepers gone! What have we lost!" and so now today when people, one being asked why they are upset, say: "Oh what have we lost!" they are repeating an ancient saying without realizing it.'
Sexual Evolution - Asexual to Male and Female
‘And then, after the creepers had disappeared, rice appeared in open spaces, free from powder and from husks, fragrant and clean grained. And what they had taken in the evening for supper had grown again and was ripe in the morning, and what they had taken in the morning for breakfast was ripe again by evening, with no sign of reaping.
And these beings set to and fed on this rice, and this lasted for a very long time. And as they did so, their bodies became coarser still, and the difference in their looks became even greater. And the females developed female sex organs and the males developed male sex organs. And the women became excessively preoccupied with the men, and the men with the women. Owing to this excessive preoccupation with each other, passion was aroused, and their bodies burnt with lust. And later because of this burning, they indulged in sexual activity. But those who saw them indulging threw dust, ashes, or cow dung at them, crying: "Die, you filthy beast! How can one being do such things to another?" Just as today, in some districts, when a daughter-in-law is led out, some people throw dirt at her, some ashes, and some cow dung, without realizing that they are repeating an ancient observance. What was considered bad form in those days is now considered good form. ‘And those beings who in those days indulged in sex were not allowed into a village or town for one or two months. Accordingly those who indulged for an excessively long period in such immoral practices began to build themselves dwellings so as to indulge under cover.
‘Now it occurred to one of those beings who was inclined to laziness, "Well now, why should I be bothered to gather rice in the evening for supper and in the morning for breakfast? Why shouldn’t I gather it all at once for both meals?" And he did so. Then another one came to him and said, "Come on, lets go rice-gathering." "No need, my friend, I’ve gathered enough for both meals." Then the other, following his example, gathered enough rice for two days at a time, saying, "That should be about enough." Then another being came to that second one, "Come on, let’s go rice gathering." "No need my friend; I’ve gathered enough for two days." (The same for four, then eight days.) However, when those beings made a store of rice and lived on that, husk-powder and husk began to envelop the grain, and where it was reaped it did not grow again, and the cut place showed, and the rice grew in separate clusters. ‘And then those beings came together lamenting, "Wicked ways have become rife among us: at first we were mind made, feeding on delight…(All the events are repeated down to the latest development, each fresh change being said to be due to ‘wicked and unwholesome ways)…and the rice grows in separate clusters! So now let us divide up the rice into fields with boundaries." So they did so.’
For the Buddha, ignorance in part has its origin in the concept of ‘ditthi’, or attachment to views and opinions, particularly with regard to religious notions of the body being a self, or belonging to a self. Such attachment to views and opinions is the basis for a belief in theological systems that often lead (through craving (tanha) and defilements (klesa) generated unopposed in the mind) to religious fanaticism. Religion is the state of permanent ‘alienation’ of humanity from its true psychological and social essence. Religious systems obscure reality whilst simultaneously perpetuating a mythological return to a disembodied reality that is never achieved simply because it does not exist. Humanity becomes alienated from its own true origins through the historical conditioning of the perpetuation of ignorant patterns in the mind and through the performing of Unevolved and exploitative habits of behaviour in society. Marx states:
‘So much does labour’s realisation appear as loss of reality that the worker loses reality to the point of starving to death. So much does objectification appear as loss of the object that the worker is robbed of the objects most necessary not only for his life but for his work. Indeed, labour itself becomes an object which he can get hold of only with the greatest effort and with the most irregular interruptions. So much does the appropriation of the object appear as estrangement that the more objects the worker produces the fewer can he possess and the more he falls under the domination of his product, capital.
