Montana Freethinkers

Promoting skeptical enquiry into religion, philosophy, politics, history, and economics in Montana and beyond.

Buddhism vs Marxism in the West:
Foes or Allies in the Postmodern Dilemma

By Justin Whitaker
November 25, 2004
(revised 29/11/04)

B.A. Philosophy, University of Montana, USA
Current M.A. Buddhist Studies student, University of Bristol, UK

This week I attended a talk by a Buddhism and Western Philosophy scholar, David Webster from the University of Gloucestershire, on "Western Buddhism & Spiritual Authenticity" based on the work of Slovenian Marxist psychologist Slavoj Žižek. It has stirred in me the need to respond, even if in a clearly non-academic matter, through a 'pop' essay. A 'pop' essay is fitting, as it was noted in the talk that the term 'pop', simply meaning 'popular', is generally used in a derogatory manner by Žižek (and indeed most neo-Marxists). I'll write in a manner that assumes little prior knowledge of Marxism or Buddhism.

To be honest at the front, I know almost nothing of Žižek himself, or Lacan (associated with Žižek) for that matter. My studies of Marxism include a good bit of work on Herbert Marcuse, some Adorno and Horkeimer, some other Frankfurt School writers (ie. Critical Theory), some work on the political writings of Marx himself, some study of Marx's political theory, and a bit on the history of Communism in Russia. I am quite a bit more of a Buddhism scholar, so as you'll see, this paper is critical of Marxism in general and a defense of (particularly Western) Buddhism. However, I do hope to demonstrate the critical element in Buddhism toward Capitalism as well!

In general, Žižek, describes Buddhism in the West as a supplement to Capitalist dynamics, a remedy to stress, a coping mechanism. It is therefore a retreat, a way to escape the pressure-cooker of Capitalism, to let off steam so as not to burst. Imagine the stressed-out office-zombie returning home to chant or meditate for half an hour before turning on 'Must-See TV', or spending a weekend every month 'blissed out' at a secluded retreat center. In this sense Western Buddhism is a pop-cultural phenomenon, the latest remedy Westerners have developed or discovered, sure to fade out as past pop-cultural phenomena in its due time.

This fits with the general Marxist diagnosis of Western Capitalist society as ultimately dysfunctional, with various fetishes required to keep individuals capable of operating. Operating means more production, more output, more profit for the owners. In this sense a fetish is any 'out of the ordinary' escape that an individual has, often it is a sexual perversion, but so too it may be an Eastern religion, anything that subverts the hegemony of the Capitalist state for that individual. Often these fetishes are taken under the control of Capitalism, essentially commercialized and sold back to the individual as a state controlled release. Thus they are cleansed, and the subversive elements are diminished or eliminated. Žižek sees Buddhism as just another one of these fetishes, mildly subversive, but apt to be commercialized and sold back to Western Buddhists in an obviously diluted form. This point we will return to soon.

Admittedly, Dr. Webster notes, Žižek conflates Buddhism, Taoism, and other Eastern traditions. But so too do most Westerners! I will note that I've also heard Deepak Chopra criticized for such conflation in his famous book "The Tao of Physics" which tries to show Eastern wisdom within modern physics (I haven't read the book myself). Concerning Buddhism, it is generally intellectuals who make the fine distinctions, whereas many practitioners have little difficulty mixing and matching traditions, either consciously or unconsciously.

So self-proclaimed Buddhists in the West may also believe in the healing qualities of crystals, hold Christian beliefs, do Tai Qi, think of Tantra as a 'sexual technique', etc - essentially confusing the essential aspects of each tradition. Such is important, I believe, to the Marxist critique of Western Buddhism insofar as people who do not have a strong grasp on the fundamentals of Buddhism can easily be 'sold' a commercialized version of it by the latest charlatan. This is especially a problem concerning our naivety about Indians/Tibetans/Zen masters, seeing them all as an enlightened, holy people (if we're bent that way at least!). Thus a Tibetan charlatan can very easily come to America, call himself Guru this or that, and swindle a great number of 'seekers'. There are certainly systemic issues here (Guru worship, doctrinal secrecy, etc) that must be addressed, but here is not the place for it. Suffice to say, in this instance the Marxist critique must hit home with Western Buddhists. On the other hand, it is not exclusive to Buddhism, as charismatic individuals like David Koresh and Jim Jones as well as alternative religions such as Rastafarianism, ISKCON (Hare Krishnas), and the New Age movement have all certainly boiled up from this Western Capitalist milieu. As we will see, one could even through Marxism in there as an 'alternative religion'.

