💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › nico-armin-buddhism-and-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:55:26. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Buddhism and Anarchism
Author: Nico Armin
Date: February 18, 2021
Language: en
Topics: Buddhism, caste, India, pacifism, nonviolence
Source: https://nlemon7.wixsite.com/website/post/buddhism-and-anarchism-exploring-the-unlikely-compatibility-of-two-distinct-traditions

Nico Armin

Buddhism and Anarchism

In the summer of 2018 I was at a movie night event with newly acquainted

classmates from grad school. We were all still getting to know each

other and one of them asked me something about my personal beliefs. I

don’t remember the details but I remember admitting I was a Buddhist

anarchist. I think the reason I put it in those terms had to do with the

context of our discussion. Mind you, he is a Japanese classmate whom is

fluent in English. But his response was something to the effect of, “How

does that even make sense?” And his response filled me with the urge to

lecture to him then and there about how Buddhism and anarchism are

actually compatible if you really think about it. I was tempted to

mention the Japanese Buddhist anarchist monk, Uchiyama Gudō (May 17,

1874 – January 24, 1911), and Emma Goldman’s personal friend from India,

Har Dayal (14 October 1884 – 4 March 1939), but I resisted the urge.

Instead I promised myself that I would write an essay expounding on this

compatibility. So this essay is the result of that urge.

To be sure, I’m not saying Buddhism is to be conflated with anarchism

prima facie. Many so-called Buddhist traditions did indeed serve as

legitimators of tyrannical rulers and often fomented violent conflicts

(e.g. the Genpei war, the Nanboku-chou conflicts, Ikko Ikki rebellions,

and so on). And to explain what I mean by Anarchism, let me just first

explain the source of my own anarchist convictions. Pyotr Kropotkin is

possibly the most influential as he argued for peace and prosperity

among humans in his Mutual Aid. The next proponent I draw from is Rudolf

Rocker and his outline of Anarcho-Syndicalism as a communal answer to

many of the problems that come with an imperfect world driven to

subsistence should we fail to cultivate favorable conditions,

agriculturally and infrastructurally. And third in my list of

influencers would be Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, as he was instrumental in

outlining the tyranny of property. And I personally define anarchism in

the way atheists define atheism. Just as the prefix ‘a’ means “not” and

‘theist’ means “believer in god”- I am stating the prefix ‘an’ also

means “not” and ‘archist’ is a catch-all for all things ending in

“archy”: hierarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, patriarchy, etc. The objective

of anarchism is to instill a sense of dignity in all people and to

charge all with the agency to realize and defend their human rights.

I believe Buddhism and anarchism overlap from the start because both

traditions aim to critique the status quo. Additionally, there are

several key factors about the Buddhist dhamma and its relationship to

political convention that I think makes it more compatible with

anarchism than any other political ideology. These factors are expressed

in five major juxtapositions: 1. Prince Siddhartha’s defiance against

his father, Oligarch Śuddhodana; 2. The dhamma’s dissolution of the

Hindu caste system in Northern India; 3. Specific texts accredited to

the Buddha that speak against dogmatism; 4. The Sangha’s function as a

commune living beyond the limits of monarchies and oligarchies (and

often functioning as sanctuaries beyond political realms); 5. Tales of

the Buddha and his discourses with the Hindu gods. There is a lot to

explore here, so let’s get right into it.

1. Prince Siddhartha Defied His Father, Oligarch Śuddhodana

The Buddha’s life story is very essential to the Buddhist tradition

because many of its main concepts are delivered in a parable fashion. As

the story goes, the Buddha was born as Siddhartha Gautama, the prince of

a regent Kshatriya family. The caste system was ubiquitous in the

Buddha’s life. So his father, the Oligarch Śuddhodana, had absolute

power over his subjects as an oligarch of the Shakya tribe’s

Mahājanapada (oligarchic republic) before it was subjugated into the

greater Kosala realm. And people below Śuddhodana were given various

tasks suited to their caste. But from one perspective, no person’s life

was more under the thumb of Śuddhodana than Siddhartha himself.

Before he was born, the Buddha’s coming is said to have been foretold by

a yogi named Asita. He told Śuddhodana that his precious son will either

become a warrior king, conquering all rival territories by conquest, or

a sagely spiritual leader who will influence the world with his wisdom.

Being the patriarch that he was, Śuddhodana wished for his son to become

a warlord. He cringed at the notion of his son becoming a religious

sage. So he did everything in his power to make sure Siddhartha would

become a king by conquest. Śuddhodana ordered all of his subjects to

create an alternate reality for Siddhartha within the palace so that he

would be unwise to the experiences of the outside world and thus unable

to become a sage.

This parable is so valuable because we can clearly see a crucial trait

of authoritarianism laid bare: the need to control and distort knowledge

from others. If you find yourself among people who attempt to hide

knowledge from you, and whom prevent you from learning, they are either

acting out of self-interest, or almost certainly trying to subjugate and

oppress you.

Śuddhodana forbade Siddhartha from leaving the palace and made it so

that his subjects would only teach him things that lead to his success

as a conquering king. But eventually Siddhartha disobeyed his father’s

commands and left the palace to experience the Four Sights: first, an

old man; second, a sick man; third, a corpse; and fourth, an ascetic

hermit (yogi). There is an extensive narrative regarding these four

sights that I recommend you read, but in summary they symbolize

Siddharta’s insights into certain truths: aging is inescapable, we will

all succumb to illness, we all die, and these realizations have led many

people to seek transcendence from these unfortunate truths. But the main

moral of the Four Sights is that we cannot delude ourselves they are not

our shared reality no matter how hard we try. This is called

impermanence or anicca in Pali.

The Four Sights troubled Siddhartha so much that he could not find peace

living a life of luxury in the palace, doing as his father commanded. It

is said he felt a personal conviction and call to action that he needed

to do something to help people as well as himself. Meanwhile, his father

heard of his desertion and resolved even more to ensure Siddhartha

remains in the palace. In the end, the Buddha would not be kept from

deserting the palace for good. When he reached the outskirts of town,

Siddhartha cut his hair and shed his regal garments and jewels and gave

them to his charioteer, Channa. In this tale, we can see a clear

rejection of several hierarchical and political preconceptions. Despite

being the son of the oligarch Śuddhodana, Siddhartha disobeyed his

commands. Despite being the autocrat of the Shakya tribe’s domain,

regent in Kapilavastu, his decree was not obeyed with unquestioning

loyalty. And the fact this story was carried down through oral tradition

in the region for hundreds of years before it was written into the Pali

canon is indicative of an anti-establishment narrative.

