1993: The Year the Soviets Fought Back!

000000000000000000000000000000000000000

St. Petersburg, Russia: Rally in memory of the heroes of October ‘93

Make no mistake about it, the USSR was destroyed by the Trotskyite Nikita Khrushchev who ascended to power in 1956 and immediately set about destroying the Soviet Union from within by unjustly attacking Comrade Joseph Stalin – who had correctly interpreted and applied Marxist-Leninism during his time in power – which included successfully leading the USSR against the Nazi German invasion – the Soviet effort being the main component in the defeat of German and Japanese fascism.  The Soviet people lost 27-40 million dead in this disastrous ‘Great Patriotic War’ (1941-45), whilst the West held their forces back to see what would happen (it is a matter of public record that the British Churchill admired Adolf Hitler). The ‘ahistorical’ lies told by Khrushchev about Stalin match exactly the lies propagated by the American CIA.  The modern academic research by Prof. Grover Furr entitled ‘Khrushchev Lied’ decisively prove that Khrushchev’s utterances were nothing but lies.  However, even at the time of Khrushchev lies, the British-Russian BBC correspondent – Alexander Werth – who had covered the Soviet victory in WWII on the frontline, spent his life exposing the Western propaganda lies about the USSR, and Khrushchev’s  disinformation.  Werth was fluid in in spoken and written Russian and directly quoted Russian language sources the West preferred to ignore.  This deception eventually led to the rise of Mikhail Gorbachev in the mid-1980’s, who immediately began the process of dismantling the Soviet system, and handing it to the capitalists.  The West over-saw this process from both the outside and the inside (through their agents, sympathisers and other capitalist supporters).  In 1993, however, the Russian people rose-up in support of Communism in Russia, and immediately clashed with the new ‘capitalist’ police (in Moscow – heroically besieging the Parliament building).  How did this ‘new’ Western-style liberal democracy (controlled by Boris Yeltsin) respond to this popular manifestation of people power?  By ordering its forces to open fire on the protesters – a response backed by the UK and USA (two of the prominent Western regimes that had previously accused the USSR of ‘repressing’ its people).  The ‘new’ capitalist country of modern Russia began its days with a massacre – killing at least 1,500 unarmed Communist men, women and children for daring to stand-up to the tyranny of the West, and acting in support of the International Working Class. Many of the men who comprised these paramilitary forces were infact foreign mercenaries from the West co-opted into the ranks to ensure the killing of all those who opposed capitalism in Russia. The rallying cry of the Soviet heroes was the re-establishment of the USSR and a return to the days of proper Marxist-Leninism as exhibited by Joseph Stalin. The bourgeoisie (which had only just won-back exploitative control of the Russian people) was willing to murder those very same people to retain its prize, so it could continue to plunder the Workers’ State with impunity.  Of course, the Trotskyites (who laughingly refer to themselves as ‘Marxists and ‘Socialists’) in the West welcomed the collapse of the USSR and the re-establishment of capitalism – referring the 1993 heroes as ‘misled’ and ‘confused’.  Marxist-Leninists around the world must remember the suffering of the Soviet people on October 3-4 of each year.  Western academia – still enmeshed in the flawed methodology of Cold War propaganda – plays-down the atrocity (by ignoring it) referring to the entire episode as a ‘Constitutional Crisis’.  Of course, this approach is entirely racist and seeks to ‘write-out’ of history any out-pouring of popular support for the Communist Revolution.  Today, the West is seeking to destroy self-rule and self-determination in Russia, with the intention of turning the country into a ‘colonised’part of the US-controlled European Union (EU) – probably administered by the United Nations (UN).

The Academy School Rip-Off (2016)

0000000000000000000000000000000000000

Taxpayers Fund Large Wages and Lavish Perks of Academy School Chiefs

Since 2010, the Tories (assisted by the LibDems), concocted a rightwing plan to ‘privatise’ all schools in England by selling-off their assets to the private business and finance sector, for a fraction of their value.  When individual (local) schools are ‘sold-off’ in this manner, they are automatically ‘withdrawn’ from Local Education Authority (LEA) control, and the ‘legal’ protection the LEA is designed to afford to education staff, pupils and parents.  This means that local schools cease to be ‘public’ property, and instead become the ‘legal’ property of ‘private’ business entities – entities that do not have to make their identity readily available to the general public (whose children are entrusted to their care).  When in LEA control, local schools are publically owned for the betterment of the system-wide education of the general public (i.e. all children throughout the land), but when under ‘Academy’ control, local schools are run as a means to ‘make a profit’ for ‘private’ business interests.  The longterm point of this Tory privatisation policy is to eventually abolish and ‘sell-off’ all LEA’s and LEA assets.  The rightwing Tories are doing this because the LEAs have the function of guaranteeing that ‘all’ children in the UK receive an adequate education, and that through the agency of taxation, that education is paid for by the general public and is of a reasonably ‘high’ standard.  Under the Academy scheme, failing educational areas, instead of being assisted through more money and better education policies, are punished by having funding ‘reduced’ and funnelled into already well-functioning rich areas.  Therefore, in the short-term, rich areas appear to benefit from an in-rush of extra cash, but of course, funding can only be withdrawn once from poor areas, and soon even the rich areas have to resort to free market economics in the class room.  Children are given ‘notes’ by their teachers to be given to their parents, with whole lists of spurious items that need to be ‘paid for’ by the parents (who have already paid many times over for the education of their children through taxation).  This is because the private businesses that ‘own’ academies are there not to help the children receive a decent education, but to exploit these children (and their children) for financial gain.  The Guardian article above exposes the monumental scale of the corruption in the higher echelons of the ‘Academy’ system, including massive expenses to fly US citizens to the UK to advise how to ‘dismantle’ that country’s ‘Socialised’ education system.  This Tory policy is essentially the legalised abuse of Britain’s young and vulnerable school children and must be brought to an end.

