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]:

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

2. nor upon tradition (paramparā),

3. nor upon rumor (itikirā),

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

5. nor upon conjecture (takka-hetu),

6. nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),

7. nor upon fallacious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),

8. nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),

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

10. 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 (5th c. BCE) and Second Council in Vesali (4th 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 1st 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 20th 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.

____________

written by Nico Armin

MAIN IMAGE: Uchiyama Gudō (内山 愚童; d. 1911), Japanese Sōtō Zen Buddhist priest and anarcho-communist activist, who was one of the few Buddhist leaders who spoke out against the Meiji government in its imperialist projects and was amongst the twelve anarchists executed in the High Treason Case (幸徳事件 / Kōtoku Jiken), born. Gudō was an outspoken advocate for redistributive land reform, overturning the Meiji emperor system, encouraging conscripts to desert en masse and advancing democratic rights for all. He also criticised Zen leaders who claimed that low social position was justified by karma and who sold abbotships to the highest bidder.

The post Buddhism and Anarchism: Exploring the Unlikely Compatibility of Two Distinct Traditions appeared first on Void Network.

The anarchist tradition has been sharply divided in its relationship to religion, spirituality and nature. On the one hand, the mainstream of Western anarchism has in general been atheist, anti-religious and anti-clerical, and has looked upon religion as a supernaturalist negation of the natural world. On the other hand, there is a long history of anarchistic thought and practice having strong spiritual or religious dimensions, and very often these have taken the form of nature spirituality. The following discussion will examine first the more familiar anti-religious perspective of modern Western anarchism, then various anarchist tendencies across history that have held a spiritual view of reality, and finally, some contemporary anarchist views that exhibit both standpoints.

Almost all the major European classical anarchist theorists opposed religion and defended a secularist, scientific and sometimes positivistic view of nature against what they saw as religious obscurantism and other-worldliness. Max Stirner (1806–1856), the major individualist anarchist theorist, dismissed religion as a belief in illusory “spooks” that undermined the individuality and self-determination of the individual. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865), the first important social anarchist theorist, stated that the concept of God was contradictory to rational thought and to human freedom, and that social progress is proportional to the degree to which the concept is eliminated. The anarchist anti-religious viewpoint is perhaps most widely associated with political theorist and revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin (1813–1876), who proclaimed, “I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that, if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him” (Bakunin 1970: 79–80).
For Bakunin, religion denigrates human nature and the world, and is a means of oppressing humanity. In his view, it is a negation of nature, since it exalts a supernatural and transcendent reality and devalues the material and natural. He claims that there is an objective naturalistic basis for religion: it arises essentially out of the human being’s feeling of absolute dependence on an eternal and omnipotent nature and out of primitive fear of its awe-inspiring powers. He contends that it begins with the attribution of this power to fetishes and ends with its concentration in an all-powerful God, which he sees as the reversal and magnification of the human image itself. Religion is thus essentially a misunderstanding of nature. The system of social domination makes use of this confusion to keep people in a state of subjection and submissiveness through the alliance between the coercive power of the state and the ideological power of the Church.

The large anarchist movements of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in general shared the atheism and anti-clericalism of its theoretical founders. The Bakuninists of the First International (International Working Men’s Association, 1864–1876) fought to make the workers’ movement officially anti-religious, and the large anarcho-syndicalist movements in southern Europe and Latin America defined themselves in part through their strong opposition to a generally reactionary and hierarchical Church and clergy. The Spanish Revolution (1936–1939), the most important event in the history of the anarchist movement, was marked by fierce opposition to the Church, to the extent of the desecration and burning of churches and harsh treatment of clergy. The Spanish anarchists largely shared Bakunin’s view that religion was based on a denial of the natural world. Yet a kind of nature spirituality emerged even within their milieu. This tendency was expressed in a cult of the natural, the romanticizing of nature, and practices such as health-consciousness, nudism and vegetarianism. In this regard, the movement was influenced by the anarchist philosopher-geographer Elisιe Reclus (1830–1905), who developed a non-theistic but holistic and spiritual view of nature, advocated animal rights, and wrote of the sublime and inspirational qualities of the natural world.