All these consequences are contained in the definition that the worker is related to the product of his labour as to an alien object. For on this premise it is clear that the more the worker spends himself, the more powerful the alien objective world becomes which he creates over-against himself, the poorer he himself – his inner world – becomes, the less belongs to him as his own. It is the same in religion. The more man puts into God, the less he retains in himself. The worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object. Hence, the greater this activity, the greater is the worker’s lack of objects. Whatever the product of his labour is, he is not. Therefore the greater this product, the less is he himself. The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his labour becomes an object, an external existence, but that it becomes a power of its own confronting him, it means that the life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien.’ [6]
The systems of thought attributed to the Buddha and to Karl Marx share a theoretical premise that states that if humanity is to evolve into a higher and more fulfilling level of existence, it must throw off the deluded and self-limiting habits of the past, whether those habits be the perpetuation of a caste or class system, or the pointless accumulation of profit. Central to this radical deconstruction is the use of rational and logical analysis to strip the mind (and society) of an unquestioning and deferential approach to established religion. In short, religion must be thoroughly de-established and reduced in power and influence so that the progressive and advanced historical forces can perform their transformational function throughout society and in the minds of humanity. Atheism opposes theism in a supporting polarity that must be transcended so that the dichotomy is exposed for the irrelevance it actually is. A god that has never existed has no need to be opposed. It is obvious that Marx is an atheistic with regard to his opposition to established religion in the West, that in his fully developed argument, the atheist-theist argument is left behind like an early childhood lesson learnt in the classroom, but no longer relevant to the developed mind of the adult. The Buddha, by way of contrast, holds a number of positions dependent upon context:
1) In the enlightened state gods do not exist.
2) In the unenlightened state gods appear to exist.
3) These gods have no real divine power and are subject to change.
4) Gods are used within Buddhist meditation but are transformed into stages of rational realisations.
5) Gods are just ordinary beings that should not be worshipped.
It is clear that the Buddhist teaching with the highest authority is the Buddha’s post-enlightenment statements to the effect that gods do not exist. This firmly places him in the atheist position; however, as he appears to teach that deluded beings may imagine gods, and that these gods have a purely expedient existence, his position may be described as non-theistic. The non-theistic position (which is achieved through the radical break of atheism) may also be used to describe the developed position of Karl Marx. Finally, each system declares that belief in religion is a stumbling block to further human evolution, both psychologically and socially, and it is this unique anti-bourgeois position that places Buddhism and Marxism in the same developmental category.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2014.
[1] Story, Frank, Gods and the Universe in Buddhist Perspective – Essays on Buddhist Cosmology, The Wheel Publication No. 180/181, (1983), Page 1.
[2] McLennan, David, Karl Marx– A Biography, Papermac, (1995), Pages 105-106. Reference: 166 – K Marx, Early Years, P. 154 – another book authored by McLellan.
[3] Rahula, Walpola, What the Buddha Taught, Gordon Fraser, (1978), Pages 51-52.
[4] Tucker, Robert, C, Editor, The Marx-Engels Reader, WW Norton & Company, (1978), Page 595 – Quoted from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Chapter 1, by Karl Marx.
[5] Alternatively, in his 1981 book entitled ‘The Buddha’s Philosophy of Man (Page 99), Trevor Ling translates the term ‘Agganna Sutta’ as ‘A Book of Genesis’.
[6] Tucker, Robert, C, Editor, The Marx-Engels Reader, WW Norton & Company, (1978), Page 72 – Quoted from the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 – Section Subtitled ‘Estranged Labour’ by Karl Marx.
The philosophy of Classical Marxism, that is the evolved theory of Scientific Socialism as formulated by its founders Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), seeks to explore the psychological and physical world through the use of incisive rational investigation free from what it considers to be the hindrance of superstition and imagination premised upon human fear. This theory is considered an important stage in the evolution of consciousness and an essential development of the use of logic as a means to develop science in the name of humanity’s progression. Through this ongoing analysis, both the inner realm of psychology, and the outer realm of the physical world it reflects, transform into an optimum reality that favours every individual equally and which is not premised upon greed or exploitation of one group over another. All becomes pristine in its ongoing creativity, free of the ignorance that has marked human existence in its historical development. Part of this historical development has been the use of the human imagination to construct elaborate systems of religious theory. Religious theory creates interlocking psychological structures that are premised not upon empirical data and rational analysis, but rather upon fear of the unknown, which replaces reliable and correct knowledge of the world with ‘faith’. Faith is a belief in something that can not be scientifically proven to exist and its nature is stubborn and resistant to modification. Faith is an inverted world. If the premise of the faith is seen as incorrect and clearly disproven, this rational presentation is not accepted by the faithful person as an indicator that their belief system is not real, but on the contrary is rather utilised as a negative re-enforcement of that belief system. This leads to the highly illogical premise associated with theological thinking that the greater the evidence amassed against its validity, the more likely it is to be correct. Marx saw through this imagined irony and agreed with Feuerbach that it is the minds of humanity that have created religion, and at no time has a god or some other sort of divine being ever created physical matter out of nothing. Humanity generates the imagination that is religion; religion (as a mental construct) never creates humanity. The imaginations of humanity are created by a human brain that must pre-exist (in structure) the thoughts it creates. Once created and established, the belief in god, and its accompanying theology, is passed on from one mind to another, and from one generation to the next through an unbroken lineage. For Marx, religion represents a self-reliant, pre-scientific mode of thought that is the product of an earlier stage in human evolution. Those who are religious have had their minds trained to occupy a system of thought that is self-contained and obsessed with over-worldly superstitions and concerns. Such a religious mind-set is necessarily antagonistic to the development of a rational thought capacity that would expose the weaknesses of its own functioning.
