MAHATMA Gandhi considered religion, spirituality, morality, and ethics, in fact, all activities of life, whether personal or public, to be integrated into the search for self-realization. He said in the introduction to his Autobiography; “What I want to achieve... what I have been striving and pining to achieve for 30 years—is self-realization, to see God face to face, to attain Moksha.” In this search, he felt instinctively inspired by the life and teaching of Lord Buddha. He did not see Buddhism as a new religion but, historically, as the most daring effort made to reform and revitalize the sanatan Hindu tradition of India. He saw it as the most revolutionary attempt to propagate the doctrine of ahimsa, or nonviolence, in its widest sense. His concept of Truth as God and ahimsa as a sense of identification with all creation, attained through self-purification, was in line with the teaching of Lord Buddha. He wrote at the end of his Autobiography; “... a perfect vision of Truth can only follow a complete realization of ahimsa... identification with everything that lives is impossible without selfpurification...
God can never be realized by one who is not pure of heart.” Did not Siddhartha also say when quitting his family and palace: This golden prison where my heart lives caged, To find truth, which henceforth I will seek, For all men’s sake, until truth be found. Since there is hope for man only in man, And none hath sought for this as I will seek, Who cast away my world to save the world.1 The first two religious books that Gandhiji studied during his student days in London (1888–1891) were Sir Edwin Arnold’s English translation of the Bhagavad Gita—The Song Celestial (1885)—and The Light of Asia (1879)—which depicted the life and philosophy of Gautama Buddha. He writes in his Autobiography; “I read it [The Light of Asia] MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM with even greater interest than I did the Bhagavad Gita. Once I had begun it, I could not leave off... My young mind tried to unify the teaching of the Gita, The Light of Asia, and the Sermon on the Mount. That renunciation was the highest form of religion appealed to me greatly.” Much later in India, while denying that his ‘philosophy’ was an indifferent mixture of Tolstoy and Buddha, he had written in 1925 that he owed much to Tolstoy and Buddha but he fancied that his philosophy represented the true meaning of the teaching of the Gita, and further that the source of his inspiration was of no consequence as long as he stood for unadulterated truth.
Hinduism and Buddhism During his long formative period in South Africa (1893–1914), where he organized a struggle against racial discrimination, and evolved his theory and practice of satyagraha, he made his first statements in appreciation of Lord Buddha and his teachings. In an ‘open letter’ addressed to the Members of the Legislative Council and Assembly at Durban [1894], while asserting the greatness of India, he wrote; “Add to this the facts that India has produced the Buddha, whose life some consider the best and the holiest by a mortal, and to some second only to that lived by Jesus.” In Durban, he once upset his hostess when he said that Gautama’s
compassion was extended to all living beings while one failed to notice this love in the life of Jesus. He repeated this conviction in a letter written on July 2, 1913: “It is difficult to say who was the greatest among Krishna, Rama, the Buddha, the Jesus, etc.... In point of character alone possibly the Buddha was the greatest. But who can say?” Speaking in a lecture on ‘Hinduism’ in Johannesburg on March 4, 1905,5 he explained the indissoluble link between Hinduism and Buddhism. Gautama Buddha came into this world when Hinduism had become too rigid. He taught that animal sacrifice was despiritualizing and that toleration of all life was the highest form of love. Buddhism was to Hinduism what Protestantism was to Catholicism; a movement of reform. The jealousy of the Hindu priesthood having been aroused, Buddhism as a formal creed declined but its spirit remained in India and
actuated every principle professed by the Hindus. Gandhiji reiterated this view later in his life. Paying homage to the Buddha for his renunciation of worldly attachments, Gandhi wrote in the Indian Opinion on July 7, 1907, how in the sixth century B.C., Lord Buddha, after “suffering many privations, attained self-realization... and spread ideas of spiritual welfare among the people.”6 In letters written on January 28, 1909, July 19, 1913, and
MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM June 10, 1914, he praised how the Buddha had left his wife and parents and brought deliverance to them as well; and how they were admired by the world for this act of sacrifice and also how his own freedom from attachment with Kasturba (his wife) permitted him to serve her better. In a letter dated August 23, 1911, he praised his own state of voluntary poverty, as this was the state of the Buddha and the way to self-realization. After returning to India in 1915, until his imprisonment in 1922, Mahatma Gandhi had led local satyagrahi in Champaran, Ahmedabad, and Kaira, an all-India movement against the Rowlatt Bills, and the noncooperation movement
Saturday, July 25, 2009
REVIVAL 2
During this period, his first public reference to the Buddha’s teachings was made in his speech at the Missionary Conference
in Madras, given on February 14, 1916. He said that Hinduism
was a mighty force because of its underlying swadeshi spirit and that it
was erroneous to think that it had driven out Buddhism; it had in fact
absorbed it. He repeated in a speech given on October 21, 1917 that
Buddhism cherished the same ideals as Hinduism.8
In a number of articles written during this period,9 he said that it was
unmanly and against the Buddha’s teachings to be afraid to die because
we are unable strike. Both the Buddha and Christ had taught us how to
nonviolently resist what was wrong by direct action, taken with truth
and love, against the arrogant priesthood, the hypocrites, and the Pharisees.
The Buddha, “with a lamb on his shoulder,” did not spare the
cruel Brahmins engaged in animal sacrifice, but he was “all love at
heart.” Says Gandhiji, “Who am I in comparison with these? Even so I
aspire to be their equal in love in this very life.” During an earlier visit
to India in 1901, too he had spoken against “this cruel form of worship”
to a friend in Calcutta but was told, “The sheep don’t feel anything.”
Writes Gandhiji, “I thought of the story of Buddha but I also saw that
the task was beyond my capacity.”10
In a speech he gave on July 27, 1916, he said that had the Buddha and
Christ not spent years in the wilderness preparing themselves for their
mission, they would not be “what they are.” Again in his famous speech
given at the Muir College Economic Society in Allahabad on December
22, 1916, he said that “the Buddha, Jesus, and other great religious leaders
... had deliberately embraced poverty,” and we would only go downhill
if we make “materialistic craze as our goal.”11
Practice of the Buddha’s Teachings
After his release from jail in 1924, Gandhiji delivered speeches on Buddha
Jayanti at Bombay on May 18, 1924, and at Calcutta on May 7,
MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM 63
1925, in which he explained that his book-knowledge of Buddhism was
confined to Sir Edwin Arnold’s The Light of Asia, which he had
“devoured from page to page” and “with deep veneration,” and one or
two other books. He said, “Many friends consider that I am expressing
in my own life the teachings of Buddha. I accept their testimony... I am
trying my level best to follow these teachings.” He emphasized the following
points in those speeches:12
(a) He drew “no distinction between the essential teachings of Hinduism
and Buddhism.” The Buddha had “lived Hinduism in his own
life.” The “blind Brahmins” had “rejected his reforms because they were
selfish.” But the masses, who are “philosophers in action,” had recognized
in the Buddha the true exponent of their own faith. And being
himself one of the masses, he found that “Buddhism in nothing but Hinduism
reduces to practice in terms of the masses.” Buddhism was not
banished from India. Its every essential characteristic was translated into
action in India much more perhaps than in countries that “nominally
profess Buddhism.”
(b) The Buddha had taught Hinduism “not to take but to give life.
True sacrifice was not of others but of self.” He made the Vedas a living
word but “the priests clung to the letter and missed the spirit.”
(c) The reformation that the Buddha attempted has not yet had a fair
trial. The Buddha taught us to “trust in the final triumph of truth and
love.” He “lived what he taught.” “Each one of us should see how much
of the Buddha’s message of mercy and piety we have translated into our
lives.”
(d) The Buddha was not an atheist. Buddhism teaches humility and
the masses approach God in all humility.
During the same period, in various other references also, he continued
to insist that Buddhism was a “mighty reform in Hinduism. Buddhism
rightly insisted on internal purity. Its appeal went straight to the heart. It
broke down arrogant assumptions of superiority.”13 The Buddha
renounced pleasures as they “become painful.” To have anything was a
torture to him.14 He said that Buddhists were not atheists nor agnostics
as we all may have different definitions of God: “God is that indefinable
something which we all feel but which we do not know.”15
In 1926, Gandhiji delivered a series of discourses on the Gita in the
Sabarmati ashram in which he explained that there was no difference
between the nirvana mentioned by Lord Buddha and the nirvana of the
Gita. They referred to the same state. He related how once the Buddha
had fainted while fasting and a woman placed a few drops of milk on his
lips... “Did the milk rouse his appetite? No; on the contrary, he realized
64 MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM
God soon after.” The Buddha’s nirvana was only “a seeming inertness,”
not shunya [nothingness]. It is “perfect disinterestedness.”16 He had written
in a letter earlier that he drew “no distinction between Buddhistic
nirvana and the Brahama nirvana of Shankara,” as he believed in the
complete annihilation of one’s individually as being “an absolute condition
of perfect joya and peace.”17
He wrote on January 4, 1926 that he wanted to propagate ahimsa as a
religion of the brave kshatriyas, as the Buddha, Mahavira, Rama, and
Krishna, all votaries of ahimsa, were kshatriyas. “Ahimsa is the extreme
limit of forgiveness. But forgiveness is the quality of the brave. Ahimsa
is impossible without fearlessness.” Soon after returning from Ceylon,
he said at Sabarmati that forgiveness was a quality of the soul, and that
the Buddha had asked us to “conquer anger by non-anger.” And nonanger
meant “the supreme virtue of charity or love.”18
As time passed, Gandhiji tended to link even more issues with the
teaching of Lord Buddha. During his Presidency of the Belgaum Congress
in December 1924, he had unequivocally responded to a Ceylonese
deputation’s plea that possession of the historic Buddha Gaya
temple should be vested in the Buddhists and called the reported animal
sacrifice in it a “sacrilege.”19 In a speech at Gaya, he said, if untouchability
was not removed, the Hindu society, and to him it included Buddhists,
might all perish altogether.20 Again, the contrast between the
palaces built in New Delhi for wealthy people and the miserable huts of
the laborers reminded him of the shock received by Gautama Buddha
when he saw such miseries and which also transformed his life and the
fortunes of the world.21
Buddhism and the World Religions
During his two-week visit to Ceylon in November 1927, he addressed a
large number of Buddhist, Hindu, and Christian groups, as well as other
public forums. In every speech he referred to the Buddha’s life and
teaching. The main points covered by him in those speeches are summarized
below:22
(a) The Great Master had taught the Right Path. Its first maxim is
truth, and the second “to love all that lives,” and it teaches “personal
purity of life.” This is what we have to learn, even in a college.
(b) As for the return of the Buddha Gaya temple to Buddhists, he had
done everything humanly possible but there were several obstacles preventing
this from happening.
(c) Some people had “accused” him of “being a follower of the Buddha”
and of “spreading Buddhistic teachings under the guise of sanatan
MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM 65
Hinduism.” But he felt proud of it and he owed much to the inspiration
he had derived from the Buddha’s life.
(d) The Buddha’s teaching formed an integral part of Hinduism,
which “owes on eternal debt of gratitude to that great teacher,” who was
“one of the greatest Hindu reformers,” a “Hindu of Hindus.” He never
rejected Hinduism but broadened its base. He made some of the words
of the Vedas yield meanings more relevant to the age. What Hinduism
did not assimilate was not an essential part of his teaching. In fact, his
teaching was “not assimilated in its fullness” outside of India.
(e) For a complete study of Buddhism they should study Sanskrit
scriptures and observe the five yamas [vows], viz., celibacy, truth, ahimsa,
non-stealing, and non-possession.
(f) The Buddha, Mohamed, and Jesus were Asiatic. All that is permanent
in Hindu culture is also found in their teachings. If we search for
the greatest common measure in all great faiths, we come to the very
simple factor, viz., “to be truthful and nonviolent.”
(g) The contention that the Buddha did not believe in God “contradicts
the very central fact of the Buddha’s teaching.” He justly rejected
the “base things,” like animal sacrifice being done in the name of God.