When one turns to the positive relationship between anarchism and spirituality, one finds a wealth of evidence in many cultures of the world. Some have found one of the earliest anarchist philosophies of nature and human nature in the ancient Chinese classic, the Tao te Ching of Lao Tzu (ca. fourth century B.C.E). Daoism is the philosophy of the tao, or way, a term that refers both to the source of all being, and to the path of self-realization of all beings when they are allowed to act freely and spontaneously according to their nature. Lao Tzu presents a vision of nature and human society as an organic unity-in-diversity in which the uniqueness and creative activity of each part of the whole are valued. The natural world is seen as a dynamic balance (symbolized through the complementary polarities of yin and yang) that produces order and harmony when not disrupted by human aggression and domination. Lao Tzu describes this natural harmony in poetic terms: “Heaven and Earth unite to drip sweet dew. Without the command of men, it drips evenly over all” (Lao Tzu 1963: 156). Coercive and authoritarian social institutions are shown to destroy natural balance and the generosity of nature and produce disaster not only for the surrounding natural world, but also within human society itself. The ideal society is depicted as a decentralized, egalitarian community in which all value the “Three Treasures” of compassion, simplicity, and humility. Lao Tzu was a harsh critic of the violent, hierarchical society of his own day, and laments the injustices and inequities that are created in human society by the pursuit of political and economic power. He declares that “[t]he Way of Heaven reduces whatever is excessive and supplements whatever is insufficient. The Way of Man is different. It reduces the insufficient to offer to the excessive” (Lao Tzu 1963: 174). For Lao Tzu, the pursuit of wealth, power and egoistic gratification must be rejected in favor of a way of life based on “non-action” or “actionless action” (wu-wei), by which is meant activity that is in accord with one’s own Tao or way, but which respects the ways of all others.

Despite these apparently anarchistic or libertarian tendencies in Lao Tzu’s thought, some have interpreted him as a defender of the traditional system of rule and even as an advocate of manipulation of the people for authoritarian purposes. For example, the eminent Chinese scholar D.C. Lau interprets the Tao te Ching as a rather eclectic collection of writings that has a primarily ethical rather than mystical or philosophical import, and which does not question the concept of political rule. In his view, passages concerning the sage or ruler apply to any follower of the Tao, but are also specific references to an enlightened and skillful “ruler,” in a quite literal sense. Social ecologists Murray Bookchin and Janet Biehl have contended that ancient Daoism is merely a form of regressive mysticism. They attacked the idea that the Tao te Ching has any anarchistic implications and contend that all references to rulership should be interpreted in an entirely literal sense.

The second great ancient Taoist philosopher, Chuang Tzu, has sometimes been seen as even more radically anarchistic than Lao Tzu and equally ecological in outlook. Chuang Tzu warned against the impulse to eliminate chaos and impose order on the world, which in his view leads ultimately to great destruction. He took a perspectivist position on knowledge and truth, and emphasized, often through humorous or ironic anecdotes, the fact that each being has its own good and perceives reality from its own ultimately incomparable point of view. He rejected human-centered views of reality and the tendency to project human meanings and values onto the natural world. Though the specifically political implications of Chuang Tzu’s thought are far from clear, his Daoism has been interpreted as one of the most consistently anarchistic critiques of the domination of humanity and nature and of the egocentric and anthropocentric mentality that underlies domination.
Some have also found a deeply anarchistic dimension in both ancient Buddhism and also in various schools in later Buddhist history. Original Buddhism as established by the founder Shakyamuni Buddha (ca. 563–463 B.C.E.) came out of a questioning of both the social order (the caste system) and the ideological basis (the authority of the Vedic scriptures) of ancient India. It also rejected the idea that any authority, whether a person or written document, could lead one to truth, and that it must instead be reached through direct personal experience. The central Buddhist idea of non-attachment can be given an anarchistic interpretation. Although historical Buddhism has been to varying degrees influenced by inegalitarian social institutions, its goal of non-attachment can be seen as an attack on the foundation of political, economic and patriarchal domination in the desire to aggrandize an illusory ego-self. According to such an interpretation, the ideal of the sangha or spiritual community is seen as an anarchistic concept of association based on compassion and recognition of true need, rather than on economic and political power and coercive force. Similarly, Buddhist mindfulness, an awakened awareness of present experience, is seen as implying a sensitivity to the realities of nature and human experience, as opposed to appropriating and objectifying forms of consciousness. The Buddhist tradition is vast, and has been developed in many directions, but it is not difficult to discover in the Buddhist concepts of awakened mind, non-attachment, and compassion an implicit critique of material consumption and accumulation, coercive laws, and bureaucratic and technocratic forms of social organization.