The Buddha’s defiance against his oligarch father, Śuddhodana, is in

direct contrast with the patriarchal values of hierarchical societies so

ubiquitous in the ancient Shakya and Kosala realms of India. Not only

was his refusal to obey his father’s commands an affront to oligarchic

rule, but it was also a rejection of its governing principles. This

included the Vedic concept of caste, which Shakyamuni Buddha and his

Sangha would go on later to deconstruct through various suttas. The

Buddhist movement would dissolve the hierarchical caste system wherever

it went, for the majority of its spread throughout Asia.

2. The Dhamma vs. Caste

The caste system during the Vedic period leading up to the time of the

Buddha’s life, the Mahājanapada period (600–345 BCE), decreed that

people ought to live their lives serving the function of their status.

This meant that everyone was born into their status and were not

permitted to engage in any activity of the upper or lower castes in the

hierarchy. It is usually stated that the Brahmin (priest) caste is the

most revered, but this was not always the reality and was subject to

change by region, regime, or period. In the Mahājanapada period, the

Kshatriya (warrior) caste enjoyed the higher status and authority within

the Shakya tribe. The Vaishyas (propertied land owners and merchants)

answered directly to the Kshatriya, and managed the Sudras (peasant

farmers or laborers). The final caste was the Dalits or Panchamas

(untouchables) who were responsible for unwanted labor, such as cleaning

and handling animal waste or corpses. We know from the Esukari Sutta

that this lifestyle was still in practice through the Buddha’s life, but

was challenged thereafter.

In the Madhura Sutta, the arahant (enlightened monk) Kaccāna was visited

by King Avantiputta in Gunda Grove where he would spend most of his time

as a hermit monk. King Avantiputta sat upon his chariot to ask Kaccāna

what he thought of the caste hierarchy. The abridge version goes

something like this:

“Venerable Kaccāna, the Brahmins say they are to be honored more than

any of the other castes. What do you think about this?” inquired King

Avantiputta.

“It is just a saying in the world, great king, that ‘Brahmins are the

highest caste...heirs of Brahma.’ But what do you think, King

Avantiputta— Do not other Brahmins (priests), Kshatriya (warriors),

Vaishyas (merchants), and Sudras (laborers) precede and succeed members

of their own caste? And if they were to achieve a following of servants

eager to please them, and wealth and an abundance of food, will there

still not yet be others who have achieved and will achieve the same

success?” said Kaccāna, Buddha’s arahant disciple.

“There will be, Venerable Kaccāna” admitted King Avantiputta.

“Then what would you think, King Avantiputta, if I said Brahmins

(priests), Kshatriya (warriors), Vaishyas (merchants), and Sudras

(laborers) are still yet capable of shameful deeds, such as murder, ill

treatment of corpses, robbery, rape, and debauchery? Would you not admit

that they were all capable of the same measure of shame regardless of

their caste, or are they not?” asked Kaccāna.

“I would say they are all capable of the same misdeeds. I see your

point, Venerable Kaccāna.” admitted King Avantiputta.

Kaccāna continued, “Then you see it is just a saying in the world that

‘Brahmins are the highest caste...heirs of Brahma.’ …And suppose a

Kshatriya or a Brahmin or a Vaishya or a Sudra were to shave their heads

and don the monk’s robes, renouncing the world and giving up unwholesome

habits, such as killing, debauchery, and poor diet. Would you be able to

determine their caste? Would they not appear the same to you?”

King Avantiputta responded eagerly, “They would all appear the same to

me, Venerable Kaccāna.”

“And how would you treat them, King Avantiputta?” asked Kaccāna.

“I would pay them homage, and treat them as a guest in my presence.

Myself and my entourage would offer medicinal attention and

accommodation if needed.” And suddenly the realization of the dhamma

came over King Avantiputta. He praised Kaccāna for his teachings, and

the realization that all people are equal when we understand superficial

privileges for what they really are.

Buddhism itself exists as an alternative to the Vedic tradition and

other practices of society because the Buddha dhamma rejects previous

assertions about reality. Buddhism’s very existence in Northern India

was a direct critique of early Vedic Hinduism, Jainism (Nigathas in Pali

suttas), and strictly Upanishadic Hinduism of the time. As with

Kaccāna’s instruction, the Brahmins naturally preach their high status

because it is in their own self-interest to do so. And anyone else in

that position of privilege would be tempted to do the same. It takes a

strong-willed doctrine, such as the Buddha dhamma to transcend from this

oppressive mentality. Not only did the Buddha dhamma teach a strict

doctrine of egalitarianism, but it also taught that any person could

take refuge in the Sangha and seek enlightenment if they were up to the

task. Though this did not completely dissolve strife experienced outside

of the Sangha, surrounding upāsaka (lay communities) did become less

oppressive, especially among lay practitioners whose family members

joined the Sangha. Furthermore the idea of the Dalit (outcast) was

challenged by the Buddha on many accounts. The most pertinent being the

Vasalla Sutta where the Buddha rebukes an arrogant Brahmin at length,

and here is my abridged version:

One day Shakyamuni Buddha left Anathapindika monastery for receiving

dāna (alms) at Savatthi city. He donned his robes and begging bowl and

set out to the city as usual. Now, Shakyamuni Buddha was passing by

Brahmin Aggika Bharadvaja’s house as he was cooking an offering for the

Buddha. The Brahmin was not yet done cooking and lost his temper, so he

yelled obscenities at Shakyamuni Buddha, “Stay there, baldy! Wretched

monk! You Vasala!” (Vasala is a synonym for Dalit/outcast, which

literally means “little man”. A similar term is used in Chinese- “xiăo

rén”).

The Buddha stopped and spoke to the Brahmin, “Tell me Brahmin, do you

know the conditions that qualify someone as being a Vasala (outcast)?”