He “redeclared the eternal and unalterable existence of the moral government
of this universe... the law was God himself.” From this also
arose the confusion about the meaning of nirvana. It is the “extinction of
all that is base in us... vicious in us... corrupt and corruptible in us.” It is
not the “dead peace of the grave” but the “living happiness of a soul.”
(h) The Buddha had an “exacting regard for all life, be it ever so
low.” But as Buddhism traveled abroad, “sacredness of animal life” had
not that sense, as if we could avoid the effects of our own acts. “It is an
arrogant assumption to say that human beings are lords and masters of
lower creation. On the contrary, being endowed with greater things in
life, they are trustees of the lower animal kingdom.” Further, “If animals
could not be sacrificed to the gods above, how could they be sacrificed
to the epicure in us?” The Buddha wanted us to sacrifice ourselves, our
lust and worldly ambition, and not other life.
(i) “The Buddha renounced every worldly happiness, because he
wanted to share with the whole world his happiness, which was to be
had by men who sacrificed and suffered in search of truth. A time is
coming when those who are in the mad rush today of multiplying their
wants, vainly thinking that they add to the real substance, real knowledge
of the world, will retrace their steps and say: What have we done?”
(j) The Buddha’s spirit lies in treating life not as “a bundle of enjoyments
and privileges, but a bundle of duties and services.” That is what
66 MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM
separates man from the beast. Hence, the ‘drinking’ habit was “totally
against the spirit of the Buddha.”
(k) Untouchability, being practiced in Ceylon also, was “wholly
against the spirit of the Buddha,” who had “abolished every distinction
of superiority and inferiority.”
(l) To render something unto the Buddha for his “great message of
mercy,” they must wear khadi.
Buddhism and Nonviolence
Gandhiji visited Burma [Myanmar], another Buddhist country, in March
1929, and spoke at a number of public and religious meetings in which
he emphasized the following points:23
(a) He felt honored when Buddhists in Ceylon, Burma, China, and
Japan claimed him as their own, because “Buddhism is to Hinduism
what Protestantism is to Roman Catholicism, only in a much stronger
light.”
(b) Speaking in a pagoda he said he was glad that the Phoongys
[Buddhist monks] were leading the political movement in Burma, but
they must remain “pure beyond suspicion” and combine with the movement
“great wisdom and great ability,” and may Lord Buddha’s spirit
guide everyone in the movement.
(c) They had “one of the greatest truths that the world can ever have
uttered by one of the greatest teachers of mankind, viz. ahimsa.” They
should put it to practice in every act of life. Used wisely, it could
become their “own saving and the saving of mankind.” It was the most
active force in the world. “It radiates life and light and peace and happiness.”
But it appeared that this message had “only touched but the surface
of the heart of Burma.” For example, “when the law of ahimsa
reigns supreme, there should be no jealously, no unworthy ambition. No
crime.” But the incidence of murder was common in Burma. India perhaps
had taken the Buddha’s message more fully.
(d) The Buddha undertook tapasya, i.e., penance, to overcome the
oppression, injustice, and darkness around him. The priests sitting there
must also lead others through penance, bringing out the spirit of the
scriptures. Then they would realize that taking animal life, smoking,
drinking, and being afraid are inconsistent with the Buddha’s doctrine of
love.
(e) Those following the Buddha’s teaching could not afford to pass a
single moment in idleness.
Later, he could not comprehend how the followers of Buddha could
give themselves up to savagery during the riots in Burma in 1938, in
MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM 67
which even the priests took an active part. Similarly, when the Burmese
leader Gen. U Aung San and his comrades were assassinated in 1947, he
considered it “a great tragedy.” He said that the terrorists who committed
such political murders, considered the victims to be criminals. But
one who thus took the law into his hands, “commits violence against the
people.” He enunciated a vital principle of public life: “Only an elected
Assembly can dispense with the obligation to be nonviolent.”24
After returning from Burma, Gandhiji was again thrown into the hectic
arena of politics, the campaign against untouchability, and a series of
satyagrahi and imprisonments. After his release in 1944 and until his
assassination, he was ever more deeply involved in the post-war political
and communal problems in the country. But even during these periods,
he continued to make frequent references to the Buddha and his teachings.
In 1929, he had written and said that prophets such as the Buddha had
preserved their religion “by breaking down bad traditions.” They had
stood alone but had “living faith in themselves and their God.” He reiterated
this statement in 1932 and said that they had stood against the
world but “were humanity incarnate. To have such humility, one must
have faith in oneself and in God.” He explained to N.K. Bose in 1934
that in the teaching of prophets like the Buddha, there was a permanent
portion and an impermanent one, the latter being suited to the needs of
their time. As we try to sustain this latter portion, we find so much distortion
in religious practice today.25
While propagating the virtue of ‘bread labor’ or manual work, Gandhiji
said that Jesus was a carpenter and the Buddha lived on charity—
however, “a roving ascetic” also had a lot of manual work to do. He
himself preferred the Gita’s gospel of work to that of contemplation and
was “never attracted by the idea of complete renunciation,” but said that
there “may be some like the Buddha whose mere thoughts would influence
the world.”26
The Efficacy of Prayer
He was a firm believer in the efficacy of ‘prayer.’ He said that the Buddha,
Jesus, and Mohamed had found illumination through prayer and
could not possibly live without it. In a dialogue with Charles Fabri, a
Buddhist, who thought that Buddhism had taught him that some spirits
could do without belief in God, Gandhiji had said; “But Buddhism is
one long prayer.” Those who could not pray should be humble and not
limit “the real Buddha.” Skepticism and intellectual conception do not
help in critical periods of life. But “to know the meaning of God or
68 MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM
prayer,” one must “reduce oneself to a cipher.” In difficult times when
spiritual conception alone helps, then we have a glimpse of God. “That
is the prayer.” Buddha, Jesus, and Mohamed had also fasted to see God
face to face.27
A Japanese sadhu who came in 1935 to Gandhiji’s Wardha ashram,
had stayed on and the evening prayer always commenced with his
mantra ‘nam myo ho renge kyo,’ meaning “I bow to the Buddha, the
giver of true religion.” When World War II broke out and the police
were taking him away, he recited this mantra and left his drum with
Gandhiji. Since then, morning and evening prayers at Sevagram ashram
would start with the same mantra as a reminder of Sadhu Keshav’s
“purity and single-eyed devotion.”28
Gandhiji reiterated that, along with Vivekanand, he believed that
“Shankara never drove Buddhism from India for he was himself a
prachhanna [in disguise] Buddha. He merely rid it of the bad things that
were creeping into it, and prevented its alienation from Hinduism.”29 In
any case, the substance and purity of the Buddha’s teaching had been
best preserved in India. As “a Hindu of Hindus, he [the Buddha] gave a
new orientation to Hinduism.” Nor is Buddhism realized, said Gandhiji,
“by getting to know its externals.” In a letter to the Dalai Lama, he
wrote that he had asked his friends to give up “secretiveness and superstition
if Buddhism is to live.”30
One of the many things for which Gandhiji revered the Buddha was
“his utter abolition of untouchability, that is the distinction between high
and low.”31 Had not the Buddha said;
Make all fresh kin. There is no caste in blood
Which runneth of one hue, nor caste in tears,
Which trickle salt with all; neither cometh man
To birth with tilak-mark stamped on the brow,
To sacred thread on neck. Who doth right deeds
Is twice-born, who doeth ill deeds vile.32
Similarly, while propagating khadi, he had emphasized the Buddha’s
concern for the poor.33
Practice of Nonviolence
He said in an interview [1937] that the effects of the Buddha’s nonviolent
action “persist and are likely to grow with age,” while those of
Hitler’, Mussolini’s and Stalin’s violence though immediately visible
were transitory. He had the greatest veneration for the Buddha, one of
the greatest preachers and warriors of peace. The Buddha—and 600
MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM 69
years later Jesus—had taught us the love that was “essentially a social
and collective virtue,” not a mere personal one. In another context, he
said that in the Buddha’s time, the present day type of politics did not
exist and hence the Congress experiment in practicing nonviolence in
the political sphere was a new one.34
When he saw a leaflet published by the Madras Provincial War Committee
saying that World War II was being waged for “great ideals,”
including that for peace, “as exemplified in the teaching of Lord Buddha
and Mahatma Gandhi,” he asked for this clause to be removed “as being
untrue.” He said, “If Lord Buddha was on earth in the body at this
moment, such a war would be impossible” and “Ashoka is perhaps the
only instance of a great king having voluntarily abandoned war.”35
When communal violence erupted in Bihar in 1947, he was so
anguished that “the hallowed land of Lord Buddha and King Janak and
Lord Rama” was seeing the “devilish dance of violence.” It could only
retrieve its ancient glory by means of nonviolence. He commented similarly
about corrupt practices in Bihar.36
Gandhiji could not subscribe to the doctrine of Asia for the Asiatics.
There was the imprint of Buddhistic influence on the whole of Asia
including India. Asia has to relearn the Buddha’s message and deliver it
to the world. The flower of nonviolence, which seemed to be withering,
must come to full bloom. Later addressing the Inter Asian Relations
Conference in 1947, he said that wisdom had come to the West from the
East—the Buddha and other prophets all had come from the East. “The
West is today pining for wisdom. It is despairing of the multiplication of
the atom bomb ... It is up to you to tell the world of its wickedness and
sin,”—that was the teaching of our teachers.37
Finally, during the last period of his life with violence and hatred prevailing
all round, Gandhiji denied that he could be “a modern Buddha.”
The Buddha and the later prophets “had gone the way they went in order
to stop wars.” They could establish peace and happiness. The fact that
he could not do so was “proof positive” that he had no such power. He
was no divine person since “I am not able to establish peace.”38
Closing Remarks
Here, I have attempted to give a summary of what Mahatma Gandhi had
said and written about Lord Buddha’s life and teaching. He revered the
Buddha and was deeply committed to follow the essence of his teaching.
He saw the Buddha as one of the greatest reformers of Hindu dharma
who taught us truth and ahimsa, self-purity, sacrifice and renunciation,
and faith in the ultimate morality, which Gandhiji called God. He taught
70 MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM
us to realize the unity of all life and the truth of what we are through our
actions and selfless service, through humility and piety. In spirit, Gandhiji
had followed in Lord Buddha’s footsteps.
Notes
1
in Madras, given on February 14, 1916. He said that Hinduism
was a mighty force because of its underlying swadeshi spirit and that it
was erroneous to think that it had driven out Buddhism; it had in fact
absorbed it. He repeated in a speech given on October 21, 1917 that
Buddhism cherished the same ideals as Hinduism.8
In a number of articles written during this period,9 he said that it was
unmanly and against the Buddha’s teachings to be afraid to die because
we are unable strike. Both the Buddha and Christ had taught us how to
nonviolently resist what was wrong by direct action, taken with truth
and love, against the arrogant priesthood, the hypocrites, and the Pharisees.
The Buddha, “with a lamb on his shoulder,” did not spare the
cruel Brahmins engaged in animal sacrifice, but he was “all love at
heart.” Says Gandhiji, “Who am I in comparison with these? Even so I
aspire to be their equal in love in this very life.” During an earlier visit
to India in 1901, too he had spoken against “this cruel form of worship”
to a friend in Calcutta but was told, “The sheep don’t feel anything.”
