 |
 |
 |
|
Seeking Social Justice: Academic Movements Towards Buddhst "Socialism" Dion Peoples This first paragraph will serve as the introductory comment. When I think of social justice, many definitions enter into the mind. It seems like a vast topic to cover. As someone formerly from a military background, I would like to state that if someone commits a crime there should be a form of punishment [as to the level, I won’t discuss]. There needs to be something ‘socially’ in place – laws, to prevent social/culture deviance. However due to the concept of freedom or liberation, over time: adaptations or alternative forms of expression should be allowed in order to prevent the collapse of the social structure. Like a tree: once the establishment of the necessary culture grows ‘roots’ and matures to produce the fruits of society – some people are raw, ripe, spoiled or have completely fallen off. Justice, is a weighty issue to manage – most people would seem to implement the fairest decisions possible. We shouldn’t even entertain the concept to manage society like a Buddhist monastery. Humanity is governed or driven by too much greed, hatred and delusion. Buddhism is here for us who wish to escape the above cycle. Therefore, this paper “retreats” to discover perhaps, what went wrong in some societies – wrong in the sense of: we are now able to move into a greater/positive direction to where all societies have a greater sense of justice [awards and punishments]. While it seems most of this paper is devoted to socialism and its reflection of religions, by entering into this arena or discussion, one can see where social justice can [with motivation] operate. Thus: a comprehensive survey of socialist literature and philosophy was conducted to discover an international application of religion suitable to socialism and the various other systems of government, particularly governments that profess secularism. Much of the material is of a very old age, but due to the profound philosophical consequences: this is material which should not be forgotten. Consequentially, research and analysis lead the author to towards a ‘socialism’ that blends itself with Southeast Asia’s Theravada Buddhism. For the purpose of this paper, Buddhist Socialism will be used as the term applied in this work. This paper assumes the reader knows little about Buddhism. In addition, the reader should have some basic knowledge of socialism, so that redundant economic theory [absent in this paper] will not be duplicated via quotations; the dead economists just battle over who is correct or wrong anyhow and offer long and confusing mathematical proofs – and society is not rigid like the formulas those skillful people employ. Encountering many religious, political, and philosophical theories, etc., and from this vast experience and preparation for this article, hopes are that the reader will come to understand how the scientific notion of ‘socialism’ is compatible to the scientific or internal investigation of Buddhism, and how Buddhist-socialism can be created for the sake of bring greater ‘justice’ to societies. This idea merged not from the student’s own ‘religious understanding,’ but out of the academic analysis of material from the university setting. Many classes and professors teach to write about problems and little on solutions – this paper is more a solution based on what is being dictated from the institutional learning facilities. Many universities teach students how not to impose ‘Eurocentric’ values, to respecting foreign cultures, religion, philosophies, etc. Through political studies, students learns that democratic/non-authoritarian approaches to governments are best. From the preceding range of academic influences: this paper emerged from many readings. The opinion of this paper [and perhaps other people] is that many post-colonial and/or developing nations, faced with independence pushed themselves towards areas that were ‘opposite’ from what the European powers imposed into their respective countries within their own beliefs. Part of the greater concern should include respect and tolerance for impacted societies rather than the eradication of the ‘other’ society through warfare or colonization – too often repeated, historically. Human history is full of various empires seeking hegemony over another culture. Through examples of imperialism, the following thoughts arrived to one scholar concerning Eurocentric behaviors – the burden the European powers imposed upon themselves to dictate the course of history, because s/he can’t leave other places alone for some reason. Eurocentric behaviors or rather, ‘criticisms of Eurocentricity,’[1] include: Denigration of other people and places After years of the stereotypical “oppression and exploitation” that reigns during colonial and/or imperialistic periods, rationalizations for injustices [racism, economic marginalization, education inequalities, discrepancies in the standard of living, etc…] are not necessary to understand why nations would choose or create the path following religious/political ideologies - linking a return to their past national glories and a sense of social normalization. The respective leaders of religion and politics in the various nations have always tried to draw attention on social and nation-building matters – and the nation-building process allowed for drawing religion into the political field. The thought manifested at this point, is: Buddhism [not Buddhist nations] seems to be the only ‘social-guidance/philosophy’ that can arrive at a society that operates with justice. Some might state that the Buddhist nations have the greatest disregard for justice. The people of Myanmar are not receiving the type of government they elected many years ago; Thai people cannot express themselves freely out of fear of violating social laws; and it has been said that the Vietnamese government oppresses non-communist groups, and that Cambodia and Laos almost eradicated the Buddhism in their nations. An academic excursion into socialist literature, now becomes mandatory. The international socialists selected for review in this paper were: Mikhail Bakunin, Pridi Banomyong, Antonio Gramsci, Antonio Labriola, Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Mao Tse-Tung, Stalin, U Nu, and perhaps Max Weber [sociologist]. From the range of Marxian theory, largely reduced from elements in Marx/Engels writings[2], a determinacy of the following was viewed as consistent in Marxist theory concerning religion, from three standpoints: Government/State Components a) Controls social/anti-social elements Religious/Sensuality Components a) Harvests mysterious forces – acquiring social attributes Overlapping/Transitional Components a) Theoretical/religious activities versus political/practical activities From socialist thinkers, an impression is made linking socialists towards being secularists, but there might be a problem. This opinion is further perceived in this manner: because, largely growing up in the shadow of the Cold War, and being a youth during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the ‘communists’ were being portrayed as ‘God-less’ people. Often the capitalistically inspired individual is responsible for being the greater secularist, because going to church and being ‘religious’ would run against exploiting people and the environment, which is necessary for accumulating profit. Despite the evils of perverse communistic-revisionism by the Russian soviet model, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Jews still existed, perhaps to counter-check the dictates of the communist system. Therefore this paper hopes to succeed in placing the words of the various international socialists onto a proper stage, presenting their real meanings. What are some of the meanings? “Only the isolated example of Gramsci, writing from the Mussolinian jails, can be quoted as a new departure producing a new arsenal of concepts – war of position, historical bloc, collective will, hegemony, intellectual and moral leadership – which are the starting point…[3]” Part of a new era in politics would include non-Eurocentric concepts for models or situations of reflection. If taking the above ‘Eurocentric’ concepts as more than theories – the setting of ethical norms might stand out to a reader if the writer is proposing to set Buddhist socialism as the ethical path. Education of the Buddhist socialist path, and perhaps any path [often many of the religions teach similar ethical behaviors] might be useful in the sense that Buddhism teaches about suffering, and the consequences of a said economic policy, perhaps. A memory, moving beyond to cover Buddhist socialism, finds the intellectual and moral leadership likely to be one of the foundational concepts. The socialist might be a secularist, but his/her morality is somehow related to religious thought: religious institutions existed before the dominance of secular governments, so a transitional/overlap of religious/socialist views had to have been existent. Moral or ethical actions were previously established by religious doctrines, the modern idea, after the eradication of religion, was to retain ethics/morality but make allegiance to the state over the concept of an external deity. The foundations of Buddhist thought: Figure One: Visual Representation/Foundations* of Buddhist Thought:** The Four Noble Truths: The Truth of Suffering (that it exists) 1) Right View 2) Right Thought |Wisdom: (Study Dhamma)-Speech 3) Right Speech 4) Right Action |Morality: (Practice Vinaya) – Body/Action 5) Right Livelihood 6) Right Effort 7) Right Mindfulness |Contemplation: (Doing Meditation) – Mind 8) Right Concentration *Compiled from Theravada Buddhist scriptures: the Pali Canon – student writer was a former Theravada Buddhist monk **Naturally, this is not fully inclusive of the vastness of the Buddha’s 45 years of teaching Dhamma – just key points This paper claims that the secular government/state, or elite, control the social apparatuses in society, and if one goes against the guiding laws/established normative behavior patterns [anti-social activities], then consequences are to be faced – possibly jail, for the paper’s sake. The government [for the purpose of illustration] knows that materialism replaces religion. How is this done? By creating the conditions necessary for consumers to want, desire, or need ‘things’ that the government withholds from the people, the trick is to grant society tokens at a regulated pace. This gives rise to the government appearing as being a benefactor – and society should be grateful towards the compassionate government relieving the suffering of the people. This neglects social tensions created when people’s wages are not up to or beyond the rising cost of living, reduction of health care benefits, increased education/tuition rates, and nearly every government program seems to be privatizing at the expense of the ‘consumer.’ The desired dream of the capitalist is to gain control of every aspect of the market place. People in capitalistic-nations are being forced to work more, and stay after hours often, taking time away from the family structure, and often this over-stressed individual ceases to attend the ‘temple.’ People are manipulated into performing - as mere bodies, to keep the bureaucracy functioning. Eventually, ethics/morality is compromised, citing brief gratification as reason alone for the ‘sinful’ diversion. Temples, eventually, hold less meaning for society – other than a reminder of the past, how ‘things used to be.’ Human becomes a slave to the driving economy [double meaning intended]. Cities spread out, claiming agricultural or forest land, instead of building themselves ‘up,’ - American style versus European architecture/city planning [instead of suburbs, build large housing-units – it saves land and builds ‘community]. It might be recognized that the ‘perceived best-way’ might not be the choice for the funding source or holders of different ideas. There are overlapping components that guide both the government/state and fading religious institutions. There are definite theoretical/religious activities versus political/practical activities. Of recent memory, is the dis/allowance of the Muslim ‘headscarf’ for girls in the classrooms, recitation of the American pledge of Allegiance, which advocated submission to a monotheistic deity – against the beliefs of many Hindu, Buddhist and other ‘accepted’ ideologies. Also, there are recognized charismatic leaders that can be conceived as ‘deviant mediums’ that inspire liberation in its various contextual renditions, such as the Prophet Jesus leading people away from the Roman/Jewish power grip, the Prophet Muhammad gathering the many Bedouin tribes together under a monotheistic ideology of submission, Siddhattha Gotama teaching his people to renounce the sensuous fancies of Hindu culture and corrupt Brahmin practices, Malcolm X gathering Black/African-Americans together to face historically white oppressors, just to mention a few. These charismatic leaders have transformed their societies, often inspiring a sense of ‘mob thought’ in both, received positive and negative interpretations [at the time] for their cause. Often, in the examples used above, devout religious communities rose from the decaying social apparatus, leading to a revival away from unethical, secular, or paganistic activities [also recognizing that not all aspects have been covered in this article]. Leading to the final category of Marxian thought, religious/sensuality components for society, recognizes the harvesting of mysterious forces – acquiring social attributes, despite the advancements made by science. Religion is thought of, or rather applied as being man’s external thought forces - which ultimately control his/her daily life. The government/state attempts to exert influence through social benefits, tricks, oppression, taxation and any other contrived scheme attempted through the ages – the colonization of foreign lands by the people residing on the Asian Peninsula [Europe] eradicated the native religion of many people, resulting in a reclamation of ‘nationalism’ which brought religious conflict after colonial withdraw. Religions can also be the devious acknowledgement of man, by spiritualizing the sensuous feelings [based on the six-senses: sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, thoughts] or sensuous arousal can be attributed to/through an intermediary [Jesus/deity] utilized to confront/fight against the ‘other world’ – the secular state for example, or a lover. The various international socialists, in this reduction/generalization view religion in the above ‘bulleted’ deduction, as subversive to the aims of the state. Established in the reading of international socialist literature, is the common theme that: religion must be a private affair, and that the economic activity of the individual is to be paramount over the supra-mundane concerns of the individual, because society is the greater concern. This seems obvious, even for the capitalist – the worker leaves the personal life away from the workforce, serves the boss [example duty hours: 0730-1630], then is free to pursue any activity s/he wants. The personality is not supposed to be represented in the workplace, because of the possible influence over co-workers. Politics, religion and other subjects are not supposed to be topics of chatter while serving the boss, whose concern is the accounting numbers for the hydro-electrical dam project in India. These are not the goals of productive work and production. For the boss, there is a greater concern: profit for the boss. Setting the initial tone, Frederick Engels writes in 1890: “[Karl] Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasize the main principle vis-à-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction. But when it came to presenting a section of history, that is, to making a practical application, it was a different matter and there no error was permissible. Unfortunately, however, it happens only too often that people think they have fully understood a new theory and can apply it without more ado from the moment they have assimilated its main principles, and even those not always correctly. And I cannot exempt many of the more recent ‘Marxists’ from this reproach, for the most amazing rubbish has been produced in this quarter, too.“[4] Only speculation can replace what really makes up more important elements to Engels’ theory since they [Marx/Engels: further mentioned as KMFE] were forced to react to outside influences. In the mind of Engels, each generation of successive thinkers deteriorates the original theory and at times are guilty of misrepresenting and misapplying theory to real situations. This paper hopes to rediscover the religious aspects/representations of Marxism, which were originally overturned and eradicated by the secularist state/capitalist seizure of power, reducing religion to a private affair. Religion can be practiced at home, reducing the power of the priesthood. Capitalism has robbed society of its ethics and morality, attempting to replace religious/cultural values with secular laws that are rigidly reinforced, without [or poor] adaptability to current circumstances. Socialism is should be more tolerant of variations in thought towards constructions of firm/well-designed societies, while teaching humanity the tools to develop properly without exploiting/raping nature and humanity – with justice/fairness to differences. Scientific materialism is encouraged, building and creating things for the benefit of society. Buddhism allows for exploration into scientific materialism, due to its inherent nature towards internal exploration. Society under Buddhist socialism would look within itself to determine the direction headed, without exploitation of people or nature. From the range of Marxian theory, largely reduced from elements in KMFE writings[5], the rediscovery that part of the productive effort to lead a society from conflict and disaster can come from Buddhist Socialism. This will be explained as the paper progresses. To remember what is being presented in this paper, Antonio Gramsci writes, “Philosophy is criticism and the superseding of religion and ‘common sense.’ …Religion and common sense cannot constitute an intellectual order, because they cannot be reduced to unity and coherence even within an individual consciousness… Philosophy in general does not exist…all action is political, can one not say that the real philosophy of each man is contained in its entirety in his political action? This contrast between thought and action… is not simply a product of self-deception.”[6] Consider though the opinion of the author: to have common-sense is an insult – we should strive towards a higher form of consciousness! Buddhism provides well for higher forms of thought – one should be directed towards the Sutta-pitaka for valuable insights and the Abhidhamma-pitaka for higher methods of mental activity. There is a need to illustrate government, religion and overlapping areas that cover both, because – as above, the essence of each person [implying humanity – inclusive of females throughout the document] resides amongst his/her own interactions, and how s/he alone maneuvers between each interaction; yet these interactions hold little meaning, and do in fact, as Gramsci illustrates mean nothing because there is no philosophy to speak. In Buddhism, a meditator – through diligent, ardent and resolute training in meditation can arrive to a coherent unity, which would warrant the ears of many, as the meditator dispenses philosophy to the masses. Many people often criticize publicly – in conversation, Christianity, because they determine the religion to be divisive, lacking a unifying characteristic for holders of different views and opinions. There can be no common-sense when there is an ideology of imposition that suppresses inquiry. For believers of the various Holy Scriptures, there is no investigation of the divine, deep enough to battle and prove for the existence of a deity. Gramsci states that because there is no unified sense of truth and the superseding criticism of these ideas, there is no reason to fill our heads with these delusions. Gramsci believes that politics cannot be divorced from philosophy.