“No I do not, Venerable Gautama Buddha. Please teach me the dhamma’s

conditions for who qualifies as being a Vasala.” admitted the Brahmin.

“Listen then, Brahmin, and pay attention, I will speak.” said the

Buddha.

“Yes, Venerable Sir,” replied the Brahmin.

“1. Whosoever is hateful and slanderous. 2. Whosoever murders and lacks

sympathy for living beings. 3. Whosoever besieges towns as an oppressor.

4. Whosoever burgles.

5. Whosoever avoids paying their debts. 6. Whosoever assaults

pedestrians on the road to steal from them. 7. Whosoever lies at the

expense of others. 8. Whosever causes a married woman to be unfaithful.

9. Whosoever being wealthy refuses to support their aging parents. 10.

Whosoever assaults and batters their relatives. 11. Whosoever is asked

for good advice but answers with ill-advice. 12. Whosoever attempts to

conceal their misdeeds.

13. Whosoever is treated as a guest and is served food in other’s homes,

but does not do the same for others. 14. Whosoever lies to mendicant

monks or Brahmins (about having food). 15. Whosoever is present at

mealtime and insults monks or Brahmins [for seeking dāna (alms)].

16. Whosoever self-deluded, speaks asatam (harsh words of intimidation)

or falsehood expecting to gain something. 17. Whosoever is boastful and

belittles others. 18. Whosoever is capricious and unaware of the harm

they cause by their actions. 19. Whosoever reviles the Buddha, the

Abbot, or the Sangha.

20. Whosoever not being an arahant pretends to be so is the lowest of

outcasts, for they are thieves of all the cosmos. 21. Not by birth is

one an outcast; not by birth is one a Brahmin. By deed one becomes an

outcast, by deed one becomes a Brahmin.

22. This I recite from experience: There was a Dalit’s son, Sopaka, who

became known as Matanga. 23. Matanga attained the highest of fame

despite the odds. He was so revered by the Kshatriyas and Brahmins that

they attended to him. 24. He achieved this feat by living as Matanga,

the ordained monk and following the Noble Eightfold Path. By doing this,

he attained enlightenment. 25. His birth as a Dalit did not prevent him

from being revered and a witness to the Brahmin’s point of view.

26. High birth does not prevent one from falling into inner-turmoil, or

from shame. 27. Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a

Brahmin. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes a Brahmin.”

Upon hearing this dhamma, Brahmin Aggika Bharadvaja knelt in praṇāma

before Shakyamuni Buddha saying, “O Venerable Gautama Buddha, I promise

to participate as one in the upāsaka (laity) with you from now on. I

will take refuge in you, the Buddha, your dhamma, and the Sangha. That I

promise until the day I die!”

The concluding details from this sutta imply that even the proud Brahmin

spent the rest of his life supporting the Buddha’s community. And this

is surely different from how Brahmins thought society ought to function.

The caste was challenged by the Buddha in every way. It may seem the

Vasala Sutta states certain aspects of caste society as facts of life,

but we can see that anyone could be revered or outcast by their deeds

and not by pure accident of birth: “21. Not by birth is one an outcast;

not by birth is one a Brahmin. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed

one becomes a Brahmin.” We can see that the weight of the caste system

was lessening, and was more regarded as a means of compliment or showing

reverence. And in the following centuries the Jatakas suggest that

intermarriage between castes began during or just after the Buddha’s

life. This was a considerable sign of progress from the Vedic caste

system. Such confrontation with the Vedic caste is very much compatible

with the emancipatory agenda of anarchists.

We can see that the real lesson in the Buddha dharma is one I call the

‘three potentials’ that are found in Buddhist thought and a plethora of

other doctrine: potential 1) all people have the potential to do great

moral deeds, 2) all people have the potential to do shameful deeds, and

3) all people have the potential to be mediocre in their deeds. Of

course, I grant other variables are possible; this is not a false

trichotomy. Rather, this triadic moral principle is meant to highlight

the universality of moral potentials. The third potential is one I think

not enough people fully understand: being a bystander and enabler to bad

deeds/karma, though not a malicious deed renders a person morally

dubious. But on the other hand, it is inappropriate to expect direct

action from others; this is an imposition that could lead to undue harm.

In any case, this principle of ‘three potentials’ is a moral device

aimed at showing there is no innate difference between people. There is

no way to impose a hierarchy such as the caste on people declaring one

is more virtuous or deserving of differential treatment based on the

accident of birth. Buddhism declares that it is a person’s deeds that

show whether they are honorable. But honorable or not, the Buddha

instructed that all living beings are to be treated with the same

respect and shall go unharmed by our deeds. This is possible by

practicing mettā (benevolence), and avihiṃsā (nonviolence). The Buddha’s

dismissal of caste beliefs as roles determined by birth have been

present throughout South, East, and Southeast Asia ever since his Sangha

was around to spread the dhamma. This is a legacy that anarchists can

appreciate.

For India herself, many Indians in the independence movement (1857–1947)

did look to Buddhism as a model for liberation from both the oppression

of the British Empire and the caste system itself. In regards to whether

the caste system would go on to exist, if but as an underlying tradition

rather than a visible apparatus for governance, Har Dayal stated, “I do

not acknowledge any caste-system, good, bad, or indifferent.” What’s

more he would later praise Venerable Mahatma Gandhi’s efforts to uplift

the downtrodden untouchables. Dayal voiced his own protest against caste

in his essay “Modern India and European Culture” by highlighting India’s

subaltern position on the world stage, “All Hindus are pariahs in the

society of civilized men and women, whether they are rajas or valets,

priests or sweepers....” and concluded, “[the caste system] is the

climax of all social inequality.” Like the Madhura Sutta and the Vasala

Sutta, Dayal’s statements highlight the sameness in potential regarding

all people, and in the latter quote he implied the mundanity of attempts

in Indian society to prop up higher castes while the whole of India was

deemed subaltern by the world powers of the time. And he would later add

that “love transcends all castes” which further points to the sameness

of all people regardless of birth.