China Unsettles Western Imperialism

00000000000000000000000000000000000

The bourgeois, racist, imperialist West is running scared of modern, Communist China.  It is running scared because despite a tremendous propaganda drive against the so-called ‘threat’ of Communism, all the anger and hatred the greedy bourgeoisie could muster, with its false words, bombs and bullets, could not dislodge China in the manner in which it brought down the Soviet Union in 1991.  Make no mistake about it, anti-Chinese racism has been a key ingredient in the attack on China and her chosen path of Scientific Socialism.  So potent has this racialised anti-Communist policy been that even Chinese people living outside of China mindlessly trumpet the White racist attitudes of the imperialists toward their fellow ethnic brothers and sisters in Mainland China, not realising that they to are viewed as racially inferior by the very same White masters they serve.  The White imperialists laugh at the success of this ‘divide and conquer’ tactic, rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of a ‘Chinese-led’ counter-revolution.  So potent has this racialised anti-Communist policy been that a ‘racist’ anti-China rhetoric is now evident in many strands of Black Nationalist ideology, the African and African diasporic narrative now mimicking the racist propaganda of the White imperialists, are taking-on without thought, the Western notion that Chinese Communists exist to ‘exploit’ Black people, and take away their freedom – the very things White imperialists have historically already done to Black people, and continue to do.  However, although China as a nation and an ethnicity must face this racial onslaught alone, all is not lost, as China is on the correct dialectical path of self-achieved freedom through a Marxist-Leninist Revolution, as perpetuated by Mao Zedong.  No matter what racist lies the White imperialists concoct, China is reading history (and historical trends) correctly, in exactly the non-inverted manner that Marx (and Engels) envisioned, no  more and no less.  As the West operates from an ‘inverted’ mind-set, its greed obsessed ideologues are unable to perceive or acknowledge this truth, and so are unable to do anything about it.  The White imperialists, however, simply stick to their predictable racism and lies as a means to topple Communist China – a policy that is not working.  As a result, China is moving ahead in all technological and scientific fields, and leaving the West behind.

When Black Nationalism Fails to Condemn Capitalism

0000000000000000000000000000000000

From a Marxist perspective, the rabid and highly destructive racism perpetuated by the European nations over the last 500 years, has its roots in the propensity for one distinct socio-economic group to dominate another.  One group, bound together as it is by a ‘shared’ culture, religion, language and mythology,  behaves very much like an individual trying to secure control of as much resources as possible, to increase his or her potential chances of survival (through the ‘maintained’ impoverishment of others).  Through the development of the Industrial Revolution in England during the 1700’s, this policy took on a definite material advantage over all other ethnic and cultural groupings.  Eurocentric racism, therefore, has its roots deeply embedded within the economic system that is ‘capitalism’.  Changing laws within capitalist society simply moves the problem of racism away from manifesting within polite society, to another, more acceptable area. For example, White mobs descending on Black townships to ‘lynch’ innocent Black people is thankfully over in the US, but today the ‘White’ police force in the US murders innocent Black people all the time, in a manner that is ‘culturally’ acceptable to White Americans (hence its continuation even under a Black President). The point is that no matter how many superficial laws are passed (moving racism out of obvious sight, whilst allowing its presence to continue), as long as the capitalist system stays in place, racism will be continuously perpetuated from generation to generation because the White ethnicity currently possess all the political and economic power, and is reluctant to relinquish this centuries-old advantage.  In the 1964 General Election in the UK, for instance, the racist Conservative Party won a Parliamentary seat using the slogan ‘If you want a n*gger for a neighbour, vote Labour.’  This ‘racist’ campaign was backed by such openly racist and politically far-right newspapers as the Daily Mail and The Telegraph, amongst others, but opposed by the Labour left, the Socialists and the Communists.  When the Tories won the seat of Smethwick, a wave of racist xenophobia swept the nation, and a British arm of the American White Supremacist Klu Klux Klan (KKK) was formed.  This was followed by the targeting of Black and Asian adults and children living in the area, with burning crosses pushed through letterboxes, and gangs of White school children being encouraged by their parents to single-out Black and Asian children in the local schools to be beaten and abused – a process the Mail and Telegraph described as ‘White people standing-up for themselves.’  Needless to say, as the White ethnicity retains all he power within any given European society, Black an Asian people have to ‘normalise’ existing within a social and economic system that continuously seeks to dominate them at the point of contact, and within every conceivable context.  This is the bare face of capitalism that cannot be ‘reformed’ away, or ‘compromised’ out of existence.  Capitalism itself is the perpetual problem or root of this illness.  This is why those Black Nationalist groups that perpetuate a rhetoric of counter-racism (toward ‘Whites’) are simply conforming to capitalist ideology – mistaking this for ‘self-empowerment’.  Authentic self-empowerment will be secured only if the spectre of White racist capitalism is rejected and uprooted from the entirety of humanity.  It is interesting to note that Black Nationalists that do not reject capitalism, generally fully support the White bourgeoisie’s denigration of Scientific Socialism, Communism, the Soviet Union and Communist China – or the very ideology that has forever fought for the end of capitalism and oppression at every turn.  I recently read an article shared on a Black Awareness group that compared Mussolini and Hitler (the founders and perpetuators of 20th century fascism and the greatest crimes against humanity), with Mao Zedong and Stalin – both of whom led ‘Communist’ regimes that stood-up to, and eventually defeated the forces of international fascism.  How stupid and counter-productive to the Black cause.  The Chinese people lost 60 million men, women, and children fighting Japanese fascism, whilst the Soviet Union lost 27-40 million men, women and children fighting German fascism.  It makes you wonder who is pulling the strings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crimes of Cinema: The Soviet Story (Edvins Snore – 2008)