Although those occupying a religious mind-set often adhere to some sort of moral code to one extent or another, and despite the fact that this moral code is believed to serve a divine purpose, they nevertheless accept without question the status quo of society and blame all the injustices perpetuated by one group of men over another, as being the product of a god who can not be questioned, and who moves throughout the physical (presumably spreading suffering and destruction as some kind of divine joke) with impunity. In the West it has been the Judeo-Christian religion that has supported the ruling classes in their exploitation of the masses, and it is this tradition that Marx has singled out for rational deconstruction. This is no more an attack upon religion, than is the correct assessing of a chemical chain reaction (that leads to the development of an effective medicine), is an attack upon nature. Through the method of Marxist analysis, rationality and reason are used to shed a logical light upon the fundamental ignorance that forms the basis of theology. Religion is exposed for the set of false assumptions it truly represents. When Marx looks at religion, a higher form of human evolutionary consciousness is looking upon a lower (more primitive) form of human consciousness. As the Judeo-Christian belief system is premised upon the belief in god, it is this principle that must be exposed, denied, and removed before rationality can take its place. This is why both Marx and Engels, as representatives of a higher stage in human consciousness profess an atheistic position, and it is this concept of atheism that must be historically assessed to gain what relevance, if any, such a Western term has for the Eastern philosophy of Buddhism. Needless to say, it is an established Marxist principle that a belief in god concept is incompatible with a scientific perspective, and a revolutionary mind-set. The oppressors in a society can not be over-come when those who believe in religion support their every move as being ‘divinely inspired’. This is why Marx made a point of concentrating on the deconstruction (and exposure) of religion (as a false interpretive paradigm), so that the human mind could be prepared for advancement toward the generation (and perception) of true self-knowledge. The criticism of religion is central to Marxist theory, as Marx believes that from religion, all supportive cultural aspects, conventions, establishments, and institutions emerge within a bourgeois society. Marx perceives the philosophical consequence of his developmental method – Socialism – as being a stage of development that does not have to deny the existence of a god-concept, or indeed possess a need to assert atheism, as its entire premise is a priori non-theological. Marxist atheism appears to be a transient stage of development required to free the mind from the grasps of a bourgeois, capitalist society. Once the human mind (and society) are ‘freed’ from the trap of religiosity, the negation (or assertion) of a god-concept becomes irrelevant as the true nature of reality is fully understood. Marx defines atheism in this developmental context in the following manner:
‘Atheism, as a denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man, but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation; it starts from the theoretical and practical sense-perception of man and nature as the true reality.’ [2]
From this, and many other similar statements, it can be seen that atheism is a transitional requirement designed as a means to clear the mind of the effects of its historical conditioning with regard to religious indoctrination. It is a means to an end, and once it has achieved its function, it becomes obsolete as a concept. However, before the evolving of Socialism, and whilst the religion-riddled bourgeois state still exists, atheism is a key weapon in the philosophical armoury of Marxist inspired revolutionaries. Atheism as a concept appears to have three stages of historical usage:
1) Within the ancient and classical Greek and Roman worlds, the term atheism referred to anyone who did not recognise the state sanctioned pantheon of gods, and who subsequently did not frequent the temples at the proper times of year and show the expected levels of pious respect. In this context, ‘atheism’ literally meant a ‘non-belief’ in the existence or effectiveness of the gods. This was considered a very serious criminal offence, as it called into question the very spiritual foundation of the state, and the plausibility of its divine originations. Those found guilty of this offence were either banished, or sentenced to death for impiety.