Getting back to the point, another important thing to keep in mind with Žižek and other Marxist thinkers is that according to Marx, the Laws of Economics have predetermined that a revolution of the proletariat is imminent. I could write at length about how this sets the stage for messianic Marxist delusion, but I think the correlation with Judaism and Christianity in this respect is fairly clear: The revolution / messiah / 2nd coming of Christ is prophesized and it is our job (as believers) to clear the way (or help bring it along). And just as the Jews and Christians have the conditions spelled out for their coming of age, the Revolution of the Proletariat will occur when the oppression of the working class reaches such a level that they gain class consciousness ie. they realize they're being screwed by the system and must revolt. And just as the Jews and Christians see things that are getting in the way of their coming of age, the Marxists see anything that diverts class consciousness as a threat to the revolution.

To make matters worse (don't let anyone tell you Marxism is simple!), Capitalists, the bourgeoisie, those people who are getting all of the benefits from oppressing the proletariat, have read Marx, and are actively seeking to maximize oppression while minimizing risk of revolution. In this they are seeking out any possible subversive forces and effectively bringing them into the market. Think of whatever company put Che Guevara's face on a T-shirt and made millions selling it to 'proto-revolutionaries' (probably producing it in a 3rd world sweatshop). It is in this way that something so anti-Capitalistic as the image of Che Guevara could be made Capitalistic by simply selling it. The image is no longer a cry for equality for the workers; it is $8 on sale at Wal-Mart (where workers are not allowed to organize and ask for equality themselves!).

On one level this may just look like a big conspiracy theory by discontent intellectuals (the Marxists) but in fact I am very sympathetic to much of the description given of contemporary society. It is clear to me that the wealth of the Western world has come through Imperialism, slavery, and plunder. I think this is utterly irrefutable! The belief that the West created its own wealth while simultaneously colonizing, enslaving, and taking back tons of wealth as a benevolent act of charity (giving them the Gospel) to the rest of the world seems painfully naïve. This is the belief, I think, of many people in the West though. It must be believed if Westerners are willing to accept modern warfare and plundering as an act of charity (giving them Democracy). Of course it is possible to understand the past as malevolent while thinking that we are currently benevolent. But again I think this is painfully naïve.

Returning to Žižek and Buddhism, there is a potential problem within Buddhist philosophy in the concept of sunyata (pronounced 'shewn-ya-ta'; generally translated as 'voidness' or 'emptiness'). The doctrine states that all things are 'empty' of own-being, meaning nothing exists of it's own nature, everything that exists does so dependent upon other factors. You and I are not self-existent for instance, if we were we would not need food or air to continue existing, nor would we have needed a mother and father to bring us into being. Your computer monitor is not self-existent (even though it doesn't have a mother or need food!) because its existence is dependent upon all of its constitutive elements being fabricated and put into place by outside forces (workers). Some day, just as you or I will die, the monitor will break down, the factors that make it what it is, for you or I our bodies/minds, for the monitor wiring/glass/plastic will begin to fail and at some point will no longer function in a way that is given the title 'Justin' or 'monitor'. What will remain is a corpse and a pile of electronic junk.

This is emptiness, simply the lack of self-existence. The word 'emptiness', or the associated 'not-self', seems to jar a gut-reaction in many people, even academics, resulting in a sort of repulsed fear and misunderstanding. I hope my exposition above is clear and avoids the wrongful conclusion that nothing exists (if everything is empty…), or that you have no self, or anything like that. 'Not Self' (Skt. anatman) is simply the application of sunyata to ourselves as done above. There is no essential, indestructible, eternal, unchanging, etc. 'Self' within you, just like there isn't one in the computer screen in front of you, but you do still exist (thank heavens) and so does the screen, just not with any of those adjectives attachable (if this is a word) to you. There is nothing about you or the computer screen or anything else that is essential, indestructible, eternal, or unchanging.