[7] Gramsci seems to allow, a Buddhist-socialism. Gramsci writes about different people in different historical eras having philosophically analyzed and criticized the various opinions prevailing in their societies. Gramsci seems to say/claim that there can be no hegemonic doctrine over the masses because even the intellectuals’ dispute over opinions; and even individual are not solely receptive to the dominance of any group, because s/he merely borrows thoughts to guide politically motivated actions. Gramsci can be referring to a tolerant [in the sense of being open or diverse] society. There are non-harmful elements in society that obscure the common morality for the individual; Gramsci suggests that there are temptations, beyond lust or substance abuse, that corrupt behavior. This leads to some questions, in which time prevents further understanding: who is to blame for giving in to the power of materialism, since many people can see behind the deceptive elements, but choose to go along with the thought, because it poses no large imposition upon their daily concerns? Is it government or public/private responsibility to provide positive outlets for interaction rather than distraction and deviations from humanity’s true social nature? A look at scientific socialism continues with Marx below, mentioning surroundings should be made ‘human’ not sterile, and it is through collective membership of society that the wealth of community and society is measured. Concerning religion, deductions can be made to illustrate how individualistic sensuous experiences should be contained, because the sociability of mystical activities cannot be reached by the collective for the benefit of all to experience. One could suggest religious conservatism, based from the above comment, since the feeling is articulated and cannot be considered a truth, as it is mere sensory, and sensory faculties can be fooled. In free, materialistic cultures – who attests to the genuineness of the mystic? Marx asks, “If man draws all his knowledge, sensation, etc., from the world of the senses and the experience gained from it, the empirical world must be arranged so that in it man experiences and gets what is really human and that he becomes aware of himself as a man. If correctly understood interest is the principle of all moral, man’s private interest must be made to coincide with the interests of humanity. If man is unfree in the materialist sense, i.e., is not free through the negative power to avoid this or that, but through the positive power to assert his true individuality, crime must not be punished in the individual, but the anti-social source of crime must be destroyed, and each man must be given social scope for the vital manifestation of his being. If man is shaped by his surroundings, his surroundings must be made human. If man is social by nature, he will develop his true nature only in society, and the power of his nature must be measured not by the power of separate individuals but by the power of society.”[8] It is evident that Marx has internalized his scientific inquiries into the nature of man and society. Karl Marx writes in 1842, that ancient religions and civilizations have given way and have submitted to advancing scientific nations, human reasoning that promoted responsible human community truths and secular forms of government.[9] Marx claims in his early work that government has been responsible for promoting society’s goals/truths and that it is within human nature to submit to powers that promote freedom with reason inside governing schemes [democracy’s, dictatorships, monarchy’s], including religion. Karl Marx writes in a different 1843 text that, through the dialectical relationship to an influential, necessary medium or condition, man can achieve political liberation. Sometimes man fails to see the devious nature of the state’s role over society. Marx writes, “…that when man liberates himself politically he does so in a devious way, through a [necessary] medium; ...when man proclaims himself an atheist through the mediation of the state, i.e., when he proclaims the state an atheist, he still remains under the constraints of religion because he acknowledges his atheism only deviously, through a medium.”[10] Marx continues, to say, “…religion is precisely that: the devious acknowledgement of man, through an intermediary. The state is the intermediary between man and man’s freedom. Just as Christ is the intermediary to whom man attributes all his divinity, all his religious constraints, so the state is the intermediary to which man transfers all his non-divinity, all his human unconstraint.” [11] Buddhism lacks a medium. There is merely: the Buddha – the ‘great’ teacher, the Dhamma – the ‘sacred’ teachings contained in the Tipitaka, and the Sangha – the monks/people who practice correctly. A ‘real’ Buddhist lives, practicing Dhamma-teachings - not with objects of worship, or attachment to ceremonial rites and rituals. Karl Marx writes again in 1843, that humanity undergoes internal theoretical/religious struggles as well as political/practical struggles towards the various nature and forms of the state social structure, including distinguishing over private property. [12] Marx writes in 1847, that Christians submit themselves to oppressive social principles. He says, “the social principles of Christianity preach the necessity of a ruling and an oppressed class, and all they have for the latter is the pious wish the former will be charitable, [and] …the social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, submission, dejection, in a word, all the qualities of the canaille [a mob/pack of dogs], and the proletariat, not wishing to be treated as canaille, needs its courage, its self-feeling, its pride and its sense of independence more than its bread. …so much for the social principles of Christianity.” [13] Christian societies have developed to the point where Christians lean towards personal self-destruction, towards submission not to God, but to the economic forces of the new state operating as the new deity. Based on social observations in modern America, society seems content to be subjected under exploitative governance, based especially from voter apathy. Buddhism teachings liberation from suffering [see Fig. 1]. Karl Marx wrote in 1844, concerning religion, that human essence has no inherently true real characteristics, perhaps alluding to the concepts of anatta – the no-self in Buddhism.[14 Perhaps this is an aspect to the splintering/schisms of the ‘Church’ into its various counterparts. Religion is believed to be the mystical fight against the ‘other world.’ Moreover, because the world is heartless, oppressive and cruel, humans devised religion to oppose the void created by the bureaucratic hierarchy, mentally escaping from the physical and personal world. Bakunin states, “The perpetual fear which he feels, and which underlies every animal’s existence, forms also…the first basis of every religion. It is this fear that makes necessary for the animal to struggle throughout its life against dangers threatening it from the outside; and to maintain its own existence – individual and social – at the expense of everything around it…”[15] A person can wonder then: would religion arise in a non-oppressive society or state? Marx, from his famous quote, “…religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. …The criticism of religion disillusions man to make him think and act and shape his reality like a man who has been disillusioned and has come to reason, so that he will revolve round himself and therefore around his true sun. Religion is only the illusory sun which revolves round man as long as he does not revolve round himself.”[16] Buddhism does not revolve around a ‘self,’ rather, Buddhism revolves around eliminating the root causes of suffering. Buddhism is not a religion in the sense of object/deity worship, and is tuned more towards being a way of living, thus understanding three main characteristics can assist one’s life: the characteristics of impermanence, the characteristics of suffering, and the characteristics of non-self, [anicca, dukkha, anatta]. “The characteristic of impermanence is the mode of rise and fall and change; that is, reaching non-existence after having come to be. The characteristic of suffering is the mode of being continuously oppressed by rise and fall. The characteristic of non-self is the mode of being insusceptible to the exercise of mastery; that is, the fact that one cannot exercise complete control over the phenomena of mind and matter.”[17] Buddhism’s goal for liberation takes one on a path from which hindrances/fetters are eradicated. There are two different systems of fetters in Theravada Buddhism according to sources: from the Sutta-pitaka [the Buddha’s discourses] there are ten: sensual lust, attachment to fine-material existence, attachment to immaterial existence, aversion, conceit, wrong views, adherence to rights and ceremonies, doubt restlessness and ignorance. According to the Abhidhamma method (higher philosophical teachings – attributed to the Buddha, but not confirmed) the ten fetters are: sensual lust, attachment to existence, aversion, conceit, wrong views, adherence to rites and ceremonies, doubt, envy, avarice and ignorance.