2) Following the rule of Emperor Constantine (306-337 CE), Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman empire. Prior to this, the Romans worshiped many gods and more or less ignored Christianity which was viewed as just another fringe religion. However, once assuming political power, the Catholic branch of Christianity, premised as it is upon intolerance to other faiths and belief systems, set about destroying other forms of less virulent Christianity, as well as attacking Judaism and the worshippers of Rome’s polytheistic gods. The result of this change meant that ‘atheism’ as a legal construct came to represent anyone who did not believe in the Christian concept of a mono-theistic entity. Ironically, in the days before Constantine, Christians were often accused of ‘atheism’ for not showing the proper respect to the Roman gods, but after Constantine they took the term and distorted it as a means to pursue their own violent ends.
3) Marx, typical of many men of science who inhabited his era, saw a belief in a self-contained and illogical theology as a barrier to the developmental progress of humanity. As this was the case, theology and its central (and justifying) god-concept were fully rejected. Humanity could not progress into the next epoch of evolutionary development whilst still having a psychological foot in the superstitious beliefs of the past. Marx uses the term ‘atheism’ not in a manner that stands in opposition to a god, but as a means of expressing what might more correctly be termed as a non-theistic position. Non-theism can be defined as the understanding and acceptance of material reality as it actually is, rather than as humanity would imagine it to be. Therefore the proponents of non-theism can firmly state that a god-concept that does not exist, does not have to be either opposed or denied. For the evolved Marxist, reality is a state where no god has ever existed and this is exactly the position found within early Indian Buddhism.
The eminent Theravada Buddhist monk and Sri Lankan scholar – the venerable Walpola Rahula - explains the human condition and why there is often an ignorant tendency in humanity to believe in a god and soul concept (i.e. theology):
‘Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parents. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically.
The Buddha’s teaching does not support this ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, but aims at making man enlightened by removing and destroying them, striking at their very root. According to Buddhism, our ideas of God and Soul are false and empty. Though highly developed as theories, they are all the same extremely subtle mental projections, garbed in an intricate metaphysical and philosophical phraseology. These ideas are so deep-rooted in man, and so near and dear to him, that he does not wish to hear, nor does he want to understand, any teaching against them.’ [3]
Theistic religion defends itself from the intrusion of knowledge and wisdom from outside of its theoretical constructs by resolutely resisting any attempts at its deconstruction. Such attempts are perceived as an ‘attack’ on the belief system which is an excuse used by the adherents to become ever more deluded and violent in their behaviour. The Buddha, in agreement with Marx, interprets the belief in a permanent soul, (and the god-concept it supports) as the essence of ignorance in the world, and the cause of human suffering. Although the Buddha completely freed his mind from the historical conditioning of his time, nevertheless the ancient India that he inhabited was enmeshed in a Brahmanic theology that advocated a bewildering array of gods that supported a society predicated upon a ruthless caste system. The Buddha, whilst denying the validity of the god-concept (as well as the notion of the associated ‘divine first cause’ for everything in the universe), made use of the idea of a pantheon of gods – even adding divine entities to the list of already existing and well known Brahmanic constructs – but he did so in a way that negated the power of divinity, and reduced the gods to nothing other than ordinary beings playing-out various stages of karmic evolution.
