Return To Index
Previos Section: 2). Introduction – How the Buddha Influenced Marx
3). Why Marx needed to Define a Radical Material Reality
By its very definition, ‘matter’ cannot be ‘spirit’ except in the most confused and muddled of dialectical narratives. The evidence of the predominance of matter exists all around, a concrete reality that includes the living bodies of individuals. The human capacity of ‘imagination’ has channelled every kind of fantasy upon the physical world – and yet the physical world persists to exist as it is. Humanity cannot walk through walls, which remain stubbornly ‘opaque’ to every such human attempt. The physical universe operates under its own implicit laws and there is no evidence that a god controls the machinations of individual existence. A change of human perception has been taking place probably from the 13th century, whereby the ‘inverted’ perspection of theology has been slowly replaced by an appreciation of matter. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote:
'Man, being the servant and interpreter of Nature, can do and understand so much, only as he has observed in fact or in thought of the course of nature. Beyond this he neither knows anything nor can do anything. Human knowledge and human power meet in one; because where the cause is not known the effect cannot be produced. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed; and that which in contemplation is as the cause is in operation as the rule.'
Francis Bacon - 1620 (Translated from the Latin Text entitled 'Novum Organum' - or 'New Organon')
Although Giovanni Battista Vico (1668–1744) may have viewed human-beings as being the masters of their own thought and destiny, nevertheless, he still perceived nature (or the ‘material environment’) as still being the product of an all-creating theistic god concept. Although self-evident, many people are lost in a malaise of contradictory and poorly organised thought-systems, developed through upbringing, community, religion and myriad other experiences. The bourgeois system thrives on the isolation of individuality, and the confusing bourgeoise notions of ‘freedom of thought’ bring to society. With enough divisive ideology presented as ‘freedom’, the bourgeoisie is able to maintain millions of functioning individuals within a capitalist society who are inherently unable to ‘unite’ in the best interests of their class. Any individual who opposes the bourgeois system in the name of the working class is immediately presented as ‘attacking’ the very working class he or she is trying to save! Furthermore, the ‘selflessness’ of this individual is immediately presented as ‘selfishness’ of the worst sort! Although none of this makes any sense, it works because the bourgeoisie control society through owning the means of productions, and operate a continuous (and ‘inverted’) ‘divide and conquer’ policy toward the workers. As Marx states the workers must save themselves through ‘organisation’ and ‘education’, this also means reforming the manner in which the conditioned human mind operates. Within a bourgeois society, culture is a priori set as educating the masses to view reality the ‘wrong way around’, and apply this ‘inverted’ thinking to ALL situations. The bourgeoise enslavement of the (collective) working class is interpreted as the ‘free’ individual sustained by the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoise oppression of the (collective) working class is interpreted as the ‘sustaining’ of ‘individual rights’ by the bourgeoisie, and on it goes. Killing the workers in wars that support and perpetuate the class interests of the bourgeoise is interpreted as ‘freeing’ those killed into the ‘heaven’ of their religion! Marx identified that it is this ‘inverted’ thinking that lies at the foundation of ALL bourgeois power within reactionary society, and it is this ‘inverted’ mindset which must be resolved through the adoption of a special kind of materialism. Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872) was a genius thinker who is acknowledged as inspiring Marx in his development work. Feuerbach said:
‘The real cannot be expressed in thought in whole numbers, but only in fractions. This distinction is a reasonable one, for it rests on the nature of thought, whose essence is generality, as opposed to reality, whose essence is individuality. What prevents this distinction from becoming a literal contradiction between the thought and the real is the fact that thought does not proceed in a straight line, in identity with itself, but is interrupted by sense-perception. Only thought which determines and rectifies itself by means of sense-perception is real, objective thought: the thought of objective truth.’
Ludwig Feuerbach: Grundsätze der Philosophie der Zukunft (1843)
The European influence upon Marx is obvious and cannot be negated or denied. If the Buddhist understanding of material reality did influence Marx, then ‘historical materialism’ becomes a truly ‘international’ collaboration of historical human minds all searching for the truth. As matters stand, the above progression of thought implies that Hegel’s system is devised the wrong way around, but stops short of explaining ‘exactly’ what human consciousness is, why it exists and how it interacts with ‘matter’. This is exactly where Buddhist philosophy enters the developmental picture. Marx needed to demonstrate the pre-eminence of the material world, the moribund nature of religiosity, and the philosophical incorrectness of Hegel! Just one of these objectives would be difficult at the best of times, but all three nigh impossible all at once, and yet with the help of the Buddha’s insight Marx was able to pull-off one of the biggest philosophical coups of all time!
