Posted by: "Karthik Navayan" navayan@gmail.com
Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:07 am (PST)
Dear Brothers and Sisters
This is the first article of i read this kind, as per my openion there is no
radicla theory than buddism to solve the dalit problem, this author is an
hindi teacher, and this combat law is a human rights mezagine, why this both
elements showing interest to show alternatives to dalits against buddism,
can any body answer this???????
Karthik Navayan
Select Vol. March - 2003January - February 2003December - January
2003December
- January 2003October - November 2002August - September 2002June -
July 2002March
- April 2002Feburary - March 2004December - January 2004October - November
2003August - September 2003June - July 2003April - May 2003November -
December 2004September - October 2004June - July 2004April - May 2004December
- January 2005November - December 2005August - September 2005June - July
2005April - May 2005January - February 2005January - January 2005November -
December 2006September - October 2006June - July2006March - April 2006February
- March 2006November - December 2007September - October 2007July - August
2007May - June 2007March - April 2007January - February 2007September -
October 2008July - August 2008May - June 2008March - April 2008January -
February 2008
Home
Focus Stories
Features
Columns
------------ --------- ---------
Subscriptions
Advertising
Contributions
About Us
Map
*(c) Combat Law Publications
Pvt Ltd
Fourth Floor, Engineer House,
86 Bombay Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400 023.
E-mail: mailto:editor@combatlaw. org
| Printer-friendly
version
to a friend
*Search in this Site: *
The Tao of liberation
Many egalitarian philosophies and faiths were ignored as Buddhism was
adopted as a way of social emancipation by Dr BR Ambedkar. Ever since it has
been interpreted as a route to escape caste exploitation and slavery. Yet,
is neo-Buddhism the only option for Dalit liberation or are there other
radical alternatives in history.
Dinesh Ram
ow the time has come down to think over academically afresh on Ambedakar's
conversion to Buddhism. As we know, his alienation from Hindu Dharma was
mainly emphasised by the humiliation he faced in his efforts to bring about
reforms in Hinduism. Finally, he came to conclusion that Hinduism was not a
religion where reform was possible. Having realised deeply as an outsider
from Sanatan Dharma, he, in 1956, along with lakhs of his followers,
embraced Buddhism. By doing so, he kept his word that he would not die as a
Hindu, a vow that he made while addressing a gathering nearly two decades
before his conversion on October 13, 1935 at Yewala in Maharashtra.
Like before, he turned out to be the best vis-à-vis the expectations of his
people. But, it was not Dr Ambedakar only who felt strongly about the need
of a religion for his brethrens. This historic need was also felt by his
predecessors Jotirav Phule and contemporaries Swami Achhutanand and Mangu
Ram. Their respective efforts came into being as Sarvajanic Satya Dharma
(1889), Adi Hindu Dharma (1922) and Adi Dharma (1926). Apart from the
difference in their names, there is nothing contrasting among them and, in
fact, all of them are governed by common similarities. Their philosophy was
parallel to the Vedic philosophy. They denounced the theory of rebirth and
Varnashram. Though, Ambedkar's Buddhism came as a big jolt to these newly
born religions, its followers took it positively and hoped that it would
address the need of history. After 50 years down the line, the pathetic
scenario of conversion and advanced study of Buddhism are posing some
unavoidable questions before us.
Why did Baba Saheb not realise his desire to carry forward the religions
mentioned above? If these were not worth to be developed into an independent
religion, why did he not go for a new one? What circumstances compelled him
to pick up Buddhism, a nondescript religion in India, to address the need of
history; or, for that matter, did he make sure that there were no such
efforts made by Dalits before in history? If not, why did he not try to
discover this dimension of change? Why did he take the risk of choosing a
different path from his predecessors? These are the questions that strike
again and again the minds of Dalits. Before coming to the issue, we should
have a brief look at the criticisms that surfaced at the time of Ambedakar's
conversion, and its veracity too.
