B.R. Ambedkar’s Buddha
and His Dhamma
November
2016 Laldanmawia
__________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
B. R. Ambedka’s
work Buddha and His Dhamma
was first published in 1957 after Ambedkar's death on 6 December 1956. It was
again published in 1979 by the Education Department of the Government of Maharashtra
as the eleventh volume of Ambedkar's collected writings and speeches, with a
list of sources and an index. This presentation is a summarizing of the text,
but only book three ‘what the Buddha taught’. It also reflects its theological significance
from some theologians, and evaluates contextually.
1. Summary of the Text
1.1.
His Place in his Dhamma
1.1.1. Buddha
claimed no place for himself in his Dhamma. Unlike other founders of major
religions like Christianity and Islam, he did not make himself the way for
salvation. He even did not see the necessity of having a person or a leader who
would keep the Dhamma. To him, the principle must live itself without the
authority of human.
1.1.2.
Buddha did not promise to give salvation, because he did not claim that he was
a prophet or a messenger of God. Prophets or messengers of other religions
promise salvation. But Buddha merely claimed himself as Marga Data (way finder).
1.1.3.
Buddha did not claim any Divinity for himself or for his Dhamma. Moses, Jesus
and Krishna were regarded as claiming divinity for themselves or for their
teachings. But Buddha made no such claim. He only made clear that his message
was the only true way to salvation. It was open to anyone if they want to test
and question it.
1.2.
Different Views of the Buddha’s Dhamma
1.2.1.
How did others understand what the Buddha taught? People understand the
teachings of Buddha differently. For some his principle teaching is Samadhi,
for others Vippassana. Buddhism is understood as esoteric, exoteric, barren
metaphysics, sheer mysticism, abstraction from the world, systematic repression
of every impulse and emotion of heart, etc. In line with these different
understanding, different questions have been asked if Buddha taught about
social message, justice, love liberty, equality, fraternity, etc.
1.2.2.
Buddha made his own classification of Dhamma. The first category is Dhamma,
second is Not-Dhamma and third category is Saddhamma. We need to understand all
these three to understand his Dhamma.
1.3.
What is Dhamma
1.3.1. To maintain purity of life
is Dhamma. To have purity of life, one must have purity of
body (abstaining from stealing, sinful living and taking life), purity of
speech (abstaining from falsehood) and purity of mind (having a right view).
However purity of life can be weakened by five weaknesses-taking life, taking
what is not given, lustful and evil practices, lying, and indulging in
spiritual liquors. These five causes lead to failure in morals, failure in mind
and failure in view. When these failures occur, one is reborn in the waste, the
way of the woe. On the other hand, there are success to these three
level-morals, mind and view. Who are successful in this way, after death,
reborn in the happy lot in the heaven world.
1.3.2. To reach perfection in life
is Dhamma. There are three perfections what one has to reach,
those are- perfection in body, speech and mind. Apart from these three, Buddha
taught other perfections like perfection of giving, morality, patience, vigour,
meditation and wisdom. To reach and cultivate these perfections, according to
Buddha, is Dhamma.
1.3.3. To live in Nibbana is
Dhamma. The most central doctrine taught by Buddha is
Nibbana which can give real happiness. His adherents taught about Nibbana as
the salvation of the soul, what Buddha never taught. To them, Nibbana can be
conceived in four ways-Laukik, Yogic, Bhahmanic and Upanishadic. But Buddha’s
teaching is quite different, because he developed three ideas that underlie his
Nibbana; such as, happiness of the sentient being, happiness of sentient being
in Samsara while he/she is alive, and
the exercise of control over the flames of the passions which are always on
fire.
1.3.4. To give up craving is
Dhamma. The spirit of contentment is valuable in a journey
towards Dhamma, because craving has to be given up. However contentment is not
something about meekness or being poor. Buddha welcomes richness if it is
without greed. Carving comes when one has a desire for possession. That kind of
carving is to be given up in fulfilling Dhamma.
1.3.5. To believe that all compound
things are impermanent is Dhamma. The three aspects of
impermanence are impermanence of composite things, individual being and self
nature of conditioned things. Things are not permanent because they are
produced by the combination of causes and conditions. If the combination is
broken, things are destroyed. Individual is also not permanent because he/she
is changing and growing. So Buddha believes that all compound things are impermanent,
then to believe that doctrine is Dhamma.
1.3.6. To believe that Karma is the
instrument of moral order is Dhamma. Questions have been
asked about moral order in human society, of how it is produced and maintained.
Buddha gave answer to this on the basis of Karma Niyam. To him, human’s action
and its effect is that maintain the moral order in the universe. Karma is the
instrument of moral order. To believe, then is Dhamma.
