The Most Politically Incorrect Doctrine of Buddhism

And this, monks, is the Noble Truth of the Origin of Unease: it is whatever craving there may be, conducive to further existence, accompanied by indulgence and passion, overindulging here and there; namely, craving for sensuality, craving for existence, and craving for nonexistence. 

     —from the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta, considered by tradition to be the Buddha’s first sermon after his enlightenment

     I have written elsewhere on this blog about the political incorrectness, by 21st century standards, of some of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism. Also I recently participated in a video discussion on the same topic (soon to be uploaded on Bitchute and YouTube)…which got me thinking about the strange phenomenon of increasingly radical leftists embracing, or seeming to embrace, Theravada Buddhism, literally the most conservative school of Buddhism in existence. One can argue that the “progressive” left are indifferent with regard to the actual teachings of the religious movements that they infiltrate and seek to control; the argument goes that they simply commandeer pre-existing ideologies, whatever they may be originally, and more or less surreptitiously transform them into little more than platforms for their own brand of political and cultural Marxism. (After all, it is easier to take over and transmogrify a pre-existing social movement, like Buddhism or the American Democratic Party, than to start from scratch with something brand new.) Anyway, for whatever reasons, the “progressive” left have pretty much taken over western lay Theravada, regardless of Theravada having basic doctrines radically at odds with “progressive” leftism. So, since the subject has been on my mind, I decided to write about what I consider the Mother of All Political Incorrectnesses fundamental to scriptural Theravada Buddhism.

     Some people may disagree with my choice of Political Incorrectness Number One, as there are quite a few to choose from. One really obvious candidate is the bald assertion, made in some of the most ancient Pali texts, that abortion is the flat-out murder of a human being. Buddhism, like biology in this case, asserts that the a human life begins at conception. A human “spirit” ready to take rebirth is a requisite for conception in the first place, and any ordained monk who helps a woman in any way to get an abortion, or who successfully persuades a woman to have one, is pārājika, excommunicated from the Sangha for life, because he is guilty of being an accessory to murder.

     That is a pretty obvious one, which of course many leftist western Buddhists, including at least one high-profile leftist monk, appear reject out of hand; but abortion is clearly not central to Buddhist philosophy, nor is the issue of when exactly a human life begins. There is a huge, glaring, anti-leftist doctrine of basic Buddhist philosophy which is even bigger, in my opinion, and that is part of the bedrock of Buddhist ethics, the Second Noble Truth.

     The Four Noble Truths, the second of which is quoted in translation above, are practically the bedrock, the backbone, of Buddhist philosophy and ethics. It may be that the only doctrine more important than the Four Noble Truths is Dependent Co-Arising, yet that teaching is so profound and obscure that few people really understand it. (According to legend the Buddha almost didn’t teach Dhamma at all, and was tempted to remain an enlightened yet silent hermit, because he figured nobody would understand Dependent Co-Arising.) And the Second Noble Truth states that ALL unease, all suffering, all unhappiness, is caused by craving, and in some alternative versions, by attachment—though both amount to the same thing.

     What the Second Noble Truth indicates is that, ultimately, all suffering is self-inflicted. Physical pain, for example, is just a sensation, and not actual suffering or unhappiness—the suffering comes from the intense desire or craving for the pain to cease. Likewise with other situations like grinding poverty or social injustice: an enlightened being could endure such conditions with equanimity, accepting his situation as the way things are, in accordance with his own karma; it is the nonacceptance of the poverty or injustice, and a desire for things to be otherwise, than generates the actual suffering.

     The problem is, of course, that the self-inflicted nature of unhappiness is not very obvious much of the time, and in the materialistic, extraverted west especially, we are taught from infancy that discomfort or inconvenience, let alone agony or great injustice, is practically the same as suffering itself—the only way to avoid suffering, supposedly, is to avoid unpleasant circumstances, which, of course, are not always avoidable. Even a person well trained in Buddhist philosophy, who furthermore sincerely believes the Second Noble Truth to be True, will often suffer from force of habit: driving a vehicle in the midst of idiots (like the guy right in front who suddenly decides to turn left across heavy traffic, or who blows through a red light that is green for you, etc.), having a dog barking his fool head off outside one’s window when one is trying to sleep, feeling nausea for some reason, etc. can have one responding automatically with some form of unhappiness, due to habitual preferences for things to go well. This kind of automatic pilot running our lives through habit is a relatively obvious form of karma by the way.