Nagarjuna (ca. second century) is often considered the most important Buddhist philosopher since Shakyamuni Buddha. Indeed, he can plausibly be interpreted as the most theoretically anarchistic thinker in the history of philosophy. His radically destructive or deconstructive dialectic reveals the contradictions in any formulation of truth or attribution of substantiality to any being. The only “truth” for Nagarjuna consists not in ideas or propositions, all of which lead to contradiction, but rather in the practice of universal compassion and non-attachment. His rejection of the imposition of dualistic and objectifying categories on an internally related and “dependently arising” reality can be seen as an affirmation of the non-objectifiable wholeness and self-creativity of being and nature.

The anarchist tendencies in Buddhism were developed furthest and synthesized with certain aspects of Daoism in the Chinese Ch’an (meditation) School of Buddhism and in its Japanese version, Zen. Zen questions all authorities, including political, intellectual and spiritual ones, and insists on the absolute priority of direct personal experience. Lin-Chi (Rinzai) (d. 866) the founder of Ch’an, is known for his shocking admonition, “Whether you’re facing inward or facing outward, whatever you meet up with, just kill it! If you meet a Buddha, kill the Buddha. If you meet a patriarch, kill the patriarch!” This iconoclastic maxim is a classic Zen statement of the radically anarchistic view that none of our concepts of substantial realities (including even our most exalted concepts) can capture the nature of an ever-changing reality that constantly surpasses all categories and preconceptions. Inherent in this outlook is a deep respect for the integrity of nature and a desire to allow nature to express itself without human domination. Zen painting and poetry (much in the tradition of Daoist art) are noted for their focus on nature and on the numinous power of things themselves.

Anarchistic forms of spirituality have not been limited to Asian traditions, but have also emerged periodically through the history of Western religion. The Joachimite tendency in medieval Christianity is perhaps the most striking example. Joachim of Fiore spoke of the “Third Age” of world history, the Age of the Holy Spirit, which would supersede the rule of law and authority and usher in the reign of universal freedom and love. The Movement of the Free Spirit, which emerged out of the Joachimite and millenarian traditions, is often considered the most anarchistic tendency within medieval and early modern Christianity. The movement originated in the thirteenth century and spread widely across central and Western Europe during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Its most radical tendencies rejected the established Church, the state, law, private property and marriage. Its social outlook was at times a rather curious combination of a radically anarchistic quest for freedom and an elitism that justified an instrumental view of non-members and of things in nature, and a ruthless destructiveness toward all who stood in its way. Nevertheless, it often strongly affirmed nature and the natural. The Adamite tendency in particular saw believers as existing in a “natural,” pre-fallen condition, and others spoke of exercising “natural freedom” and following “natural desires.” They practiced nudism and free love, held property in common, and waged relentless war against their surrounding enemies. The anarchistic interpretation of the Free Spirit is best known from Norman Cohn’s classic work, The Pursuit of the Millennium. The Free Spirit also plays an important role in anarchist theorist Fredy Perlman’s critique of civilization, Against History, and Situationist Raoul Vaneigem devoted an entire book to the movement.

A more recent expression of an anarchistic spirituality within the Christian tradition is the radical religious vision of Romantic poet William Blake (1757–1827). Blake stressed the sacredness of nature, its organic qualities, and the need for humane treatment of other beings. He was one of the most important early rebels against the mechanistic, objectivist, reductionist worldview that came out of Newtonian science. His rejection of the dominant mechanistic worldview is encapsulated in his well-known plea, “may God us keep / From Single vision and Newton’s sleep!” (Blake 1988: 722). His attack on the patriarchal authoritarian God and a spiritually degraded world, and his creation of a new radically utopian mythology can be interpreted as an anarchistic critique of the state, early capitalism, and any ideology or social imaginary based on hierarchy, domination, and the repression of desire, the body, and nature.