[18] The six hindrances[19] of sensual desire, ill will, sloth/torpor, restlessness/worry, doubt and ignorance might be useful to remember when American corporate boardrooms are making decisions that affect people living in foreign lands – a different approach to dealing with situations that might run counter to capitalistic motivations. Also recognized is the accusations that socialism breeds laziness – which if utilizing the application of hindrances – one can recognize that sloth/torpor is to be countered. As in any well-meaning society – maximum employment or livelihood is encouraged, and a responsible government would find livelihoods for individuals incapable of seeking for themselves. In Theravada Buddhism, the hindrances are mental factors that prevent unarisen wholesome states from arising and which do not allow arisen wholesome states to endure – good advice for an advanced, modern society – perhaps a future society could keep this in mind when drafting a new constitution. Many people can agree that Buddhism is open to the realm of scientific applications and discoveries based from the analytical processes one encounters through Buddhist meditation and insight. Buddhism teaches the elimination of greed, hatred and delusion in order to transform one’s thinking, religions teach other elements. If one wishes to continue to worship a divine entity, there is nothing in Buddhism to prevent one from doing so, but one should remember that the Buddha is known as the teacher of gods and men – a mere enlightened teacher whose Dhamma assists humanity with living and the elimination of suffering, not a submission to continuous suffering with a promise of a rewarded afterlife. Religion contains the relief, strength, drive, and ideology for humanity to function against the outside world. Religions are meant to prevent and protect humanity from unjust social behavior and to submit to the authority of a deity; Buddhism strives to eliminate any unjust suffering. Marx, then believes man can rise above the level of a dog, once he internally grasps the root of religion's origination, unaffected by errant religious teachings. Buddhism is not concerned with the origins of religion, merely the origins or root of suffering. The waiting Marx thinks: “The middle class hardly dares to grasp the thought of emancipation of the social conditions and the progress of political theory already declares that standpoint antiquated or at least problematic.”[20] Marx says religion is only a release from suffering brought on by society’s ideas. Then, logically, it would seem that religion would serve as an effective force towards transforming society. However, when the modern, religious man acts, he is driven against industrial society, not against his own internal suffering – which here, Theravada Buddhism can be applied to assist humanity if practiced through internal investigation or meditation[21]. Each person must undergo a personal revolution, a deep and radical internal intervention against the causes of his/her suffering. Most people will hardly undergo the beneficial transformation because they are distracted and settled with materialistic goods. Pacifying man with material goods does nothing to distance man apart from a circle of zoo monkeys. Restraint of the senses, and restraint from indulging in materialism are important aspects for Buddhists and in the writings of Karl Marx [abstinence for Marx]. And along a chain of events, Marx writes, “…the materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of other circumstances and changed upbringings, forgets that it is men that change circumstances and that the educator himself needs educating. Hence, this doctrine necessarily arrives at dividing society in two parts, of which one is superior to society…the coincidence of the changing circumstances and of human activity can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionizing practice.”[22 From 1844, a Karl Marx & F. Engels collaboration stated, when materialism replaced religion, humans sought sensuous explanations within themselves, seeking to rearrange the world after personal schemes, not towards bettering society. They claim the ‘deists’ – of which many of the founding ‘American Fathers’ belonged[23], believed in a easy way of getting rid of religion, “For materialists, at least, deism is no more than a convenient and easy way of getting rid of religion.”[24]* The bourgeois writers of the American constitution did their best to eradicate religion from the national ideology, vis-à-vis the European historical struggles between the respective states and various religions. Marx writes in 1845 that, reality materializes through sensuous forms of objects or through contemplation of object as sensuous, thus creating an ideal that pleases the senses: stimulating lust, greed, desire, and feelings of love and hatred. In Theravada Buddhism [of South/Southeast Asia], although ultimate realities exist as the concrete essence of things, they are so subtle and profound that an ordinary person who lacks training cannot perceive them. Such a person cannot see the ultimate realities because his mind is obscured by concepts, which shape reality into conventionally defined appearances. Only by means of wise or thorough attention to things, can one see beyond the concepts and take the ultimate realities as one’s object of knowledge…at the moment of conception, sound mutability, decay, and death are not found. In the course of existence, there is nothing that is not obtained.[25] Marx notes that, as an abstract idea, there is no reality inherent in the objectified material. The proposed just-society may be an illusion – if decisions are made from the hierarchy rather than coming from the mass of citizens who may demand a greater form of social-justice. Creating the ideal, ‘painting’ the object as sensuous – creates mystical appeal, misleading those engaged in practical/social lives to seek rational and comprehensive explanations of the theory – removing human further from reality. To assist with the concept of reality, according to the authoritative text of Buddhist philosophical psychology, the Abhidhammattha Sangaha [pp. 294-295], existence [or what some people might perceive as reality] can be found within the chain of dependent arising/dependent origination cycle:
Mikhail Bakunin, a rival to Karl Marx, writes as part of his world outlook, that, “I can say, without fear of being ambiguous that Universal Causality – ‘Nature’ creates the worlds. It is this causality that has determined the mechanical, physical, geologic, and geographic structure of our earth, and, having covered its surface with the splendors of vegetation and animal life, it still continues to create, in the human world, society in all its past, present, and future developments.”[26] Marx and Engels collaborate in 1845-1846, saying the development of ideology originates from the life-processes undergone by the individual, and void of independence from his preconditioning, prior to revelation [revelation arises from processes created during preconditioned circumstances]. Dialectics created from religious and political liberation thought, assist in defining variants in socio-historical circumstances, which each successive generation faces while seeking to define itself, “We proceed from the really active men and see the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of their real life-processes as proceeding from that life-process. Even the nebulous images in the brain of men are necessary sublimates of their material, empirically observable, materially preconditioned, life-process. Thus, morals, religion, metaphysics and other forms of ideology and the forms of consciousness corresponding to them no longer retain their apparent independence. …It shows that history does not end by dissolving itself in ‘self-consciousness’ as ‘the spirit of the spirit,’ but that there is present in it at every stage a material result, a sum of production forces, a historically created relation to nature and of individuals to one another handed down to each generation by its predecessor, a mass of production forces, capitals and circumstances which, on the one hand, are modified by the new generation but which, on the other hand, prescribe to the generation their own conditions of life and give it a definite development, a special character – that circumstances, therefore, make man just as much as man makes circumstances.”[27] Marx could have made it easier on the modern reviewer by simply stating that the conscious ecological and genealogical relationships are shaped by various historical circumstances pertaining to capital and production forces; or he could state that religion is dependent on life-processes. Marx could have said that humans react to the circumstantial forces possessed and manipulated by societies’ influential ideologies and conscious efforts to control the environment (earth, society and mind), but readers of his theories might have remained ignorant to definitions. Marx stresses the need for scientific investigation in all aspects of our lives – as does Buddhism [please see the Anguttara-nikaya’s Kesaputta Sutta], and that society should not be negligent in our interactions, otherwise there are consequences. Society should be responsible with its environmental interactions, and this can further be illustrated through Mr. Al Gore’s recently shared 2007 Noble Peace Prize – won from his environmental work. It is circumstantial that the following man has written such a lovely message concerning the environment, despite his dam building and rapid modernization projects that harmed China’s environment; however, future societies can learn from his mistakes, and more importantly - study his messages: Mao Tse-Tung wrote in 1942, that many of his comrades lacked basic understandings of Marxism, which Chairman Mao suggests: that being determines consciousness; and that class and national struggles are the ideological objectives to overcome. “…But some of our comrades turn this upside down and maintain that everything ought to start from ‘love.’ Now as for love, in a class society there can be only class-love; but these comrades are seeking a love transcending classes, love in the abstract, human nature in the abstract, etc. This shows that they have been very deeply influenced by the bourgeoisie. They should thoroughly rid themselves of this influence and modestly study Marxism-Leninism... Writers and artists should study society, that is to say, should study the various classes in society, their mutual relations and respective conditions, their physiognomy [judging and making observations based on non-verbal communication – facial expressions and gestures] and their psychology. Only when we grasp all this clearly can we have a literature and art that is rich in content and correct in orientation. …there is only human nature in the concrete, no human nature in the abstract. In class, society there is only human nature of a class character; there is no human nature above classes. …The human nature boosted by certain petty-bourgeois intellectuals is also divorced from or opposed to by the masses; what they call human nature is in essence nothing but bourgeois individualism, and so, in their eyes, the proletarian human nature is contrary to human nature. “[28] Mao continues to say class conflict must be eliminated in order to erase the hatred in society, to cause or enable genuine love to transform into the idealized objective. Individualism should be more respectful to the ideas/needs of the greater society. Mao illustrates our projects must be for the service of humanity, not for self-pleasure. There must be a social manifestation of the Buddha’s Eightfold Noble Path. Mao Tse-Tung writes in 1937, “This dialectical world outlook teaches us primarily how to observe and analyze the movement of opposites in different things and, on the basis of such analysis, to indicate the methods for resolving contradictions. It is therefore most important for us to understand the law of contradiction in things in a concrete way.”[29] Religion and non-religious state bureaucracy are the motivating forces that face the scrutinizing laws generated by social scientists. There are different religions that can interpret an activity in a different manner apart from a completely different ideological set of ideas; thus both or opposing religious factions should face each other and work out contradictions without hatred and opposition, towards a positive, mutual consensus/communal resolution. Engels further elaborates, writing in 1878, “All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces. …the fantastic figures, which at first only reflected the mysterious forces of nature, at this point acquire social attributes, become representative of the forces of history. …In this convenient, handy and universally adaptable form, religion can continue to exist as the immediate, that is, the sentimental form of men’s relation to the alien natural and social forces which dominate them, so long as men remain under the control of these forces. However, we have seen repeatedly that in existing bourgeois society men are dominated by the economic conditions created by themselves, by the means of production, which they themselves have produced, as if by an alien force. The actual basis of the reflective activity that gives rise to religion therefore continues to exist, and with it the religious reflection itself. …Only real knowledge of the forces of nature ejects the gods or God from one position after another.”[30] Man must remain under the control of natural and social forces, not individuals. Humanity, after self-inquiry would resolve itself to the Eightfold Noble Path. Engels brings up something perhaps he misunderstood, writing about reincarnation/rebirth or the Buddhist concept of kamma. Engels writes from 1873-1886, “[Charles] Darwin did not know what a bitter satire he wrote on mankind, and especially on his countrymen, when he showed that free competition, the struggle for existence, which the economists celebrate as the highest historical achievement, is the normal state of the animal kingdom. Only conscious organization of social production, in which production and distribution are carried on in a planned way, can lift mankind above the rest of the animal world as regards the social aspect, in the same way that production in general has done this for mankind in the specifically biological aspect. …Modern natural science has had to take over from philosophy. …We have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can ever be lost, and therefore, also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the earth its highest creation, the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it. …One cannot bring together two natural facts into relation with each other, or understand the connection existing between them without theoretical thought, The only question is whether one’s thinking is correct or not, and contempt of theory is evidently the surest way to think naturalistically, and therefore incorrectly. But, according to an old and well-known dialectical law, incorrect thinking, carried to its logical conclusion, inevitably arrives at the opposite of its point of departure. Hence, the empirical contempt for dialectics is punished by some of the most sober empiricists being led into the most barren of all superstitions, into modern spiritualism. …In fact, mere empiricism is incapable of refuting the spiritualists. In the first place, the ‘higher’ phenomena always show themselves only when the ‘investigator’ concerned is already so far in the toils that he now only sees what he is meant to see or wants to see… In the second place, the spiritualists care nothing that hundreds of alleged facts are exposed as imposture and dozens of alleged mediums as ordinary tricksters.” [31] It is quite possible that Engels opens up a realm of thought – a movement towards Buddhist Socialism, that he perhaps did not foresee, of which more is written about later in this paper. The future seeds of Buddhist Socialism were being planted by the oppression of western colonialism/imperialism. However, returning to Engels, writing in 1880, “the great men who in France were clearing men’s minds for the coming revolution acted in an extremely revolutionary way themselves. They recognized no external authority of any kind. Religion, conceptions of nature, society, political systems – everything was subjected to the most unsparing criticism: everything had to justify its existence before the judgment-seat of reason or give up existence. The reasoning intellect became the sole measure of everything. …we know today that this realm of reason was nothing more than the idealized realm of the bourgeoisie; that external justice found its realization in bourgeois justice; that equality reduced itself to bourgeois equality before the law that bourgeois property was proclaimed as one of the most essential rights of man; and that the government of reason, Rousseau’s social contract, came into being and could only come into being, as a bourgeois democratic republic. The great thinkers of the eighteenth century were no more able than their predecessors to go beyond the limits imposed on them by their own epoch.”[32] So too, the colonists/imperialists/missionaries recognized no external authority in the lands abroad that they attempted to subjugate. At home, attempts to eradicate the past hegemonic power prevailed or transpiring while abroad, those white people burdened themselves with conversion affairs. Engels, using contemplation towards cause and effect analogies[33] [prevalent in Southeast Asia’s Theravada Buddhism] against ignorance, writes in 1886: “… the conflicts of innumerable individual wills and individual actions in the domain of history produce [cause] a state of affairs entirely analogous to that prevailing in the realm of unconscious nature. The ends of the actions [effects] are intended, but the results which actually follow from these actions are not intended; or when they do seem to correspond to the end intended, they ultimately have consequences quite other than those intended. Historical events thus appear on the whole to be likewise governed by chance. But where on the surface accident holds sway, actually it is always governed by inner, hidden laws and it is only a matter of discovering these laws [overturning ignorance]. …What driving forces in turn stand behind these motives? What are the historical causes, which transform themselves into these motives in the brains of the actors? …The old materialism never put this question to itself. …it judges everything according to the motives of the action; it divides men who act in history into noble and ignoble and then finds that as a rule the noble are defrauded and the ignoble are victorious. Hence, it follows for the old materialism that nothing very edifying is to be got from the study of history, and for us that in the realm of history the old materialism becomes untrue to itself because it takes the ideal driving forces which operate there as ultimate causes, instead of investigating what is behind them, what are the driving forces of these driving forces.“[34] Gathered from Engels, there is a sense of need to internally investigate the roots of suffering, the roots of greed, hatred and delusion; and eventually solutions are created from investigation, to erase ignorance. Reflecting on Asia, V.I. Lenin writes in 1913, about the colonial power holding reign over the nations, suggesting that the toxic doctrine of liberalism through the re-education processes inflicted upon the colonized creates similar circumstances of class distinctions unobserved before colonial contact, “The more we have occasion in our day to observe how the labor movement in various countries suffers from opportunism in consequence of the stagnation and decay of the bourgeoisie, in consequence of the labor leaders being engrossed in the trivialities of the day, and so on – the more valuable becomes the wealth of material contained in the correspondence, displaying as it does a most profound comprehension of the basic transformatory aims of the proletariat, and providing an unusually flexible definition of the given tasks of tactics from the standpoint of these revolutionary aims, without making the slightest concession to opportunism or revolutionary phrase-mongering. …Certain people who are inattentive to the conditions of preparation and development of the mass struggle, were driven to despair and to anarchism by the prolonged postponements of the decisive struggle against capitalism in Europe. We can now see how shortsighted and faint-hearted this anarchist despair is. The fact that Asia, with its population of eight-hundred million, has been drawn into the struggle for these European ideals should inspire us with courage and not despair. The Asian revolutions have revealed the same spinelessness and baseness of liberalism, the same exceptional importance of the independence of the democratic masses, and the same sharp demarcation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie of all kinds. After the experience both of Europe and Asia, whoever now speaks of non-class politics and of non-class socialism deserves to be simply put in a cage and exhibited alongside of the Australian kangaroo.”