In his paper, “Three Ideas on Education” published in the December issue

of Modern View (1925) Dayal called to action the passionate removal of

caste:

Caste is the curse of India. Caste, in all its forms, has made us a

nation of slaves.... The priest is our master, but he himself (and all

of us) are the slaves of foreigners. This is the fruit of caste.... It

is not Islam, and it is not England, that has destroyed India. No, our

enemy is within us. Priestcraft [Barahminism] and caste have slain us.

This is the truth of history. Hindu Society twice committed suicide....

Caste must go, and it must not go slowly and gradually, but immediately

and completely and irrevocably. This should be our vow: No compromise

with caste in any shape or form, and Hindu unity as our practical social

ideal.

Har Dayal would later advocate the translation of Pali texts in Western

academia, and could be credited as a major influence in this endeavor

[to which I am grateful]. He similarly spoke against dogmatism, as in

the unquestioned obedience to the Hindu and religious practices within

India (to include Islam and Christianity). His strongest case against

Hinduism’s dogmatism was written in the September 1926 issue of Modern

View where he stated the inevitable result of unquestioned obedience

manifested as “child-marriage, purdah (seclusion of women), caste,

polygamy, hideous idols, illiteracy and the condition of slavery “ which

he then declared, “the Shame of India”. But many religious people might

think this is a mere skew of Buddhist doctrine, and that Buddhism merely

promotes an alternative dogma in place of other belief systems. But this

is not the case, and the next subsection will explain why.

3. The Dhamma and Nondogmatism

The term dogma has a few definitions. Its origin in English derives from

Catholic Christianity, and is etymologically linked to the Greek word,

δόγμα (dogma) which literally means “that which one thinks is true”. The

Roman Catholics repurposed the word into Latin to mean, “an

inconvertible truth made known through divine revelation”. And since

roughly the second century CE, dogma was used as a means to control

discourse and enforce a clerical and feudal hierarchy among residents of

Christendom. Dogma has come to mean a set of beliefs that are not only

“incontrovertible truth”, but enforceable under arbitrary rule. Any

challenge against such dogmas in Christendom, and the other Abrahamic

religions (Islam and Judaism) has been at one time or another suppressed

and condemned. This notion was exacerbated by the concept of divine

right that meant the kings or other feudal regents would have

unquestioned authority over their people. At certain periods and in some

societies, denial of dogma was punishable by death. As a contrast,

Buddhism does not have any such requirements. Of course there are social

pressures is many communities for people to be Buddhist, but there has

been no literature or governing body that mandated subscription to a

specific set of beliefs. Of course we can assert instances of violence

or suppression in Myanmar, China, Southeast Asia, and Japan. But these

instances are not caused by disbelief in specific doctrine.

If you search for “Buddhist dogma” on Wikipedia you will come across

diṭṭhi (right view). The tenet of diṭṭhi has been offered as an example

of Buddhist dogma. But this is a flimsy analogous term, because right

view is just one tenet of eight within the Noble Eightfold path. Diṭṭhi

cannot be equated with Christian dogma because it is not broad enough to

be the framework for most of the Buddhist doctrine in the same way dogma

does for Christians. If I were to put on my Christian hat for a moment

and try to make an analogy here: it would be like trying to say the

keystone tenet of Christianity is the first Beatitude from the Sermon on

the Mount, “blessed are the poor [in spirit if Matthew]”. As you may

know, there are a few more Beatitudes in that sermon (ten in Matthew and

four in Luke). So too is the same for the Noble Eightfold Path, there

are eight tenets, and they all comprise just one component of the

Buddha’s dhamma (teaching). So I hope that illustrates the

incompatibility of diṭṭhi serving as a substitute to dogma.

Then there is the collective dhamma being presented as another stand-in

for dogma in Buddhist thought. But this cannot be the case either,

because the dhamma is the summation of all of Shakyamuni Buddha’s

teachings. And if this is the case, then the dhamma would be

self-contradictory as a dogma due to various suttas that speak against

compulsory belief. The most prevalent sutta is the Kesamutti Sutta, as

it specifically addresses the problem with unquestioned beliefs in this

excerpt [numbers are my own]:

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),

nor upon tradition (paramparā),

nor upon rumor (itikirā),

nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)

nor upon conjecture (takka-hetu),

nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),

nor upon fallacious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),

nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over

(diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),

nor upon another’s seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),

nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)

Kalamas, when you yourselves know: “These things are good; these things

are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and

observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness”, enter on and

abide in them.

It just so happens that the above passages hit on every aspect of

political indoctrination. This is quite astounding for how advanced they

are in terms of discussions regarding belief. The first instruction,

anussava, relates to belief by rote memorization. This is often forced

upon pupils or citizens through educational institutions and quite often

the news media today. Less resolute or acquiescent people will exhibit

strong beliefs in things simply because they hear about them so often.

The second instruction, paramparā, is just as astounding as the first

because it warns against the appeal to tradition. This is often known as

the informal fallacy, argumentum ad antiquitatem (appeal to tradition),

that states that a claim is not true simply because people hold it as a

tradition or have believed it was true for some amount of time.

Similarly, rumors or hearsay, the third instruction, itikirā, are not

reliable sources of truth because, even if a person is convinced of the

truth of something, it does not mean they remember it completely and

clearly. This is why hearsay is not admissible as evidence in any

scientific setting. Yet, corrupt governing officials and business owners

appeal to hearsay as a source for decision-making processes all the

time.

It is interesting the fourth instruction, piṭaka-sampadāna, uses the

term piṭaka which is self-referential to the Buddhist doctrine, the Pali

Canon. So, in English it is translated as scripture, but the scripture

in question is the sutta itself as it exists within the Sutta Piṭaka

which is a pivotal source of the Pali Canon as a whole. The fifth

teaching, takka-hetu, warns against conjecture, or assumptions based on

preconceived notions. The sixth, naya-hetu, warns against axioms and

again I think this is self-referential, because the axioms in question

here would be popular phrases the Buddha or similar instructors would be

preaching at the time. Axioms, maxims, truisms, or aphorisms, have

strength in being memorable and seem true enough that many people simply

repeat them and use them heuristically in society- which is often

fast-paced and unaccommodating to lengthy discussion. But when we go

through our whole lives assuming the truth of an axiom without

investigation, it could lead to the acceptance of a fallacious rationale

or bald assertions. The other weakness of axioms is that people can

remember their content, but not the context nor the deeper meaning to

them.