Writes Gandhiji, “I thought of the story of Buddha but I also saw that
the task was beyond my capacity.”10
In a speech he gave on July 27, 1916, he said that had the Buddha and
Christ not spent years in the wilderness preparing themselves for their
mission, they would not be “what they are.” Again in his famous speech
given at the Muir College Economic Society in Allahabad on December
22, 1916, he said that “the Buddha, Jesus, and other great religious leaders
... had deliberately embraced poverty,” and we would only go downhill
if we make “materialistic craze as our goal.”11
Practice of the Buddha’s Teachings
After his release from jail in 1924, Gandhiji delivered speeches on Buddha
Jayanti at Bombay on May 18, 1924, and at Calcutta on May 7,
MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM 63
1925, in which he explained that his book-knowledge of Buddhism was
confined to Sir Edwin Arnold’s The Light of Asia, which he had
“devoured from page to page” and “with deep veneration,” and one or
two other books. He said, “Many friends consider that I am expressing
in my own life the teachings of Buddha. I accept their testimony... I am
trying my level best to follow these teachings.” He emphasized the following
points in those speeches:12
(a) He drew “no distinction between the essential teachings of Hinduism
and Buddhism.” The Buddha had “lived Hinduism in his own
life.” The “blind Brahmins” had “rejected his reforms because they were
selfish.” But the masses, who are “philosophers in action,” had recognized
in the Buddha the true exponent of their own faith. And being
himself one of the masses, he found that “Buddhism in nothing but Hinduism
reduces to practice in terms of the masses.” Buddhism was not
banished from India. Its every essential characteristic was translated into
action in India much more perhaps than in countries that “nominally
profess Buddhism.”
(b) The Buddha had taught Hinduism “not to take but to give life.
True sacrifice was not of others but of self.” He made the Vedas a living
word but “the priests clung to the letter and missed the spirit.”
(c) The reformation that the Buddha attempted has not yet had a fair
trial. The Buddha taught us to “trust in the final triumph of truth and
love.” He “lived what he taught.” “Each one of us should see how much
of the Buddha’s message of mercy and piety we have translated into our
lives.”
(d) The Buddha was not an atheist. Buddhism teaches humility and
the masses approach God in all humility.
During the same period, in various other references also, he continued
to insist that Buddhism was a “mighty reform in Hinduism. Buddhism
rightly insisted on internal purity. Its appeal went straight to the heart. It
broke down arrogant assumptions of superiority.”13 The Buddha
renounced pleasures as they “become painful.” To have anything was a
torture to him.14 He said that Buddhists were not atheists nor agnostics
as we all may have different definitions of God: “God is that indefinable
something which we all feel but which we do not know.”15
In 1926, Gandhiji delivered a series of discourses on the Gita in the
Sabarmati ashram in which he explained that there was no difference
between the nirvana mentioned by Lord Buddha and the nirvana of the
Gita. They referred to the same state. He related how once the Buddha
had fainted while fasting and a woman placed a few drops of milk on his
lips... “Did the milk rouse his appetite? No; on the contrary, he realized
64 MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM
God soon after.” The Buddha’s nirvana was only “a seeming inertness,”
not shunya [nothingness]. It is “perfect disinterestedness.”16 He had written
in a letter earlier that he drew “no distinction between Buddhistic
nirvana and the Brahama nirvana of Shankara,” as he believed in the
complete annihilation of one’s individually as being “an absolute condition
of perfect joya and peace.”17
He wrote on January 4, 1926 that he wanted to propagate ahimsa as a
religion of the brave kshatriyas, as the Buddha, Mahavira, Rama, and
Krishna, all votaries of ahimsa, were kshatriyas. “Ahimsa is the extreme
limit of forgiveness. But forgiveness is the quality of the brave. Ahimsa
is impossible without fearlessness.” Soon after returning from Ceylon,
he said at Sabarmati that forgiveness was a quality of the soul, and that
the Buddha had asked us to “conquer anger by non-anger.” And nonanger
meant “the supreme virtue of charity or love.”18
As time passed, Gandhiji tended to link even more issues with the
teaching of Lord Buddha. During his Presidency of the Belgaum Congress
in December 1924, he had unequivocally responded to a Ceylonese
deputation’s plea that possession of the historic Buddha Gaya
temple should be vested in the Buddhists and called the reported animal
sacrifice in it a “sacrilege.”19 In a speech at Gaya, he said, if untouchability
was not removed, the Hindu society, and to him it included Buddhists,
might all perish altogether.20 Again, the contrast between the
palaces built in New Delhi for wealthy people and the miserable huts of
the laborers reminded him of the shock received by Gautama Buddha
when he saw such miseries and which also transformed his life and the
fortunes of the world.21
Buddhism and the World Religions
During his two-week visit to Ceylon in November 1927, he addressed a
large number of Buddhist, Hindu, and Christian groups, as well as other
public forums. In every speech he referred to the Buddha’s life and
teaching. The main points covered by him in those speeches are summarized
below:22
(a) The Great Master had taught the Right Path. Its first maxim is
truth, and the second “to love all that lives,” and it teaches “personal
purity of life.” This is what we have to learn, even in a college.
(b) As for the return of the Buddha Gaya temple to Buddhists, he had
done everything humanly possible but there were several obstacles preventing
this from happening.
(c) Some people had “accused” him of “being a follower of the Buddha”
and of “spreading Buddhistic teachings under the guise of sanatan
MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM 65
Hinduism.” But he felt proud of it and he owed much to the inspiration
he had derived from the Buddha’s life.
(d) The Buddha’s teaching formed an integral part of Hinduism,
which “owes on eternal debt of gratitude to that great teacher,” who was
“one of the greatest Hindu reformers,” a “Hindu of Hindus.” He never
rejected Hinduism but broadened its base. He made some of the words
of the Vedas yield meanings more relevant to the age. What Hinduism
did not assimilate was not an essential part of his teaching. In fact, his
teaching was “not assimilated in its fullness” outside of India.
(e) For a complete study of Buddhism they should study Sanskrit
scriptures and observe the five yamas [vows], viz., celibacy, truth, ahimsa,
non-stealing, and non-possession.
(f) The Buddha, Mohamed, and Jesus were Asiatic. All that is permanent
in Hindu culture is also found in their teachings. If we search for
the greatest common measure in all great faiths, we come to the very
simple factor, viz., “to be truthful and nonviolent.”
(g) The contention that the Buddha did not believe in God “contradicts
the very central fact of the Buddha’s teaching.” He justly rejected
the “base things,” like animal sacrifice being done in the name of God.
He “redeclared the eternal and unalterable existence of the moral government
of this universe... the law was God himself.” From this also
arose the confusion about the meaning of nirvana. It is the “extinction of
all that is base in us... vicious in us... corrupt and corruptible in us.” It is
not the “dead peace of the grave” but the “living happiness of a soul.”
(h) The Buddha had an “exacting regard for all life, be it ever so
low.” But as Buddhism traveled abroad, “sacredness of animal life” had
not that sense, as if we could avoid the effects of our own acts. “It is an
arrogant assumption to say that human beings are lords and masters of
lower creation. On the contrary, being endowed with greater things in
life, they are trustees of the lower animal kingdom.” Further, “If animals
could not be sacrificed to the gods above, how could they be sacrificed
to the epicure in us?” The Buddha wanted us to sacrifice ourselves, our
lust and worldly ambition, and not other life.
(i) “The Buddha renounced every worldly happiness, because he
wanted to share with the whole world his happiness, which was to be
had by men who sacrificed and suffered in search of truth. A time is
coming when those who are in the mad rush today of multiplying their
wants, vainly thinking that they add to the real substance, real knowledge
of the world, will retrace their steps and say: What have we done?”
(j) The Buddha’s spirit lies in treating life not as “a bundle of enjoyments
and privileges, but a bundle of duties and services.” That is what
66 MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM
separates man from the beast. Hence, the ‘drinking’ habit was “totally
against the spirit of the Buddha.”
(k) Untouchability, being practiced in Ceylon also, was “wholly
against the spirit of the Buddha,” who had “abolished every distinction
of superiority and inferiority.”
(l) To render something unto the Buddha for his “great message of
mercy,” they must wear khadi.
Buddhism and Nonviolence
Gandhiji visited Burma [Myanmar], another Buddhist country, in March
1929, and spoke at a number of public and religious meetings in which
he emphasized the following points:23
(a) He felt honored when Buddhists in Ceylon, Burma, China, and
Japan claimed him as their own, because “Buddhism is to Hinduism
what Protestantism is to Roman Catholicism, only in a much stronger
light.”
(b) Speaking in a pagoda he said he was glad that the Phoongys
[Buddhist monks] were leading the political movement in Burma, but
they must remain “pure beyond suspicion” and combine with the movement
“great wisdom and great ability,” and may Lord Buddha’s spirit
guide everyone in the movement.
(c) They had “one of the greatest truths that the world can ever have
uttered by one of the greatest teachers of mankind, viz. ahimsa.” They
should put it to practice in every act of life. Used wisely, it could
become their “own saving and the saving of mankind.” It was the most
active force in the world. “It radiates life and light and peace and happiness.”
But it appeared that this message had “only touched but the surface
of the heart of Burma.” For example, “when the law of ahimsa
reigns supreme, there should be no jealously, no unworthy ambition. No
crime.” But the incidence of murder was common in Burma. India perhaps
had taken the Buddha’s message more fully.
(d) The Buddha undertook tapasya, i.e., penance, to overcome the
oppression, injustice, and darkness around him. The priests sitting there
must also lead others through penance, bringing out the spirit of the
scriptures. Then they would realize that taking animal life, smoking,
drinking, and being afraid are inconsistent with the Buddha’s doctrine of
love.
(e) Those following the Buddha’s teaching could not afford to pass a
single moment in idleness.
Later, he could not comprehend how the followers of Buddha could
give themselves up to savagery during the riots in Burma in 1938, in
MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM 67
which even the priests took an active part. Similarly, when the Burmese
leader Gen. U Aung San and his comrades were assassinated in 1947, he
considered it “a great tragedy.” He said that the terrorists who committed
such political murders, considered the victims to be criminals. But
one who thus took the law into his hands, “commits violence against the
people.” He enunciated a vital principle of public life: “Only an elected
Assembly can dispense with the obligation to be nonviolent.”24
After returning from Burma, Gandhiji was again thrown into the hectic
arena of politics, the campaign against untouchability, and a series of
satyagrahi and imprisonments. After his release in 1944 and until his
assassination, he was ever more deeply involved in the post-war political
and communal problems in the country. But even during these periods,
he continued to make frequent references to the Buddha and his teachings.