The problem many Westerners, including Žižek, see with this is that it seems to imply that there is no moral agent in one's self or in other people. Therefore the suffering of others isn't important because there isn't really anybody there. Dr. Webster described this in terms of Descartes' description of animals as soulless automatons. You kick a cat and it makes noises in just the same way that an old door creaks when you open it, it is a mechanical process. There is danger of Buddhism extending this to people, saying that we are nothing more than a conglomeration of ever-changing, law-bound processes. The problem here is of overly desubstantializing the world according to Dr. Webster. However, this notion of seeing individual persons as 'not a part of ultimate reality' is apparent in any mystical tradition (including perhaps Marxism, properly understood).

I believe this danger is minimal, however, so long as this 'mystical' trend in Buddhism is set aside for 'proper mystics' as it is in the Gelugpa tradition and likely in others (though I'm most familiar with the Gelugpa and can definitely assert this). This means that for most of us, the basic virtues of generosity, morality, patience, effort, meditation, and philosophical understanding should be stressed. To spend a lifetime working on these alone is worthy of sainthood in my opinion. For a full exposition of these see Santideva's "Guide to the Bodhisattva's way of Life". It is stressed in the Gelugpa tradition that if you are lacking in any of these, the further 'mystical' (tantric) teachings a) won't make proper sense; and b) they're likely to cause more harm than good. Even so, I believe that the intellectual understanding of emptiness and not-self, unless taught extremely poorly or in the mind of an otherwise insane person, should not be conductive to a harmful way of living.

The practical absorption of Buddhism in the West is itself a matter for volumes of books. The question here of 'spiritual authenticity' is of concern to no one more so than to myself and others who wish to study and practice Buddhism in the West. Dr. Webster notes both an advantage and a problem in Buddhism is its flexibility. Certain elements of Buddhism may come into Western culture and be bent and twisted utterly out of recognition to another Buddhist. The question of the 'core' of Buddhism then must be raised, and for many Americans, it is the search for the True Buddhism that occupies much of their 'spiritual energy' (just referring to time spent on 'spiritual' undertakings). There is a cultural fondness for Buddhism in the West as a 'gentle' religion, not like that 'nasty' Islam. There are even those who brand Buddhism as a sort of 'pacifist atheism' (neither a religion nor 'militant' like 'those other atheists').

In this sense, Žižek suggests that we need to 're-religiosify' talk of Buddhism in the West. This I think is radically false, missing the point of the problem. To Re-religiosify our talk would simply be to respond to a false oversimplification with another. Buddhism as a religion is a Western construct, let us not forget. Buddhism in the East is not so much a religion or a philosophy or an outlook on life as it is a practice, a lived experience. This differentiation is difficult to make clear in the West, where most people like to describe things as 'either/or'. Unfortunately, Buddhism throughout its history has fought such rigid categorization. Buddhism, aside from having very little in the way of prescribed beliefs or practices, continually adopts some beliefs and practices from each culture it enters. Contrast this to the Catholic Church (the most dominant religious and philosophical 'figure' in the history of the West), which only gave up doing mass in Latin forty years ago!

Rather than 're-religiosifying' our talk on Buddhism in the West, it would be far more advantageous to re-personify our talk, or re-experientialize our talk. This means we need, as Buddhists, to focus on our practice, which includes living ethically in our communities as well as periods of meditation and philosophical study. The three, commonly referred to as the 3-fold Path of Buddhism: ethics, meditation, and wisdom, are intimately interrelated. I have experienced the link myself, trying to go months without a break for meditation, and having my relationships with others and studies suffer as a consequence. Geshe Michael Roach has spoken about Buddhists who would approach him and say "I've been meditating for six years but I haven't noticed any changes" and he'll ask if they've incorporated developing an ethical way of life and studying the philosophical aspects of Buddhism; no, they just meditated. Perhaps many Western Buddhists are too often seeking the results of their practice to an extent that it damages their practice! This may be like an archer who spends far too much time standing next to the target examining where his arrow has hit, as opposed to the other who focuses heavily on each shot itself.

