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