In 1929, he had written and said that prophets such as the Buddha had
preserved their religion “by breaking down bad traditions.” They had
stood alone but had “living faith in themselves and their God.” He reiterated
this statement in 1932 and said that they had stood against the
world but “were humanity incarnate. To have such humility, one must
have faith in oneself and in God.” He explained to N.K. Bose in 1934
that in the teaching of prophets like the Buddha, there was a permanent
portion and an impermanent one, the latter being suited to the needs of
their time. As we try to sustain this latter portion, we find so much distortion
in religious practice today.25
While propagating the virtue of ‘bread labor’ or manual work, Gandhiji
said that Jesus was a carpenter and the Buddha lived on charity—
however, “a roving ascetic” also had a lot of manual work to do. He
himself preferred the Gita’s gospel of work to that of contemplation and
was “never attracted by the idea of complete renunciation,” but said that
there “may be some like the Buddha whose mere thoughts would influence
the world.”26
The Efficacy of Prayer
He was a firm believer in the efficacy of ‘prayer.’ He said that the Buddha,
Jesus, and Mohamed had found illumination through prayer and
could not possibly live without it. In a dialogue with Charles Fabri, a
Buddhist, who thought that Buddhism had taught him that some spirits
could do without belief in God, Gandhiji had said; “But Buddhism is
one long prayer.” Those who could not pray should be humble and not
limit “the real Buddha.” Skepticism and intellectual conception do not
help in critical periods of life. But “to know the meaning of God or
68 MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM
prayer,” one must “reduce oneself to a cipher.” In difficult times when
spiritual conception alone helps, then we have a glimpse of God. “That
is the prayer.” Buddha, Jesus, and Mohamed had also fasted to see God
face to face.27
A Japanese sadhu who came in 1935 to Gandhiji’s Wardha ashram,
had stayed on and the evening prayer always commenced with his
mantra ‘nam myo ho renge kyo,’ meaning “I bow to the Buddha, the
giver of true religion.” When World War II broke out and the police
were taking him away, he recited this mantra and left his drum with
Gandhiji. Since then, morning and evening prayers at Sevagram ashram
would start with the same mantra as a reminder of Sadhu Keshav’s
“purity and single-eyed devotion.”28
Gandhiji reiterated that, along with Vivekanand, he believed that
“Shankara never drove Buddhism from India for he was himself a
prachhanna [in disguise] Buddha. He merely rid it of the bad things that
were creeping into it, and prevented its alienation from Hinduism.”29 In
any case, the substance and purity of the Buddha’s teaching had been
best preserved in India. As “a Hindu of Hindus, he [the Buddha] gave a
new orientation to Hinduism.” Nor is Buddhism realized, said Gandhiji,
“by getting to know its externals.” In a letter to the Dalai Lama, he
wrote that he had asked his friends to give up “secretiveness and superstition
if Buddhism is to live.”30
One of the many things for which Gandhiji revered the Buddha was
“his utter abolition of untouchability, that is the distinction between high
and low.”31 Had not the Buddha said;
Make all fresh kin. There is no caste in blood
Which runneth of one hue, nor caste in tears,
Which trickle salt with all; neither cometh man
To birth with tilak-mark stamped on the brow,
To sacred thread on neck. Who doth right deeds
Is twice-born, who doeth ill deeds vile.32
Similarly, while propagating khadi, he had emphasized the Buddha’s
concern for the poor.33
Practice of Nonviolence
He said in an interview [1937] that the effects of the Buddha’s nonviolent
action “persist and are likely to grow with age,” while those of
Hitler’, Mussolini’s and Stalin’s violence though immediately visible
were transitory. He had the greatest veneration for the Buddha, one of
the greatest preachers and warriors of peace. The Buddha—and 600
MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM 69
years later Jesus—had taught us the love that was “essentially a social
and collective virtue,” not a mere personal one. In another context, he
said that in the Buddha’s time, the present day type of politics did not
exist and hence the Congress experiment in practicing nonviolence in
the political sphere was a new one.34
When he saw a leaflet published by the Madras Provincial War Committee
saying that World War II was being waged for “great ideals,”
including that for peace, “as exemplified in the teaching of Lord Buddha
and Mahatma Gandhi,” he asked for this clause to be removed “as being
untrue.” He said, “If Lord Buddha was on earth in the body at this
moment, such a war would be impossible” and “Ashoka is perhaps the
only instance of a great king having voluntarily abandoned war.”35
When communal violence erupted in Bihar in 1947, he was so
anguished that “the hallowed land of Lord Buddha and King Janak and
Lord Rama” was seeing the “devilish dance of violence.” It could only
retrieve its ancient glory by means of nonviolence. He commented similarly
about corrupt practices in Bihar.36
Gandhiji could not subscribe to the doctrine of Asia for the Asiatics.
There was the imprint of Buddhistic influence on the whole of Asia
including India. Asia has to relearn the Buddha’s message and deliver it
to the world. The flower of nonviolence, which seemed to be withering,
must come to full bloom. Later addressing the Inter Asian Relations
Conference in 1947, he said that wisdom had come to the West from the
East—the Buddha and other prophets all had come from the East. “The
West is today pining for wisdom. It is despairing of the multiplication of
the atom bomb ... It is up to you to tell the world of its wickedness and
sin,”—that was the teaching of our teachers.37
Finally, during the last period of his life with violence and hatred prevailing
all round, Gandhiji denied that he could be “a modern Buddha.”
The Buddha and the later prophets “had gone the way they went in order
to stop wars.” They could establish peace and happiness. The fact that
he could not do so was “proof positive” that he had no such power. He
was no divine person since “I am not able to establish peace.”38
Closing Remarks
Here, I have attempted to give a summary of what Mahatma Gandhi had
said and written about Lord Buddha’s life and teaching. He revered the
Buddha and was deeply committed to follow the essence of his teaching.
He saw the Buddha as one of the greatest reformers of Hindu dharma
who taught us truth and ahimsa, self-purity, sacrifice and renunciation,
and faith in the ultimate morality, which Gandhiji called God. He taught
70 MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM
us to realize the unity of all life and the truth of what we are through our
actions and selfless service, through humility and piety. In spirit, Gandhiji
had followed in Lord Buddha’s footsteps.
Notes
1
Monday, March 9, 2009
REVIVAL 1
MAHATMA Gandhi considered religion, spirituality, morality, and ethics, in fact, all activities of life, whether personal or public, to be integrated into the search for self-realization. He said in the introduction to his Autobiography; “What I want to achieve... what I have been striving and pining to achieve for 30 years—is self-realization, to see God face to face, to attain Moksha.” In this search, he felt instinctively inspired by the life and teaching of Lord Buddha. He did not see Buddhism as a new religion but, historically, as the most daring effort made to reform and revitalize the sanatan Hindu tradition of India. He saw it as the most revolutionary attempt to propagate the doctrine of ahimsa, or nonviolence, in its widest sense. His concept of Truth as God and ahimsa as a sense of identification with all creation, attained through self-purification, was in line with the teaching of Lord Buddha. He wrote at the end of his Autobiography; “... a perfect vision of Truth can only follow a complete realization of ahimsa... identification with everything that lives is impossible without selfpurification...
God can never be realized by one who is not pure of heart.” Did not Siddhartha also say when quitting his family and palace: This golden prison where my heart lives caged, To find truth, which henceforth I will seek, For all men’s sake, until truth be found. Since there is hope for man only in man, And none hath sought for this as I will seek, Who cast away my world to save the world.1 The first two religious books that Gandhiji studied during his student days in London (1888–1891) were Sir Edwin Arnold’s English translation of the Bhagavad Gita—The Song Celestial (1885)—and The Light of Asia (1879)—which depicted the life and philosophy of Gautama Buddha. He writes in his Autobiography; “I read it [The Light of Asia] MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM with even greater interest than I did the Bhagavad Gita. Once I had begun it, I could not leave off... My young mind tried to unify the teaching of the Gita, The Light of Asia, and the Sermon on the Mount. That renunciation was the highest form of religion appealed to me greatly.” Much later in India, while denying that his ‘philosophy’ was an indifferent mixture of Tolstoy and Buddha, he had written in 1925 that he owed much to Tolstoy and Buddha but he fancied that his philosophy represented the true meaning of the teaching of the Gita, and further that the source of his inspiration was of no consequence as long as he stood for unadulterated truth.
Hinduism and Buddhism During his long formative period in South Africa (1893–1914), where he organized a struggle against racial discrimination, and evolved his theory and practice of satyagraha, he made his first statements in appreciation of Lord Buddha and his teachings. In an ‘open letter’ addressed to the Members of the Legislative Council and Assembly at Durban [1894], while asserting the greatness of India, he wrote; “Add to this the facts that India has produced the Buddha, whose life some consider the best and the holiest by a mortal, and to some second only to that lived by Jesus.” In Durban, he once upset his hostess when he said that Gautama’s
compassion was extended to all living beings while one failed to notice this love in the life of Jesus. He repeated this conviction in a letter written on July 2, 1913: “It is difficult to say who was the greatest among Krishna, Rama, the Buddha, the Jesus, etc.... In point of character alone possibly the Buddha was the greatest. But who can say?” Speaking in a lecture on ‘Hinduism’ in Johannesburg on March 4, 1905,5 he explained the indissoluble link between Hinduism and Buddhism. Gautama Buddha came into this world when Hinduism had become too rigid. He taught that animal sacrifice was despiritualizing and that toleration of all life was the highest form of love. Buddhism was to Hinduism what Protestantism was to Catholicism; a movement of reform. The jealousy of the Hindu priesthood having been aroused, Buddhism as a formal creed declined but its spirit remained in India and
actuated every principle professed by the Hindus. Gandhiji reiterated this view later in his life. Paying homage to the Buddha for his renunciation of worldly attachments, Gandhi wrote in the Indian Opinion on July 7, 1907, how in the sixth century B.C., Lord Buddha, after “suffering many privations, attained self-realization... and spread ideas of spiritual welfare among the people.”6 In letters written on January 28, 1909, July 19, 1913, and
MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM June 10, 1914, he praised how the Buddha had left his wife and parents and brought deliverance to them as well; and how they were admired by the world for this act of sacrifice and also how his own freedom from attachment with Kasturba (his wife) permitted him to serve her better. In a letter dated August 23, 1911, he praised his own state of voluntary poverty, as this was the state of the Buddha and the way to self-realization. After returning to India in 1915, until his imprisonment in 1922, Mahatma Gandhi had led local satyagrahi in Champaran, Ahmedabad, and Kaira, an all-India movement against the Rowlatt Bills, and the noncooperation movement.
God can never be realized by one who is not pure of heart.” Did not Siddhartha also say when quitting his family and palace: This golden prison where my heart lives caged, To find truth, which henceforth I will seek, For all men’s sake, until truth be found. Since there is hope for man only in man, And none hath sought for this as I will seek, Who cast away my world to save the world.1 The first two religious books that Gandhiji studied during his student days in London (1888–1891) were Sir Edwin Arnold’s English translation of the Bhagavad Gita—The Song Celestial (1885)—and The Light of Asia (1879)—which depicted the life and philosophy of Gautama Buddha. He writes in his Autobiography; “I read it [The Light of Asia] MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM with even greater interest than I did the Bhagavad Gita. Once I had begun it, I could not leave off... My young mind tried to unify the teaching of the Gita, The Light of Asia, and the Sermon on the Mount. That renunciation was the highest form of religion appealed to me greatly.” Much later in India, while denying that his ‘philosophy’ was an indifferent mixture of Tolstoy and Buddha, he had written in 1925 that he owed much to Tolstoy and Buddha but he fancied that his philosophy represented the true meaning of the teaching of the Gita, and further that the source of his inspiration was of no consequence as long as he stood for unadulterated truth.
Hinduism and Buddhism During his long formative period in South Africa (1893–1914), where he organized a struggle against racial discrimination, and evolved his theory and practice of satyagraha, he made his first statements in appreciation of Lord Buddha and his teachings. In an ‘open letter’ addressed to the Members of the Legislative Council and Assembly at Durban [1894], while asserting the greatness of India, he wrote; “Add to this the facts that India has produced the Buddha, whose life some consider the best and the holiest by a mortal, and to some second only to that lived by Jesus.” In Durban, he once upset his hostess when he said that Gautama’s
compassion was extended to all living beings while one failed to notice this love in the life of Jesus. He repeated this conviction in a letter written on July 2, 1913: “It is difficult to say who was the greatest among Krishna, Rama, the Buddha, the Jesus, etc.... In point of character alone possibly the Buddha was the greatest. But who can say?” Speaking in a lecture on ‘Hinduism’ in Johannesburg on March 4, 1905,5 he explained the indissoluble link between Hinduism and Buddhism. Gautama Buddha came into this world when Hinduism had become too rigid. He taught that animal sacrifice was despiritualizing and that toleration of all life was the highest form of love. Buddhism was to Hinduism what Protestantism was to Catholicism; a movement of reform. The jealousy of the Hindu priesthood having been aroused, Buddhism as a formal creed declined but its spirit remained in India and
actuated every principle professed by the Hindus. Gandhiji reiterated this view later in his life. Paying homage to the Buddha for his renunciation of worldly attachments, Gandhi wrote in the Indian Opinion on July 7, 1907, how in the sixth century B.C., Lord Buddha, after “suffering many privations, attained self-realization... and spread ideas of spiritual welfare among the people.”6 In letters written on January 28, 1909, July 19, 1913, and
MAHATMA GANDHI AND BUDDHISM June 10, 1914, he praised how the Buddha had left his wife and parents and brought deliverance to them as well; and how they were admired by the world for this act of sacrifice and also how his own freedom from attachment with Kasturba (his wife) permitted him to serve her better. In a letter dated August 23, 1911, he praised his own state of voluntary poverty, as this was the state of the Buddha and the way to self-realization. After returning to India in 1915, until his imprisonment in 1922, Mahatma Gandhi had led local satyagrahi in Champaran, Ahmedabad, and Kaira, an all-India movement against the Rowlatt Bills, and the noncooperation movement.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
REVIVAL OF BUDDHISM IN INDIA
Siddhartha Gautam was born in India. He became enlightened in India. As the Buddha he taught in India for forty five years, eventually passing into Parinirvana in India. In the following years Buddhism quickly spread throughout India presenting individuals with a new spiritual vision, and at the same time radically challenging the prevailing social abuses, especially those that took place in the name of religion such as caste and sacrifice. The great king Ashoka, intensified this development, and encouraged Buddhist teachers to take the Dharma beyond the confines of the Indian sub-continent to Sri Lanka, to Greece, and throughout Asia. Such was its influence that the age when Buddhism was at its most influential is known as the golden age of Indian history.