The Western search for a 'True Buddhism' is problematic in that it produces 'fantasmatic' misrepresentations of everything Buddhist. 'Fantasmatic' simply means that what is seen is colored, twisted, or obscured by the fantasies of the individual. For instance, rather than seeing Tibet in its historical context as a land of many peoples, mostly pastorial/agriculturalists, with a centralized Buddhist government which had limited rule and reign, they see a jeweled kingdom of peaceful saints and beautiful colors and sounds. It is such a 'fantasmatic' vision that allows one to be duped by a brown-faced charlatan claiming spiritual authority. This is not just a notice of Žižek, but also of Buddhologists, who have continually rebuked one another for overly romanticizing their accounts of Tibet. Again, while intellectuals have (hopefully) advanced greatly in this concern, people new to Buddhism in the West are perhaps quite likely to hold overly romanticized views.

Žižek, following the quasi-Freudian line of many neo-Marxists, intentionally peppers his description with sexual metaphor, describing the Western fascination with the 'Real Tibet' as a desire to penetrate the inaccessible unknown. Of course, to the extent that this is true in people is the extent to which they will be disappointed and disillusioned with their 'spiritual experience' at some point. Westerners who enter into Buddhism with unrealistic expectations must either meet a teacher who brings them down to earth or be disappointed by the lack of results. This may be most problematic in terms of Tibetan Buddhism, where stories of sex, death, and magic seem to dominate any mainstream Western media coverage.

Žižek's next point is, I think, the best one presented in the paper; that there is no 'Real Tibet'. The search for the 'Real Tibet' itself is inauthentic, and it is better to build Tibet in ourselves than to go searching for it. The desire driven endeavor of finding the 'Real Tibet' itself destroys the possibility of finding the goal. This may sound esoteric, but the idea indicated is that those who desperately seek anything outside themselves will never attain it. Desire breads new desire. You reach Tibet, see that it's just like Montana and think, "this must not be the 'Real Tibet'" and continue on. You reach a beautiful monastery and discover that it is made of clay and stone, filled with basically normal people going about their day and think, "this must not be the 'Real Tibet'". And so 'Real Tibet' is never found. On the other hand, if you cultivate contentment through the 3-fold path, there is a very real sense in which Tibet is built within us.

Ultimately, the ongoing quest for an external 'Real Tibet' also drains one's time and energy from other pursuits. The authentic path is one of engagement in the world. You can imagine the constant spiritual 'seeker'. They are rarely the type to be socially or politically active. It is generally those with a well-established sense of direction in life, including spiritually, who are most socially and politically active. This is true in both Marxism and Buddhism, more so in the latter, but each having its fair share of casual and temporary fad-based adherents. For each, adherence as simply a way of defining oneself against 'the other' mainstream people is problematic and ineffective. As some Western Buddhists seek to identify themselves with the 'peaceful beautiful Tibetans' there are bound to be Marxists seeking to identify themselves with Che Guevara and V.I. Lenin, if not Marx himself.

So the issue of how we approach Buddhism becomes important. It must be treated as something precious perhaps, but also as something to be tested. Like testing gold, a practitioner ought to put Buddhism, or Marxism for that matter, through experiential tests. Who is the teacher? What is his or her authority? What is the history of this tradition? Does this make sense? Is this appropriate? Etc. Perhaps these questions need to be asked at a teacher level as well. I've considered creating some kind of registry of certified Dharma teachers in the West, but such a thing is precarious in the utmost. It would be nice though, if teachers knew one another more, and could recommend people new to Buddhism to one another if a particular tradition is not right for a given student.

In one sense a defense can be made that naïve students of a charlatan who calls himself a Buddhist teacher are outside the real fold of Western Buddhists. Yet this seems to let the rest of us off the hook too much; and it brings up nasty memories of Christian history in which one sect would denounce others as 'not real Christians'. So, while not shirking responsibility, it should be clear that this dilemma is in no way unique to Buddhism in the West. I think the best defense I can make of Buddhism in this context is to say that a) faith (in another) is not a requisite to knowledge, b) the idea of treating the teachings like gold to be melted down and heavily inspected comes from the Pali Canon (Buddhism's earliest collected texts), and c) a further canonical text is the Kalama Sutta, in which the Buddha tells his listeners:

Do not be misled by [or "satisfied with"] reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not misled by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by what appears possible, nor by the idea: 'this is (the words of) our teacher.'

But, O Kalamans, when you know for yourselves that certain things are unskillful, and wrong, and bad, then give them up. . . and when you know for yourselves that certain things are skillful and good, then accept them and follow them.

In fact, it is the exploratory and self-affirming nature of these and other Buddhist texts that drew my interest in Buddhism, and others as well. Based on Dr. Webster's account, Žižek has completely missed this element of Western Buddhism, focusing instead entirely on the fetishistic fascination with and neurotic desire for an unknown culture. Based on my own limited experience I would say that many people, perhaps the majority, do come to Buddhism with a naïve fascination (I know that my first thoughts were that this is a dreadfully pessimistic religion!). But others have sought to 'rationalize' and demystify it so that it can be approached free of exotic cultural trappings; Stephen Bachelor comes to mind. The fact of the matter is that Buddhism is so new to the West that it is still struggling to form an identity, or rather, outsiders are still struggling to give it an identity.

But still, I would commend Žižek's work as a corrective prescription for many Buddhists and those looking at Buddhism in the West. He clearly sees that Westerners must, to a fair extent, leave the cultural trappings of Asian Buddhism aside. We must let go of the search for the 'Real Buddhism'. There is a valuable lesson to be learned from Christianity according to Žižek, in the person of Paul. That lesson is of unconditional ethical engagement. I'm not sure exactly what he's getting at here, but I imagine that the idea is that Paul was a very zealous spokesman for early Christianity (many say the creator of the whole thing), and it will take such charisma and energy from Western Buddhists toward the greater community to make Buddhism stick in the West.

The conclusion from Žižek (or Dr. Webster rather) is that we must be a Buddha, not a Buddhist, a proactive, engaged individual, not a follower/seeker. Buddhism must present a way of putting Buddhists/Buddhas back into the world as engaged moral agents. This I agree with wholeheartedly, and it is where Buddhism and Marxism see eye to eye more than anywhere else. While there is much in the world that would draw us either superficially into the world, as mere consumers, or would push us back within ourselves, in terms of world/life-rejecting beliefs, both Marxism and Buddhism provide a structure for full, understanding engagement in the world for the sake of others. True, in practice, both have had their failings, but both the Buddhist and Marxist, I believe, would point to Capitalism as destructive in both theory and practice!

The problem between Buddhists and Marxists arises when we turn to discuss what should be done about this destructive economic structure within our society. The Marxist answer is clear: make no concessions, unionize, the system is irreparable, educate the working class, prepare for the inevitably violent revolution. The Buddhist answer is yet to be made, to be honest. Buddhism is used to a completely different political/economic situation, and as such there is not much in the history of Buddhism to guide the economically conscious contemporary Buddhist. However, it is not true that Buddhism avoids politics completely, or refuses to enter into difficult social situations. In the present day Buddhism is a very weak political force in most of the world, but this has not restricted such figures as the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh from taking bold social and political steps in the world.

My own response, as a Western Buddhist, to the plight of Capitalism is as follows: consider concessions, unionize, the system may be reparable, educate the working class, avoid acts of violence unless it is to directly protect a weaker party. At least on some points we are in total agreement. Considering the others I must ask, why is the system irreparable and the violent revolution inevitable? To this the Marxist answer is the Laws of Economics:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

From the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 1848

But as has been pointed out by many scholars, this is not strictly true. Especially in non-European societies (ie India, East Asia), this model does not make any sense. Any serious Marxist must look very closely to this statement and evaluate the scholarly refutations of it. If there is no historical Law of Economics, then the system is not irreparable, and the revolution is not strictly necessary. Another maxim we learn in ethics courses is that 'is does not imply ought', meaning that even if history is as such, that doesn't mean that we ought to go along with it. Even if history has set the ground for a violent revolution, or for another flu epidemic, or other reasonably undesirable circumstances, we still have ethical duty to consider alternatives. We must avoid a sense of helpless economic (or otherwise) determinism.

It is on this hinge that I fall away from the traditional Marxist and seek to engage in society as neither a Capitalist nor a Socialist. Instead we must critically examine each economic case, to determine whether a state-run or private-ownership model is beneficial to society. So to this extent, a Capitalist society can be pushed toward Socialism on reasonable, non-violent grounds. Of course, I agree with the Marxist that every step toward Socialism will be fought by the Capitalists, but I think it is better to fight for social justice on these grounds than to 'await the revolution'.

I'm also hugely skeptical of any rosy image of a classless society on the other side of the revolution. If it were obvious that this 'one last revolution' would create a utopian state, then I would be the first in line to fight for it. But it is an amazingly suspect proposition, and this is another difficulty for the modern Marxist. In fact a great deal of modern Marxist work has been dedicated to asking the question, "what went wrong?" Why did the backward nation of Russia revolt and not an advanced industrial nation such as Germany or Britain? That was nearly 80 years ago and still no advanced industrial nation has revolted, and still the only Communist societies exist in previously backward states such as China, Vietnam (and Cuba?).

The story of post-Soviet Marxism in the West is a complicated one, and I'm certainly no expert, but it is clear that Marxism is still an attractive alternative to those who see the destructive elements of Capitalist society. It is fair also to say that my characterization of Marxism is a distorted one, as I mentioned at the start my knowledge of Marxism is limited. But I hope that I have raised some important issues with regard to Marxism along with presenting a reasonable defense of Western Buddhism. As the subtitle of the article suggests, the question of 'friend or foe' between these two philosophical systems (religions even perhaps) is yet to be resolved. Obviously the two are not fully compatible, but they are also not completely at odds. The question of how exactly they fit together cannot be answered at this point, as Marxism grew from the Western philosophical, economic, and social history, whereas Buddhism is still very new here and will for some time resist any attempt to be defined clearly.

Buddhism is in no way meant to be a mere coping mechanism in a dysfunctional society. As a reading of the early code of discipline, the Patimokkha, makes clear, the Buddhist is supposed to renounce the lay life in order to fully serve the spiritual needs of society. The first Buddhists were essentially 'drop-outs' from society, people who refused to go any longer in the dysfunctional system. But again, that society and today's Capitalist society are vastly different in many respects, so no perfect analogy can be made and no clear guidance is given.

The clearest guidance, I believe, is that we all must first develop a good understanding of the world around us. In order to do this we MUST to some extent break out of society, even if this means simply turning off the TV for a couple hours each day to read philosophy, history, good political and religious texts, etc. The neo-Marxist critique of many individuals in Western society as being "One Dimensional" men is absolutely correct: our lives, thoughts, etc can be entirely dominated and manipulated by outside forces. Without a rich understanding of philosophy, history, etc., we have no intellectual depth to secure us against the prevailing winds of the day. The Buddhist 'retreat' is not meant to be a way of recharging so one can more effectively operate in his/her 9-5 job, but is meant to be an opportunity to be free from the constant sensory stimulation of our lives, so that we may see clearly how dominated our minds are by these stimuli. It is by freeing oneself from the barage of superficial stimuli that one is able to develop depth.

If more people do develop a good understanding of the damaging effects of Capitalism, this alone will begin to weaken the power of Capitalist interests while empowering those suffering under its foot. The next step is clearly to move in social and political engagements to actively empower the oppressed. In doing so, however, one must continue the 'retreats' in order to again see clearly what factors are driving our minds this way and that. This continual cycle is necessary in order to keep your actions from being co-opted by outside (either Capitalist or otherwise) forces. You can surely think of some engaged individual who has had his or her efforts co-opted by some group or ideology in a destructive way. It is easy to get lost in our projects and fail to ask if they are really helping people or not. Our perspective, gained by separation from the situation, must be balanced with engagement in the situation.

In closing I simply urge you to take very seriously your path in life, as the effects of one individual, however small they may seem, have repercussions throughout the world and time. Take care to examine your own beliefs and those of others. Work for peace, work for justice, and work to cultivate generosity, compassion, and understanding within yourself, as that is where true change must begin.

Thanks for Reading. Justin Whitaker

Montana Freethinkers

Buddhism vs Marxism in the West: Foes or Allies in the Postmodern Dilemma

Buddhism vs Marxism in the West:
Foes or Allies in the Postmodern Dilemma