20102232342-47376415

If you had any doubts that the European Union (EU) was a rightwing, totalitarian political entity (and natural successor to Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime), look no further than this film. In 2008, the EU sponsored film entitled ‘The Soviet Story’ was issued, with a soundtrack that included its script rendered into 30 different languages (designed to facilitate the spread of its anti-Soviet propaganda throughout the language groups of Europe and beyond).  Specifically, this film was funded by the sinister Union European of Nations (UEN) – a rightwing and far-rightwing grouping of nations within the European Union.  As of June, 2009, the Member States of the EU that were also members of UEN were Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia.  UEN is an EU accommodation of far-right MEP’s from its constituent nations.  The EU has no comparable ‘leftwing’ grouping for MEP’s elected from the Socialist or Communist left.  This is because the EU is essentially an imperialist adventure that manifests the free market economics and anti-Communist politics of the USA (implemented via Berlin and the European Parliament). The ‘Producer’ of this film was one ‘Edvīns Snore’, a member of the far-right Latvian political entity ‘Popular Front of Latvia’ (Latvian: Latvijas Tautas fronte), an ultra-nationalist party premised upon Latvian White Supremacy and the production of anti-Soviet revisionist history.  The Popular Front of Latvia mirrors other similar far-right, fascistic movements that were encouraged and financed by the USA in surrounding countries (such as Estonia and Lithuania, etc), initially as a project to bring-down the Soviet System.  After 1991, these parties (and their political descendents in the region), have been used as a means to attack and de-stabilise modern Russia, and to encourage a neo-Nazi uprising in the Ukraine. This is the historical and political background to the revisionist film ‘The Soviet Story’, which follows the classic far-right policy of conflating Hitler’s Nazi regime with the Soviet Communist System, as a means to turn the international working class away from embracing Scientific Socialism, and to continue within its existence of bourgeois servitude, disunity, and racialised aggression.  A working class that is disunited, is fodder for far-right recruitment.  Instead of blaming the bourgeois class for all the suffering and inequalities the workers suffer (Scientific Socialism), the far-right encourages the workers to blame one another, and to separate into competing ‘nationalist’ or ‘racial’ groups. As long as the workers fight one another, they can never unite long enough to collectively confront the true origin of all their woes – the bourgeoisie.  The Soviet Story is far-right mythology funded by EU (and US) money, and is an ‘ahistorical’ approach to Soviet history.  This is why it has won no ‘real’ or ‘significant’ academic accolades outside of the rightwing regimes of Latvia and Estonia.  It presents a skewed version of history that seeks to ‘distance’ (and therefore ‘legitimise’) the modern political far-right in Europe, from its historical roots within Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime (whilst continuing to pursue the same racist ideology). As the far-right utilises the ‘inverted’ mind-set of the bourgeoisie (because it is a manifestation of capitalism in decline), its approach to its own history is dishonest and illogical. Although the onus is to brutalise and destroy, the far-right also attempts to simultaneously appeal to the bourgeois sense of hypocritical morality – where pogroms within polite society are simply not tolerated (but are otherwise expected to be carried-out behind the scenes). To this end, the far-right misuses the poorly educated and misled working class to commit its ongoing crimes against humanity.  The Soviet Story is such a crime.  It is a crime against the USSR, the Soviet peoples, and the modern Russians who are its descendents.  It is also a project of ‘disrespect’ aimed at all the millions of innocent victims of Adolf Hitler’s regime during WWII.  The Soviet Story is a far-rightwing ‘racist’ lie, perpetuated by Eastern European neo-Nazi White Supremacists that were created in their respective countries by the invading Nazi troops of Adolf Hitler’s destructive regime.  People like Edvins Snore perpetuate the far-rightwing inversion that the Nazi invasions (and subsequent holocausts) committed in Eastern European countries, were in fact acts of ‘liberation’, and that the Soviet Red Army ‘liberations’ of these very same countries, (secured at a terrible price in Soviet troops and civilians), were actually acts of ‘invasion’.  The Soviet re-building of these countries involved the Soviet providing of food, hospitals, schools, libraries, benefit systems, and factories, etc, as well as recreational facilities, and other progressive works, and these progressive and positive Soviet acts of ‘internationalism’ are presented by Edvins Snore as the true ‘holocaust’.  Edvins Snore and his ilk are symbolic of workers historically ‘damaged’ by the constant oppression they live under, as perpetuate by the bourgeois system, which they simply do not possess the progressive education to ‘see’ beyond, and so they fully conform to it. Those who are so inclined may watch this film as a means to understand how the far-right, inverted bourgeois mind-set operates, when given free-rein by the capitalists.  The Soviet Story, of course, is exactly NOT ‘The Soviet Story’, but rather the history of the success of Hitler’s Nazi ideology as it continues to permeate the institutes of the US and the EU, and misrepresent all historical resistance to it.  Make no mistake about it, the Soviet Union was a solid Socialist bulwark against the far-right and highly destructive ideology of Adolf Hitler.  This is reflected in the Soviet casualties for the Great Patriotic War (1941-45) which range between 27 – 40 million dead men, women and children.  This is a shocking price to pay to keep Europe free of fascism, and it is particularly indicative of the moral degradation of the EU that it has to plunge to such depths as openly supporting the far-right, in its pathetic attempts to re-write history.