Gradually Buddhism began to lose its influence in India and by the 14th century it had effectively died out except in the areas bordering Tibet and Nepal. Why this happened is still a mystery although some factors are clearly involved. These include both internal weaknesses that had developed in Buddhism, as well as objective threats. Among the major factors must be counted the concentration of monks in large monastic universities. So expensive were these to maintain that it was only possible if the ruler was sympathetic; when they were not the monastic universities suffered. This concentration in the monasteries meant that the monks lost touch with the people in the villages. Villagers had no recourse but to turn to the Brahmins, who had never forgiven the Buddha for undermining their religion, and lost no opportunity in trying to regain their lost ground. When the waves of Moslem invasions took place, the Buddhist monasteries holding thousands of monks, were obvious and very easy targets. On the one hand the Moslems did not like worshippers of images and on the other no invading army would welcome large concentrations of people who were not under their influence.
Although Buddhism died out in India in a formal sense, its influence did continue in various ways. Lal Mani Joshi has clearly demonstrated that modern Puranic Hinduism is a hybrid of Brahminism and Buddhism. Buddhist teachings resound in many oral and written recensions that have now become part of the Hindu tradition. For example the last of the Buddhist Mahasiddhas, Matsyendranath, became a Hindu and his successors, starting with Goraknath, started the influential Natha tradition, which seems to have some Buddhist influence. Some other Hindu traditions, especially oral ones, show considerable Buddhist influence. There is, for example, the Orissa saint, Bhima Boi, who lived in the 19th century and was supposedly from an untouchable background. This is interesting because in his book "The Untouchables" Dr. Ambedkar suggested that Buddhists were punished by a resurgent Brahminism by being made untouchable, imposing on them the worst imaginable social, economic and religious restrictions. There have been other studies to suggest that some of the most important temples in India were originally Buddhist, such as the Jagannath Temple at Puri and the Tirupati temple in South India, the richest and most popular temple in India. There have been suggestions that the Buddha or Bodhisattvas have been made into Hindu gods. Indeed the Buddha himself has been adapted as the 9th incarnation of Vishnu. Buddhist festivals, too, it seems have been adopted, such as Guru Purnima, the day when spiritual teachers are worshipped in India; this is no other than the day the Buddha is supposed to have first turned the wheel of the Dharma. However despite all its considerable influence, for all practical purposes Buddhism died in India.
The situation began to change in the 19th century when European scholars started looking at texts to do with Indian religious traditions, amongst which were Pali Buddhist texts from Sri Lanka, and when British explorers began to discover the remains of the Buddhist holy places and other important places such as Ajantha and Ellora. Gradually the gaps in Indian history, for so long maintained and distorted by Brahminical interests, began to be set right. The name, to say nothing of the greatness, of king Ashoka which had been hidden from history by the Brahmins, was now brought to light. The Indian intellectual classes began to appreciate the contribution that Buddhism had made to Indian culture. One of the greatest Pali scholars was Dharmananda Kosambi, who became a bhikshu a number of times, and died in the 1930's. At the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century a few monks from Burma and other Buddhist countries began to settle in the Buddhist holy places, although they could not do much.
Gradually Buddhism began to lose its influence in India and by the 14th century it had effectively died out except in the areas bordering Tibet and Nepal. Why this happened is still a mystery although some factors are clearly involved. These include both internal weaknesses that had developed in Buddhism, as well as objective threats. Among the major factors must be counted the concentration of monks in large monastic universities. So expensive were these to maintain that it was only possible if the ruler was sympathetic; when they were not the monastic universities suffered. This concentration in the monasteries meant that the monks lost touch with the people in the villages. Villagers had no recourse but to turn to the Brahmins, who had never forgiven the Buddha for undermining their religion, and lost no opportunity in trying to regain their lost ground. When the waves of Moslem invasions took place, the Buddhist monasteries holding thousands of monks, were obvious and very easy targets. On the one hand the Moslems did not like worshippers of images and on the other no invading army would welcome large concentrations of people who were not under their influence.
Although Buddhism died out in India in a formal sense, its influence did continue in various ways. Lal Mani Joshi has clearly demonstrated that modern Puranic Hinduism is a hybrid of Brahminism and Buddhism. Buddhist teachings resound in many oral and written recensions that have now become part of the Hindu tradition. For example the last of the Buddhist Mahasiddhas, Matsyendranath, became a Hindu and his successors, starting with Goraknath, started the influential Natha tradition, which seems to have some Buddhist influence. Some other Hindu traditions, especially oral ones, show considerable Buddhist influence. There is, for example, the Orissa saint, Bhima Boi, who lived in the 19th century and was supposedly from an untouchable background. This is interesting because in his book "The Untouchables" Dr. Ambedkar suggested that Buddhists were punished by a resurgent Brahminism by being made untouchable, imposing on them the worst imaginable social, economic and religious restrictions. There have been other studies to suggest that some of the most important temples in India were originally Buddhist, such as the Jagannath Temple at Puri and the Tirupati temple in South India, the richest and most popular temple in India. There have been suggestions that the Buddha or Bodhisattvas have been made into Hindu gods. Indeed the Buddha himself has been adapted as the 9th incarnation of Vishnu. Buddhist festivals, too, it seems have been adopted, such as Guru Purnima, the day when spiritual teachers are worshipped in India; this is no other than the day the Buddha is supposed to have first turned the wheel of the Dharma. However despite all its considerable influence, for all practical purposes Buddhism died in India.
The situation began to change in the 19th century when European scholars started looking at texts to do with Indian religious traditions, amongst which were Pali Buddhist texts from Sri Lanka, and when British explorers began to discover the remains of the Buddhist holy places and other important places such as Ajantha and Ellora. Gradually the gaps in Indian history, for so long maintained and distorted by Brahminical interests, began to be set right. The name, to say nothing of the greatness, of king Ashoka which had been hidden from history by the Brahmins, was now brought to light. The Indian intellectual classes began to appreciate the contribution that Buddhism had made to Indian culture. One of the greatest Pali scholars was Dharmananda Kosambi, who became a bhikshu a number of times, and died in the 1930's. At the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century a few monks from Burma and other Buddhist countries began to settle in the Buddhist holy places, although they could not do much.
Two people stand out for their contribution to the revival of Buddhism, the first of whom was a Sri Lankan, Anagarika Dharmapala. Born around 1862, his zeal for the Buddha Dharma received most encouragement from European Theosophists, Madamme Blavatsky and her Theosophist colleagues. He discovered his real life mission when he visited Buddha Gaya in 1891. He was so deeply upset at the terrible state of the most holy place for Buddhists and the fact that it was controlled and misused by a Hindu priest, that he decided there and then to devote the rest of his life to reclaiming possession for Buddhists and restoring it to make it worthy of its great heritage. Despite his incredible energy and commitment he was not able to get control of it for Buddhists, and even now Buddha Gaya remains controlled by Hindus who are not always sympathetic to the devotions of Buddhists. However during his great Bodhisattva-like life, he managed to accomplish many other things. He formed the Maha Bodhi Society which developed a number of branches in India, primarily to develop the Buddhist Holy places as places of pilgrimage, and to make known the teachings of the Buddha. To aid this work he started the Maha Bodhi Journal. Not only did he make known the great heritage of Buddhism in India but he also drew the attention of the Buddhist world to India, especially the Holy Places.
The second person was Iyothee Thass from south India. He was born into an untouchable family, and from his own studies concluded that untouchables had originally been Buddhist. Like Dharmapala whom he knew well, he also was encouraged by western Theosophits, notably Colonel H. S. Olcott. He and some other untouchables from Tamil Nadu decided thence forth to call themselves Buddhist, and live accordingly. Although this movement did not spread, it still remains a positive religious and social influence in those areas.
. The Mahabodhi Society, after Dharmapala's death was influenced very strongly by Bengali Brahmins who formed the majority of the governing body. And in Maharashtra, the home of Dhammananda Kosambi, significant Brahminical contributions to Buddhists studies came to a virtual standstill after 1956. So although though India's Buddhist past had by now become widely known and appreciated, Buddhism in practice, in terms of going for refuge to Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, was still hardly known at all.
The most significant developments in the revival of Buddhism in India centre around the towering figure of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, and it is to his story that we must now turn. He was born in 1891 into an untouchable family at a time when untouchability and all its extreme social disadvantages were still largely unchallenged in Indian social life. Untouchables had to live in the unhealthiest part of the village, and were only allowed do the dirtiest and most menial of jobs, besides being at the beck and call of the caste Hindus for any services. They were not allowed to take water from the Hindu wells, go near Hindus at all, were allowed no new clothes, utensils and ornaments, go to temples or to school. Usually they had no land and depended for their food on whatever caste Hindus might give them. Because his father was in the British army, Ambedkar managed to go to school although he had a very tough time with fellow students and teachers alike. He was the first untouchable to matriculate in the whole of western India, and untouchables make up one sixth of the population! Significantly at the celebration of his matriculation his teacher, Keluskar, gave the young Ambedkar a copy of his biography of the Buddha. Already influenced by his father's reformist approach to Hinduism (being a follower of Kabir) this had a profound impact on Ambedkar. With the help of two reformist rulers, Ambedkar managed to complete his education in USA, UK, and Germany becoming one of the most highly educated men in India in the 20th century. When he returned to India and started work as secretary for education in the princely State of Baroda, no one would work with him, or give him accommodation because he was an untouchable, and hence he had to start work himself as a barrister in Bombay.
When he was in the USA he came into contact with the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, and rationalism. These had such a influence on his thinking that they became his main criteria for judging and eventually selecting a new religion. In the 1920's and early 30's his main thrust was trying to reform Hinduism by ridding it of the curse of untouchability. He tried to establish untouchables' rights to enter Hindu temples and to drink water from the common wells. In the village of Mahad he and his followers tried to assert their legal right to drink the water of the common tank. Animals could drink this but untouchables were not allowed by local Hindus. When Dr. Ambedkar did this he and his followers were brutally attacked, some seriously. In the same place later that year he symbolically burnt the Manu Srmiti, the Hindu code book which established caste duties and punishments, by far the most cruel and severe being reserved for untouchables. For example, the punishment for an untouchable who listened to a religious discourse was to have molten lead poured in his ears. He was quickly becoming convinced that Hinduism could not change. Caste was "an essential and integral part of Hinduism........Caste and Hinduism are inseparable." And caste meant untouchability. By 1935 he had finally declared in a public meeting at Yeola in Maharashtra, that although he was born a Hindu he would not die one. But as if he was ready to make one more attempt to convince Hindus that they must change their most basic approach he agreed to preside over the meeting of the Hindu reform group, the Jat Pat Todak Mandal, in Lahore in 1936. His paper, "Annihilation of Caste", sent in advance, was so thorough going and radical, that the organisers cancelled the meeting rather than have him read it. Later that year at a large meeting in Bombay, he gave a talk entitled, "Which Way Freedom" in which he went into the reasons for the necessity for untouchables to convert to another religion.."