     So in order to really take the Second Noble Truth to heart and act accordingly, one must practice some deep introspection and mindfulness.

     Closely related to the Second Noble Truth, and also very politically incorrect and unacceptable to many if not most western lay Buddhists, is the idea of karma, and thus the idea that our position in this world, and our successes and failures, are literally our own doing—karma literally meaning “doing,” “action,” “deed.” So from the Buddhist point of view, people born poor and of low social standing are born that way due to their own actions in past lives, and if they stay that way, it is due largely to their own actions (especially mental actions) that keep them that way. In some parts of India, people born crippled, malformed, or congenitally disabled in some way are viewed as beloved of the gods and blessed in some strange way, because they have taken upon themselves such a huge repayment of karmic debts in this life. But leftist lay Buddhists tend to see things very differently.

     It seems that a fundamental axiom of radical leftism is that suffering is too often not one’s own doing, but someone else’s. In classical Marxism the someone else was the bourgeois capitalist who oppressed the working class and necessarily made them unhappy. Nowadays it’s evil Whitey who is to blame for the suffering of chronic malcontents who are taught to blame anyone but themselves, but especially Whitey, for their own failures and inability to prosper—or in some cases to blame Whitey even if they are prospering (“antiracist” grifters immediately come to mind). Thus the adharmic nature of western identity politics becomes readily apparent to someone who takes seriously Buddhism as represented in the earliest Buddhist texts.

     I have mentioned a number of times by this point the fact that I have read no fewer than two articles, written by western leftist “Buddhist” scholars and published in western leftist “Buddhist” magazines, claiming that the Second Noble Truth should be revised, because, according to leftists if not orthodox Buddhists, not ALL suffering comes from craving and attachment—some of it comes from racism, systemic oppression, patriarchy, white supremacy, and all sorts of social injustice. This simply demonstrates the abysmal ignorance these scholars and writers have with regard to the essence of Dharma. It demonstrates a grotesque lack of introspection which is displayed not only by superficial academics but also by the new wave of leftist Dharma teachers—you know, the ones preaching about mindfulness of white privilege, offering discounts to non-whites at retreats, offering retreats exclusively to this or that ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference, pontificating about climate change or women’s reproductive rights, and so on.

     The ethics taught by the historical Buddha go far beyond the superficiality of leftist lay Buddhists and Buddhistic scholars in leftist academia. They are focused on the center of the problem of suffering, not just the surface—many western Buddhists apparently have greater respect for the teachings of Karl Marx or Ibram X. Kendi than for those of any enlightened sage. The Buddha himself is rejected if he said anything politically incorrect by 21st century standards, presumably because “progressive” leftists are so sure that their absurd beliefs are true that, according to them, a truly enlightened being would have to agree with them. Thus basic teachings of Buddhism are ignored or declared to be corrupt and inauthentic teachings in the texts if they are not rejected outright, just because.

     Part of the situation is also seen among some western Buddhists on the political and social right: namely, a conscious or subconscious acceptance of modern science and general western extraversion and superficiality as a reliable version of reality. This perspective has resulted in western civilization becoming the masters of Samsara, since the whole outlook is overwhelmingly samsaric; but it results in distortions and rejections of what the Buddha taught in northern India 2500 years ago.

     But the situation remains, as mentioned at the beginning of this little essay, or tirade, or whatever it is, that the “progressive” left (as though decline and fall were progress) has essentially highjacked western lay Theravada Buddhism—though not Asian “ethnic” Theravada in the west or even western monastic Theravada, though some monks go to some pains to be politically correct—and have been twisting and distorting it, and amputating certain inconvenient parts, in order to make it, well, “woke.” And this has the result of what they teach and practice NOT being Theravada, and hardly even Buddhism…but if you tell them that they may become upset, because of course they reject the idea that suffering is self-inflicted and the result of foolishness and delusion. And they reject it the more vehemently, the more unhappy they are.