Stalin Empowers Women

0000000000000000000

From a Chinese language blog:

In the 1930’s, Joseph Stalin was in-charge of the USSR.  At this time he sought to empower Soviet women by encouraging them not to wear ‘bourgeois’ and ‘sexist’ make-up, and to participate in all areas of the workforce as full citizens equal to their male counter-parts.  This concept of gender equality and feminist-empowerment was very ‘new’ in the world, although Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote about this in the 19th century.  Of course, women must free themselves and decide their own paths, but men can assist by getting-out of the way, and not replicating the backward patriarchalism of the past.

Chinese Language Source Article:

http://pic.cnr.cn/pic/guoji/20150630/t20150630_519018315_2.shtml

30年代处于斯大林执政期,社会上比较支持女性不化妆,以突显劳动者的社会角色。

The Zen of No Ch’an

00000000000000000000000000000

There are two ways of approaching this subject, one is ‘ahistorically’ (i.e. existing outside of the realms of observable, verifiable and recordable history), and the other ‘historically’ (i.e. existing within of the realms of observable, verifiable and recordable history).  To add a clarification, the former is purely ‘psychological’ in nature, whilst the latter is ‘material’ in nature.  Ahistorical Ch’an and Zen does not depend upon the passing of history, or the recognition of cultural trends and cultural difference, whilst historical Ch’an and Zen is defined by the sum total of its recorded historical experience.  If it is assumed that the Ch’an and Zen schools share a commonality in history that purports to ‘reveal’ or ‘discover’ an underlying realm of psychological reality that is realisable by all beings, and which shares certain and definite identifying markers not dependent upon the passing of history (as regardless of the epoch, this realisable state always manifests in the same way), then Ch’an and Zen are ‘ahistorically’ identical.  However, if Ch’an and Zen are interpreted through the rubric of unfolding material history (as observed on the physical plane), then it is obvious that from this ‘historical’ point of view, Chinese Ch’an Buddhism and Japanese Zen Buddhism are not the same.  Richard Hunn (1949-2006) dedicated the last 15 years of his life to researching on the ground, the roots of Chinese Ch’an in Japan.  To facilitate this study, he relocated to Kyoto in 1991, and centred his studies around Manpuku-Ji, or the Chinese Ch’an Manpuku Temple, situated in the Uji area of Kyoto.  This temple was founded in 1661 by the Chinese Ch’an monks Yin Yuan Long Qí, and Mu Yan.  However, although the Chinese Ch’an lineage of Linji (Rinzai) had already been established in Japan many centuries earlier, the Linji tradition as conveyed from China at this time was viewed as ‘different’ by the Japanese to their existing ‘Rinzai’ lineage.  In other words, the ancient tradition of Linji Ch’an as conveyed to Japan from Mount Huangpo (situated in China’s Fujian province), during the early Qing Dynasty, was not accepted as ‘Rinzai’ Zen by the Japanese, but instead given the separate designation of ‘Obaku’ Zen.  What distinguished this transmission of Ch’an to Japan was that it was brought directly by Chinese Ch’an monks, and not conveyed by Japanese monks who had first travelled to China to learn, before bringing that knowledge back to their homeland.  This is why, even today, the Manpuku Temple is viewed as ‘Chinese’, despite now being staffed by Japanese Zen monks.  This indicates that even then, there was a ‘disconnect’ between Chinese Ch’an and Japanese Zen, a widening gulf of difference that was compounded by the teachings of Hakuin Ekaku (1685-1786) – who radically ‘altered’ the manner in which the ‘koan’ was used within Linji Japanese Zen, departing considerably from the Chinese Ch’an teachings regarding the use and purpose of the ‘gongan’.  The Meiji Restoration of 1868 saw a rapid modernisation of Japan and the embracing of a rightwing nationalism that viewed Buddhism as ‘foreign’.  Buddhist schools were encouraged to move away from their Chinese roots and become more ‘Japanese’.  This led to the Soto (Caodong) lineage of Japanese Zen abandoning koan practice altogether and embracing a form of ‘quietism’ not known within the original Caodong teachings in China. Japan’s defeat during WWII, and its subsequent re-emergence as a major bulwark of US foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region, has led to a number of continuing misconceptions in the West.  Japanese Zen as it exists today is used as a filter to interpret Chinese Ch’an Buddhist history and culture (excluding any ‘Chinese’ view of their own history).  This is an obvious inversion of reality, as Japanese Zen did not give rise to Chinese Ch’an – on the contrary – it was Chinese Ch’an that gave rise to Japanese Zen, and it is Japanese Zen that has developed away from that original blue-print.  So prolific has this misunderstanding become, that in 2000, the American academic Andrew Ferguson felt compelled to publish his book entitled ‘Zen’s Chinese Heritage – The Masters and Their Heritage’, as something of the corrective of the Western habit of conflating Japanese Zen with Chinese Ch’an.  Even JC and Thomas Cleary, in their numerous (and excellent) translations of Chinese Ch’an Buddhist texts into English, always referred to ‘Ch’an’ as ‘Zen’.  In the 1960’s and 1970’s, Charles Luk (1898-1978) was forced (by his British publishers) to call his English translations of Chinese Ch’an texts ‘Ch’an and Zen’, when in fact his work had absolutely nothing to do with Japanese Zen.