Next Section: 4). How Marx Encountered and Expressed his Understanding of Buddhism
Return To Index
Previos Section: 2). Introduction – How the Buddha Influenced Marx
3). Why Marx needed to Define a Radical Material Reality
By its very definition, ‘matter’ cannot be ‘spirit’ except in the most confused and muddled of dialectical narratives. The evidence of the predominance of matter exists all around, a concrete reality that includes the living bodies of individuals. The human capacity of ‘imagination’ has channelled every kind of fantasy upon the physical world – and yet the physical world persists to exist as it is. Humanity cannot walk through walls, which remain stubbornly ‘opaque’ to every such human attempt. The physical universe operates under its own implicit laws and there is no evidence that a god controls the machinations of individual existence. A change of human perception has been taking place probably from the 13th century, whereby the ‘inverted’ perspection of theology has been slowly replaced by an appreciation of matter. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote:
'Man, being the servant and interpreter of Nature, can do and understand so much, only as he has observed in fact or in thought of the course of nature. Beyond this he neither knows anything nor can do anything. Human knowledge and human power meet in one; because where the cause is not known the effect cannot be produced. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed; and that which in contemplation is as the cause is in operation as the rule.'
Francis Bacon - 1620 (Translated from the Latin Text entitled 'Novum Organum' - or 'New Organon')
Although Giovanni Battista Vico (1668–1744) may have viewed human-beings as being the masters of their own thought and destiny, nevertheless, he still perceived nature (or the ‘material environment’) as still being the product of an all-creating theistic god concept. Although self-evident, many people are lost in a malaise of contradictory and poorly organised thought-systems, developed through upbringing, community, religion and myriad other experiences. The bourgeois system thrives on the isolation of individuality, and the confusing bourgeoise notions of ‘freedom of thought’ bring to society. With enough divisive ideology presented as ‘freedom’, the bourgeoisie is able to maintain millions of functioning individuals within a capitalist society who are inherently unable to ‘unite’ in the best interests of their class. Any individual who opposes the bourgeois system in the name of the working class is immediately presented as ‘attacking’ the very working class he or she is trying to save! Furthermore, the ‘selflessness’ of this individual is immediately presented as ‘selfishness’ of the worst sort! Although none of this makes any sense, it works because the bourgeoisie control society through owning the means of productions, and operate a continuous (and ‘inverted’) ‘divide and conquer’ policy toward the workers. As Marx states the workers must save themselves through ‘organisation’ and ‘education’, this also means reforming the manner in which the conditioned human mind operates. Within a bourgeois society, culture is a priori set as educating the masses to view reality the ‘wrong way around’, and apply this ‘inverted’ thinking to ALL situations. The bourgeoise enslavement of the (collective) working class is interpreted as the ‘free’ individual sustained by the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoise oppression of the (collective) working class is interpreted as the ‘sustaining’ of ‘individual rights’ by the bourgeoisie, and on it goes. Killing the workers in wars that support and perpetuate the class interests of the bourgeoise is interpreted as ‘freeing’ those killed into the ‘heaven’ of their religion! Marx identified that it is this ‘inverted’ thinking that lies at the foundation of ALL bourgeois power within reactionary society, and it is this ‘inverted’ mindset which must be resolved through the adoption of a special kind of materialism. Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872) was a genius thinker who is acknowledged as inspiring Marx in his development work. Feuerbach said:
‘The real cannot be expressed in thought in whole numbers, but only in fractions. This distinction is a reasonable one, for it rests on the nature of thought, whose essence is generality, as opposed to reality, whose essence is individuality. What prevents this distinction from becoming a literal contradiction between the thought and the real is the fact that thought does not proceed in a straight line, in identity with itself, but is interrupted by sense-perception. Only thought which determines and rectifies itself by means of sense-perception is real, objective thought: the thought of objective truth.’
Ludwig Feuerbach: Grundsätze der Philosophie der Zukunft (1843)
The European influence upon Marx is obvious and cannot be negated or denied. If the Buddhist understanding of material reality did influence Marx, then ‘historical materialism’ becomes a truly ‘international’ collaboration of historical human minds all searching for the truth. As matters stand, the above progression of thought implies that Hegel’s system is devised the wrong way around, but stops short of explaining ‘exactly’ what human consciousness is, why it exists and how it interacts with ‘matter’. This is exactly where Buddhist philosophy enters the developmental picture. Marx needed to demonstrate the pre-eminence of the material world, the moribund nature of religiosity, and the philosophical incorrectness of Hegel! Just one of these objectives would be difficult at the best of times, but all three nigh impossible all at once, and yet with the help of the Buddha’s insight Marx was able to pull-off one of the biggest philosophical coups of all time!
Next Section: 4). How Marx Encountered and Expressed his Understanding of Buddhism
Return To Index