Although nineteenth- and early twentieth-century European anarchism was generally anti-religious, even there one finds a more overt religious tendency, primarily under the influence of the famous novelist and pacifist anarchist Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910). Tolstoy’s conception of God was not the naively anthropomorphic image that other anarchists attacked, but referred rather to the whole of reality and truth. Furthermore, he believed that the true essence of Christianity is found not in a transcendent Supreme Being or an afterlife with rewards and punishments, but rather in Jesus’ teaching of universal love. For Tolstoy, an acceptance of this teaching satisfies the human longing for meaning in purpose in life, and has far-reaching implications for one’s relationship to both society and nature. First, it results in a dedication to complete nonviolence in society, including an absolute anarchistic rejection of participation in the state, which Tolstoy saw as the most monstrous form of organized violence and coercion. Furthermore, it requires a nonviolent stance toward the whole of nature, a refusal to inflict suffering on sentient beings, and a practice of ethical vegetarianism.

Another important nineteenth-century literary figure in whose work anarchist themes intersect with a spirituality of nature is Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862). In his essay “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau proclaimed the priority of individual conscience over political authority, asserting his view that “that government is best which governs least” and consequently “that government is best which governs not at all.” He refused to pay his taxes to the state on the anarchist secessionist principle that he could not recognize as his own government one that was also the slave’s government. Although Thoreau’s philosophical and religious perspective is usually associated with American “Transcendentalism,” it can also be seen as an anarchistic spirituality with affinities to aspects of Daoist, Buddhist and indigenous traditions. Thoreau is best known for his eloquent expression in Walden of such themes as the love of and communion with nature, the affirmation of life, compassion for all living beings, and the ills of a materialistic society that is alienated from the natural world and enslaved by its own possessions. His spirituality is perhaps best expressed in the essay on “Walking,” which contains his famous statement that “in Wildness is the preservation of the world.” Thoreau links wildness, freedom, sacredness, and “the gospel according to this moment,” an idea much in the spirit of Buddhist mindfulness. His concern for and celebration of the particularities of place link him to later bioregional thought, and contain an implicit critique of political and economis-tic conceptions of reality.

The renowned anarchist geographer Peter Kropotkin has often been looked to as the major source of ecological ideas among the classical anarchist theorists. His concepts of the importance of mutual aid, spontaneity and diversity in both the natural world and in human society have been important in introducing ecological concepts into social thought. However, Kropotkin was in many ways carrying on the work of his predecessor, the nineteenth-century French geographer and revolutionary Elisιe Reclus, who had already developed a profoundly ecological philosophy and social theory. Reclus is one of the most important figures in the development of an anarchistic ecological philosophy and spirituality.

Reclus came out of a tradition of radical Protestant religious dissent, his father having been a minister of a so-called “free church” that broke with the Reformed Church. Though he rejected theism, his anarchism can in some ways be seen as a continuation of his religious tradition. Central to his philosophy was a belief in universal love, which in his view must be extended to all human beings, to other sentient beings, and to nature as a whole. His deep respect for the natural world sometimes reaches a level of awe that verges on a kind of nature mysticism. For Reclus, social organization must be based on this love and solidarity, expressed through a voluntary commitment to the good of the community and the Earth itself. In such a system, each individual would be guided to the greatest degree possible by a free conscience rather than by coercion or centralized authority.

Reclus’ outlook toward nature is at once scientific, moral, aesthetic, and spiritual. In his monumental 16,000-page New Universal Geography, and his magnum opus of social theory, Man and the Earth, he offers a holistic, evolutionary vision of humanity and nature. Like later ecological thinkers, Reclus finds a harmony and balance in nature, in addition to a tendency toward discord and imbalance. His investigation of the intimate relationship between humanity and the Earth’s regional and local particularities anticipates later bioregional thought. He emphasizes the moral and spiritual aspects of humanity’s relationship to nature, condemns the growing devastation produced by industry and economic exploitation, and argues that whenever humanity degrades the natural world, it degrades itself. A vehement advocate of the humane treatment of animals and of ethical vegetarianism, Reclus wrote several widely reprinted pamphlets on these topics.

