This article was downloaded by: [DTU Library]On: 04 May 2014, At: 01:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

Contemporary Buddhism: AnInterdisciplinary JournalPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcbh20

Zen MarxismPaul ShackleyPublished online: 09 Jun 2008.

To cite this article: Paul Shackley (2001) Zen Marxism, Contemporary Buddhism: AnInterdisciplinary Journal, 2:2, 169-176, DOI: 10.1080/14639940108573748

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14639940108573748

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Contemporary Buddhism, Vol 2, No.2, 2001

Zen MarxismPaul Shackley

Zen and Marxism are ways to emancipation, each addressing a different kind ofobstacle to it. Thus, according to Buddhist teaching, "suffering", ranging fromacute distress to general dissatisfaction, is caused by mental grasping which can beended by Buddhist morality and meditation. Thus also, according to Marxisttheory, social ills, ranging from extreme poverty and violence to general injusticeand alienation, are caused by economic exploitation which can be ended bysocialist revolution. If, as 1 believe, both diagnoses are valid, so that unfreedom isboth psychological and economic, inner and outer, then mediation is individuallyadvisable and the building of the revolutionary party is politically urgent. Thus, itmakes sense to practise both simultaneously. In fact, there is no practicalcontradiction between regular zazen, "just sitting with no deliberate thought", andregular political activity. Invariably, however, those who practise Zen do notpractise Marxism and vice versa. Further, the practices are associated withmutually incompatible ideas. Buddhists regard the psychological dispositions ofattachment and aversion as determining human life whereas Marxists regard thematerial and social conditions of life as primarily determining the contents ofhuman consciousness. More generally, Marxists are "materialists", believing thatbeing (how the world is and how people live) determines consciousness (how theworld and life are perceived and understood) whereas Buddhists are "idealists",believing that consciousness determines being.

However, this disagreement reflects the historical origins of the practices andneed not prevent their current synthesis. Most pre-industrial thought was idealistfor reasons analysed by Marxists but this does not commit everyone whomeditates to idealism. Meditative awareness of the potentially harmfulconsequences of some basic motivations need not presuppose that thesemotivations are either self- generated or beginning-less, especially since ascientific understanding indicates that a long unconscious development precededand produced the earliest motivated consciousness. At the same time, those whosepolitical aim is the revolutionary transformation of social conditions need notforego the demonstrable benefits of meditation.

Marxist dialectical materialism is not reductionist mechanical materialism. Thelatter reduced all being, including consciousness, to nothing but mechanicallyinteracting particles with only the quantifiable properties of mass and volume.This was a scientific theory of the nature of being and is now an outmoded one.By contrast, dialectical materialism is not a scientific theory of the nature of beingbut a philosophical theory of the relationship between being and consciousness,namely the theory that being determines consciousness, in fact has become

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DT

U L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:49

04

May

201

4

Contemporary Buddhism

conscious, not vice versa. Apart from this, dialectical materialists recognise thatthe precise nature of being (mass, energy, particles, quanta etc) is an empiricalscientific question which may have no final answer because being is, arguably,inexhaustible so that successively more comprehensive scientific theories onlyapproximate to it.

Additionally, dialectical materialists recognise that being develops throughqualitatively different levels each of which has new and emergent properties thatare not simply or mechanically reducible to the properties of earlier or lowerlevels. Consciousness is not exhaustively reducible to any number of unconsciousprocesses. "Human nature" is not fully explicable in terms of its animal ancestry.Human history differs qualitatively from natural history. Biological, social andpsychological processes are more and other than complicated mechanicalprocesses. Each new level emerges from but goes beyond the earlier levels. Thisnatural and emergent transcendence differs from the supernatural pre-existenttranscendence envisaged by religious belief but should not therefore be identifiedwith the denial of any transcendence that is entailed by mechanical reductionism.

Precisely because social relationships cannot be reduced to mechanicalinteractions, Marxists specifically study history and economics and propose that:economic relationships are both material and social; other social relationships,cultural, legal, political etc, are based on stages of material production, thus oneconomics; these changing relationships confront each new generation as an extralayer of external reality primarily determining the contents of humanconsciousness - the ideas, beliefs, values and attitudes in individual minds;received ideas are often contradicted by new experiences and are adapted orreplaced as human beings change their natural and social environments further.Although Buddhists explain human life by mental states, they do not identifyultimate reality with a mental state. Their most fundamental ontological categoryis not "consciousness" but "emptiness", meaning not "nothingness" but absence ofany permanent, unchanging substance underlying the impermanent, changinginteractions that appear as subjects and objects of consciousness. Similarly,empirical science reveals that the "being" of dialectical materialism is changinginteractions of energy occurring in empty space. Materialist "matter" alreadymeant being as opposed to consciousness, not mass as opposed to energy, andscience now equates mass with energy. Thus, there is some convergence betweenBuddhist emptiness teaching and Marxist dialectical materialism.