Even though in this lecture he indicated that he was in some ways inclined towards Buddhism, over the next few years he examined thoroughly the alternatives of Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and Communism. He had an enormous responsibility on his shoulders. Not only did the future of millions of untouchables rest on his shoulders, as whatever he did, millions were bound to follow, but the future course of Indian history would be positively or negatively affected accordingly. As time progressed he became steadily closer and closer to Buddhism. In his book "The Untouchables", referred to above, he suggested a link between the Untouchables and the early Buddhists who had been broken by a resurgent Brahminism. He named the Bombay and Aurangabad colleges of the People's Education Society which he founded, after Siddhartha and Milinda, the latter famous for his dialogue with Nagasena in the Pali "The Questions of King Milinda". In 1948 he had Lukshmi Naresu's "The Essence of Buddhism" reprinted at his own cost, writing the preface himself. He attended the meeting of the World fellowship of Buddhists in Colombo in 1950 where he gave a very significant talk on "The Buddha and the Future of His Religion". In 1951 he celebrated the Enlightenment of the Buddha in New Delhi. In 1954 he attended the World Fellowship of Buddhists conference in Burma where he gave a significant talk on the methods required to spread Buddhism in India. He was writing on and speaking about Buddhism with increasing conviction. While in the Indian Cabinet as Law Minister, perhaps the most demanding time of his career, he still found time to work on his compilation of the Buddha's teaching, "The Buddha and His Dhamma" , so important was it to him. This process culminated, as did his whole life's work, in his historic conversion to Buddhism in the year of the 2,500th anniversary of the Buddha's Enlightenment, 1956, on 14th October, the anniversary of King Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism. On that day he declared he felt liberated from hell. He was not alone. 500,000 followers joined him and over the next few years almost the whole of the Mahar untouchable caste in Maharashtra, into which he had been born, converted to Buddhism. Since then many people from other untouchable castes in different parts of India have joined them, especially in U. P. There are various estimates of the Buddhist population but it would be safe to say there are at least 25 million. While that is only a small proportion of India's population of over 1,000 million, it is phenomenal change when compared to the census figures for 1951, nothing less than a Dharma revolution. Dr. Ambedkar's approach to Buddhism was radical as well as critical. Those who advocate and follow a "humanistic Buddhism" will find his approach very interesting, some aspects of which I shall just briefly mention here.
1. Buddhism was a religion for man in which the practice of morality took central place; "what god is to other religions, morality is to Buddhism". Buddhism is embedded in morality which cannot be compromised. Not only did he equate morality with the Dharma itself, but he emphasised that loving kindness was the essence of ethics. 2. He said that Buddhism was not against science and rationality. It was very important to him that religion did not encourage superstition or ignorance but on the contrary encouraged people to think for themselves as the Buddha did. 3. The Buddha was a marga data, a shower of the way, rather than a moksha data, a giver of salvation. As such he was not an authority figure to be feared or beseeched like the founders of most other religions. His most valued principles were Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The religion he chose should not compromise them in any way, and he found them implicit in the Buddha's teaching. So much was this the case that he stated that he learnt these principles not from the French revolution but from his master, the Buddha. 5. Lay people had to take the Dharma as seriously as monks. At the conversion ceremony in 1956 after the Refuges and Precepts, he gave his followers 22 vows to follow. He felt that one of the reasons Buddhism had disappeared from India was that lay people had not had to take an initiation ceremony and therefore did not take it seriously enough. 6. He emphasised the seriousness he expected from lay followers further by insisting that essentially the Dharma was the same for monks and lay people. He also suggested that suitable lay people with families should be supported to teach the Dharma full time. 7. He called for a new kind of sangha. While it is not clear what form this would take as on one occasion at least he said that he would include lay people in his Order, it was quite clear that he wanted the sangha to consist of dedicated Dharma and social workers. 8. Members of the sangha should not only be trying to help others effectively but they should, in the way they relate to each other and work together, constitute a model society which would set an example to others how to live. 9. He was non-sectarian in his approach. His book, "The Buddha and His Dhamma" is based largely on Theravada texts but does include some Mahayana ones. Most significantly at the end he has included the four-fold Bodhisattva vow, following which he has adopted Vasubhandu's invocation to Amitabha in his commentary on the "Sukhavati-vyuha" Sutra, and made it into "A Prayer for His Return to His Native Land". His book of Buddhist devotions includes on its last page the mantra Om Mani Padme Hum. It should be born in mind that it was difficult for him to bring in the Mahayana because its externals and the strong emphasis on rebirth look very much like Hinduism. The danger was that it might re-stimulate the new Buddhists' old conditioning as untouchables, and people may approach Buddhism in the same way they approached Hinduism, or they may react strongly to it. 10. Dr. Ambedkar was deeply inspired by the ideal of the Bodhisatttva, and emphasised the practice of paramitas to his followers. He is often referred to as a Bodhisattva. 11. Dr. Ambedkar gave a more pronounced emphasis to the social dimension of Buddhism than is usually understood. The purpose of religion from a Buddhist point of view, he said, was to transform the world. At the same time he emphasised that any social change can only come about on the basis of changes in the minds of the individuals concerned.
The great tragedy was that he died just 6 weeks after the conversion leaving a movement of millions of the most backward and exploited people in India leaderless. While conversions continued the new Buddhist movement was in many ways hijacked by politicians who wanted to use Buddhism for their own political ends. It did not help matters that this movement was largely ignored by the Buddhist world. Teachers from the Buddhist East were flocking to the West in the 60's and 70's, but very few gave their attention to the millions who were trying to escape the hell of untouchability by becoming Buddhist. There was, as a result, very little effective Dharma teaching amongst the new Buddhists, many become seriously confused and Buddhism made little progress. There have been a few good monks from Sri Lanka, Thailand and Japan working in the situation, but few have been able to accomplish much for various reasons. Some Tibetans, and especially His Holiness the Dalai Lama, have been keen to interact with the newly converted Buddhists, but little has come of this. Shri Goenka who teaches what he calls Vipassana meditation has also been extremely sympathetic, and many new Buddhists have benefited from his meditation retreats, but he does not explore the practical social implications of Buddhist principles and practice, which is very necessary for the new converts, nor does he provide a sangha or spiritual community to give guidance and spiritual support.
Sangharakshita, who lived in India for 20 years, studying, practicing and teaching Buddhism, happened to be in Nagpur the day Dr. Ambedkar died and led a condolence ceremony for over 200,000 people, as well as, in the next four days giving 34 lectures in the different untouchable localities. After that he would come down from Kalimpong where he was based and work with the new Buddhist converts for between six and eight months of the year, helping them to understand their newly adopted religion so that they did not fall back to Hinduism. He returned to UK in 1964 to help develop the nascent Buddhist movement there.
Sangharakshita started the Western Buddhist Order in UK, which I came into contact with in 1972, becoming a member in 1974. The basis of the Order is going for refuge to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Ordination takes place when go for refuge becomes "effective", in other words, when it becomes a life long commitment, and is expressed in the different aspects of one's life, home, work and social life. Preparation involves Dharma study, kalyana mitrata and regular meditation over several years, all under guidance. Today there are centres and activities in about 30 countries, and over a 1,000 members of the Order. One of the factors that characterises this movement is the number of people who work full time for it, teaching the Dharma, organising Dharma activities or in one of the many right livelihood team-based businesses in the Movement. Sangharakshita never forgot his work in India and in 1978, when the Movement in the West was still very small, he asked me to start a centre of Buddhist activities there. We started teaching ethics, meditation and basic Buddhist studies, as well as running retreats. Very soon we felt the need to respond to the terrible social conditions in which so many newly converted Buddhists and others lived in India, and started a social work programme. The latter provided an excellent opportunity for Indian members of our Order as well as those preparing for ordination, to practice Right Livelihood; not only did it provide ethical work, benefiting others, but also an opportunity to take the principle of sangha into the working situation and thus into the world.
In the last twenty years in India about twenty Dharma centres have been developed as well as two retreat centres, and two major social projects, all of which are now run by Indian members of the Order. Most of these are in Maharashtra, although some activities take place in U.P., Hyderabad, Goa, Gujarat, and Delhi. The Dharma work takes place under the name of Trailokya Bauddha Mahasangha, Sahayaka Gana (TBMSG) and the social work under the name of Bahujan Hitay, recalling the Buddha's exhortation to his followers after the first rainy season retreat to go out for the welfare (and happiness) of all beings. The Dharma centres conduct meditation classes, Buddhist study classes, celebrate festivals and organise lectures in nearby Buddhist localities and villages. Those who want to take their exploration of and commitment to the Dharma further are encouraged to do so. Special classes and retreats are organised for them, and eventually, after several years of training they may become members of the Order. We try to relate the Dharma to Dr. Ambedkar's thinking and to the social conditions which people live in. One factor that has helped us has been the fact that those of us from abroad who started this work in India (now it is all run by local people) were not born into Buddhist families but converted to Buddhism like the new Buddhists in India.
The first of the social projects consists of community education and health centres in slums. To date there are about 60 of these in a number of towns. The activities of the community centres include kindergartens, adult literacy classes, sewing classes, medical work (especially for children to combat malnutrition), and sports and cultural activities. The second project consists of hostels which provide accommodation, food, help with studies as well as an emotionally supportive environment enabling village children who find it hard to get an education (either through poverty or because there is no nearby school) to attend schools in towns. At present there are twenty of these, three of which were started in eastern Maharashtra following the earthquake of 1993, and two of which have been started recently following the earthquake in Gujarat. There is much that could be said about these activities, but one of the most significant points is that they are all run by people from the slums and other deprived backgrounds. Through Buddhism they have changed their lives, and with the new confidence they have gained and the altruism they have developed, they are trying to help those still in need.
While this work is a significant contribution, there are numerous difficulties inherent in the situation. Very few people have Dr. Ambedkar's great vision of the importance of Buddhism. Most tend to put much more energy into politics which seems to promise immediate remedies to their poverty and social deprivation. Unfortunately politics amongst the followers of Dr. Ambedkar is extremely divided, largely, I think, because of the repercussions of the caste system, which seems to breed an atmosphere of divisiveness into every area of social life. And of course those at the bottom of the social scale tend to suffer the most. Hence their politicians have been able to achieve little progress over the last 50 years.
ost Buddhists come from a background of extreme poverty. For those who have been able to get government or factory jobs, this is only the first or second generation to experience any possibility of basic material well-being and security. There are many expectations on them with family dependants to help feed and educate. This means that few people can devote much time for Dharma work. If they work full time for the Dharma or for social they cannot do so on a voluntary basis. They need to be paid, and that payment needs to take into account the needs and expectations of dependant family members, and the pressures of a developing consumer society.
Extreme corruption and the often unhelpful attitude of caste Hindu government officers towards Buddhists make constructive work very difficult. One usually has to pay bribes to get work done or have a friend in a position of authority. This only increases the crippling lack of confidence that many Buddhists still suffer when it comes to dealing with government officials. With so much of the wider society seeming to be against them it is not surprising that many have developed a victim mentality which further discourages and inhibits any real initiative and responsibility.
The second person was Iyothee Thass from south India. He was born into an untouchable family, and from his own studies concluded that untouchables had originally been Buddhist. Like Dharmapala whom he knew well, he also was encouraged by western Theosophits, notably Colonel H. S. Olcott. He and some other untouchables from Tamil Nadu decided thence forth to call themselves Buddhist, and live accordingly. Although this movement did not spread, it still remains a positive religious and social influence in those areas.
. The Mahabodhi Society, after Dharmapala's death was influenced very strongly by Bengali Brahmins who formed the majority of the governing body. And in Maharashtra, the home of Dhammananda Kosambi, significant Brahminical contributions to Buddhists studies came to a virtual standstill after 1956. So although though India's Buddhist past had by now become widely known and appreciated, Buddhism in practice, in terms of going for refuge to Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, was still hardly known at all.