An important though relatively neglected figure in early twentieth-century anarchist spirituality is the German political theorist and non-violent revolutionary Gustav Landauer (1870–1919). Landauer is best known as a martyr killed for his leadership in the Munich Council Republic of 1919 and as the mentor of the Jewish libertarian and communitarian religious philosopher Martin Buber (1878–1965). Landauer’s philosophy is rooted in German Romanticist thought and is often described as having mystical and pantheistic tendencies. His major concepts are Spirit (Geist), People (Volk), and Nation (Nation), and his central focus is on the place of the individual in the larger human community, in nature, and in a greater spiritual reality. Landauer associates Spirit with the search for wholeness and universality, and interprets it as an immanent, living reality, the underlying unity of all beings that encompasses both humanity and nature. For Landauer, the great conflict in history is between Spirit and the state. In his famous formulation, the state is above all a relationship between human beings and it can be replaced by creating new relationships based on cooperation rather than domination. Socialism, which is what he called the free, cooperative society, is not a utopian ideal in the future, but rather something that is already present in all cooperative, loving human relationships and which can expand to encompass the whole of society as more non-coercive, non-exploitative relationships are established. Landauer believed that the cooperative society would be achieved when people left the increasingly dominant corrupt and alienated urban society and returned to the land. The new society was to be based on village communities rooted in their natural regions, in which fair exchange would replace economic exploitation, and in which agriculture and industry would be integrated.

Undoubtedly, one of the most important influences on modern anarchist spirituality throughout the world is Mohandas Gandhi (1869–1948), who is widely known for his principles of nonviolence, cooperation, decentralization, and local self-sufficiency. Gandhi summarized his religious outlook as the belief that God is Truth, or more accurately, that Truth is God, and that the way to this Truth is through love. He also states that God is “the sum-total of all life” (Gandhi 1963: 316). At the roots of Gandhian spirituality is the concept of ahimsa, which is often translated as “nonviolence” (paralleling the original Sanskrit), but is actually for Gandhi a more positive conception of replacing force and coercion with love and cooperation. Similarly, he is sometimes called an advocate of “civil disobedience,” but he defined his approach, satyagraha, as a more positive conception of “nonviolent resistance” to evil, including the injustices of the state.

Although Gandhi did not absolutely reject all participation in the existing state, he rejected the state as a legitimate form of social organization, advocated its eventual elimination, and strongly opposed its increasing power. He warned against looking to the state to reduce exploitation, arguing that its concentrated power and vast coercive force necessarily does great harm and destroys individuality. In place of the centralized state, he proposed village autonomy or self-government, community self-reliance, and local production based on human-scale technologies, ideas that have been enormously influential on twentieth-century eco-anarchism. Gandhi was also a critic of Western medicine, which he saw as dependent on concentrated wealth and sophisticated technologies, and advocated instead “nature cure” in which the cheapest, simplest and most accessible treatments are used.
For Gandhi, the principle of ahimsa was to be extended throughout the natural world. Humans should make an effort to avoid inflicting physical or mental injury to any living being to the greatest possible degree. Accordingly, Gandhi advocated ethical vegetarianism and had a deeply held belief that the Indian tradition of cow protection was of great moral and spiritual value. One of his most often-quoted statements is that the greatness and moral progress of a nation can be judged by its treatment of animals. Although his concern was often expressed in terms of the welfare of individual beings, he sometimes expressed more strongly ecological concepts, as when he warned of the dangers of human abuse of nature using the image of nature’s ledger book in which the debits and credits must always be equal.