Two other concepts that need to be considered are "spirituality" and "religion".Zen meditation is a spiritual practice. The term "spirituality" connotes both idealistbelief in spirits as immaterial subjects of consciousness and inner practice for thedevelopment of consciousness. Inner practice is theistic prayer or non-theisticmeditation. Prayer presupposes divine existence but meditation does not. Further,Zen meditation is the focusing of attention on the present moment, not thecontemplation of any immaterial entity. Thus, spiritual practice need notpresuppose idealist belief.

The Buddha practised in a tradition that was spiritual in both senses. It referred

170

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DT

U L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:49

04

May

201

4

Paul Shackley: Zen Marxism

to immaterial souls and advocated meditative practice. However, the tradition wasatheist in the sense not of rejecting an established theism but of presupposing abeginningless universe. Further, the Buddha reformed the tradition by criticisingand rejecting its concept of souls. In this, he was possibly influenced by ancientIndian materialist philosophers who regarded the emergence of consciousnessfrom material elements as a qualitative change comparable to the emergence of anew colour from the mixture of two existing colours. Also, the Buddha firstpractised, then rejected as unsatisfactory the asceticism that was associated withbody-soul dualism. The materialists were, allegedly, hedonists whereas Buddhismis a "middle way" between asceticism and hedonism.

The 'no-soulist' middle way arguably synthesises aspects of soul pluralistasceticism and hedonist materialism, the synthesised aspects being the meditativedevelopment of consciousness and a materialist critique of the idea of souls. "ZenMarxism" updates that synthesis whereas the title 'Zen and Marxism' wouldsuggest theoretical comparison, not practical synthesis.

"Religion" is: acceptance of the supernatural.' response to the highesttranscendence; a way to salvation. In all three senses, Buddhism is a religion andMarxism is not.On the question of the supernatural: Indian atheism's, denial of an extracosmiccreator, is compatible with Indian polytheism's belief in many intracosmic deities.By acknowledging such beings, Buddhists merely accepted then current worldviews. In the same way, we can now accept a scientific world view whilemeditating. We heed weather forecasts instead of invoking weather deities.

Buddhist heavens and hells can be interpreted as metaphors for humanexperience. For example, mythologically, gods enjoy long but finite periods ofgood karma in heavenly realms but cannot create new karma until they are rebornas human beings on earth. Similarly, very wealthy human beings may enjoyenviable lie styles but lack the incentive for self-change. Spiritual ideas refer eitherto possible experience or to nothing.

Apart from the common religious ideas of gods, demons, spirits, heavens andbells, there is one specifically Buddhist supernatural idea. Despite rejectingreincarnation of immaterial souls, the Buddha taught rebirth of psychologicaldispositions. Attachments and aversions that have not been ended at the time ofdeath are somehow transmitted into a later organism and may be accompanied bylatent memories which, if activated, perpetuate the illusion of a persisting soul.

The role of meditation is to end the perpetuation of harmful dispositions notonly into future lives but also within the present life and the latter is worth doingeven if we suspect that Buddhist rebirth is an unwarranted hangover from pre-Buddhist reincarnation. By questioning rebirth, we continue a critical processinitiated by the Buddha himself. "Karma" means "action" and is importantbecause actions and their motives have consequences which can harm the self orothers. When it was believed that souls reincarnated, then it followed thatconsequences for the self could occur in later lives but harmful consequences areevident even in a single life. By the time we are mature enough to reflect on life, it

171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DT

U L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:49

04

May

201

4

Contemporary Buddhism

already contains both the consequences of our past actions and the tendency tocontinue acting in the same way even if this has been problematic. This is thepractical problem of karma as a result of which each of us has something toresolve within ourselves as well as, to introduce a Marxist perspective, in thesocial world outside.

On the question of transcendence: there are two religious responses to thehighest transcendence, personification and contemplation. The Marxist critique ofreligion relates polytheist and monotheist personifications to stages of materialproduction but does not explain contemplation. According to the Marxist account,people personified and placated natural, then social, forces that they could neitherunderstand nor control. Accumulation of a small surplus of wealth, withconsequent stratification and coercion, meant that gods of natural forces like theweather were replaced by gods of social forces like war. 1 suggest that the surplusalso provided, for a small minority, leisure for contemplation and that the object ofcontemplation could be either identified with or differentiated from the deity thatwas believed to control natural and social forces. Thus, both theists and atheistscan meditate. In the Marxist account, collective understanding and control of bothnatural and social forces will end personification but 1 suggest that it will alsoprovide leisure for more contemplation.