The most significant developments in the revival of Buddhism in India centre around the towering figure of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, and it is to his story that we must now turn. He was born in 1891 into an untouchable family at a time when untouchability and all its extreme social disadvantages were still largely unchallenged in Indian social life. Untouchables had to live in the unhealthiest part of the village, and were only allowed do the dirtiest and most menial of jobs, besides being at the beck and call of the caste Hindus for any services. They were not allowed to take water from the Hindu wells, go near Hindus at all, were allowed no new clothes, utensils and ornaments, go to temples or to school. Usually they had no land and depended for their food on whatever caste Hindus might give them. Because his father was in the British army, Ambedkar managed to go to school although he had a very tough time with fellow students and teachers alike. He was the first untouchable to matriculate in the whole of western India, and untouchables make up one sixth of the population! Significantly at the celebration of his matriculation his teacher, Keluskar, gave the young Ambedkar a copy of his biography of the Buddha. Already influenced by his father's reformist approach to Hinduism (being a follower of Kabir) this had a profound impact on Ambedkar. With the help of two reformist rulers, Ambedkar managed to complete his education in USA, UK, and Germany becoming one of the most highly educated men in India in the 20th century. When he returned to India and started work as secretary for education in the princely State of Baroda, no one would work with him, or give him accommodation because he was an untouchable, and hence he had to start work himself as a barrister in Bombay.
When he was in the USA he came into contact with the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, and rationalism. These had such a influence on his thinking that they became his main criteria for judging and eventually selecting a new religion. In the 1920's and early 30's his main thrust was trying to reform Hinduism by ridding it of the curse of untouchability. He tried to establish untouchables' rights to enter Hindu temples and to drink water from the common wells. In the village of Mahad he and his followers tried to assert their legal right to drink the water of the common tank. Animals could drink this but untouchables were not allowed by local Hindus. When Dr. Ambedkar did this he and his followers were brutally attacked, some seriously. In the same place later that year he symbolically burnt the Manu Srmiti, the Hindu code book which established caste duties and punishments, by far the most cruel and severe being reserved for untouchables. For example, the punishment for an untouchable who listened to a religious discourse was to have molten lead poured in his ears. He was quickly becoming convinced that Hinduism could not change. Caste was "an essential and integral part of Hinduism........Caste and Hinduism are inseparable." And caste meant untouchability. By 1935 he had finally declared in a public meeting at Yeola in Maharashtra, that although he was born a Hindu he would not die one. But as if he was ready to make one more attempt to convince Hindus that they must change their most basic approach he agreed to preside over the meeting of the Hindu reform group, the Jat Pat Todak Mandal, in Lahore in 1936. His paper, "Annihilation of Caste", sent in advance, was so thorough going and radical, that the organisers cancelled the meeting rather than have him read it. Later that year at a large meeting in Bombay, he gave a talk entitled, "Which Way Freedom" in which he went into the reasons for the necessity for untouchables to convert to another religion.."
Even though in this lecture he indicated that he was in some ways inclined towards Buddhism, over the next few years he examined thoroughly the alternatives of Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and Communism. He had an enormous responsibility on his shoulders. Not only did the future of millions of untouchables rest on his shoulders, as whatever he did, millions were bound to follow, but the future course of Indian history would be positively or negatively affected accordingly. As time progressed he became steadily closer and closer to Buddhism. In his book "The Untouchables", referred to above, he suggested a link between the Untouchables and the early Buddhists who had been broken by a resurgent Brahminism. He named the Bombay and Aurangabad colleges of the People's Education Society which he founded, after Siddhartha and Milinda, the latter famous for his dialogue with Nagasena in the Pali "The Questions of King Milinda". In 1948 he had Lukshmi Naresu's "The Essence of Buddhism" reprinted at his own cost, writing the preface himself. He attended the meeting of the World fellowship of Buddhists in Colombo in 1950 where he gave a very significant talk on "The Buddha and the Future of His Religion". In 1951 he celebrated the Enlightenment of the Buddha in New Delhi. In 1954 he attended the World Fellowship of Buddhists conference in Burma where he gave a significant talk on the methods required to spread Buddhism in India. He was writing on and speaking about Buddhism with increasing conviction. While in the Indian Cabinet as Law Minister, perhaps the most demanding time of his career, he still found time to work on his compilation of the Buddha's teaching, "The Buddha and His Dhamma" , so important was it to him. This process culminated, as did his whole life's work, in his historic conversion to Buddhism in the year of the 2,500th anniversary of the Buddha's Enlightenment, 1956, on 14th October, the anniversary of King Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism. On that day he declared he felt liberated from hell. He was not alone. 500,000 followers joined him and over the next few years almost the whole of the Mahar untouchable caste in Maharashtra, into which he had been born, converted to Buddhism. Since then many people from other untouchable castes in different parts of India have joined them, especially in U. P. There are various estimates of the Buddhist population but it would be safe to say there are at least 25 million. While that is only a small proportion of India's population of over 1,000 million, it is phenomenal change when compared to the census figures for 1951, nothing less than a Dharma revolution. Dr. Ambedkar's approach to Buddhism was radical as well as critical. Those who advocate and follow a "humanistic Buddhism" will find his approach very interesting, some aspects of which I shall just briefly mention here.
1. Buddhism was a religion for man in which the practice of morality took central place; "what god is to other religions, morality is to Buddhism". Buddhism is embedded in morality which cannot be compromised. Not only did he equate morality with the Dharma itself, but he emphasised that loving kindness was the essence of ethics. 2. He said that Buddhism was not against science and rationality. It was very important to him that religion did not encourage superstition or ignorance but on the contrary encouraged people to think for themselves as the Buddha did. 3. The Buddha was a marga data, a shower of the way, rather than a moksha data, a giver of salvation. As such he was not an authority figure to be feared or beseeched like the founders of most other religions. His most valued principles were Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The religion he chose should not compromise them in any way, and he found them implicit in the Buddha's teaching. So much was this the case that he stated that he learnt these principles not from the French revolution but from his master, the Buddha. 5. Lay people had to take the Dharma as seriously as monks. At the conversion ceremony in 1956 after the Refuges and Precepts, he gave his followers 22 vows to follow. He felt that one of the reasons Buddhism had disappeared from India was that lay people had not had to take an initiation ceremony and therefore did not take it seriously enough. 6. He emphasised the seriousness he expected from lay followers further by insisting that essentially the Dharma was the same for monks and lay people. He also suggested that suitable lay people with families should be supported to teach the Dharma full time. 7. He called for a new kind of sangha. While it is not clear what form this would take as on one occasion at least he said that he would include lay people in his Order, it was quite clear that he wanted the sangha to consist of dedicated Dharma and social workers. 8. Members of the sangha should not only be trying to help others effectively but they should, in the way they relate to each other and work together, constitute a model society which would set an example to others how to live. 9. He was non-sectarian in his approach. His book, "The Buddha and His Dhamma" is based largely on Theravada texts but does include some Mahayana ones. Most significantly at the end he has included the four-fold Bodhisattva vow, following which he has adopted Vasubhandu's invocation to Amitabha in his commentary on the "Sukhavati-vyuha" Sutra, and made it into "A Prayer for His Return to His Native Land". His book of Buddhist devotions includes on its last page the mantra Om Mani Padme Hum. It should be born in mind that it was difficult for him to bring in the Mahayana because its externals and the strong emphasis on rebirth look very much like Hinduism. The danger was that it might re-stimulate the new Buddhists' old conditioning as untouchables, and people may approach Buddhism in the same way they approached Hinduism, or they may react strongly to it. 10. Dr. Ambedkar was deeply inspired by the ideal of the Bodhisatttva, and emphasised the practice of paramitas to his followers. He is often referred to as a Bodhisattva. 11. Dr. Ambedkar gave a more pronounced emphasis to the social dimension of Buddhism than is usually understood. The purpose of religion from a Buddhist point of view, he said, was to transform the world. At the same time he emphasised that any social change can only come about on the basis of changes in the minds of the individuals concerned.
The great tragedy was that he died just 6 weeks after the conversion leaving a movement of millions of the most backward and exploited people in India leaderless. While conversions continued the new Buddhist movement was in many ways hijacked by politicians who wanted to use Buddhism for their own political ends. It did not help matters that this movement was largely ignored by the Buddhist world. Teachers from the Buddhist East were flocking to the West in the 60's and 70's, but very few gave their attention to the millions who were trying to escape the hell of untouchability by becoming Buddhist. There was, as a result, very little effective Dharma teaching amongst the new Buddhists, many become seriously confused and Buddhism made little progress. There have been a few good monks from Sri Lanka, Thailand and Japan working in the situation, but few have been able to accomplish much for various reasons. Some Tibetans, and especially His Holiness the Dalai Lama, have been keen to interact with the newly converted Buddhists, but little has come of this. Shri Goenka who teaches what he calls Vipassana meditation has also been extremely sympathetic, and many new Buddhists have benefited from his meditation retreats, but he does not explore the practical social implications of Buddhist principles and practice, which is very necessary for the new converts, nor does he provide a sangha or spiritual community to give guidance and spiritual support.
Sangharakshita, who lived in India for 20 years, studying, practicing and teaching Buddhism, happened to be in Nagpur the day Dr. Ambedkar died and led a condolence ceremony for over 200,000 people, as well as, in the next four days giving 34 lectures in the different untouchable localities. After that he would come down from Kalimpong where he was based and work with the new Buddhist converts for between six and eight months of the year, helping them to understand their newly adopted religion so that they did not fall back to Hinduism. He returned to UK in 1964 to help develop the nascent Buddhist movement there.
Sangharakshita started the Western Buddhist Order in UK, which I came into contact with in 1972, becoming a member in 1974. The basis of the Order is going for refuge to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Ordination takes place when go for refuge becomes "effective", in other words, when it becomes a life long commitment, and is expressed in the different aspects of one's life, home, work and social life. Preparation involves Dharma study, kalyana mitrata and regular meditation over several years, all under guidance. Today there are centres and activities in about 30 countries, and over a 1,000 members of the Order. One of the factors that characterises this movement is the number of people who work full time for it, teaching the Dharma, organising Dharma activities or in one of the many right livelihood team-based businesses in the Movement. Sangharakshita never forgot his work in India and in 1978, when the Movement in the West was still very small, he asked me to start a centre of Buddhist activities there. We started teaching ethics, meditation and basic Buddhist studies, as well as running retreats. Very soon we felt the need to respond to the terrible social conditions in which so many newly converted Buddhists and others lived in India, and started a social work programme. The latter provided an excellent opportunity for Indian members of our Order as well as those preparing for ordination, to practice Right Livelihood; not only did it provide ethical work, benefiting others, but also an opportunity to take the principle of sangha into the working situation and thus into the world.
In the last twenty years in India about twenty Dharma centres have been developed as well as two retreat centres, and two major social projects, all of which are now run by Indian members of the Order. Most of these are in Maharashtra, although some activities take place in U.P., Hyderabad, Goa, Gujarat, and Delhi. The Dharma work takes place under the name of Trailokya Bauddha Mahasangha, Sahayaka Gana (TBMSG) and the social work under the name of Bahujan Hitay, recalling the Buddha's exhortation to his followers after the first rainy season retreat to go out for the welfare (and happiness) of all beings. The Dharma centres conduct meditation classes, Buddhist study classes, celebrate festivals and organise lectures in nearby Buddhist localities and villages. Those who want to take their exploration of and commitment to the Dharma further are encouraged to do so. Special classes and retreats are organised for them, and eventually, after several years of training they may become members of the Order. We try to relate the Dharma to Dr. Ambedkar's thinking and to the social conditions which people live in. One factor that has helped us has been the fact that those of us from abroad who started this work in India (now it is all run by local people) were not born into Buddhist families but converted to Buddhism like the new Buddhists in India.
The first of the social projects consists of community education and health centres in slums. To date there are about 60 of these in a number of towns. The activities of the community centres include kindergartens, adult literacy classes, sewing classes, medical work (especially for children to combat malnutrition), and sports and cultural activities. The second project consists of hostels which provide accommodation, food, help with studies as well as an emotionally supportive environment enabling village children who find it hard to get an education (either through poverty or because there is no nearby school) to attend schools in towns. At present there are twenty of these, three of which were started in eastern Maharashtra following the earthquake of 1993, and two of which have been started recently following the earthquake in Gujarat. There is much that could be said about these activities, but one of the most significant points is that they are all run by people from the slums and other deprived backgrounds. Through Buddhism they have changed their lives, and with the new confidence they have gained and the altruism they have developed, they are trying to help those still in need.