By extension of the sixth instruction, the seventh, ākāra-parivitakka,

warns against fallacious reasoning at all. The term ākāra is literally

defined as shape or form, but it has another definition meaning

appearance, aspect, or image. And parivitakka means a reflection or

consideration. And I think this is founded in the Buddha’s description

of reality— the Three Marks of Existnece: anicca (impermanence), dukkha

(dissatisfaction), and anattā (non-self) — and our delusions about

reality, known as the Five Aggregates or Khandha. These are delusions we

have that prevent us from seeing reality for what it is. The Five

Aggregates are: rūpa (form), vedanā (sensation), saññā (perception),

saṅkhāra (mental formations), and viññāṇa (consciousness). In summary,

these five concepts we have about the world are fallacious because they

fail to recognize anicca (impermanence), our inability to sense certain

aspects of reality, our biases, our unskillful thoughts, and they delude

us into clinging to the delusions of the self that have no basis in the

aforementioned aspects.

The eighth instruction, diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā, is also

self-referential and is really about not misinterpreting the origins of

one’s insight as it could be skewed by bias. As stated above, the term

diṭṭhi means right view. Nijjhān means insight, akkh refers to what the

eye sees, and antiyā are the ideas we have pondered before. The ninth

instruction, bhabba-rūpatāya, should be of interest to anarchists in

that it speaks against following charismatic leaders or those we think

are particularly skillful on those qualities alone. That disposition

only leads to unquestioned servitude via admiration. The tenth

instruction, samaṇo no garū, also leans towards anarchism because it is

the antithesis to the appeal to authority fallacy. A proposition is not

true merely based on the assertion that a person in authority said it

was true. And a person’s perceived rank is not sufficient to

substantiate their claims just as it is not enough for any other person.

Every person needs to demonstrate and justify why their viewpoint merits

consideration, and they come under greater scrutiny if they are claiming

to state the truth about a subject.

If Buddhists really apply the Kesamutti Sutta as a logical device, then

they absolutely cannot be dogmatic in any sense. And if this is the

case, the nondogmatic disposition of Buddhism allows adherents to

question and analyze any propositions that come their way, including the

basis of authority of others. The Kesamutti Sutta is a powerful

instrument that warns against indoctrination and unquestioned loyalty to

so-called leaders, secular or religious. And in a time when Brahmins

were believed to have privileged authority over other castes, the

Buddha’s Sangha (community of bikkhu monks and bikkhuni nuns) functioned

as a rapidly spreading commune that would provide an alternative to

established society.

4. The Sangha: A Commune Separate From Political Authority

The Buddhist Sangha is often compared to the Benedictine and Augustinian

orders of European Christian monks. And this parallel has some uses. But

the deference and reverence of the Christian monk vis-à-vis the Buddhist

monk is quite different. The Buddhist monk or nun is a renunciant, not

to get closer to God and receive rewards in heaven, but to achieve

enlightenment, or in the very least, renounce the world as it is

polluted with undue suffering. The Sangha was essentially a movement

that would attract thousands of followers within Shakyamuni Buddha’s

lifetime, and it was founded by people who lived off of the charity

(dāna) of their surrounding communities.

Any veneration for monks or nuns received from people in those

communities was out of sincere respect alone, and clearly not from a

tradition of obedience. There was a sense of shared dignity that

emanated from the Sangha, as it was attested in the suttas. And though

many monks were indeed venerated, they were not so until they proved

themselves to be sagacious in deed and speech. Authority in early

Buddhist society had no linkage to possessions, status, or wealth. Their

critique of property ownership is even compatible with the works of

Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Rocker. The Dhammapada, possibly chief among

all Pali Canon texts, states in the subsection Dhammattha Vagga:

(discourse on the just), that one is not deserving of respect merely

because of their perceived status from birth, age, or charisma, but

rather the sum of all their deeds:

260. A monk is not an elder because his head is gray. He is but ripe in

age, and he is called one grown old in vain. 261. One in whom there is

truthfulness, virtue, inoffensiveness, restraint and self-mastery, who

is free from defilements and is wise — he is truly called an Elder. 262.

Not by mere eloquence nor by beauty of form does a man become

accomplished, if he is jealous, selfish and deceitful. 263. But he in

whom these are wholly destroyed, uprooted and extinct, and who has cast

out hatred — that wise man is truly accomplished.

Shakyamuni Buddha also warned against false confidence in obedience to

rules, rituals, and pedantry. These habits so often manifest as means of

authoritarianism, and this principle would ideally promise that Sangha

would remain an egalitarian commune that guaranteed equal opportunity to

its residents. And if an anarchist commune would be modeled with a

similar ethic to these principles, it could safeguard against the rise

would-be despots:

271–272. Not by rules and observances, not even by much learning, nor by

gain of absorption, nor by a life of seclusion, nor by thinking, “I

enjoy the bliss of renunciation, which is not experienced by the

worldling” should you, O monks, rest content, until the utter

destruction of cankers (Arahantship) is reached.

In the Dhammapada’s Bhikkhu Vagga (discourse on monks), Shakyamuni

Buddha gives an emancipatory instruction, 376. “Let him associate with

friends who are noble, energetic, and pure in life, let him be cordial

and refined in conduct. Thus, full of joy, he will make an end of

suffering.” This passage provides an impetus for would-be members of the

Sangha to retreat from oppression. Similarly the Buddha warned against

oppression by means of violence in the Danda Vagga (discourse on

violence). 131. “One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses

with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain

happiness hereafter.” And it has been the anarchist critique that

oppressive violence has always been the basis for anarchist thought, or

as Proudhon described it, “oppression, misery, and crime”.