This seems to be an educational device designed to lead his brahmanically educated (and influenced) students away from the misguided notions of that religious system. This must be the case, as the Buddha states time and again (and particularly in the Brahmajala Sutta) that the notion of Brahma creating the universe through a ‘first cause’ is nonsense, and that by implication (and indication) there can not be any divine beings that exist outside the law of karma and the teaching of dependent origination (i.e. the chain of causation). Furthermore, in other suttas, (such as the Maha Parinibbana Sutta), the Buddha clearly teaches that in the fully enlightened state, gods do not exist. As gods do not exist in the enlightened state, it is only logical to assume that they do not exist in the unenlightened state, and that the Buddha’s teachings to unenlightened students are merely expedient devices preparing their minds for the final break with the historical conditioning of religiosity. As the Buddha both acknowledges the existence of gods in one sense, and definitely denies their validity or ability to save human beings in another, his approach to the notion of divine beings should more correctly be described as ‘non-theistic’, rather than ‘atheistic’. For the Buddha, gods are an irrelevance, but due to the prevalence of the belief of such entities during his lifetime, it seems that he was expected to make some kind of statement as to their possible existence or non-existence. As the Buddha teaches that only individuals can save themselves from suffering through self-effort, the notion of gods (and their associated heavens) becomes superfluous as developmental concepts. The Buddha’s willingness to engage with the prevalent religious views of his time, whilst firmly rejecting those views, should not detract from the essential ‘atheism’ of his teaching in principle. The apparent recognition of gods is not the point of the Buddha’s teaching; but the transcendence of such entities through insight most definitely is. The Buddha uses the concept of god to negate the concept of god. This reality ensures that the Buddha’s ‘non-theism’ is in effect identical with the ‘atheism’ of Marx and Engels. The entire edifice of the plausibility of the Buddha’s schematic for escape from suffering evolves around the concept of evolved consciousness that has no place for the taint of religiosity.
For the over-coming of suffering in society, Buddhism and Marxism offer an identical curative methodology. Society in all its aspects is recognised as being fundamentally flawed, as it favours the well-being of a privileged minority which is sustained through the continuous suffering of the majority. The religious, political, commercial and cultural aspects of this society are set to disempower, oppress and exploit the masses. This imbalance is perpetuated by the institutions of the Brahmanic system in ancient India, and the psychological and behavioural vestiges of the Judeo-Christian tradition in 19th century Europe. The suffering of the masses in ancient India and modern European society is religiously derived, and this fact serves as the basis of both the Buddhist and Marxist critique. Implied within both systems is the fact that even those in the majority who hold all the political and cultural power, trapped as they are in a highly exploitative web of their own creation, are suffering on a very subtle psychological level, despite their control of material resources and lack of apparent physical suffering. As the bourgeois continuously face the possibility of either sudden revolution from the uprising masses, or a gradual withering away of their privilege through political and cultural reform, their minds can never be fully at rest in their opulence. Change as an ongoing reality of existence is central to the theories of Buddha and Marx and serves as the historical driving force for transformation, which is fuelled through the antagonisms (and injustices) that exist in society and within the human psyche. The principles of ‘change’ and ‘evolution’ are synonymous. The structures of oppressive society appear to be set in stone from one generation to the next, but this is an illusion. The oppressive society is only as strong as the minds of those who perpetuate and support its structures. It is replicated from one generation to the next as a matter of privileged course. Unevolved Human self-interest (i.e. greed, hatred and delusion) ensures that the structures of privilege are maintained. With regard to the formation and perpetuation of Bourgeois society, Marx comments:
‘Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. And just when they seem engaged in revolutionising themselves and things, in creating something entirely new, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from them names, battle slogans and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this time-honoured disguise and this borrowed language. Thus Luther donned the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789 to 1814 draped itself alternately as the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, in turn, 1789 and the revolutionary tradition of 1793 to 1795. In like manner the beginner who has learnt a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he has assimilated the spirit of the new language and can produce freely in it only when he moves in it without remembering the old and forgets in it his ancestral tongue,’ [4]
The Agganna Sutta is the 27th listed in the Digha Nikaya collection, (or collection of long discourses) taught by the Buddha. The term ‘Agganna’ may be translated as ‘knowledge of beginnings’, [5] and records the conversation that occurred between the Buddha and two former Brahmins - Bharadvaja and Vasettha – who had relinquished their privileged Hindu lifestyles, and renounced caste, to become ordained monks in the Buddha’s Sangha. The Buddha, using rational and logical thought, deconstructs the validity of the Brahmanic society and thought, and re-affirms that his break with conditioned history and the ignorance of religiosity is the correct path. Through the following extracts it is clear that the Buddha is criticising a reality premised upon religious authority, whilst simultaneously building a case for evolution thousands of years before Charles Darwin in 19th century Europe.