After Gandhi’s death, Sarvodaya, a movement based on his spiritual, ethical and political principles emerged. Vinoba Bhave (1895–1982), the leading figure in the movement for many years, taught absolute nonviolence, social organization based on universal love, decision making by consensus, the replacement of coercion by the recognition of moral authority, and the minimization and eventual abolition of state power. Vinoba’s social philosophy was fundamentally anarchist and communitarian. In pursuit of the movement’s goals he pursued a policy of asking landowners to donate land to the poor (Bhoodan, or “gift of land”) and of establishing village cooperative agriculture (Gramdan or “village gift”). Over a decade, Vinoba walked 25,000 miles across India and accepted eight million acres of Bhoodan land. The history of the Sarvodaya movement is recounted in Geoffrey Ostergaard and Melville Currell’s study, The Gentle Anarchists.

Among contemporary thinkers, the celebrated poet and essayist Gary Snyder has probably had the greatest influence in linking anarchism, spirituality and nature. He has also been a major influence on the contemporary ecology movement in showing the ecological implications of Buddhist, Daoist and indigenous traditions. Snyder has connected the concepts of “the wild,” “wild nature” and “wilderness” with the Tao of ancient Chinese philosophy and the dharma of Buddhism. For Snyder, the concept of “the wild” implies a freedom and spontaneity that are found not only in undomesticated nature, but also in the imagination of the poet and in the mind of the spiritually attuned person. He expresses the anarchic nature of the Zen mind in his statement: “the power of no-power; this is in the practice of Zen” (Snyder 1980: 4).
For Snyder, such concepts have farreaching political implications. By the early 1970s he had already outlined a bioregional anarchist position that would replace the state and its artificial political boundaries with a regionalism based on lived experience and a knowledge of the particularities of place. Snyder links the spirituality of place with “reinhabitation,” the development of an intimate acquaintance with one’s locality and region, and the achievement of a larger sense of community that incorporates other life forms. Snyder finds the roots of such a social vision in the Neolithic community, with its emphasis on productive work, the sharing of goods, and the self-determination of local village communities. From the standpoint of such decentralized, egalitarian communities, the state, social hierarchy, and centralized power are not only illegitimate and oppressive, but also a source of disorder and destruction in both society and the natural world.

The wisdom of traditional societies has been a widespread theme in contemporary anarchist thought. This is exemplified by a significant “neo-primitivist” current in ecological anarchism that has identified very strongly with many of the values and institutions of tribal societies. Its proponents argue that for 99 percent of human history human beings lived in stateless societies in which nature spirituality was central to their culture. The non-hierarchical, cooperative, symbiotic and ecological spiritualities of these societies have been taken as an inspiration for a future post-civilized anarchist society.

A strong influence on this current is anarchist theorist Fredy Perlman (1934–1985), who in his influential work Against His-story, Against Leviathan depicts (in a kind of radicalized version of the “Myth of the Machine” of social critic Lewis Mumford [1895–1990]) the millennia-long history of the assault of the technological megamachine on humanity and the Earth. Perlman describes early tribal spirituality as a celebration of human existence and nature, and depicts the rise of the ancient despotism that destroyed these societies and replaced their spirituality with a repressive, patriarchal and authoritarian monotheism. He interprets the emergence of such spiritual movements as ancient Daoism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism as a rebellion against social hierarchy and the domination of nature, and describes the processes through which these spiritualities of freedom were transformed in religions of domination. He also outlines the history of anarchistic spiritual movements, including such striking examples as the Taoist Yellow Turbans, a revolutionary, egalitarian movement of the second century.

Similar themes are developed by David Watson, a leading contemporary critic of the technological mega-machine. Watson contends in Against the Megamachine that in modern societies an aura of sacredness is concentrated in the ego, in the system of technology, and in economic and political power, whereas primal societies have seen the sacred as pervading the self, the community and the world of nature. Primal spirituality was, he argues, an integral part of a system of egalitarian, libertarian and ecological social values. Furthermore, the participating consciousness of primal peoples conceives of humans as inseparable from larger natural and transhuman realities. Thus, primal peoples have had an anarchistic, non-hierarchical view of both society and nature that constitutes a powerful critique of modern industrial society and offers inspiration for future non-dominating ecological communities.
Ideas similar to those of Perlman and Watson inspire a rather large, vigorous and growing anarcho-primitivist or anti-civilization movement. The best-known theoretical spokesperson for this movement is John Zerzan, who presents a withering critique of civilization, industrialism, technology, the state, and even language and community. Anarcho-primitivist ideas often appear in such publications as Green Anarchy, Live Free or Die, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed and The Fifth Estate. Anarcho-primitivism plays an important role in the Earth Liberation Front, which practices sabotage in defense of nature, and in the much larger Earth First!, which is the most important direct action environmental organization. It is also a significant undercurrent in the anti-globalization movement.