Like many anarchist communes today, the Sangha is meant to survive on

charity (dāna) and barter alone. This communal subsistence is often

called “the economy of gifts” and would ideally allow monastics to sever

ties from whatever political regime that existed around them at the

time. These days a Sangha exists within a nation-state regardless of

their means of subsistence, and this typically renders the upkeep of a

Sangha nearly impossible where the tradition is not the norm. And this

is just another sign of oppression and systemic violence. But this

doesn’t change the fact that wherever a Sangha exists, there is a

potential for people within a political realm to seek refuge in the

Buddhist community and attain a new life, and oftentimes a new name upon

ordination. Many ordained monks went on to be given the title of arahant

(an enlightened monk) and they continued Shakamuni’s teachings,

assembling in the First Council in Rajagada (5^(th) c. BCE) and Second

Council in Vesali (4^(th) c. BCE) whereby much of the Buddhist tradition

was chronicled and passed down verbally until written tradition took

over during the reign of King Vaṭṭagāmiṇi in the 1^(st) century BCE, and

this was when the Pali Canon was formed.

Since much of the early Canon survived while containing suttas that

encouraged critical thought, it is only logical to conclude that the

Sangha upheld emancipatory doctrine at least until Vaṭṭagāmiṇi’s reign.

So far we have seen Buddhist thought challenge filial piety through the

tale of young Siddhartha Gautama’s escape from this oligarchic father’s

rule, notions of hierarchy existing as the caste system, and political

life by way of the Sangha. Finally this essay will conclude with a

discussion about how the Buddha was viewed vis-à-vis the Hindu pantheon,

and the parables that narrate discourses he has with the gods of

Hinduism.

5. The Buddha vis-à-vis Hindu Gods

The Ayacana Sutta contains a discourse between the Buddha and a

syncretic deity called Brahma Sahampati. This is most likely the chief

creator god of the Hindu pantheon: Brahma, of which the Brahmin caste is

said to descend from. Yet, this notion is somewhat ambiguous because

certain tales regarding Brahma, as opposed to the Brahman, in Buddhist

literature is inconsistent at times. In any case, the Ayacana Sutta

provides a narrative discourse that I like to think of as a parable, but

I will provide an abridged version first before explaining what I mean:

In a time when Shakyamuni Buddha had attained Buddhahood, he meditated

at Uruvela on the bank of the Nerañjara River, at the foot of a

goatherd’s Banyan Tree. In deep reflection the Buddha thought,

“This dhamma I have attained is so deep, and so refined, that it will be

hard to transmit to others. It seems the whole world is living in

delusion, and it will be next to impossible for them to comprehend this

dhamma. And if I set out to teach the dhamma to them without proper

preparation, it will only result in dissatisfaction.”

After some time meditating on these thoughts, the Buddha slowly shifted

into an equanimous trance, preferring to be at peace with himself over

ruminating over failure in transmitting the dhamma. In this state the

god Brahma Sahampati perceived what Shakyamuni Buddha was thinking and

spoke to him from the heavens, “All is lost, Tathagatha (great teacher).

You prefer to remain in your equanimous state rather than teach the

dhamma. If you dare not teach the dhamma you just attained, the world

will not know the just from the unjust!” Brahma Sahampati left his

heavenly realm to appear in front of the Buddha. He knelt in praṇāma,

placing his right hand over his heart.

“Lord Buddha, I implore you to teach your dhamma. In the past there

appeared among the Magadhansan impure dhamma devised by the stained.

Your dhamma is unstained and whole. Please emancipate this world’s

people from their pitiful state of suffering. Free them from the

oppression caused by craving and suffering.”

The Buddha envisioned the world and its people in many different walks

of life. He glimpsed people of keen awareness and presence of mind, and

individuals worn and dulled by nature and the experiences of life. It

was just as in a pond of blue or red or white lotuses, some lotuses —

born and growing in the water — might flourish while immersed in the

water, without rising up from the water; some might stand at an even

level with the water; while some might rise up from the water and stand

without being smeared by the water. He could see the potential for those

who might learn the dhamma, and those who are not yet capable due to

their karma.

Upon this revelation, the Buddha spoke, “I shall open my doors to those

who are willing to enter. Let them show their conviction. I realized

that I was not willing to teach the dhamma for I thought trouble would

arise. O Brahma, I did not tell people the sublime dhamma.” Upon hearing

this, Brahma Sahampati understood the Buddha resolved to teach the

dhamma and disappeared.

This parable places the Buddha above the god Brahma Sahampati from the

moment he appeared to the Buddha. He knelt in praṇāma, and placed his

hand on his heart. This gesture is a reverential salutation, and his

hand on his heart signifies his reverence deeper still. The dialogue

also suggests the Buddha is placed above the god, as he does not change

his position or demeanor upon Brahma Sahampati’s arrival. All visual

depictions of this moment show the Buddha in padmasana (the lotus

position) above Brahma Sahampati, and the latter kneeling in praṇāma.

The prevalence of this fact shows the dhamma is superior over any belief

in gods and their supposed authority on Earth. This deity is meant to be

chief and progenitor of the Brahmin caste, and Buddhists dared to place

their patriarchal creator god below the god they appealed to legitimize

their own status over other castes.

Thanissaro Bikkhu’s translation of the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta is

prefaced by an interesting observation regarding the habit of Brahmins

and other monotheistic proponents. He states that Mara (the god of

craving, delusion, and death) is the source for those who demand

obedience to a creator god. This observation also concludes for us that

Buddhist thought is opposed to dogmatism, and hierarchy for a number of

reasons. Brahmanism is a hierarchical belief-system that justifies all

its practice by appealing to a creator god as the source of goodness.

Here, Mara is understood as imitating the figure of Brahma and also

possessing the minds of Brahmins subordinate to their chief, named Baka.

Baka is shown to be self-deluded in thinking he has achieved a Brahmanic

form of enlightenment, but Shakyamuni Buddha shows him that this is Mara

taking over and deceiving him.

Shakyamuni Buddha’s initial critique of Baka was that he claimed his

revelation was unchanging and eternal. This is a denial of the dhamma’s

tenet of anicca (impermanence) and in reverse to how Brahma Shampati

appeared to the Buddha— the Buddha appeared to Baka to glimpse his

delusional realm at the royal sal tree in the Subhaga forest in

Ukkattha. And in a similar fashion the Buddha was greeted by Baka as an

honored guest saying, “Welcome good sir. It has been long since you

arranged to come here — for this place is constant. This is permanent.