Those who have lived through any historical point covering the last 60 years or so in the West, will have been exposed to the ahistorical notion that contemporary Japanese Zen Buddhism is exactly the same as, and superior to, its progenitor Chinese Ch’an Buddhism.  To put it bluntly, this is a racially inspired lie perpetuated through the development of Japanese fascistic nationalism (after 1868), and its encouragement to be accepted as the ‘norm’ by the forces of Western imperialism prior to WWII, and the post-WWII US-led anti-Communist movement, that was designated by its Western perpetuators as the ‘Cold War’.  This Western embracing of a corrupted Japanese Zen was intensified after WWII, when the ‘New China’ was declared (and established) in 1949.  Correct Japanese Zen that operates respectfully within the philosophical and traditional confines of its Chinese Ch’an past does still exist in Japan, but it is not this type of Zen that the Japanese government exported abroad throughout the international community, and it is not this Zen which has taken root in the West.  This is because after 1868, Japan embarked upon a rapid modernisation plan which sought to mimic the outward military power of the Western imperial presence throughout Asia, together with the draconian, hierarchical and non-democratic policies and rhetoric of European colonies.  In other words, Japan adapted its traditional martial culture to serve a form of fascistic modernity (imported from the West), that was enthused with notions of racial superiority.  To this, the Japanese added a sense of ‘spiritual’ superiority.  Therefore, the inhabitants of any country that surrounded the island nation of Japan, were automatically deemed racially and spiritually ‘inferior’ simply because they were not ‘Japanese’.  Post-1868 Japan took-on the Western habit of colonial domination and set about establishing their own overseas empire, which included the invasion of China from the early 1930’s until Japan’s eventual defeat in 1945 – although, of course, this included the Japanese colonial domination of the Chinese island of Taiwan from 1895-1945. Japan had been steadily re-writing its own history from 1868 onwards, slowly but surely extricating itself from its obvious Chinese cultural past.  Overnight, new myths and legends were created to falsely explain Japan’s past, which included allusions to gods, dragons and swords, but no mention of China – even the Japanese language – which was originally Chinese script, was ‘altered’ to make it appear ‘less Chinese’.  Chinese Ch’an Buddhism in Japan became a major target for this revisionist make-over.  Trends within the Rinzai (Linji) and Soto (Caodong) lineages developed methods and dogmas that did not exist within Chinese Ch’an Buddhism, and which were not viewed as effective or genuine by the Chinese Ch’an masters.  It is this breakaway from authentic Chinese Ch’an wisdom and knowledge that became established in the West as being a true representation of Japanese Zen, and the subsequent academic and practical conflation of this Japanese-generated distortion of Zen with authentic Chinese Ch’an Buddhism as practised on Mainland China (and throughout the Chinese diaspora).  The Rinzai School developed the manic holding and repeating of a ‘koan’ (Ch: ‘gong-an’) in the mind – a teaching which does not exist in the Tang Dynasty Records of the Linji School preserved in China, whilst the Soto School resorted to a form of ‘silent illumination’ that also cannot be found within the same Tang Dynasty Records explaining the Caodong approach.  In reality, the Linji School did not stress sitting with a koan, and the Caodong did not emphasis sitting with an empty (and undirected) mind.  Both schools (like the other three established ‘Houses’) emphasised the ‘turning about’ of the mind at its deepest recesses by any means that worked. This included (in both the Linji and Caodong Schools) meeting the right masters, sudden actions, enlightened statements, Dharma combat, seated meditation (without sutra reading), sutra reading, and everyday activities.  A gong-an was not artificially held as a device to ‘still’ the mind, but was rather the product of enlightened dialogue and exchanges between a master and his students.  These methods either created complete enlightenment ‘here and now’, or carried the dedicated student through various stages of understanding to the final goal.  The hua tou method (originating as it does within the Surangama Sutra), turns the mind’s awareness back to the empty mind ground.  This was the preferred method of the Caodong School, but it must also be acknowledged that the Tang Dynasty Records (and other such Ch’an texts) reveal that the realisation of enlightenment occurred ‘outside’ of the meditation hall, during ordinary and mundane activities.  This was the result of the previously correct and committed (and ongoing) practice of disciplining the mind and body during formal periods of training.  Simply sitting without direction, or manically ‘attaching’ the mind to the very words and phrases that the Ch’an method exists beyond, do not constitute genuine Ch’an practice, and do not lead to authentic enlightenment breakthroughs.  The Ch’an Dynasty Records regarding the ‘Five Houses’ of Ch’an can be read in English translation in Charles Luk’s ‘Ch’an and Zen Teaching – Second Series’ (Rider, 1987).  For an academic study of the denigration of modern Japanese Zen Buddhism, please access the excellent ‘Zen At War’ by Brian Daizen Victoria – a Soto Zen priest in modern Japan.  Many Japanese Zen masters imported into the West by the US government after WWII (as part of an anti-Chinese Communist policy of turning the Western attention away from Chinese culture and political influence), were in fact complicit in Japanese war atrocities (either directly or indirectly) during WWII, but at the time, ordinary Westerners, many of whom could not read, write or speak the Japanese language, had no way of discovering this disturbing past.  This included well-known masters such as DT Suzuki, Sawaki Kodo, Daiun Harada Roshi, Namtembo, Lida Toin, Daiun Giko, Seki Seisetsu, Yamazaki Ekiju,  Harada Daiun Sogaku, Yanagida Seizan, Yamada Mumon, Asahina Sogen, Ichikawa Hakugen, Yasutani Hakuan and Omori Sogen, amongst many others.  Chinese Ch’an Buddhism, on the other hand, was the recipient of this Japanese imperialist aggression both before and during WWII – witnessing the many atrocities.  Master Xu Yun (1840-1959), recorded in his autobiography (Empty Cloud) many such incidents.  One such story has him responding to the Japanese attempted bombing of the Buddhist temple he was in, by sitting in Ch’an contemplation in the Meditation Hall, so that the Japanese aeroplanes collided with one another and their dropped bombs did not explode.  Master Xu Yun was of the opinion that the degradation of Japanese Zen Buddhism was in part due to that country abandoning the requirement of its Buddhist monastics to follow the Vinaya Discipline after ordination.  This deficiency meant that the supposed monastics were in fact not ‘monastics’ at all as defined by the Buddha, and remained lay people, regardless of shaving heads, wearing robes and assuming a monastic name.