Immediately after Ambedkar's conversion to Buddhism, Veer Savarkar, a
propagator of Hindutva commented—"that Buddhist Ambedkar was Hindu Ambedkar.
He had embraced a non-vedic but Indian religious system within the orbit of
Hindutva," Another important reaction came from a Bhikshu, named Jeevak, in
his review of The Buddha and his Dhamma, published in 1959 in Mahbodhi
Patrika, in which he wrote—".. there is no means of telling where Ambedakar
is speaking for himself and where he is quoting from the (Pali) canon, for
he uses inverted commas only for conversations… The title should be changed
from the misleading one of 'The Buddha and his Dhamma' to that of 'Ambedkar
and His Dhamma, for he preaches non-Dharma as Dharma for motives of
political ambition and social reform." Though, Jeevak's last comment is a
little bit provocative and demands a serious discussion, today, we cannot
simply afford to ignore these two reactions. Even the present scenario does
not allow us to do so.
Dr. Dharam Veer, an eminent scholar, in his book Therigatha ki Striyan aur
Dr Ambedakar published recently, has justified these criticisms on many
grounds. He has drawn four important conclusions about Buddhism. 'First,
Buddha never opposed Varnashram Vyavastha. Second, he never criticised the
theory of rebirth. Third, Nirvan is nothing but a counter scheme of Moksh
and fourth, it does not have its own personal law'. In the light of facts,
he has argued impressively how Buddha was not averse to the theory of
rebirth and Varnashram. In support of his view on rebirth, he has quoted
extensively from Therigatha that how Theriyan has revealed about the life of
their previous births, especially Isidasi and Sumedha. Further, to make his
point more impressive and clear he has shown that the concept of Bodhisatva
is nothing but a package of ten rebirths that a practicing Buddhist has to
go through to acquire the ten powers, namely joy, purity, brightness etc.
respectively in each births, before becoming the Buddha or for that matter
attaining Nirvan. What about Jatak Kathayen? it's nothing but a narration of
the life of previous births of the Buddha.
There is no doubt that Buddha had faith in the theory of rebirth and
Varnashram. But the question is, how Baba Saheb has treated both the
theories in his book, The Buddha and his dhamma. He had his own
interpretation of these two theories
About Varnashram Dr. Dharam Veer has quoted Gautam Buddha's preaching itself
— "Vashisth: there are four Varna, Kshatriya, Brahman, Vaishya and Shudra."
None other than RS Sharma, a noted historian, has admitted that Buddha has
categorically accepted the existence of four Varna. In an interview he said
—"With a little bit change in the existing social order, putting Kshatriya
up and Brahmin down Buddha has acknowledged the four Varnas". Restraining
from going into factual details further more furnished by Dr Dharam Veer
regarding the duo theory, I would like to take only his two conclusions that
clinches the debate in favour of him. One, like Moksh and Kaivalya, Nirvan
has no meaning without rebirth. Rebirth is a problem and Nirvan is a
solution and two, Buddha allows shudras and untouchables in his Sangh, true,
but it has nothing to do with their sufferings or for that matter
Varnashram. By this much of generosity, in Dharm Veer's view, Buddha cannot
claim to be an anti- Varnashram. His point is that the problem is not lying
with the Sangh, but rather it's lying with the society. Tathagat Gautam has
no scheme to tackle the untouhability and discrimination existing on the
basis of caste in society. Suppose, a Bhikshu wants to join again the
society where will he go and what occupation he will adopt is identified to
his caste only. Likewise, Upasaks (Buddhist Grihasth) are not given any kind
of independent code of social conduct parallel to Hindu Grihasth, which
means they have no personal law of their own to regulate their social and
family lives. This Mahatma left their Upasaks to be governed by Hindu
personal law only. Thus, in spite of being Upasaks they are destined to
remain as Hindus only. That is why, Veer Savarkar's remark that 'Buddhist
Ambedkar is still in the orbit of Hindutva' matters lot.