‘Then the lord said to Vasettha: ‘Vasettha, you two are Brahmins born and bred, and you have gone forth from the household life into homelessness from Brahmin families. Do not the Brahmins revile and abuse you?’ ‘Indeed, lord, the Brahmins do revile and abuse us. They don’t hold back with their usual flood of reproaches.’ ‘Well, Vasettha, what kind of reproaches do they fling at you?’ ‘Lord, what the Brahmins say is this, "The Brahmins caste is the highest caste—other castes are base; the Brahmin caste is fair, other castes are dark; Brahmins are purified, non-Brahmins are not, the Brahmins are the true children of Brahma, born from his mouth, born of Brahma, heirs of Brahma. And you, you have deserted the highest class and gone over to the base class of shave-ling petty ascetics, servants, dark fellows born of Brahma’s Foot! It’s not right, it’s not proper for you to mix with such people!" That is the way the Brahmins abuse us, lord.’ ‘Then, Vasettha, the Brahmins have forgotten their ancient tradition when they say that. Because we can see Brahmin women, the wives of Brahmins, who menstruate and become pregnant, have babies, and give milk. And yet these womb-born Brahmins talk about being born from Brahma’s mouth…These Brahmins misrepresent Brahma, tell lies and earn much demerit. ‘There are, Vasettha, these four castes: The Khattiyas, The Brahmins, the merchants and the artisans. And sometimes a Khattiya takes life, takes what is not given, commits sexual misconduct, tells lies, indulges in slander, harsh speech or idle chatter, is grasping, malicious, or of wrong views. Thus such things as are immoral and considered so, blameworthy and considered so, to be avoided and considered so, ways unbefitting an Ariyan and considered so, black with black result and blamed by the wise, are sometimes to be found among the Khattiyas, and the same applies to Brahmins, merchants, and artisans. ‘Sometimes too, a Khattiya refrains from taking life, does not take what is not given, refrains from sexual misconduct, speaks truth, shuns slander, harsh speech or idle chatter, is not grasping, malicious, or of wrong views. Thus such things are moral and considered so, blameless and considered so, to be followed and considered so, ways befitting an Ariyan and considered so, bright with bright results and praised by the wise, are sometimes found among the Khattiyas, and likewise among Brahmins, merchants, and artisans. ‘Now since both dark and bright qualities, which are blamed and praised by the wise, are scattered indiscriminately among the four castes, the wise do not recognize the claim about the Brahmin caste being the highest. Why is that? Because, Vasettha, anyone from the four castes who becomes a monk, an Arahant who has destroyed the corruptions, who has lived the life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached the highest goal, destroyed the fetter of becoming, and become emancipated through superknowledge—he is proclaims supreme by virtue of Dhamma and not of non-Dhamma.'
The beginning of Humankind
‘There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after a long period this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma World. And there they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self luminous, moving through the air, glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time. But sooner or later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand again. At a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara Brahma world, having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in this world. Here they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time.'
Biology of Human Race
‘At that period, Vasettha, there was just one mass of water, and all was darkness, blinding darkness. Neither moon nor sun appeared, no constellations or stars appeared, night and day were not yet distinguished, nor months and fortnights, nor years and seasons; there was no male and female, beings being reckoned just as beings. And sooner or later, after a very long period of time, savoury earth spread itself over the waters where those beings were. It looked just like the skin that forms itself over hot milk as it cools. It was endowed with colour, smell, and taste. It was the color of fine ghee or butter and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey.'
From Darkness to Day & Night
‘Then some being of a greedy nature said: "I say, what can this be?" and tasted the savoury earth on its finger. In so doing, it became taken with the flavour, and craving arose in it. Then other beings, taking their cue from that one, also tasted the stuff with their fingers. They too were taken with the flavour, and craving arose in them. So they set to with their hands, breaking off pieces of the stuff in order to eat it. And the result was that their self luminance disappeared. And as a result of the disappearance of their self luminance the moon and the sun appeared, night and day were distinguished, months and fortnights appeared, and the year and its seasons. To that extent the world re-evolved.'