Burmese Buddhist monks protesting against Muslim immigrants...
but that's there, not here


  1. I post a lot on various well-read sites, e.g. the London Times, and slip in something of Dhamma/Vipassana if opportunity affords. The quote on the origin of unease will be helpful.

  2. I thought of a new name of for you: Panbanana! Get it? It's 'pan' and 'banana' combined together! :D

  3. This is an interesting piece - it's always fun reading thoughtful, well-read reactionaries. But calling yourself a 'politically incorrect' buddhist, and acting as if your understanding of leftism/progressivism/Marxism is correct, and not highly reductive and limited, kind of proves that -despite all of your time as a monk - you have failed to understand and practice Buddhism correctly. You seem to have the same resentment for those with different understandings of the world than you, and desire to rub people's noses in how little you care for their beliefs, as a garden variety alt-right troll - is this equanimity? is this right speech? I don't believe so! And frankly, the attachment you seem to have here to the idea of a 'true Buddhism' that can be and is being perverted by these idiotic progressive Buddhists, seems to also be a big stumbling block for you - there is no true, essential Buddhism whose virtue you can defend from defilement - it may very well be that they are misunderstanding and changing the meaning of many of the Buddha's core teachings - but that really is, and should not be any concern of yours. Maybe a little more time reflecting on non-self and the perils of self-identification, and less time worrying what leftists may or may not be doing to Buddhism, yes?

    1. I think you're projecting. For one thing I call out such people because they are doing their worst to utterly wreck Buddhism by turning it into just another vehicle for leftist political indoctrination. So in answer to your concluding question, Nah.

    2. "So in order to really take the Second Noble Truth to heart and act accordingly, one must practice some deep introspection and mindfulness."

      Isn't it possible to actively change things when they are unjust or harmful rather than suffer the consequences passively? It can be true that capitalism has many inherent conflicts of interest precisely because it extends ego boundaries in the form of property rights. I'm not a Buddhist so I could be wrong here, but I don't recall any Buddhist teachings which advise people to establish authority based on market ideology.

      In western philosophy, (neo)Platonism for instance, we draw on Aristotle's and Plato's critiques of the metaphysics of money to avoid basing political authority on it precisely because exchanges for money lead to power incommensurate with the Virtues.

      Since Marx was heavily influenced by Plato, Aristotle and Proclus through Hegel, it's profoundly disappointing when folks who claim to speak on behalf of Western Civilization (as in those in the so-called alt-Right) reject Marx without the least bit of actual critique of Marx's thought.

      So, to conclude, I wonder if your 2nd Noble Truth is in any way connected to the Stoic or Cynic insight that certain things are within one's power to change and certain things are not. It's our existential responsibility to find the boundary between those things. Also, enduring inevitable suffering, like a death of a loved one, may be a Noble Virtue. But deliberately choosing a society that deliberately creates unnecessary desires for profit hardly seems like a necessary Buddhist political project.


    3. Inequality is built into the whole Buddhist system, as people do not have equal karma. Forcing everyone to be equal would result in a failed moral economy, so to speak.

      Anyway, Buddhism was supported by early Indian proto-capitalists, as the system arose in a newly urbanized northern India dealing with the recent innovation of actual money. Bankers and financiers like Anathapindika were some of the Buddha's chief supporters. Thus Buddhism is clearly not against capitalism. In fact history has shown that capitalism is one of the greatest causes of (material) prosperity in this world.

      There is nothing wrong with fixing what needs to be fixed. The thing is that one fixes it with equanimity.

      But the really amazing thing to me is that you apparently think Marxism would be an IMPROVEMENT. A century of failed economies, totalitarianism, and genocide seem not to have taught you anything.


Post a Comment

Hello, I am now moderating comments, so there will probably be a short delay after a comment is submitted before it is published, if it is published. This does have the advantage, though, that I will notice any new comments to old posts. Comments are welcome, but no spam, please. (Spam may include ANY anonymous comment which has nothing specifically to do with the content of the post.)


Most Clicked On