There is no doubt that Buddha had faith in the theory of rebirth and
Varnashram. But the question is, how Baba Saheb has treated both the
theories in his book, The Buddha and his dhamma. He had his own
interpretation of these two theories. He tried to explain that Buddha's
rebirth theory is quite different from Hindu Dharma, but he did not try to
explain how Nirvan is different from Moksh, since both turn out to be a
process of setting the individual free from rebirth. Buddha's gesture in
allowing a person into his Sangh without the consideration of creed and
caste, in Ambedkar's assumption, as his anti-stand to Varnashram, does not
appeal to the mind, because it was not going to solve the problem existing
in society in any way. Here, Dr Dharam Veer has rightly pointed out that if
he had not allowed the lower castes into his Sangh he would not have seen
his Sangh getting so large and popular. This concession proves only to be a
strategy of spreading Buddhism easily parallel to Brahminism. Recently, an
article, written by Adele Fiske and Christoph Emmrich jointly has shown that
how Baba Saheb had treated the text of Buddhism. They are of the view that
Baba Saheb applied three methods to explain it:
" (1)Omission- for brevity, for simplification, for the expurgation of
miracles, for the expurgation of doctrine. (2) Change in emphasis and (3)
Change in the sense."
Is there any need to mention here about where and what Baba Saheb changed in
the Buddhist text? For Dalits, the theory of rebirth and Varnashram is
enough for basic understanding. How can then one say that Bhikshu Jeevak
misunderstood Buddhist Ambedkar?
During his movement, Jotirav Phule realised the need of a religion to mark
the ceremony of birth, marriage and death. Just a year before his death as
an achievement towards this direction, he rechristened the Satya Sodhak
Samaj as a Sarvajanic Satya Dharma only. It could not take off because a
majority of his followers were averse to this idea. Swami Achhutanand, a
great social reformer from north India laid the foundation of Adi Hindu
Dharma in 1922. There were three movements existing in the form of
Adi-Andhra, Adi-Karnataka and Adi-Dravin in south India too. In the
presidentship of Mangu Ram Adi Dharma took the lead in Punjab. In order to
give it a final shape its first meeting was held on 11th-12th June 1926, at
the residence of Mangu Ram in Hoshiyarpur district. There, it was declared
that they were the followers of Kabir, Raidas and Namdev etc. They were all
Gurus of their religion and Adi Prakash was adopted as their scripture. The
resolution passed in the meeting bears the elements of a systematic personal
law too. They denounced the theory of rebirth and Varnashram. By their
continued efforts they succeeded in getting it recorded in the census of
1931 as a separate and independent religion. Unfortunately, 'Poona pact'
came as a second major jolt for this newly born religion. It snatched the
official status of Adi Dharma.
Whatever were the pressures on Baba Saheb to accept Buddhism, he was very
much cautious about it. His concluding line in the preface of The Buddha and
his Dhamma speaks itself — "I hope my questions will excite the readers to
come and make their contribution to their solution." He came to this
conclusion after questioning the reasons behind the Pravajya, the concept of
four Arya Satya, Bhikshu Sangh and the theory of rebirth and karma. Now time
is ripe to think over whether Buddhism is a halt or a destination for
Dalits?
Nirgun saints from medieval period like Kabir, Raidas and Namdev all sang
the song of equality and human dignity. They too, were against the idea of
rebirth and varnashram. It is heartening to see that the parents of Baba
Saheb were greatly influenced by Kabir, the most prominent among them, who
rejected outrightly the theory of rebirth and Varnasram. He asked
confidently that ko babhan ko suda (who is Brahmin and who is Shudra?) and
sang melodiously Bahuri nahi awana yah desh/jo-jo gaye bahuri nahi
aye/pathwat/ nahi sandesh. (There is no come back again to this land/whoever
gone neither came back/ nor sent any message). Baba Saheb imbibed the
influence of Kabir from his parents during his childhood. If he could stand
firmly against the philosophy of rebirth and Varnashram or for that matter
inequality of all kind it was due to the teachings of nirgun saints, that he
came to contact through his family. No doubt, his profound love for humanity
was inspired by the spiritual songs of nirgun saints.