As moral discipline (sila) is the foundation of good quality meditation (dhyana), no enlightenment (prajna) could be realised.  The Japanese abandonment of the Vinaya Discipline was the abandonment of the heart of Ch’an Buddhism.  In the early 1950’s, Master Xu Yun persuaded the new government of China to integrate the Buddhist Vinaya Discipline into its secular law, and make it a matter of ‘legal’ responsibility for individual Buddhist monks and nuns in China to uphold the Vinaya Discipline.  This secular requirement also means that no Buddhist group, lineage or school in China can unilaterally decide to ‘abandon’ the practice of the Vinaya Discipline. As modern Japan continues its historical abandonment of the Vinaya Discipline, it is obvious that contemporary Chinese Ch’an Buddhism is very different in practice to Japanese Zen Buddhism.  This distinction is further compounded by the divergent practises developed by the Japanese Rinzai and Soto Zen Schools, that are neither practised or recognised as ‘valid’ within the Chinese Buddhist cultural milieu.  Of course, this does not necessarily mean that there are no authentic Zen Buddhists in Japan or the West, as there undoubtedly are, but these practitioners understand the purpose of the Vinaya Discipline and voluntarily apply its strictures to their daily practice.  On the other hand, although Ch’an does not distinguish in essence between a monastic and a lay person (as both emerge equally from the empty mind ground, and can both realise enlightenment), nevertheless, it is also true that a ‘monastic’ is a monastic, and a ‘lay person’ is a lay person.  The former follows all the Vinaya Discipline, whilst the latter follows only a small part of the Vinaya Discipline.  There does exist legitimate Zen Buddhism in Japan, but this is not the same as the Japanese Zen that spread across the globe following WWII.  The corruption of this kind of Zen has been noted by a number of academics, including Thomas Cleary.  Needless to say, the traditional Chinese Ch’an Buddhist – Master Xu Yun – had no formal or informal ties or connections to Japanese Zen Buddhism, and never practised (or advocated others to practice) a Japanese Zen that does not follow the Vinaya Disciple, and which deviates from established Ch’an practice.

Tory – LibDem Food Banks in Cheam

download-6

My youngest daughter has just started school in an ‘academy’.  These came about shortly after the 2010 election ‘victory’ of the coalition Tory and LibDem government of the UK.  The point of this policy is that money is taken from working class schools, and diverted to schools existing in already wealthy middle class areas.  The poor or ‘ordinary’ people are punished and the rich are rewarded.  This follows-on with tax-cuts for the rich, and the cutting of welfare and NHS treatment for the poor.  As the majority of people are either poor or ordinary, these rightwing policies only favour the minority privileged members of UK society. Today, as part of its civic responsibility drive, my daughter’s school has asked that we contribute to a local food bank (run by the Christian church).  Of course, we do not support this rightwing government, and neither are we Christians, but probably more disturbing is that the school does not acknowledge that the rightwing fiscal policy that created and continues to benefit it, is exactly the same rightwing fiscal policy that creates the shocking presence of food banks on our county’s streets in the first place.  There is an inherent link between further privileging the rich and disempowering the poor to a greater degree.  Instead of teaching the children to comply with and ‘normalise’ this fascistic policy, the school should be teaching them how to critically think and assess the situation.  The unquestioning presence of food banks justifies rightwing policy, and allows the more or less pointless Christian church to re-start its old policy of dominating and persecuting the poor as it hands-out food.  The best way to relieve poverty is not through the use of hypocritical bourgeois morality and sentimentalism, but rather by re-distributing wealth through a decent welfare system, backed-up and supported by social housing and a fully free and functioning NHS.

The School Letter:

September 2016

Dear Parents,

On Monday 26th September (K) and Tuesday 27th September (M) the school will be holding its annual Harvest Festival.