This is eternal. This is total. This is not subject to falling away —

for here one does not take birth, does not age, does not die. And there

is nothing beyond this.”

Shakyamuni Buddha rebuked Baka, “How immersed in your delusion you are,

Brahmin Baka! This is your ignorance: what is inconstant you declare

constant! What is impermanent you declare permanent! What is partial you

declare total! Where all is subject to falling away- you declare it will

not fall away! What is born, ages and dies, you declare does not!” At

the Buddha’s words, Mara possessed one of Baka’s subordinates in

protest, “Monk, monk, do not rebuke this Brahmin. He is the most revered

among us, for he has achieved a state of enlightenment in the company of

our Lord Brahma. The creator of all, and father to us all.” Mara went on

to state the division of Brahmins who disobeyed Brahma’s law, and those

who obeyed. Of course, he stated that the disobedient were incarnated

into a “coarse body” and those who obeyed were given “refined bodies”.

He then implored the Buddha, “So please obey Lord Brahma, don’t you see

his assembly is gathered here?”

The Buddha’s attention was turned towards the gathering of Brahmins. The

Buddha leveled his rebuke towards Mara directly as he was in possession

of the gathering, “I know you, Evil One. Don’t assume, ‘He doesn’t know

me.’ You are Mara, Evil One. And Brahma, and Brahma’s assembly, and the

attendants of Brahma’s assembly have all fallen into your hands. They

have all fallen into your power. And you think, ‘This one, too, has come

into my hands, has come under my control.’ But, Evil One, I have neither

come into your hands nor have I come under your control.” At this the

Brahmin Baka addressed the Buddha once again, “But surely you understand

that what is constant is constant… …what is permanent is permanent, and

what is not born, ages, and dies, is eternal. That from this realm,

there is nothing beyond. Surely you know that Brahmins before me have

attained this insight and their attainment was passed on for generations

to come.”

Shakyamuni Buddha heard Baka and went on to explain that his appeal to

tradition and delusion was a self-imagined realm created in his own

mind. The Buddha explained, “The realm you describe contains celestial

bodies that revolve around the Earth- that come and go. They illuminate

the world and cast shadows from either direction. You have influence

over beings who come and go. There are epochs here. This is not eternal.

But there are other realms known as the Ābhassara that you have not

seen, and do not know exist- at least not any longer. You have been here

for so long that your memory of the impermanent is faded. You have

mistaken me to be of ordinary birth and insight, but I am the Tathagata

(teacher of the dhamma) and I have seen beyond your delusion. Having

come to known the rudimentary elements for what they are, I have insight

into your realm as well as all the others”

Baka Brahmin was displeased at the Buddha’s dhamma and protested, “If

this is what you think of my realm, I will disappear from you this

instant.”

“Disappear from me if you can.” Shakyamuni Buddha responded. Then Baka

strained pensively thinking “Disappear, I will disappear.” But he could

not. So then the Buddha retorted, “Well if you will not disappear, I

will in your stead.” Baka looked up from his concentration, “Yes,

disappear from me, monk- if you can.” The Buddha said he fabricated a

psychic trick that made it seem as though his body was gone, but his

voice remained. He recited to the congregation of Brahmins, “Having seen

danger right in becoming, and becoming searching for non-becoming, I

didn’t affirm any kind of becoming, or cling to any delight.” The whole

congregation was astounded by this trick and praised the Buddha saying,

“How awesome that he could do this!” and “This is the power of

Shakyamuni, sage of the Shakya tribe, the Buddha. No Brahmin has done

this before.” Then Mara spoke from the congregation again, “O Buddha, if

this is your dhamma, it should not be taught to the laity. As many

enlightened ones before you did not lower themselves to teach the laity,

so you should also abstain from this practice. You have more to gain

from remaining at peace with yourself, in seclusion away from others.”

Shakyamuni Buddha exposed Mara again for what he is, “I know it is you,

Mara. Evil One. You are ever on your mission to prevent the dhamma from

being taught. For you lack sympathy for those who suffer. You would

rather the laity to remain ignorant of the dhamma so they may go on

suffering as they do. I am the Tathagata, and my duty is to teach the

dhamma. Your Brahmins have carried on telling the world they are

self-awakened and delude themselves and others into thinking they were

self-awakened. But I am truly self-awakened. Just as a palmyra tree that

grows to have its canopy cut off is incapable of growing again; so, too,

the fermentations that defile, that lead to further becoming, that that

cause stress, suffering, aging, and death: Those I the Buddha have

renounced, their root destroyed, like an uprooted palmyra tree, deprived

of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.”

Mara could no longer deny Shakyamuni Buddha was indeed self-awakened and

enlightened, so he vanished as he always had from the Buddha.

The Brahma-nimantanika Sutta puts the Buddha above the gods by proxy of

the Brahmin Baka, and Mara. Not only that, but this sutta renders all

means of control for the Brahmin caste ineffectual. The political and

metaphysical assertions of the Brahmin are no longer legitimate so long

as the Buddha is around to teach the dhamma. And here Mara is shown to

be the proponent of obedience to hierarchy and theocracy by way of

allegory. Since Mara is the embodiment of corruption and delusion in

humans, and he possesses the Brahmin congregation in this parable, it is

very clear that the Buddha dhamma is opposed to oppression by show of

authority of any kind.

Other gods in the Hindu pantheon, such as Indra, function as supplicants

in Buddhist suttas. These tales put them below the Buddha in reverence,

and this also shows a notion of irreverence to the Hindu pantheon as a

whole. The Hindu pantheon fell into irreligion in the minds of early

Buddhists, and functioned merely as a narrative conduit through which

the dhamma was transmitted. In Thanisarro Bikkhu’s translation of the

Sakka-pañha Sutta the Buddha delivers an entire sutta to Indra (called

Sakka in the Pali) as council on the problem of evil: that is, despite

the dhamma’s teaching that everyone should abstain from doing evil

(including hypothetical beings existing elsewhere), wrongdoing is a

common occurrence (the hypothetical beings are said to do immoral things

in scriptures as well). Below is my abridged version:

Shakyamuni Buddha answered Indra, “As you know, the devas, asuras, and

nagas, and all the other hypothetical beings are said to be fettered by

envy and greed. They preach they are above violence and rivalry, but we

find they are constantly thrown into jealous conflict.” Indra was

delighted by the Buddha’s words and praised him. “You speak of the

truth, venerated sage. Your words have allayed my doubts.” he said.