No Punarjanm and no Varnashram, are parallel anti philosophies to the Vedic
philosophy. Is Kabir the originator of this philosophy? If we admit the view
of Dr. Dharam Veer, the answer is "no". For him, Kabir turns out to be the
best follower of this tradition of thoughts of his age only. Before him,
there was a philosopher known as Makkhali Ghoshal who created Ajivak Dharm
around 600 B.C., and he is the father of this philosophy. A renowned
historian, A.L Basham, wrote a book independently on Ajivak Dharma named,
'History and Doctrines of the Ajivaks: A Vanished Indian Religion;' and has
given a good detail about it. The basic philosophy of Makkhali is known as
determinism. In the text of Budhism and Jainism it was ignored and even
denounced saying that determinism is nothing but mere fatalism, which means
that everything has already been decided by fate. Dr. Dharam Veer loves to
disagree with this explanation. He makes his point that, for Makkhali
Goshal, life and death are determined and cannot be changed. It begins from
birth and ends with death. Thus, he killed the idea of rebirth and Karma or
for that matter Varnashram strictly. Today, Dr. Dharam Veer has come out
with the best reliable interpretation of Ajivak doctrines.
This tradition of thought has been coming down uninterrupted since the
ancient to modern period in the form of Makkhali, Kabir and Achhutanand,
resulting in an unbroken chain. The three modern religious preceptors
mentioned above, could not discover their ancient Philosopher Makkhali
Goshal but while giving birth to a new religion they were fully stuck to
their own tradition. In contrary, Baba Saheb took a risk of deviating from
his own ancient tradition. But the question remains, was he in the
possession of knowledge about his tradition or for that matter Ajivak Dharma
while accepting Buddhism? The answer here is affirmative. He not only knew
about Makkhali Goshal but also unfortunately joined Buddha to criticise him
for his theory of determinism, comparing it to fatalism. What went wrong
with Baba Saheb here? He came to know about Makkhali through Buddhist
literature. He did not try to make his own assessment about him. How long
could Makkhali Goshal opposing Buddha demand to be treated objectively in
the latter's literature! Here, Dr. Dharam Veer's comment that Baba Saheb was
trapped by the strategy of Buddhist Scholars is very much justified, if we
keep an understanding of historical silence in our mind. What about the
saints of medieval period? It goes without saying that ideologically Baba
Saheb was very close to them. Expressing his high regards for them, he
devoted his book, The Untouchable: Who Were They and How They Became
Untouchable, to Nandnar, Ravidas and Chokhamela, the great saints belonging
to untouchable community.
Is there any need to mention here about where and what Baba Saheb changed in
the Buddhist text? For Dalits, the theory of rebirth and Varnashram is
enough for basic understanding. How can then one say that Bhikshu Jeevak
misunderstood Buddhist Ambedkar?
Whatever were the pressures on Baba Saheb to accept Buddhism, he was very
much cautious about it. His concluding line in the preface of The Buddha and
his Dhamma speaks itself — "I hope my questions will excite the readers to
come and make their contribution to their solution." He came to this
conclusion after questioning the reasons behind the Pravajya, the concept of
four Arya Satya, Bhikshu Sangh and the theory of rebirth and karma. Now the
time has come to think over whether Buddhism is a halt or a destination for
Dalits?