As part of our role as good citizens, we want to get involved in a local community project so this year we are looking again to support Sutton Foodbank. Sutton Foodbank (linked to Trussell Trust) is run by churches in the London borough of Sutton and gives free emergency food to people in crisis. They continue to provide help and support until the appropriate agencies can step in.
Please would you support us by sending in any of the following items:
• tinned peas/carrots/tomatoes;
• tinned meat;
• jam;
• dried milk;
• UHT milk;
• long life juice
• instant mash;
• 500g sugar;
• biscuits;
• pasta sauce;
• tinned sponge puddings/fruit;
• tinned fish;
• instant coffee (small jars).
They ask that foods donated have at least three months before ‘best before’ date.
Some of the staff and school councillors will then deliver the goods to the Big Yellow storage area.

Harvest Festival donations should be brought into the school hall on Monday 26th September (K & M) or Tuesday 27th September (M) by the children as soon as they arrive at school in the morning.
I do hope that we can count on your customary generosity on this occasion.

Yours sincerely,

Dalai Lama ‘Happy To Be Alive’ Whilst Not Condemning Self-Immolations

13314427365110804154

Dalai Lama and Mass Murderer Shoko Asahara

There is no doubt that the 14th Dalai Lama, despite his friendship and popularity amongst Hollywood stars such as American Sharon Stone and the English Russell Brand, is full of malice and evil intentions.  With regard to the behaviour of the annoying comic Russell Brand, the 14th Dalai Lama has had nothing to say about his excessive drinking and drug taking, despite the ‘Sun’ newspaper voting him the worst celebrity on three different occasions.

Perhaps one of the most bizarre examples of the abhorrent behaviour of the 14th Dalai Lama lies in his association with the Japanese mass murderer and cult-leader – Shoko Asahara – the half-blind maniac who master-minded the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo Tube Network.  In all likelihood, Shoko Asahara will be hanged this year (2012) for his crimes, and no doubt the 14th Dalai Lama will oppose the death sentence.

The 14th Dalai Lama, through his unreliable and duplicitous behaviour, has failed to criticise or halt a recent outbreak of self-immolations in the Tibetan area of China, which has seen a small number of ‘young’ Buddhist monks and nuns commit painful suicide through self-immolation.  This behaviour appears orchestrated by outside forces, and other than maiming and killing those who participate, it serves no purpose and achieves no end.  However, despite being asked to stop these suicides, the 14th Dalai Lama has refused to condemn this destructive behaviour.  Instead the 14th Dalai Lama answered with a riddle, stating that ‘If I condemn the action, people at home will feel sad, but if I praise the action, people in China will blame me.’

The 14th Dalai Lama is more concerned about his political image in the world, than about relieving suffering within it.  Imagine caring more about your self-image as a Buddhist monk, rather than applying Buddhist compassion to end suffering in the world.  This is not really a political issue, but one of religious influence and control.  Many believe the 14th Dalai Lama is behind these self-immolations, and that his failure to condemn such actions is proof of this fact.  If the 14th Dalai Lama had immediately condemned this behaviour, perhaps he would have saved around 40 Tibetan lives, but he chose not to at the sametime that he said he was ‘happy to be alive’.  This guy needs to get more serious.

©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2016.

Original Chinese Language Source Text:

http://focus.591hx.com/article/2012-08-02/0000002882s.shtml

外媒:藏人受蛊惑自焚达赖却感慨活着很幸运

达赖和日本邪教头目麻原彰晃

现在,不仅仅是莎朗·斯通等达赖喇嘛的众多好莱坞粉丝会削弱他在追随者心目中的形象。达赖本人也与充满恶意、令人讨厌的英文漫画作家拉塞尔·布兰德结为密友。我不因布兰德的酗酒或吸毒对其作批判,也许他在《太阳报》三次评选最差人士时给自己投了一票。而达赖最古怪的交往者是曾经的日本邪教教主麻原彰晃,两人在一起的照片被广泛刊登。这个半瞎的药剂师已储存了足够杀死他百万计同胞的沙林毒气。麻原很可能将于今年被绞死,可以预见,达赖会反对死刑。

达赖现在几乎每天都证实他的不可靠性以牺牲许多人的生命为代价。年轻藏族僧尼正排着队自焚,但他们很少从这些令人吃惊并引起关注的自焚事件中得到什么。自从2009年扎白的自焚开始,藏人掀起一波毫无目的的自杀活动。但达赖不会去谴责那些自杀的追随者。他希望“保持中立”,并将此描述为“一个非常微妙的政治问题”。“如果我说一些积极的话,中国会立即责怪我,”他试图解释,“如果我说些负面意见,这些人的家里会感到非常难过。”

达赖不想给人一种“那是错误”的印象,但这恰恰是错误的。这也不是政治问题。只有他可以阻止这种行动,他必须阻止。如果达赖在扎白自焚后立即讲话,教导追随者不要采取类似行动,近40名藏族青年不会死。如果达赖说不赞同这种自杀的蔓延,认为自杀令人吃惊和可怕,那么这对于达赖而言是非常好的。“每天醒来时想一想,今天我很幸运地活着。”达赖曾经这样说,“我有一个宝贵的生命,不想浪费它”。这个家伙需要更加严肃认真。(作者阿兰·豪伟,益多译)