Anarcho-primitivists see an inextricable relationship between civilization and the domination of humanity and nature. One of their central themes is the inevitability of the collapse of industrial society, an event that is often looked forward to with anticipation. Primitivists value all that remains free from the domination of civilization, including remaining wilderness areas and autonomous, spontaneous human activity. They look to tribal traditions and hunter-gatherer economies for examples of an ecological sensibility, a balanced relationship to nature, and an ethos of sharing and generosity. However, they do not in general propose a simple reversion to such previous social formations, which are sometimes criticized for alienated social practices. Many primitivists find inspiration in various nature-affirming spiritual traditions as an alternative to the narrow technical rationality of civilization. These include the spirituality of tribal people, various forms of nature mysticism, a general reverence for life and nature, pantheism, and neo-paganism.

Indeed, one finds a continuous and strong anarchist current in neo-paganism in general in both Britain and the United States in recent decades. In Britain there are important anarchist and neo-pagan tendencies within the large marginal subculture that centers around the anti-roads movement and defends sites that are of natural, cultural and spiritual significance. Both anti-roads activists and neo-pagans often form decentralized, non-hierarchical organizations practicing such anarchist principles as direct action and consensus decision making. Starhawk, one of the best-known neo-pagan theorists and writers, and an important figure in ecofeminism, has emphasized the connection between the nonviolent, egalitarian, cooperative, anti-patriarchal, anti-hierarchical, and nature-affirming values of anarchism and the pagan worldview and sensibility. The pioneering ecofeminist writer Susan Griffin has inspired thinking about these interconnections since her wide-ranging landmark work Woman and Nature, published in 1978. Even earlier, the well-known short-story writer and poet Grace Paley had incorporated feminist, anarchist and ecological themes in her works, which also expresses a deep but subtle spirituality of everyday life.

Hakim Bey, one of the most widely read contemporary anarchist writers, has developed an “ontological anarchism” that finds inspiration in esoteric spiritual traditions of many cultures, including Islamic mysticism, sorcery, shamanism, alchemy, and primordial myths of chaos. Bey’s anarchic sensibility and spirituality encompass everything related to joy, eros, creativity, play, and “the marvelous.” His concept of the Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ) as a sphere in which such realities can be experienced is one of the most influential ideas in contemporary anarchism and has stimulated interest in heretical, dissident and exotic anarchistic spiritualities.

There has also been considerable theoretical discussion of anarchism, nature and spirituality in the context of debates within social ecology. Such well-known exponents of social ecology as Murray Bookchin and Janet Biehl have attacked spiritual ecologies as forms of irrational mysticism that often produce social passivity and sometimes are linked to reactionary or fascist politics. On the other hand, proponents of the value of spiritual ecologies (such as David Watson, John Clark and Peter Marshall) have argued for the importance to an anarchist social ecology of spiritual values that are ecological, holistic, communitarian and socially emancipatory. It has been argued that some social ecologists have uncritically adopted a modernist, Promethean, and naively rationalistic view of the self and its relationship to the world, and that spiritual ecologies derived from Asian philosophies and indigenous worldviews, among other sources, can contribute to a more critical, dialectical, and implicitly anarchistic view of selfhood and the place of humanity in nature.
This brief survey is far from comprehensive, and a fuller account would encompass such topics as Quakerism and other forms of radical Protestantism, the Catholic Worker movement and other tendencies within the Catholic Left, the spirituality of anarchist intentional communities, and the many literary and artistic figures (including such notable examples as poet Allen Ginsberg and novelist Ursula LeGuin) who have had important insights relating to anarchism, spirituality and nature. However, from the examples discussed, it should be clear that anarchist thought and practice have encompassed a wide diversity of approaches to religion, spirituality, and nature. This multiplicity and divergence continues today. Many contemporary anarchists (especially in Europe and in organizations in the anarcho-syndicalist and anarcho-communist traditions) carry on the atheist, anti-religious, anti-clerical outlook of the classical anarchist movement. Others, including many of the young people who have been drawn to contemporary anarchism through direct action movements, have neither great interest in nor particular antipathy to religion and spirituality. However, an increasing number of political and cultural anarchists are developing an interest in spirituality, and many others have been drawn to anarchist political movements and social tendencies through an initial interest in anarchistic spirituality. Consequently, spirituality, and more particularly the nature-affirming spiritualities of Daoism, Buddhism, neo-Paganism, indigenous traditions, and various radical undercurrents within Western religion, play a significant role in anarchism today and can be expected to do so in the future. 