Evolution Cycle in Human Race
‘And those beings continued for a very long time feasting on this savory earth, feeding on it and being nourished by it. And as they did so, their bodies became coarser, and a difference in looks developed among them. Some beings became good looking, others ugly. And the good looking ones despised the others, saying: "We are better looking than they are." And because they became arrogant and conceited about their looks, the savoury earth disappeared. At this they came together and lamented, crying, "Oh, that flavour! Oh, that flavour!" and so nowadays when people say, "Oh, that flavour!" when they get something nice, they are repeating an ancient saying without realizing it.'
The Human Food Chain
‘And then, when the savoury earth disappeared, a fungus cropped up, in the manner of a mushroom. It was of good colour, smell, and taste. It was the colour of fine ghee or butter, and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey. And those beings set to and ate the fungus. And this lasted for a very long time. And as they continued to feed on the fungus, so their bodies become coarser still, and the difference in their looks increased still more. And the good looking ones despised the others…and because they became arrogant and conceited about their looks, the sweet fungus disappeared. Next, creepers appeared, shooting up like bamboo…and they too were very sweet, like pure wild honey. ‘And those beings set to and fed on those creepers. And as they did so, their bodies became even coarser, and the difference in their looks increased still more…and they became still more arrogant, and so the creepers disappeared too. At this they came together and lamented, crying: "Alas, our creepers gone! What have we lost!" and so now today when people, one being asked why they are upset, say: "Oh what have we lost!" they are repeating an ancient saying without realizing it.'
Sexual Evolution - Asexual to Male and Female
‘And then, after the creepers had disappeared, rice appeared in open spaces, free from powder and from husks, fragrant and clean grained. And what they had taken in the evening for supper had grown again and was ripe in the morning, and what they had taken in the morning for breakfast was ripe again by evening, with no sign of reaping.
And these beings set to and fed on this rice, and this lasted for a very long time. And as they did so, their bodies became coarser still, and the difference in their looks became even greater. And the females developed female sex organs and the males developed male sex organs. And the women became excessively preoccupied with the men, and the men with the women. Owing to this excessive preoccupation with each other, passion was aroused, and their bodies burnt with lust. And later because of this burning, they indulged in sexual activity. But those who saw them indulging threw dust, ashes, or cow dung at them, crying: "Die, you filthy beast! How can one being do such things to another?" Just as today, in some districts, when a daughter-in-law is led out, some people throw dirt at her, some ashes, and some cow dung, without realizing that they are repeating an ancient observance. What was considered bad form in those days is now considered good form. ‘And those beings who in those days indulged in sex were not allowed into a village or town for one or two months. Accordingly those who indulged for an excessively long period in such immoral practices began to build themselves dwellings so as to indulge under cover.
‘Now it occurred to one of those beings who was inclined to laziness, "Well now, why should I be bothered to gather rice in the evening for supper and in the morning for breakfast? Why shouldn’t I gather it all at once for both meals?" And he did so. Then another one came to him and said, "Come on, lets go rice-gathering." "No need, my friend, I’ve gathered enough for both meals." Then the other, following his example, gathered enough rice for two days at a time, saying, "That should be about enough." Then another being came to that second one, "Come on, let’s go rice gathering." "No need my friend; I’ve gathered enough for two days." (The same for four, then eight days.) However, when those beings made a store of rice and lived on that, husk-powder and husk began to envelop the grain, and where it was reaped it did not grow again, and the cut place showed, and the rice grew in separate clusters. ‘And then those beings came together lamenting, "Wicked ways have become rife among us: at first we were mind made, feeding on delight…(All the events are repeated down to the latest development, each fresh change being said to be due to ‘wicked and unwholesome ways)…and the rice grows in separate clusters! So now let us divide up the rice into fields with boundaries." So they did so.’