While this work is a significant contribution, there are numerous difficulties inherent in the situation. Very few people have Dr. Ambedkar's great vision of the importance of Buddhism. Most tend to put much more energy into politics which seems to promise immediate remedies to their poverty and social deprivation. Unfortunately politics amongst the followers of Dr. Ambedkar is extremely divided, largely, I think, because of the repercussions of the caste system, which seems to breed an atmosphere of divisiveness into every area of social life. And of course those at the bottom of the social scale tend to suffer the most. Hence their politicians have been able to achieve little progress over the last 50 years.
ost Buddhists come from a background of extreme poverty. For those who have been able to get government or factory jobs, this is only the first or second generation to experience any possibility of basic material well-being and security. There are many expectations on them with family dependants to help feed and educate. This means that few people can devote much time for Dharma work. If they work full time for the Dharma or for social they cannot do so on a voluntary basis. They need to be paid, and that payment needs to take into account the needs and expectations of dependant family members, and the pressures of a developing consumer society.
Extreme corruption and the often unhelpful attitude of caste Hindu government officers towards Buddhists make constructive work very difficult. One usually has to pay bribes to get work done or have a friend in a position of authority. This only increases the crippling lack of confidence that many Buddhists still suffer when it comes to dealing with government officials. With so much of the wider society seeming to be against them it is not surprising that many have developed a victim mentality which further discourages and inhibits any real initiative and responsibility.
The fact that so many millions have become Buddhist creates its own problems, although of course there is no question of discouraging people from converting from untouchability to Buddhism - the psychological benefits are so valuable. The number of new Buddhists is so large that one would need an army of trained Dharma teachers to teach them; in actual fact there are very few such teachers. As a result the new Buddhist movement is in a precarious state, and this is further exacerbated by the fact that most are very poor, illiterate, and living in terrible living conditions in villages and slums. In ignorance many still worship the old gods and follow the old practices. If they follow Hindu teachings and practices, they are effectively accepting their place in the caste system of Hinduism, as untouchables, with disastrous psychological implications. Some follow what they understand to be Buddhist practices, but without proper teaching, they approach them in the same way they approached Hinduism. So the Buddha may be approached for blessings just like a god, and monks as intermediaries with the Buddha like Brahmins with the gods. Some who have tried to follow Buddhism, without any effective guidance, have become frustrated and returned to Hinduism. Others, understanding that the Buddha encouraged people to think for themselves, get terribly confused. The great danger is that if they do not learn how to practice Buddhism, and if they do not have before them the inspiring example and the guidance of those more committed to the Buddhist spiritual life, the new Buddhists are likely to fall back to the old religion, or become known as the Buddhist untouchable caste of Hinduism. Buddhism, so recently returned to India, will have died in its infancy.
Another serious difficulty concerns the attitudes that caste engenders. In Maharashtra, where over one tenth of the population who used to belong to the Mahar untouchable caste now considers themselves Buddhist, Buddhism is thought of by others as the religion of the untouchables. This would seem to be the reason why since 1956, the year of the conversion, there has been no significant Brahminical contribution to Buddhist studies in Maharashtra. Buddhism has to include people from different castes if it is to help to break down the old caste barriers, and be a universal path open to all. Because they see the Buddhist community dominated by a particular caste, members of other castes are inhibited in following up any interest in Buddhism they might have. And Buddhists themselves are often reluctant to welcome people from other castes, partly because history has taught them to be very cautious. Dr. Ambedkar hoped that Buddhism would help to break down caste attitudes and that people from all over India from many different backgrounds would become Buddhist or at least influenced by Buddhist teachings. But this is hardly happening. Indeed Buddhism is being affected by caste differences. People from different untouchable castes have converted to Buddhism but there is very little deep interaction between them, and almost no inter marriage which is the only long term way to dissolve such barriers.
There are four main ways in which we are working with these difficulties. 1. Direct Dharma practice. The practice of ethics, regular meditation, study, retreat, and kalyana mitrata or spiritual friendship, all help to eradicate the old mental conditioning and develop confidence, initiative and an ability to work with others. The practice of right livelihood enhances this. Not only do those who live like this benefit, but they communicate confidence to the wider Buddhist community that Buddhist practice does bring benefits. 2. Training - Although there are a number of Dharma teaching centres in India, there are thousands of towns and villages where there are Buddhists, all of whom need Dharma teaching. The only long term answer is training. The Nagarjuna Training Institute in Nagpur has been started for this very purpose, and this year the first residential course is taking place. I should say here that this Institute has been made possible by the support of friends from Taiwan, and it is possibly the most important Dharma institution to develop since Dr. Ambedkar's conversion. This year forty five men and women from different parts of India have joined the course. They are learning basic Buddhist principles and practices as exploring the application of these to the social situation in India. Next year it is hoped that 70 people will attend the course, and if the facilities expand, to increase the numbers even more as time goes on. 3. The Nagarjuna Institute training course has brought together Buddhists from widely different backgrounds, Maharashtra, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Goa. Next year it is hoped to have students from more states, including Punjab, Gujarat, U.P., as well as Ladakh and Tripura which have an ancient Buddhist tradition. In Pune there started the Manuski Training and Research Centre. Manuski means "humanity" or "humanitarian", and was one of Dr. Ambedkar's favourite words. Its aims are different from the Nagarjuna Institute, being to help other Dalits (the usual word for untouchables these days) and newly converted Buddhists who are already doing good social work, with advice and training, especially exploring the way Buddhist practice can help them. As Dalits suffer so much discrimination at times of calamities such as earthquakes, it aims to develop a network of reliable groups to help at such time. It also aims to encourage Buddhist teaching and practice amongst other castes, with the aim of eventually providing a wider context for Buddhism in India, and so facilitating the dissolving of caste barriers. 4. Contact with outsiders. - Untouchables, as Dr. Ambedkar emphasised, had few friends in India and needed the support of friends from outside India. Not only did they desperately need financial help for Dharma institutions as they had no money, but they needed help in teaching, as well as emotional support. He said, "Propagation cannot be undertaken without men and money. Who can supply these? Obviously countries where Buddhism is a living religion.... If the countries that are Buddhist can develop the will to spread Buddhism the task of spreading Buddhism will not be difficult. They must realise that the duty of a Buddhist is not merely to be a good Buddhist. His duty is to spread Buddhism. They must believe that to spread Buddhism is to serve mankind.". As I have said above very few have come forward to help. However there is now some help from Japan, but the most notable contributions have come from the Western Buddhist Order, and more recently from friends in Taiwan. The contribution of both is immense, and without it the state of Buddhism amongst the new converts would be in a much worse state. It is crucial that this support continues especially for the training projects.
There is another aspect to this relationship. When Indian Buddhist followers of Dr. Ambedkar meet non-Buddhist Indians, both sides are invariably conscious of their caste backgrounds, and however subtle that awareness may be, it does mean that the caste difference is perpetuated. However when Indian Buddhists and Buddhists from abroad, with no caste consciousness, meet, this does not happen. Buddhists from abroad see Indian Buddhists in human and Buddhist terms, not in caste terms, and this serves only to develop the human and Buddhist aspects of their relationship. Most years a party from Taiwan visits Nagpur, at the time of the anniversary of the conversion ceremony. Not only is this very inspiring for our friends from Taiwan, but it makes an enormous difference to local Buddhists to have this contact. I very much hope it will continue.
Another serious difficulty concerns the attitudes that caste engenders. In Maharashtra, where over one tenth of the population who used to belong to the Mahar untouchable caste now considers themselves Buddhist, Buddhism is thought of by others as the religion of the untouchables. This would seem to be the reason why since 1956, the year of the conversion, there has been no significant Brahminical contribution to Buddhist studies in Maharashtra. Buddhism has to include people from different castes if it is to help to break down the old caste barriers, and be a universal path open to all. Because they see the Buddhist community dominated by a particular caste, members of other castes are inhibited in following up any interest in Buddhism they might have. And Buddhists themselves are often reluctant to welcome people from other castes, partly because history has taught them to be very cautious. Dr. Ambedkar hoped that Buddhism would help to break down caste attitudes and that people from all over India from many different backgrounds would become Buddhist or at least influenced by Buddhist teachings. But this is hardly happening. Indeed Buddhism is being affected by caste differences. People from different untouchable castes have converted to Buddhism but there is very little deep interaction between them, and almost no inter marriage which is the only long term way to dissolve such barriers.
There are four main ways in which we are working with these difficulties. 1. Direct Dharma practice. The practice of ethics, regular meditation, study, retreat, and kalyana mitrata or spiritual friendship, all help to eradicate the old mental conditioning and develop confidence, initiative and an ability to work with others. The practice of right livelihood enhances this. Not only do those who live like this benefit, but they communicate confidence to the wider Buddhist community that Buddhist practice does bring benefits. 2. Training - Although there are a number of Dharma teaching centres in India, there are thousands of towns and villages where there are Buddhists, all of whom need Dharma teaching. The only long term answer is training. The Nagarjuna Training Institute in Nagpur has been started for this very purpose, and this year the first residential course is taking place. I should say here that this Institute has been made possible by the support of friends from Taiwan, and it is possibly the most important Dharma institution to develop since Dr. Ambedkar's conversion. This year forty five men and women from different parts of India have joined the course. They are learning basic Buddhist principles and practices as exploring the application of these to the social situation in India. Next year it is hoped that 70 people will attend the course, and if the facilities expand, to increase the numbers even more as time goes on. 3. The Nagarjuna Institute training course has brought together Buddhists from widely different backgrounds, Maharashtra, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Goa. Next year it is hoped to have students from more states, including Punjab, Gujarat, U.P., as well as Ladakh and Tripura which have an ancient Buddhist tradition. In Pune there started the Manuski Training and Research Centre. Manuski means "humanity" or "humanitarian", and was one of Dr. Ambedkar's favourite words. Its aims are different from the Nagarjuna Institute, being to help other Dalits (the usual word for untouchables these days) and newly converted Buddhists who are already doing good social work, with advice and training, especially exploring the way Buddhist practice can help them. As Dalits suffer so much discrimination at times of calamities such as earthquakes, it aims to develop a network of reliable groups to help at such time. It also aims to encourage Buddhist teaching and practice amongst other castes, with the aim of eventually providing a wider context for Buddhism in India, and so facilitating the dissolving of caste barriers. 4. Contact with outsiders. - Untouchables, as Dr. Ambedkar emphasised, had few friends in India and needed the support of friends from outside India. Not only did they desperately need financial help for Dharma institutions as they had no money, but they needed help in teaching, as well as emotional support. He said, "Propagation cannot be undertaken without men and money. Who can supply these? Obviously countries where Buddhism is a living religion.... If the countries that are Buddhist can develop the will to spread Buddhism the task of spreading Buddhism will not be difficult. They must realise that the duty of a Buddhist is not merely to be a good Buddhist. His duty is to spread Buddhism. They must believe that to spread Buddhism is to serve mankind.". As I have said above very few have come forward to help. However there is now some help from Japan, but the most notable contributions have come from the Western Buddhist Order, and more recently from friends in Taiwan. The contribution of both is immense, and without it the state of Buddhism amongst the new converts would be in a much worse state. It is crucial that this support continues especially for the training projects.
There is another aspect to this relationship. When Indian Buddhist followers of Dr. Ambedkar meet non-Buddhist Indians, both sides are invariably conscious of their caste backgrounds, and however subtle that awareness may be, it does mean that the caste difference is perpetuated. However when Indian Buddhists and Buddhists from abroad, with no caste consciousness, meet, this does not happen. Buddhists from abroad see Indian Buddhists in human and Buddhist terms, not in caste terms, and this serves only to develop the human and Buddhist aspects of their relationship. Most years a party from Taiwan visits Nagpur, at the time of the anniversary of the conversion ceremony. Not only is this very inspiring for our friends from Taiwan, but it makes an enormous difference to local Buddhists to have this contact. I very much hope it will continue.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Adsind
Fast Earn
Sign up to Chitika