Further Reading

Bakunin, Michael. God and the State. New York: Dover, 1970.
Blake, William. The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake. David V. Erdman, ed. New York: Doubleday, 1988.
Chuang Tzu. Inner Chapters. New York: Vintage Books, 1974.
Cohn, Norman. The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990 (1961).
Clark, John and Camille Martin. Anarchy, Geography, Modernity: The Radical Social Thought of Elisιe Reclus. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2004.
Gandhi, Mohandas. The Essential Gandhi. Louis Fischer, ed. New York: Random House, 1963. Landauer, Gustav. For Socialism. St. Louis: Telos Press, 1978. Lao Tzu, “The Lao Tzu (Tao te Ching).” In Wing-Tsit Chan, ed. A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963, 139–76.
Lau, D.C. “Introduction” to Tao te Ching. Harmondsworth, UK and New York: Penguin Books, 1963, 7–52.
Lin-Chi. The Zen Teachings of Master Lin-Chi. Boston and London: Shambhala, 1993.
Marshall, Peter. Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: HarperCollins, 1992.
Ostergaard, Geoffrey and Melville Currell. The Gentle Anarchists: A Study of the Leaders of the Sarvodaya Movement For Non-Violent Revolution in India. Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1973.
Perlman, Fredy. Against His-story, Against Leviathan. Detroit: Black & Red, 1983.
Purchase, Graham. Evolution and Revolution: An Introduction to the Life and Thought of Peter Kropotkin. Petersham, Australia: Jura Books, 1996.
Snyder, Gary. The Real Work: Interviews & Talks 1964– 1979. New York: New Dimensions, 1980.
Starhawk. Truth or Dare: Encounters with Power, Authority and Mystery. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.
Vaneigem, Raoul. The Movement of the Free Spirit: General Considerations and Firsthand Testimony Concerning Some Brief Flowerings of Life in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and, Incidentally, Our Own Time. New York: Zone Books, 1994.
Watson, David. Against the Megamachine: Essays on Empire & Its Enemies. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia, 1998.
See also: Bioregionalism; Bioregionalism and the North American Bioregional Congress; Blake, William; Buddhism; Daoism; Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Front; Ellul, Jacques; Gandhi, Mohandas; Griffin, Susan; Kropotkin, Peter; Left Biocentrism; Le Guin, Ursula; Radical Environmentalism; Reclus, Elisιe; Snyder, Gary — and the Invention of Bioregional Spirituality and Politics; Social Ecology; Starhawk; Thoreau, Henry David.

source:http://www.religionandnature.com/about.htm

The post “Anarchism” from Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, by John Clark appeared first on Void Network.

Zen Anarchy? What could that be? Some new variations on the koans, those classic proto-dadaist Zen “riddles”?
What is the Sound of One Hand making a Clenched Fist?
If you see a Black Flag waving on the Flagpole, what moves? Does the flag move? Does the wind move? Does the revolutionary movement move?
What is your original nature — before May ‘68, before the Spanish Revolution, before the Paris Commune?

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Max_Cafard__Zen_Anarchy.html

The post Zen Anarchy by Max Cafard appeared first on Void Network.