For the Buddha, ignorance in part has its origin in the concept of ‘ditthi’, or attachment to views and opinions, particularly with regard to religious notions of the body being a self, or belonging to a self. Such attachment to views and opinions is the basis for a belief in theological systems that often lead (through craving (tanha) and defilements (klesa) generated unopposed in the mind) to religious fanaticism. Religion is the state of permanent ‘alienation’ of humanity from its true psychological and social essence. Religious systems obscure reality whilst simultaneously perpetuating a mythological return to a disembodied reality that is never achieved simply because it does not exist. Humanity becomes alienated from its own true origins through the historical conditioning of the perpetuation of ignorant patterns in the mind and through the performing of Unevolved and exploitative habits of behaviour in society. Marx states:
‘So much does labour’s realisation appear as loss of reality that the worker loses reality to the point of starving to death. So much does objectification appear as loss of the object that the worker is robbed of the objects most necessary not only for his life but for his work. Indeed, labour itself becomes an object which he can get hold of only with the greatest effort and with the most irregular interruptions. So much does the appropriation of the object appear as estrangement that the more objects the worker produces the fewer can he possess and the more he falls under the domination of his product, capital.
All these consequences are contained in the definition that the worker is related to the product of his labour as to an alien object. For on this premise it is clear that the more the worker spends himself, the more powerful the alien objective world becomes which he creates over-against himself, the poorer he himself – his inner world – becomes, the less belongs to him as his own. It is the same in religion. The more man puts into God, the less he retains in himself. The worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object. Hence, the greater this activity, the greater is the worker’s lack of objects. Whatever the product of his labour is, he is not. Therefore the greater this product, the less is he himself. The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his labour becomes an object, an external existence, but that it becomes a power of its own confronting him, it means that the life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien.’ [6]
The systems of thought attributed to the Buddha and to Karl Marx share a theoretical premise that states that if humanity is to evolve into a higher and more fulfilling level of existence, it must throw off the deluded and self-limiting habits of the past, whether those habits be the perpetuation of a caste or class system, or the pointless accumulation of profit. Central to this radical deconstruction is the use of rational and logical analysis to strip the mind (and society) of an unquestioning and deferential approach to established religion. In short, religion must be thoroughly de-established and reduced in power and influence so that the progressive and advanced historical forces can perform their transformational function throughout society and in the minds of humanity. Atheism opposes theism in a supporting polarity that must be transcended so that the dichotomy is exposed for the irrelevance it actually is. A god that has never existed has no need to be opposed. It is obvious that Marx is an atheistic with regard to his opposition to established religion in the West, that in his fully developed argument, the atheist-theist argument is left behind like an early childhood lesson learnt in the classroom, but no longer relevant to the developed mind of the adult. The Buddha, by way of contrast, holds a number of positions dependent upon context:
1) In the enlightened state gods do not exist.
2) In the unenlightened state gods appear to exist.
3) These gods have no real divine power and are subject to change.
4) Gods are used within Buddhist meditation but are transformed into stages of rational realisations.
5) Gods are just ordinary beings that should not be worshipped.
It is clear that the Buddhist teaching with the highest authority is the Buddha’s post-enlightenment statements to the effect that gods do not exist. This firmly places him in the atheist position; however, as he appears to teach that deluded beings may imagine gods, and that these gods have a purely expedient existence, his position may be described as non-theistic. The non-theistic position (which is achieved through the radical break of atheism) may also be used to describe the developed position of Karl Marx. Finally, each system declares that belief in religion is a stumbling block to further human evolution, both psychologically and socially, and it is this unique anti-bourgeois position that places Buddhism and Marxism in the same developmental category.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2014.
[1] Story, Frank, Gods and the Universe in Buddhist Perspective – Essays on Buddhist Cosmology, The Wheel Publication No. 180/181, (1983), Page 1.
[2] McLennan, David, Karl Marx– A Biography, Papermac, (1995), Pages 105-106. Reference: 166 – K Marx, Early Years, P. 154 – another book authored by McLellan.
[3] Rahula, Walpola, What the Buddha Taught, Gordon Fraser, (1978), Pages 51-52.
[4] Tucker, Robert, C, Editor, The Marx-Engels Reader, WW Norton & Company, (1978), Page 595 – Quoted from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Chapter 1, by Karl Marx.
[5] Alternatively, in his 1981 book entitled ‘The Buddha’s Philosophy of Man (Page 99), Trevor Ling translates the term ‘Agganna Sutta’ as ‘A Book of Genesis’.
[6] Tucker, Robert, C, Editor, The Marx-Engels Reader, WW Norton & Company, (1978), Page 72 – Quoted from the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 – Section Subtitled ‘Estranged Labour’ by Karl Marx.