For Dr. Dharam Veer, Buddhism was an experiment. So, while accepting
Buddhism, Baba Saheb never left his own tradition of thought. He kept on
standing there firmly, that is why he dared to mould Buddhism wherever it
did not come to his terms. Now the biggest question before Dalit community
is, if Buddhism fails to capture the imagination of Dalits what should the
Dalits do? Should they go for a new alternative? If yes, then how? And the
second important question is, if there is an alternative available in
history as Ajivak Dharma, what should Dalits do? Are they prepared to accept
it?
REFERENCE
1. Bali L.R., Dr. Ambedakar: Jivan aur Darshan, 1990, Bhim Patrika
Publications, Jalandhar, Punjab-3, pp.214-15
2. Gore, M.S., Non-Brahmin movement in Maharashtra, 1989, Segment Book
Distributors, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-48, p. 23
3. Jigyasu, Chandrika Prasad, Adi Hindu Andolan Ke Pravartak Shri 108
Swami Achhutanand Ji Harihar, 1960, Hindu Samaj Sudhar Karyalay, Shayadat
Ganj,Lucknow, PP.9-20
4. Muggovalia, Mangu Ram, Adi Dharm Mandal Report-1931 (Tr. C.L. Chumber
in Hindi), Published by 47A, Dada Nagar Model Town Jalandhar, Punjab, p. 4
5. Keer, Dhananjay, Dr. Ambedakar Life And Mission, 2003, Popular
Prakashan Pvt. Ltd., Tardev, Mumbai-34 p. 503
6. Dr. Dharam Veer, Therigatha Ki Striyan aur Dr. Ambedakar, 2005, Vani
Prakashan, Delhi-02, p.152
7. Ibid, p.38
8. Dr. Vimalkirti, Therigatha, 2003,Samyak Prakashan, new Delhi-63, pp.
257- 269
9. Dr. Dharam Veer, Kabir ke kuchh aur alochak, 2002,Vani Prakashan, New
Delhi-02, no. 54.
10. Shishir, Karmendu, Navjagaran Aur Sanskriti, 2000, 71, Adhar
Prakashan, Panchkula Haryana, p. 171
11. Dr. Dharam Veer, Therigatha Ki Striyan aur Dr. Ambedakar, 2005,Vani
Prakashan, Daryaganj New Delhi-2, p.58
12. Ibid. p.152
13. Gore, M.S., Non-Brahmin movement in Maharashtra 1989, Segment Book
Distributors, Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-48, p.23
14. Jigyasu, Chandrika Prasad, Adi Hindu Andolan Ke Pravartak Shri 108
Swami Achhutanand Ji Harihar, 1960, Hindu Samaj Sudhar Karyalay, Shayadat
Ganj, Lucknow, PP.9-20
15. Ram, Nandu, Dalits Movement in India: A Macro-Sociological Analysis,
Nation- building in India: Culture, Power and Society, edited by Anand
Kumar, 1999, Radiant Publisher, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19, p. 251
16. Muggovalia, Mangu Ram, Adi Dharm Mandal Report 1931 (Tr. C.L. Chumber
in Hindi), Published by 47A, Dada Nagar Model Town Jalandhar, Punjab. Page
no. 6
17. Ibid.
18. Dr. Dharam Veer, Kabir ke kuchh aur alochak, 2002,Vani Prakashan,
Daryaganj New Delhi-02, p. 55
19. Dr. Dharam Veer, Therigatha Ki Striyan aur Dr. Ambedakar, 2005, Vani
Prakashan, Daryaganj New Delhi-02, p.130.
20. Ibid, p. 124
21. Dr. Baba Sahab Ambedakar's Writing and Speeches, voll. 11, 1992,
Education Department, Government of Maharashtra -32, (Preface)
***The author teaches Hindi at Bhagat Singh College, University of Delhi*
--
Battula Karthik Navayan, Advocate, 18-434/3 Thirumala Colony Shadnagar,
Mahaboobnagar District, 509216-AP Cell:09347506219,
email:navayan@gmail. com
http://karthiknavay an.blogspot. com/
No comments:
Post a Comment