Ahmadiyya Islam and Buddhism

download-5

In 1899, the Islamic scholar Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (of Qadian) published his book entitled ‘Jesus in India’, within which he argues that it was not Buddhism that had spread to Palestine and influenced Jesus in his teachings, but rather that Jesus, after surviving the crucifixion, travelled to live in Jewish communities in Northern India, where he encountered various Jews who had become Buddhist monks. Apparently interpreting Jesus as Maitreya – the future Buddha yet to come – Ahmad asserts that these monks then ‘integrated’ the sayings of Jesus into the Buddhist scripture.  In the late 1880’s, he founded the ‘Ahmadiyya’ movement within Islam which views Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, and Confucius as prophets, alongside all the usual Quranic and Biblical prophets.  Ahmad, through this book, sets-out to prove that Jesus did not die on the cross, and that the Christian interpretation is incorrect.  In so doing, he also proves that the Jews persecuted and attempted to kill a prophet from god – but failed in their mission.  He very cleverly uses Biblical scripture to add weight to his assertions, but nothing that might pass as ‘secular’, or ‘objective’ proof.  Simultaneously the stage is set to allow other non-Islamic teachers into the Islamic religion as ‘prophets’ ultimately from Allah, who manifested in different places in different ways suitable to the prevailing conditions.  Of course, this is an Islamo-centric view of the world, and would today be defined as a ‘literalist’ approach to interpreting religious scripture.  My view is that Ahmad is mistaken to assume that Jesus influenced Buddhism, as only an outsider to Buddhism could think this.  Buddhism pre-dates Christianity by at least 500 to 1000 years (depending on when the Buddha actually lived).  By the time of Jesus in the 1st century CE, the Mahayanic phase of its development was very much underway.  Buddhism was spreading all over Asia, and soon reached China in this century.  All the Buddhist sutras claim their authority from the word of the Buddha.  The two that do not – the Vimalakirti Sutra and the Altar Sutra of Hui Neng – are said to be linked to the historical Buddha.  In the case of Vimalakirti – an enlightened layman, he lived at the sametime as the Buddha, and the Buddha and his disciples are featured heavily in the text. The Altar Sutra is linked directly to the Buddha through the Ch’an transmission that was initiated by the Buddha and eventually inherited by Hui Neng in 7th century CE China.  In all likelihood, I suspect that people from all different religious backgrounds became Buddhist monks – including Jews – but this does not mean that theological teachings were integrated into Buddhism, on the contrary, many became Buddhists to escape the constricting teachings of theology.  The basic principles of Buddhist teachings are these:

1) The Buddha never acknowledged monotheism as existing in his lifetime.

2)The Buddha associated a belief in polytheistic gods with delusion.

3) The Buddha taught that there is no theistic ‘soul’ to mediate between humanity and any mythological god-construct.

4) All experience in the material world is a consequence of cause and effect, which when mediated by the human will (volition), creates the agency of karma.  Suffering is relieved through purify karma and its effects (see Four Noble Truths).

5) The Buddha was not a god or a prophet of a god.

6) The Buddha emphasised wisdom and compassion outside of the Brahmanic religion of his day, which he viewed as corrupt.

7) The Buddha advocated the act of meditation to change thought patterns by an act of will, and the wise consideration of the conditions of life.  This self-reliance and self-empowerment has nothing to do with praying to a god-construct.

8) The Buddha’s enlightenment is premised upon the rational and logical use of the mind, within a self-disciplined body and his enlightenment is not premised upon the teachings of theistic religions.

9) The Buddha’s enlightenment is the uprooting of greed, hatred, and delusion, and the realisation of the non-substantiality of self.  It is not a communion with a god-construct.

10) Buddhist monks had no right or ability to add any ‘new’ teaches that were not believed to have been directly spoken by the Buddha.

11) There is no evidence in any Buddhist school that a Palestinian Jew was accepted in India as ‘Maitreya’. The concept of Maitreya is really a false-concept misinterpreted to make Buddhism appear to be a revelatory religion – which it is not.  In reality, Maitreya represents the Buddhahood yet to manifest in all living beings.

12) If Jesus had influenced Buddhism why stop with the odd saying?  As Jesus’s theistic teachings are very different to those of the scientific Buddha, why not force the Buddhists to accept a god-construct and soul theory?  This observation proves that it was Jesus who accommodated Buddhism, and not Buddhism that accommodated Christianity, although, of course, Jesus never gave-up his theistic beliefs.

Ahmad’s ideas are flawed in this regard, as Buddhism had spread across Asia far earlier than Christianity did.  In fact, during the life of Jesus (assuming he existed at all), Christianity was merely a small and localised non-conformist, Jewish sect.  Christianity did not significantly spread until hundreds of years after the assumed life of Jesus.  This type of theistic scholarship is interesting because it occasionally manifests interesting and diverse opinions, but invariably outside of secular knowledge.  Using revelatory scripture as ‘history’ is a category error, as what one sees in one’s mind is not necessarily a far reflection of what is happening in the concrete world, particularly if religion is used a an ‘escape’ from everyday life.  As there is no evidence that Jesus existed, any discussion as to whether he survived the cross are superfluous.  Jesus may or may not have survived the cross, just as he may or may not have existed.  Of course, if he did not exist, then it was the people that created his myth who were influenced by Buddhist teachings in the formulative stage.  The problem with theistic religion is that it grants its adherents a one-sided ‘specialness’ that is not present in nature.  The Buddha rejected this one-sidedness, whilst it constituted the entire point of Jesus’s alleged existence.

%d bloggers like this: