History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Further update to… /hinayana-gautama-the-axial-age-expropriating-the-expropriators/

March 26th, 2016 · 3 Comments

http://darwiniana.com/2016/03/25/hinayana-gautama-the-axial-age-expropriating-the-expropriators/ reproduced below (plus comment by NK at link)

We need an additional update on this peculiar take on buddhism. The only good way to study buddhism, for starters, is via a traditional study of the wonder of Axial Age buddhism emerging as a world religion of compassion and enlightenment. That’s the way it started, and how it looks to us still, and yet…my dialectical side swipe is highly questionable, at first, so we can sideline it. Note, however, that we have stumbled on something: Tibetan buddhism coming later will certain show what happens with a buddhist state, in terms of class and exploitation. Be that as it may, we should note that buddhism was always challenged by hindu reactionaries, was a strangely revolutionary path hoping to revolutionize India, and later was charged with esoteric fascism in the modern period by certain figures, such as Rajneesh. What is the truth? Is buddhism revolutionary, crypto-fascist, or what? I have always been a huge fan of buddhism, so a side swipe with marxist jargon is either a mere slap in the face, a dialectical exercise, or, who knows?
So where did we go wrong? It is almost impossible to follow the real history of buddhism: it has three phases, hinayana, mahayana, and then various resolutions of a kind of triad. Our swipe against buddhism, forgets Mahayana: either Gautama himself or later buddhists initiating Mahyana fully understood our point (without the marxist jargon) and we see the connection at this period with gestating Xtianity, to further confuse the issue.

Let us inject a different take on the problem: a figure like Buddhas was subjected to a tremendous temptation: the power to organize a whole world religion over two thousand years, from a death state. The latter is undefined, and we don’t know if such a state corresponds to an historical figures nobility and compassion. A quick look at the Tibetan book of the dead suggests problems with this charming view! We cannot resolve the issue. But the temptation is that of any de facto royalty: is the operation moving in the interests of an elite or a democratic majority. The ambiguity becomes the worse when you realize the power ‘to consume souls’ in secret to fuel some mysterious monstrosity of devils. We can’t know if enlightenment is able to withstand such super power.
A quick look at Nietzche (whose views were distorted by scientism) suggests that ‘enlightenment’ could be a cover story for an ‘overman monster’ drinking blood from skulls, etc, etc…. Ordinary hindus got chattering teeth syndrome just thinking about Buddha. Were they brainwashed?
On the surface, buddhism did everything right, and had, until it reached Tibet, a golden history. But it was the object of destruction by neo-brahmins, how and why? It was thus driven out of India. The bitterness left by this must have sown the seeds of wrathful vengeance in certain buddhists. And at some point in Tibetan buddhism, monks began to be trained in a de-ethicization process of malevolent import hidden by esoteric fronts. This suspicious symptom could be a clue to the calamity that followed in the gotterdammerung of buddhism. We cannot know if Gautama was a bodhissatwa or whether he passed away leaving the construct of Mahayana to fulfill his mission.


Update: This post needs to be challenged and then sidelined: it is a dialectical exercise that wouldn’t make any sense at first and can’t really make factual statements about early buddhism, and it is really about modern new age movements, many of which are corrupt after the fashion stated. But watch out: Tibetan Buddhism is a fully statist brand for which our marxist jargon could suddenly apply all too well. more later perhaps.
I am moving this post so I can put it in the right context….
Here again I need to reflect on the issue, but I have an idea for you on a related question: you have listeed multiple links here to the (I forget!) Hinayana website. My current critiques of buddhism at The Gurdjieff Con suggest the need for a life-boat buddhism:

How would you create a distillation (for commies) of the first stage of buddhism for the future freed of its references to the particular Gautama cult, save as history?

If you examine my take on the Axial Age you will see that Gautama’s ‘religion’ is really a public domain offering, based on its proto-secularization of hinduism, AND its basis in the macro-generation of the Axial period: what is the status of such a ‘local’ entity in the larger sphere of globalization?
Gautama effectively stole the ‘santana dharma’, save that, in the larger context of the Axial Age, the whole thing was macro generated (at its start), which raises the question, was Gautama’s ‘enlightenment’ real or macro generated? In any case the hidden bias lurks in the ‘class’ basis for this royalist (later crypto-fascist) and his expropriation…
This might seem crackpot til you consider that Gautama might have been, like Mahavir, a conqueror, and a proto-capitalist in the traffic of souls and conscious energies, a proto-factory for spiritual energy extraction. A really sneaky villain?

Here’ one way the game is reflecting in a distorting mirror, but what is the reality: Sending that many into a battle with the Demon Mara in a game with hidden rules seems to be suspicious: the immense number of failures can be predicted and will make a nice profit…as fodder…
Expropriate the expropriators: the modern period perhaps on the left could regenerate this Axial phantasm, as an expropriation of the expropriators…

Meanwhile what is a good ‘cash and carry’ distillation of the Hinayana legacy/manuscipts?

Tags: General

3 responses so far ↓

  • 1 NK // Mar 26, 2016 at 11:36 am

    This is a complex question. I would have to write a whole book! I’ll give you something to chew on though. Even in the early stages, the orthodoxy was starting to go astray & totally missed the point of the early teachings. Case in point, the “anatta” teaching. This became philosophically enshrined as an ontological position. However, in the early sutras, it was clearly explained that holding onto “anatta” neti-neti type doctrines still lead to becoming & rebirth; this is ignored in 99.9% of all books on Buddhism. “Equanimity” is exalted as the goal in the “mindfulness” movement, but one has to go even beyond that:

    “Then again, the disciple of the noble ones, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers this: ‘This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.’ Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension. There being full confidence, he either attains the dimension of nothingness now or else is committed to discernment. With the break-up of the body, after death, it’s possible that this leading-on consciousness of his will go to the dimension of nothingness. This is declared to be the second practice conducive to the dimension of nothingness.

    “Then again, the disciple of the noble ones considers this: ‘I am not anyone’s anything anywhere; nor is anything of mine in anyone anywhere.’ Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension. There being full confidence, he either attains the dimension of nothingness now or else is committed to discernment. With the break-up of the body, after death, it’s possible that this leading-on consciousness of his will go to the dimension of nothingness. This is declared to be the third practice conducive to the dimension of nothingness.”


  • 2 nemo // Mar 26, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    Excellent stuff here

  • 3 nemo // Mar 29, 2016 at 12:42 pm

    My larger perspective is based on my experiences of the New Age movement: I am suspicious, the compassionate buddhas are crooks.

Leave a Comment