[35] The indigenous, native populations soon would eventually resist the oppressive colonial powers, who transformed the occupied land into production colonies, or outposts for merchandise shipping, etc. Colonial powers tried to eradicate local traditions, imposed and forced religious conversion, and eliminated traditional forms of education – initiating transformation of minds towards stricter adherence to their traditional beliefs claiming Buddhism , socialism and ethnic nationalism for themselves. Buddhism and Socialism could liberate oneself from colonial-Christianity and imposed suffering and poverty brought on by colonization/imperialism. The French had a large presence in Southeast Asia, particularly Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Inspirations of nationalism arose for the local ethnic populations in opposition to the colonial power. The British [French enemies] found themselves in India and Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Malaysia. Thailand was ‘strategically’ able to utilize its position as a buffer-state to maintain independence from political colonialism. Eventually, the various Southeast Asian ethnic nations of oppressed people were able to seize power for themselves, within their respective national historical conditions, many of which brought on their own socialistic revolutions, or transformations. Marxism experienced relevance through international colonialism. Lenin writes again in 1916 that, in his opinion, there are two causes for the downfall of previous empires: economic parasitism and the formation of armies composed of subjected peoples; explained, “There is first the habit of economic parasitism, by which the ruling state has used its provinces, colonies, and dependencies in order to enrich its ruling class and to bribe its lower classes into acquiescence. And we would add that the economic possibility of such bribery, whatever its form may be, requires high monopolist profit. As for the second cause: [Lenin cites England using Indian troops to win wars in India, Egyptians fighting for the British in Egypt – and possibly the addition of the U.S.A. using Iraqi soldiers to pacify Iraq circa 2003-2007, be included]…[while] wealthy aristocrats [like Dick Cheney collect] dividends and pensions from the Far East…”[36] What should be done? Max Weber’s secularist attempts mention, “The individual subject has no reason to burden his own conscious with this matter if only he gives active obedience to the political authority in this and in all other matters which do not destroy his relationship to God.”[37] Buddhists have no God, so the sufferings of others become Buddhist concerns, as demonstrated in the popular Mahayana Buddhist concept of the bodhisattva – a being that delays his/her escape from suffering for sake of others. Weber wants society to, “relativize and differentiate ethnic into ‘organic’ [as contrasted to ‘ascetic’] ethics of vocation. This holds true whenever a religion is dominant within a political organization or occupies a privileged status, and particularly when it is a religion of institutional grace.”[38] Weber’s separation of religion and society is yet another example from many political philosophers advocating power to be in the hands of secular people who have no higher authority to fear. He follows along a line of thinkers who admit that religion is a private matter and shouldn’t be placed in the political arena. Conflicts between secular and religious leadership have gone on for millenniums. These opposing modes of control [various forms of political systems & different forms of religion] are persistent in their struggle for dominance and survival. This paper cannot go into the various examples of state versus religion. State goals attempt to develop or pursue materialistic ventures, and the goals of religion seem to pursue or develop the senses by either suppression or indulgence. Marx mentions,“…then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundations, the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations, a distinction should be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can determined with the precision of natural science and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production. No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself.”[39] Rosa Luxemburg[40] writes repeatedly about two departments of capitalistic modes of production, with many respective variables. She writes about variants, from saving for a rainy day/natural disasters to planned societies – which can mean that with all the variables available to economic production, it is rather difficult to write something short on a document full of speculative predictions based on historical events. Determining consists of constants in socialist literature, the human relation to modes or forms of production and his want for interaction or withdrawal often materializes – from alienation. Luxemburg uses a capitalistic and socialist department as examples for her work, largely borrowed from Karl Marx’s Capital Volume 2. Passing over a critique of her dry elaboration of Marx’s effort, she does offer some bits towards religion. She states that kings, priests, professors, prostitutes, soldiers, etc… earn their wages by the grace of their social functions [remember Weber’s institutional-grace comment], extracted from the wages/profits of the productive laborer, industrial capitalist, and real estate owners.[41] Its unclear whether or not Marx or Luxemburg consider these positions as mere parasitic [derogatory] occupations. She writes on the following page about foreign trade as the dumping of commodities – which have no proper place in her reproduction of capital processes. For the Italian Syndicalist/Socialist Antonio Labriola, “religion is a need precisely for the reason, and only for the reason, that it represents the transfiguration of so many fears, hopes, pains, bitter experiences of daily life into pre-ordained faiths and judgments. In this way the struggles of this world, so called, are transformed into transcendental antagonisms of the universe, such as God and Devil, sin and redemption, creation and rebirth, the scale of atonements and Nirvana. This optimism, and this pessimism, which assume the shape of thought and surround themselves with a certain philosophy, are nothing but more or less conscious survivals or religion in another form or that anti-religion, which in a transport of passionate unbelief resembles faith. …If we rise from the secondary and derived configurations and complications of religion or theological philosophy, to which optimism and pessimism belong, to the origin of these mental creations themselves, we find ourselves in the presence of a fact which is as obvious as it is simple. It is in every human being, on account of his or her physical condition, and social environment, is led to make a sort of hedonistic calculation, in other words, to measure his or her needs and the means for satisfying them.”[42] Why is there concern for pleasure, over the internal realization of the Eightfold Noble Path – there is much work for internationalists and others to do for society on the planet. Later, Labriola writes, “that socialists have been wise enough to write into their platforms: Religion is a private matter. I hope no one will interpret this statement in the sense of a theoretical point of view which might lead to the elaboration of a philosophy of religion. The wholly practical statement means simply that for the present the socialists are too busy with more useful and serious work [one can use the Eightfold Noble Path to influence the said work]…[Labriola then, not advocating the abolition of divinity]. The historical materialists think however, on their part and aside from all subjective appreciation, that the people of the future will probably dispense with all transcendental explanations of practical problems of daily life [Buddhist without the Hindu/animist-magic elements]. …Fear was the first in this world to make the gods. This statement is very old. But it is valuable, and therefore I perpetuate it.”[43] Remember for Bakunin, fear is the basis of religions. American society seems to be a society of laws, yet no one respects the regulations. If rule enforcers ask politely [or rudely] for the violator to correct the wrong – the enforcer is often met with hostility, under the assumption that American society is a free society, and people can do what they want to do. The higher authority and fear has disappeared. The individual’s personal needs or desires have replaced respect. Sometimes, those accustomed to living under a controlled environment are at times fearful, where liberties are not granted, where political activism was suppressed, where individual whereabouts had to be monitored, where health care was provided free by the controlling institution, where pay was minimal, where the individuals were dedicated to the task, and loyalty to the institution was voluntary. Rights might have been reduced, but the intellect was able to demonstrate creative competence and understood placement in the hierarchical world. The problem with liberalization is that the interest of business is placed over the concern for the individual in society, businesses are afforded protections and the individual is left to suffer, unless s/he can afford to pay the costs. For some liberalizing societies, there was a greater cost – tradition. The Burmese military nationalist, General Aung San, declared in 1946: “’We must draw a clear line between politics and religion, because the two are not one and the same thing. If we mix religion with politics, then we offend the spirit of religion itself.’ Myanmar, today, is known as a great Buddhist nation – would he have harmed Buddhism? His assassination prevented any possibility for comprehension; and his successor was a very skilled upholder of Buddhism. Would his daughter continue to secularize the Burmese Buddhist society – under the disguise of modernization/anti-militarization? She remains in prison, unable to implement any harmful policies. Aung San, did however, condemned the exploitation, injustice, superstition, and priestcraft frequently associated with religion while holding that Buddhism could become the greatest philosophy in the world, “if its ritual could be eliminated.”[44] The rituals can be eliminated, as will be demonstrated later in the report. General Aung San and the rest of the famous ‘Thakin’ group that would emerge victorious from British imperialism used, chiefly Marxism as an ideological weapon to gain their eventual independence in 1948. Part of this liberation thought included an anti-colonial phase of nationalism, were, “the Marxist, the Buddhist monk, and the liberal democrat were united on the most fundamental tenet of political faith: foreign rule must ‘end’.”[45] “In [Myanmar], the promotion of Buddhism by the government must be interpreted in part as an attempt to make religion a positive and visible symbol of Burmese nationalism.”[46] Aung San’s successor, Prime Minister/Premier U Nu was, of course, “a forceful champion of parliamentary democracy and evolutionary socialism, and there was much in his political credo and leadership which completely repudiated [a former tradition] …he had little or nothing in common with Aung San.”[47] Yet, U Nu remained highly attached to traditional Burmese spirit beliefs, and being a devout Buddhist-layman. “In the days of the Burmese kings [before the Europeans brought their divisive policies and religions], …the defenders and promoters of the faith, Buddhism provided the indispensable bond which united the Burmans, Mons, Shans, and Arkanese in a common loyalty. The religious bond was broken by the intrusion of the infidel/foreigner, but with the attainment of independence the new Burmese nationalism could flourish… only by restoring the one influence capable of uniting Burma’s diverse ethnic groups.”[48] “Nationalist sentiment was clearly present in the Buddhist conviction that Christianity had failed to bring peace to the world and that Buddhism was the only ideology capable of doing this.”[49] “These Burmese, who had been ‘culturally disinherited by colonial acculturation,’ who had succumbed to western values and ways of life, found in the reassertion of their Burmese Buddhist identity, a truly galvanic experience.”[50] From the ideologically influential Thakin group, doctrinally, “Marxism was at first held to be complementary to Buddhism, then incompatible with it, and finally, militantly opposed to the Dhamma. Burmese politics underwent a profound ideological evolution from doctrinaire Marxism to moderate democratic socialism; Buddhism was one important factor in this evolution.”[51] “It was far from our intention to disparage in any way other religions like [Islam], Hinduism, Christianity, or spirit worship… [U NU] denounced the communist effrontery which elevated Marx over the Buddha. ‘It will be our duty to retort in no uncertain terms that the wisdom or knowledge that might be attributed to Karl Marx is less than one-tenth of a particle of dust that lies at the feet of our great Lord Buddha.’ While Marxism had still not been rejected as a political philosophy and economic doctrine, the government’s commitment to Buddhism as an ultimate loyalty was clearly established... [over] the atheism of orthodox Marxism-Leninism.”[52] According to U Be Swe, the former Minister of Information of the Union of Burma [and brief stint as Prime Minister], “Marxist philosophy rejects the theory of creation; but it does not oppose religion. In point of fact, Marxist theory is not antagonistic to Buddhist philosophy. The two are, frankly speaking, not merely similar. In fact, they are the same in concept. But if we want to have the two distinguished, one from the other, we can safely assume that Marxist theory occupies the lower plane, while Buddhist philosophy occupies the higher. Marxist theory deals with mundane world affairs and seeks to satisfy material needs in life. Buddhist philosophy, however, deals with the solution of spiritual matters with a view to seek spiritual satisfaction in life and liberation from this mundane world. …I declare that I have implicit faith in Marxism, but at the same time I boldly assert that I am a true Buddhist. In the beginning I was only a Buddhist by tradition. The more I study Marxism, however, the more I feel convinced in Buddhism. Thus I have become a true disciple of Lord Buddha by conviction, and my faith in Buddhism has grown all the more. I now believe that for any man who has deeply studied Buddhism and correctly perceived its tenets there should be no obstacle to becoming a Marxist. Marxism provided no answer to man’s yearning for spiritual liberation. Only Buddhist philosophy could deal with this ultimate question of human existence.”[53] “U Nu reexamined the whole scientific and philosophical basis of Marxism and found that dialectical materialism could not be reconciled with either modern science or Buddhism. According to the doctrine of dialectical materialism, U Nu explained, everything in nature can be reduced to minute particle called atoms [Pali: ‘kalapas’ – but this ignores the newer discoveries of sub-atomic particles] which are unchanging and indestructible. Karl Marx was quite confident that his theory had the authority of science behind it, but scientific advances since his time have completely disproved some primitive/fundamental assumptions and examples. The Buddhist doctrine of impermanence [the principle or inherent property of change], on the other hand, holds that in the whole universe there is no such thing as matter, nothing which is unchanging, unchangeable, or indestructible, but only inherent properties. As scientific knowledge advances, U Nu declared, more evidence is found to support the Buddhist belief, and the position of Marxist materialism becomes increasingly untenable…it is entirely impossible to take the attitude that both Marxism and religion are in the right, and therefore both can be accepted.”[54] “Capitalism encouraged the acquisitive instinct, ignoring the Buddhist truth of the impermanence of all material things. U Nu asserted in 1959 that, ‘the reason why an average Buddhist concerns himself not with the final release from samsara [endless rebirths] but with the acquisition of property is to be found in the economic system that prevails in the modern world.’ A truly socialist state, however, would promote economic equality, discourage the acquisitive instinct in man, and provide sufficient leisure so that virtually everyone in the entire society could devote time to meditation in the quest for nibbana [the final escape from the endless rounds of samsara]. Socialism was thus regarded as the means for the attainment or religious goals.”[55] However to one communist [Thakin Soe], “Religion is the opium of the people, and Buddhism is opium of the worst kind... The Buddha’s concept of nibbana is an ideology of despair, which promises liberation only through escape from the world.”[56] However, and correctly, U Nu has said, “Humanity has been led astray by the three evils – greed, hatred and ignorance… No one can deny that the five sense objects [sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch] are only fleeting phenomena [material/materialisms]. They are neither lasting or permanent. Nobody can deny that property is transitory; no one can carry away his or her property after death. Although these are universal truths, one is oblivious of them as [s/he] is consumed by the fires of greed, hatred and ignorance… Men have been chasing these transitory pleasures with a dogged tenacity of purpose mainly because of the reason that they hold false views regarding property… this unsatisfying greed for wealth results in profit motive and is not directed towards any utilitarian purpose.”[57] Opiates and materialism are for the ignorant, Buddhism and Marxism are for the advanced and intellectually stimulated modern human. And take note of the following… “A pamphlet published in 1959 by the Young Monks Association used some of these emotional appeals, but also probed deeper. Why were the communist bent on annihilating Buddhism? Because of its basic incompatibility with Marxian materialism. ‘The communist believe that in this world, only the physical form (rupa as matter considered as an object of the senses) is the main and basic factor; and the idea of spirit and the mental powers evolved only due to the presence of form or matter. Therefore, the spirit is of minor consideration. Since they believe that human beings are only made up of physical form or matter, they believe that in death the body decays and that is the end for them all. Hence, their belief in one existence only, that of the present. For them, there is no previous existence, they do not believe in the transmigration of the soul or in reincarnation.” However recalling what was mentioned above from Frederick Engels, “…We have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can ever be lost, and therefore, also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the earth its highest creation, the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it. …One cannot bring together two natural facts into relation with each other, or understand the connection existing between them without theoretical thought. The only question is whether one’s thinking is correct or not, and contempt of theory is evidently the surest way to think naturalistically, and therefore incorrectly. But, according to an old and well-known dialectical law, incorrect thinking, carried to its logical conclusion, inevitably arrives at the opposite of its point of departure. Hence, the empirical contempt for dialectics is punished by some of the most sober empiricists being led into the most barren of all superstitions, into modern spiritualism. …In fact, mere empiricism is incapable of refuting the spiritualists. In the first place, the ‘higher’ phenomena always show themselves only when the ‘investigator’ concerned is already so far in the toils that he now only sees what he is meant to see or wants to see… In the second place, the spiritualists care nothing that hundreds of alleged facts are exposed as imposture and dozens of alleged mediums as ordinary tricksters.” [58] Someone must reject the 1959 Young Monks Association pamphlet, based on the illustration. Matter, being reproduced again later is an aspect of rebirth or perhaps – reformation, thus, if one follows the thought of Engels, one could accept: the Mahayana Buddhist belief in karma; or further religious subjection that liberation from present suffering cannot occur in this life [allowing for political oppression] which again stresses the impossibility of Nibbana in the current life for all people. Someone is not trying to produce a doctrine for society’s adherence, rather, instead, is trying to make an effort to illustrate or prove the compatibility between Buddhism and Marxist doctrine, with errors. From an editorial, writing on the experience, “What ever the merits of the secular state, the issue of Buddhism versus communism is a serious one…”[59] especially when there are people considering motives to eradicate any or all religions. Some people believe in the need for inspirational ethics and morality - taught, or stressed through historical and practical examples. Thai’s have this type of leadership present, through the examples of His Majesty, King Rama IX - Bhumibol Adulyadej’s environment and sufficiency-economics work. If western readers are considered about their personal liberties, Buddhism is democratic with an emphasis on self-reliance – this, strongly supports democratic values: “It therefore tends to promote an individualistic outlook, which is characteristic of Buddhists, both in their personal relationships and their national life. The rejection of all forms of authoritarianism stems from the Buddha’s insistence upon freedom of will and choice. …Democracy is not something new in Asia, and is not western-imposed as many people in the West seem to think….Democracy is inherent in the very principles of Buddhism… Tolerance, individual freedom and responsibility, the spirit of understanding, the value of individual and collective service, all these constitute a part of the Buddhist philosophy of life.”[60] Democracy is not something new, and one can refer to the Buddhist Tipitaka, where the Digha-nikaya’s Agganna Sutta expresses the role of the ‘Great Elect’. Writings and discussions on this topic were given and distributed during the United Nations Day of Vesak 2007, in Bangkok, Thailand during May 2007 - published in a text: “Buddhist Contributions to Good Governance”, from Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University with cooperation by the Royal Thai Government. Sometime in 1956 it was written that U Nu no longer held views about what was better: socialization or nationalization of ownership/means of production. He wanted to do the best thing for the country. “[U Nu] vigorously rejected Marxism [later on in life] on the grounds that it was incompatible with Buddhism, and strongly endorsed democratic-socialism. …Marxism was not a doctrine that is infallible and true without reservation… [besides] the AFPFL approved of only some parts of Marxism as a guiding political philosophy. The league did believe however, that commodities should not be produced for profit making, but for the consumption and use of the people. … Marxism [as stated by U Nu] required adaptation to time and circumstance and could not effectively be applied to Myanmar.[61] In a book of related material, it was written that Karl Marx wrote only a fraction of what the Buddha taught, and if people are to think that Marx’s theories outweigh the Buddha’s then indeed people would be taking the wrong path for a better society. Therefore, it is important to follow the Eightfold Noble Path of the Buddha [see visual – Figure One], primarily, and as a result, some of Marx’s theories are mere residual effects to be studied and perhaps applied. U Nu and others, thought, nations should not be caught up in ancient, Soviet-distortions of Marxism. In fact U Nu, in a mass rally speech on the 8th Anniversary of Resistance day, March 27, 1953, said: “It will neither be a Revolution if it is based on obsolete text books and acted parrot-like… Revolution is no other than a sincere effort to uproot all those factors – ideologies, thoughts, organizations or the machineries of the Government – which are opposed to human progress and mental and physical well-being of mankind. This should be borne in mind by those who think they are revolutionaries and those who aspire to become revolutionaries. [62] In fact, U Nu offered lessons he has learned from his ‘decade’ in power. His lessons for the future:[63] 1. Politicians should keep out of the business world; otherwise business affairs will be damaged Conclusion: In summary, to return to the eradication of rituals for Buddhists, and for a ‘secular/just Buddhist-Socialism,’ the Buddha says, in the Sabbasava Sutta, “…he attends wisely: ‘this is suffering’; he attends wisely: ‘this is the origin of suffering’; he attends wisely: ‘this is the cessation of suffering’; he attends wisely: ‘this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’ When he attends wisely in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: personality view, doubt, and adherence to rules and observances. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by seeing.”[64] Social justice demands that people attend wisely to their responsibilities. In the Sammaditthi Sutta, “these are the four kinds of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self. With the arising of craving there is the arising of clinging. With the cessation of craving there is the cessation of clinging. The way leading to the cessation of clinging is just this Noble Eightfold Path…[listed in above figure].[65] And in the Mahamalunkya Sutta, “…a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘rules,’ so how could adherence to rules and observances arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to adhere to rules and observations lies within him. …[others like the baby, here are:] untaught, ordinary [people] who [have] no regard for noble ones and [are] unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who have no regard for true men and [are] unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, [they abide] with a mind obsessed and enslaved by personality view, and [do not ]understand, as it actually is the escape from the arisen personality view; and when that personality view has become habitual and is uneradicated in him, it is a lower fetter. He abides with a mind obsessed and enslaved by doubt …by adherence to rules and observances…by sensual lust…by ill-will, and [does not ] understand as it actually is the escape from arisen ill-will; and when that ill-will has become habitual and is uneradicated in him, it is a lower fetter.”[66] What this means is that people should not retain the dogmatic views, especially without a thorough scientific investigation, into the causes and effects of one’s actions, even if one adheres to a certain rule – a certain rule adherence in a circumstance can create negative effects for a different scenario. Years of military rule in Myanmar and the various coups-groups in Thailand [since 1932] have obviously not met the social-needs of the people – why else are there continuous demonstrations? When people are ‘attending wisely’, they operate with a sense of fairness, under a system of values, in a sense: social justice. If people are taught the social-values contained in Buddhism and understood social-ism, the exploitation of global citizenry should cease, to create better societies - where the capitalist/materialists might be held more responsible for their actions, instead of finding loopholes to further exploit environmental laws, social ethics/morality, and doing little but disregarding the improvement of a just society. If Buddhists, not bureaucrats, understood socialism better, they could create a greater form of Buddhist Socialism, and implement a greater form of social justice. Bibliography: Aung San Suu Kyi, Freedom From Fear (Penguin Books: New York, NY) 1999. On Marx and Engels, (Foreign Language Press: Peking, PDRC), 1975. Anti-Duhring Marx, Karl, Early Writings, (Penguin Books: New York NY) 1992 Mao Tse-Tung, Four Essays on Philosophy – On Contradiction, (Foreign Language Press: PDRC) 1968 Rigg, Jonathan, Southeast Asia – The Human Landscape of Modernization and Development, (Routledge, London, UK), 1997. Sarkisyanz, E. [Ph.D], Buddhist Backgrounds of the Burmese Revolution, (Martinus Nijhoff: The Haque, Netherlands), 1965. Smith, Donald Eugene, Religion and Politics in Burma, (Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey) 1965 Spiro, Melford E., Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and Its Burmese Vicissitudes, (U. of California Press: Berkeley, CA) 1982. Stalin, J.V., The Foundations of Leninism, (Foreign Language Press: Peking: PDRC) 1975 – nothing cited/used U Nu, “Forward with the People,” (Ministry of Information, Government of the Union of Burma) 1955 Walyapechra, Manu, Regional Security for Southeast Asia – A Political Geographic Assessment. (Thai Watana Panich Co., Bangkok, Thailand) 1979? (date unreadable in the book). Weber, Max, Economy and Society, (Bedminster Press: New York NY) 1968. [1] Rigg, Jonathan, Southeast Asia – The Human Landscape of Modernization and Development, (Routledge, London, UK) 1997 pg. 44 [11] Marx, Karl, Early Writings: On the Jewish Question, (Penguin Books: New York NY 1992) pp. 218
|
 |
|
 |
||