Proletariat Blogging in the Heart of (UK) Predatory Capitalism! Exploring the Interface between Matter and Perception, Chinese Buddhism, Daoism, Hakka Ethnography, and All Aspects of Radical Politics, History, Psychology and Philosophy – 全世界无产者联合起来!
Exploring the philosophy (and practice) of Early and Later Buddhism.
The reputation of the former Head Monk of the famous Shaolin Temple – Shi Yongxin – literally collapsed overnight! The trouble he has caused has not been limited only to himself! After Shi Yongxin got into trouble, his brother – Liu Yingbiao – quite literally disappeared from public view – with the media reporting that he has gone “missing”.
Years ago, when I first accessed the internet, I used to argue with young Americans (and some UK and EU people) that the gongfu they were learning for vast amounts of money in China and the West – was not real and product of youth-orientated (Western-derived) gymnastics. They were so brain-washed they thought the lay-men who taught them in robes were real Shaolin monks! Furthermore, they said that our gongfu was “old fashioned” and “out of date”! Many of the ethnic Chinese “teachers” were greedy and money-orientated – seeing spirituality as “weak”. I stopped arguing as I did not want to be seen as attacking the CPC – which I would never do. In return, I was asked to appear on Chinese TV and explain my connection to China – but I politely refused. The last thing I wanted was further exposure and hundreds of people asking for instruction. It is important to live humbly and simply – and not for show. It is best to disappear and not be seen. If in doubt, keep out of sight.
In Japan, a Buddhist monk or nun can get married, produce children, eat meat, and drink alcohol. In other words, these people are lay-people in robes – but are practicing dishonesty. A group of Chinese Ch’an monks had been following the Vinaya Discipline when they travelled to Japan to spread the Ch’an Dharma – but returned with Japanese wives and children – and wearing lay-clothing – eating meat and drinking alcohol. In front of Xu Yun – these “monks” petitioned the post-1949 government of China to permanently abolish the Ch’an requirement for monks and nuns to be celibate and vegetarian. Xu Yun is said to have loudly slapped the table – stating that the Chinese government should do the exact opposite – that is, integrate the Vinaya Discipline into the fabric of China’s secular law. If a man or woman wants to be an ordained Buddhist monk or nun, then it should be a legal requirement – punishable by secular law – if they fail to uphold the rules and regulations of the lifestyle they have chosen to follow. Being a Buddhist monastic is a “job” that requires a strict form of lifestyle.
If this was the case, why did the Buddha reject Brahmanism? Why did the Buddha bite the hand that fed him? Well, he practiced all the available meditative paths, mastered them all, and realised none of them expressed the ultimate truth. He carried-on training in meditation as the Upanishads advised – and saw through all the conditioning of his mind, body, and environment. He gave up caste privilege and all work for money. He knew that this would lead to starvation, homelessness, and nakedness. He resolved these issues by dressing himself in rags found in the charnel grounds (the clothing of dead who were to poor to be cremated), he acquired the skull-cap of a dead person and used it as a begging bowl as he walked from village to village quietly requesting waste-food on a daily basis, and he sat under the foot of a tree when he meditated. The Buddha left society and lived on the forested outskirts of Hindu society. Of course, the Buddha still physically lived in India, and interfaced with Hindu society, but he did this under a completely new contract of understanding.
It was not until 1780, when the sixth Panchen travelled to Chengde to offer birthday greetings to the Qianlong Emperor and reported on the matter, that the emperor accepted the appeals from the Panchen and other Tibetan Buddhist leaders to officially recognize Jampel Gyatso as the eighth Dalai Lama. In 1781, when the Qianlong Emperor formally conferred the title of the eighth Dalai Lama, he simultaneously affirmed Kelsang Gyatso as the seventh Dalai Lama and Tsangyang Gyatso as the sixth. This marked a direct clarification and ordering of the Dalai Lama reincarnation lineage from the perspective of the central government, highlighting the central government’s authority in managing the issue of the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation.
Representing the Lao Government was Mr. Akaphap Phanthavong, Director of the European-American Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Receiving the remains on behalf of the United States was Ms. Michelle Outlaw, Deputy Chief of Mission and Chargé d’Affaires at the U.S. Embassy in the Lao PDR. Officials and representatives from both nations stood together in solemn remembrance and solidarity.
The remains were recovered through a joint Lao-U.S. operation, the fourth such survey and excavation conducted during the 2024–2025 period in Dakcheung District, Sekong Province. The mission underscores Laos’ steadfast commitment to humanitarian values and its ongoing efforts to help American families find long-awaited closure.
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 