The theist response to the highest transcendence is worship of the unifiedpersonified external forces, God, whereas the Buddhist highest transcendence is apotential inner state, not an actual external being. Therefore 'acknowledgement ofthis transcendence does not contradict the materialist proposition that beingdetermines consciousness. In fact, it agrees with the dialectical materialist conceptof qualitatively different levels of being some of which naturally transcend others.

Before practising Buddhist meditation, we bow to a Buddha image. Thisprepares the mind for meditation and expresses respect for our inner potential, notfor an external deity. This is not a reinterpretation of Buddhism but the explanationgiven in a Zen meditation group. The Buddha is honoured as an enlightened beingbut not worshipped as a divine being. He is given divine-sounding titles like "theExalted One" but these do not include "Creator" which, if it were used, wouldreduce Buddhism to theism and make the Buddha responsible for suffering. His"omniscience" is comprehensive wisdom, not all-inclusive factual knowledge. Hehimself, according to the teaching, has neither endured as an immortal soul norrecurred as a karmic effect but has gone out like a candle flame that has not beenpassed on to another candle. The candle analogy applies even within a single lifebecause momentary mental states are mistaken for a substantial self like aconstantly changing flame mistaken for a single solid object. Buddhism is, in thissense, the opposite of Christianity. We do not rise again but end and transcend ourfear of dying.

Whether, after his death, the Buddha somehow continued to exist in atranscendent state although not as an immortal soul is a question that is answeredpositively by religious belief and negatively by materialist philosophy but thatneed not be answered for the purpose of Buddhist meditation.

172

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DT

U L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:49

04

May

201

4

Paul Shackley: Zen Marxism

On the question of salvation., this means individual emancipation from evilwhether the latter is conceived as sin, suffering or ignorance. Buddhistemancipation from suffering and ignorance is to be realised before death and bynatural human meditation, not after death or by supernatural divine intervention.

The vices described by Buddhists are "greed, hate and delusion". Marxistsargue, 1 believe correctly, that greed in the familiar sense of desire for abundantpossessions is not universal in human experience because it presupposesproduction of a storable, possessable surplus of wealth which is comparativelyrecent. Further, future production and equal distribution of abundant wealth willmake hoarding, competition, theft and avarice socially and therefore alsopsychologically redundant. However, Buddhist "greed" is the more basic desire forrepetition of pleasure. "Hate" is frustration at its non-repetition and "delusion" isthe belief that pleasure or its experiencer could ever be permanent. Buddhists havethought that greed, hate and delusion were beginningless but we can nowincorporate Darwinian understanding. Mobile organisms became conscious, theirsensitivity quantitatively increased until it was qualitatively transformed intosensation, because pleasure and pain enhance survival. Animal pleasure, pain andconsciousness became human greed, hate and delusion which meditationtransmutes into Buddhist non-attachment, compassion and wisdom.

If non-attachment entailed inactivism as practised by some Indian ascetics, thenit would definitely be anti-Marxist. However, Buddhism is a middle way betweenasceticism and hedonism. Further, non-attachment is a principle of action, not ofinaction, as expounded in the Hindu text, the Bhagavad Gita. Withdrawal fromaction, and particularly from political and military action, may seem to be the onlyway to avoid causing suffering. However, Krishna replies that: inaction isimpossible because the universe acts through us at all times; some actions thatcause suffering are lesser evils; the way to minimise harmful consequences ofnecessary actions is to attend to each action and to perform it as if for its own sakewithout being distracted by desire for success, praise, prestige and reward or fearof failure, blame, recrimination and punishment. If we are thus "non-attached",then our performance at work or in other activities is more effective in itself andless problematic for others and is followed by less vanity or recrimination withinourselves. Thus, non-attached action decreases greed, hate and delusion and isclassified as a kind of yoga. This "karma yoga" is alone accessible to the Buddhawhen, having ended his attachments, he starts to act for the good of the world.

Further, consistent Marxists, patiently building the revolutionary party againstall the hostility of the capitalist state and of bourgeois economic rule, andideology, remain selflessly dedicated and effective despite temptations towardscompromise and sell-out and therefore are, without realising this, secular karmayogis. They also recognise the harmful role played in the labour movement byself-promoting careerists who do not prosecute the struggle for its own sake butuse it as a means towards personal ends. Even among Marxists genuinelycommitted to the political goal of workers' self-emancipation, some are lessconsistent because they retain personal ambitions and favoured self-images that

173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DT

U L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:49

04

May

201

4

Contemporary Buddhism

impede co-operation and solidarity. They fail both as Marxists and as karma yogis.The Gita addressed issues of work, just war and social order and can now beapplied to work, class war and social revolution. We remain responsible forjudging which is the right course of action. Karma yoga is, arguably, the rightattitude to bring to action once we have begun to act.

"Compassion" means "suffering with", not distanced pity. When self-emphasising attachments are ended, all suffering is seen as a condition to beended. Otherwise, the Buddha would have remained in passive contemplation andnot have taught a way to the end of suffering.

Production and equal distribution of abundant wealth were not possible beforethe industrial revolution. Now that they are possible but can only be achieved bysocialist revolution, which is not a violent change of government but a masstransformation of society, compassion should entail support for revolution. Thosewhose only contribution to social change is to change themselves by meditationignore urgent social problems that can be addressed by collective action. Arevolutionary process which actively involves the majority of the world populationand which significantly raises their standards of living and culture will enhanceaccess to beneficial aspects of existing traditions including meditative practices forself-development and self-transcendence. In fact, since the mythological "WesternParadise" of Pure Land Buddhism is imagined as an environment conducive toenlightenment, we can build the revolutionary party now and the Western Paradisehere.

This does not mean that Marxists are now motivated by something likeBuddhist compassion. There is a simplistic popular dichotomy between"selfishness" and "altruism". Buddhists themselves exacerbate this dichotomy bydifferentiating between the potentially selfish goal of individual enlightenment andthe actively compassionate goal of universal enlightenment. In the popular view,Missionaries of Charity are credited with "altruism" whereas revolutionaries aresuspected of covert "selfishness". No doubt, some have private agendas which arefostered and encouraged by the values of the society that they oppose. However,others are consistent Marxists and thus are secular karma yogis. But, in any case,most human actions are neither selfish nor altruistic but expressions of a commoninterest, like speaking a common language, communicating intelligibly, obeyingmost of the laws most of the time and driving on the same side of the road. Thewidest common interest is that of the whole working class which materially unitesthe vast majority of a growing world population. It is in the interest of this class toend economic class divisions and thus to initiate for the first time in history asociety in which it will be possible to act in the genuine common interest insteadof either overtly or covertly supporting one class as against another. Therefore,compassion is better served by proletarian solidarity than by classless charitywhich alleviates poverty without ending exploitation.

The teachings of Buddhism and arguments for Marxism can be found in themany books on these subjects or by talking to those who practise them. The onlypoint of the present article is that, while many people meditate and others try to

174

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DT

U L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:49

04

May

201

4

Paul Shackley: Zen Marxism

build the Party, more could do both.

BuddhismThere is suffering.It is caused by attachment.It is ended by ending attachment.Attachment is ended by morality and meditation.

Teaching the way to the end of suffering required compassion.However, the way to non-attachment is also the way to compassion and wisdom.Zen meditation is just sitting with no deliberate thought.Working meditation is Zen attention to practical tasks.

YogaYoga is control of thoughts.Then, man abides in his real nature.Otherwise, he remains identified with thoughts.They are controlled by practice and non-attachment.

Mantra yoga is repetition of significant syllables.Transcendental Meditation is inner repetition of a personal mantra or of YogaSutrasBhakti yoga is devotion to a perennially non-attached being.Krishna Consciousness is devotion to Krishna expressed through public chantingof a Krishna mantra.

Karma yoga is non-attached action.Krishna applied it to war; Gandhi to non-violence.

Hatha yoga is meditative postures.Yoga instructors teach postures.

MarxismHistory is the history of class struggles.The ruling ideas are those of the ruling class.The emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class.States are instruments of class rule.

Workers need to replace existing states with states based on workers' councils.Workers' councils grow from workers' struggles.Workers' councils replace existing states only when led by a revolutionary party,The party is built by revolutionaries leading workers' struggles before there areworkers' councils.

175

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DT

U L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:49

04

May

201

4

Contemporary Buddhism

The Bolsheviks built a revolutionary party.Russian workers formed workers' councils.Bolshevik-led workers' councils replaced the existing Russian state.Besieged Russian workers lost control of their increasingly bureaucratised partyand state.

International Socialists build new revolutionary parties.

176

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DT

U L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:49

04

May

201

4