Yet, Indra had more to ask of the Buddha, “But sage, what is the cause

of their envy and greed?” The Buddha answered, “The source of their envy

and greed is caused by the bias of what they hold dear and what they do

not. This bias is caused by taṇhā (desire) which indicates the

fallibility of these souls. And instead of viewing all with the same

impartial gaze, with equanimity, they live per their biased preference.”

Indra understood but then asked, “But what is the source of taṇhā, dear

sage?”

Shakyamuni Buddha replied, “The source of taṇhā is the mind. The mind

has a habit of papañca (objectification) which stems from the mistaken

belief in attā (permanent self). This is a mistake because all things

are impermanent including the self. When the mind develops, this habit

of objectification is increased over time, and so too does taṇhā since

there was no skillful intervention. Thus this is the unskillful mental

state.” Hearing this, Indra then asked, “Venerated sage, how does one

treat this unskillful mental state?”

Shakyamuni Buddha spoke, “Everyone understands the concepts of joy,

grief, and equanimity at some point in their lives. Joy, grief and

equanimity each have two outcomes that separate by whether one makes an

effort or does not. Knowing the emotion of joy without making an effort

is but a way to feel suffering. The pursuit of joy through effort will

decrease suffering and lead to true joy. Similarly, grief without effort

will linger and compound suffering, but grief with the effort promoted

by the dhamma brings peace. The pursuit of equanimity without skillful

effort will lead to suffering. But seeking equanimity with effort by way

of the dhamma leads to equanimity indeed.”

The Buddha instructed Indra further about how the senses deceive us into

unskillful mental states. Indra humbly thanked Shakyamuni Buddha and

admitted, “Taṇhā is a disease and a yearning arrow! It seduces even

devas like me. Surely, we devas were brought to war with the asuras, and

when we won I though all the spoils of both realms would fall to the

devas. But upon hearing the dhamma and the teachings of avihiṃsā

(nonviolence) I became disillusioned with our kamma. And when I

questioned the Brahmins for council, they could never answer my burning

questions regarding these unskillful states. Yet you have! The Brahmins

could only return my question with further questions. They doubted my

identity, but when I admitted I am Indra, the deva king come as Sakka,

and spoke to them of your dhamma as much as I knew, they delighted in me

and praised me as their patron. But lord, Buddha, you are my Tathagata:

the keeper of the true and whole dhamma.” Indra was satisfied with the

Buddha’s teachings and praised him three times declaring him the worthy,

the blessed, and the self-awakened one (the meaning of the word

‘Buddha’).

This parable of Indra’s visit to the Buddha highlights again the

subjugation of Hindu gods. Indra states above that the Brahmins praised

him for only imparting a fragment of the Buddha’s dhamma. This sutta

fully illustrates the deconstruction of the Hindu pantheon, caste and

subsequent political structures. The parables within the dhammas also

serve the function of teaching the dhamma by way of dialogue. This

rhetorical device, though found in Vedic texts and the Mahabharata, the

role of the deva god is always subjugated below the man, the Buddha. At

some point Indra as Sakka was declared by Buddhagosa to have transcended

into becoming the Bodhisattva, Vajrapāṇi. This ascension within Buddhist

thought is actually a means of dissolving hierarchy, as any person can

achieve Buddhahood. What’s more a Buddha is considered further on the

path to enlightenment than a Bodhisattva.

Conclusion

In this essay, we first discussed Prince Siddhartha’s defiance against

his father, Oligarch Śuddhodana and how this defiance broke from

hierarchical concepts such as patriarchy and filial piety; secondly we

explored the dhamma’s stance on the Hindu caste system in Northern

India, in the Buddha’s time and in the 20^(th) century; thirdly we

examined specific texts and concepts accredited to the Buddha that

oppose dogmatism; fourthly, we saw that the Sangha has functioned as a

commune existing beyond the limits of monarchies and oligarchies, and

how they often function as sanctuaries beyond political realms; finally

we examined abridged tales of the Buddha and his discourses with the

Hindu gods where the justifications for oppression, oligarchy, hierarch,

patriarchy, and monarchy were deconstructed within the suttas. And the

above is just a fraction of the literature available regarding the

Buddha’s dhamma.

Siddhatha Gautama, the Buddha of the Shakya tribe, Shakyamuni, was

declared by the hermit yogi Asita that he would either be a conqueror or

a sage. And despite oligarch Śuddhodana’s wishes, Shakyamuni Buddha

determined to become a sage. From the very beginning he rejected the

premise of political life in Mahājanapada period India. His early life

story warns against information being concealed in order to manipulate

others. The Buddha’s dhamma would then live on to be one of the

single-most convicting critiques of the caste system. The Buddha himself

declared all people are created equal. And later Mahatma Gandhi, Indian

independence activists, and anarchist theorists would look to Buddhism

for answers regarding how to undo the caste’s hierarchy. Suttas like the

Kesamutti Sutta warned specifically against gullibility and acceptance

of authority prima facie, which departs from all other belief systems

deemed religious in some way and is in accordance with anarchist

principles.

What’s more, the Buddha’s Sangha was a refuge from political life for

all people, from Kshatriya kings to Brahmins, to Dalit untouchables. the

Sangha is an equal-opportunity commune that subsists without the use of

money or assets. This was a direct affront to the market system of the

time, and even drew the ire of nearby merchants. And the entire basis

for hierarchy in ancient Indian society was challenged by the Buddhist

dhamma. Their creator gods were subjugated, allegorically dismissed, and

so the concept of divine right of rule in the Indian rendition was

challenged by the dhamma. I will be first to admit that Buddhism and

anarchism part ways at a few very important junctures, but they remain

compatible if we remain nondogmatic about either tradition. Both

worldviews have indeed come to be synthesized in my own mind in the same

way this essay was written, as I have taken the precept of avihiṃsā

nonviolence.