Karl Marx and modern physiologists may have been influenced by
Buddha’s preaching on consciousness. Obviously physiological views on
consciousness were not available to the Buddha at the time He preached about
consciousness 2500 years ago, whereas some knowledge of the nervous system
would have been available to Marx and moreover the Buddha’s dharma was
available to him. Further there is evidence that he was influenced by Buddhism
particularly in the fundamental idea of socialism ( vide Heinz Bechert 1966 ).
U Ba Swe a Burmese Buddhist leader held that if capitalism exists it is because
man has forgotten the teachings of the Buddha. Laksmi Narasu, an Indian
Buddhist leader maintained that the Buddha was anti capitalist. U Nu an eminent
Burmese Buddhist statesman said that socialism is a corollary of the social and
ethical principles of the Buddha and approved the law nationalizing
landholdings. Our own Rev. Yakkaduwe Pragnasara Thera said that Buddhists do
not need any other dogma to achieve socialism. It is even said that Marxism is
a page extracted from the book of Buddhism but misinterpreted! Therefore
perhaps Karl Marx cannot claim originality in either socialism or the theory of
consciousness and may have learnt the fundamentals of both from Buddhism.
It is not surprising that the modern physiological view of
consciousness agrees to some degree with that of the Lord Buddha. It is
probable that the modern physiologists working on consciousness are influenced
by Buddhism, as are many modern physicists and other scientists. (If they are
not they cannot be good scientists. This is not to say that Buddhism is
scientific.) However just as the Buddha’s teachings on socialism was much
deeper than that of Marxism and also thorough in that it included the means of controlling
greed which is the driving force of capitalism, Buddha’s analysis of
consciousness is profound and far reaching compared to any other theory on
consciousness. It is part and parcel of the Law of Dependent Origination (Pattichcha
Samuppadaya) which attempts to unravel the mystery of the human
predicament; birth and suffering. Therefore to take consciousness out of "
Pattichcha Samuppadaya" for the purpose of analyzing it, is to take
it out of context and is meaningless. The Buddhist concept of consciousness
therefore cannot be explained in physiological terms. The physiologist’s method
which breaks up a phenomenon into its components and consider each as another
whole, cannot be expected to comprehend the interconnected and interdependent
nature of consciousness and its related phenomena such as "avidya"
"sankara" etc. without which there is no comprehension of
consciousness.
"Pattichcha Samuppadaya" has
twelve components and these have been analyzed basically in two modes. One is
on the basis of past, present and future lives. The other is on the basis of "vedana"
, "karma" and "dukka". Yet another method of
analysis is on the basis of "Dhamma" theory which is an
Abhidammic innovation that explores the empiric individuality and its relation
to the external world. This method has five modes of analysis and consciousness
appears in four of these at different levels of further analysis. What is of
significance is that Buddhism does not rely on analysis alone but resorts to
two complementary methods ; "bedha" (analysis) and "sangaha"
(synthesis). What all of the above could perhaps mean is that these concepts
(what appear to be concepts to us) cannot be comprehended by any other means
but by the means adopted by Lord Buddha.
No comments:
Post a Comment