1.4.
What is not Dhamma
1.4.1. Belief in the supernatural
is not Dhamma. Buddha gave answer to the occurrence of
events that they were not some supernatural cause or miracle, but some human
action or natural law. He did not want to put human as merely a puppet of
nature, time, necessity, and so on because he emphasized on human rationalism.
So belief in the supernatural is not Dhamma.
1.4.2. Belief in Ishwara (God) is
not essentially part of Dhamma. Buddha did not believe
in the existence of God, and did not see any prove that can assure the presence
of God. To him, a religion based on God is based on speculation, therefore not
worth having. He gave different arguments in reference to God’s omnipotence,
goodness, omniscient, etc. At the same time, he was against rites, ceremonies
and observance given to God. That is why belief in God is not essentially part
of Dhamma.
1.4.3. Dhamma based on union with
Brahma is a false Dhamma. According to Vedantism which was a contemporary doctrine of Buddha, human
liberation is making atman
(individual soul) to be union/one with Brahma. But Buddha was against this
doctrine and said that Brahma was not real. He stood in an argument that the
existence of Brahma is not provable because he/she is invisible, at the same
time does not produce visible result. Standing on this position, he said that
Dhamma based on union with Brahma who is not existed is a false Dhamma.
1.4.4. Belief in soul is not
Dhamma. He opposed the notion of the existence of soul as he
did in the existence of God. To him, whatever the soul does/functions, it is
performed by consciousness. If human consciousness functions in that way, what
would be the necessity of the existence of soul? That was why he disagreed the
existence of soul and it could not be part of Dhamma.
1.4.5. Belief in sacrifices is not
Dhamma. The Brahmanic religion, in which people perform
sacrifices, was declined by Buddha. Sacrifices include killing animals and
cutting trees, that was why he felt it was a waste and cruelty. And he could
not accept as part of religion. Because of this view, belief in sacrifices is
not Dhamma.
1.4.6. Belief base on speculation
is not Dhamma. Different questions on the basis of
human life and Universe are asked. Different answers are given to the questions
on the basis of their belief. Buddha did not welcome such questions, because he
claimed himself not omniscient enough. He answered in three ways-there was no
reason to make them part of religion, nobody had omniscient that would
comprehend all these, and finally he thought they are merely speculative. Then
belief based on such speculation is not Dhamma.
1.4.7. Reading books of Dhamma is
not Dhamma. Buddha was against a mere knowledge
without living out. Even knowing little is far better if it penetrates spirit,
body, mouth and thought. Repeating or reciting thousand lines or words are
meaningless without understanding. But to walk according to one sentence is
more worthy. Reading books of Dhamma without understanding and putting into
action is not Dhamma.
1.4.8. Belief in the infallibility
of books of Dhamma is not Dhamma. Brahmins claimed that
Vedas were sacred, final and infallible. But Buddha rejects this kind of
notion, because he wanted that everything should be examine and reexamine
before accepting whether they are salutary or insalutary, blameworthy or
blameless, and whether they lead to well-being or ill-being. On this ground
only, he thought we should accept the teachings.
1.5.
What is Saddhamma
1.5.1.
The functions of Saddhamma. Two functions were mentioned.
Firstly, to cleanse the mind of its impurities; since mind is the origin, the
master and the cause, all our actions are the result of mind. That is why
cleaning impurity of mind is its function. Secondly, to make the world a
kingdom of righteousness; usually religions speak three kingdoms-kingdom of
heaven, kingdom of hell and kingdom of earth. Among the three, Buddha opted for
the third one, because to him the aim of life should not be some imaginary
heaven, it should be the kingdom of righteousness, that is found in kingdom of
earth.
1.5.2. Dhamma to be Sadhamma must
promote Pradnya. To promote Pradnya, there are three stages mentioned. Firstly, Dhamma is
Saddhama when it makes learning open to all. Buddha encouraged acquisition of
knowledge for all whether male or female. However mere learning is still not
enough for Dhamma to be Saddhama, it may lead to pedantry. That is second
stage. Despising others by learned people is like a blind man holding a candle.
Thirdly, Dhamma is Saddhama when it teaches that what is needed is Pradnya. Vidya (learning, knowledge) is highly regarded by Brahmins. But
Buddha regarded Pradnya (virtue/
insight) as more important than Vidya, because mere learning and knowledge was
an object of veneration. That is why Pradhya
(virtue) is needed in Dhamma to be Saddhamma.
1.5.3. Dhamma to be Saddhamma must
promote Maitri. Mere Pradbya is not enough because it
must be accompanied by Sila (acting
aright). There are five basic principles regarding Sila-taking life, stealing,
sexual immorality, telling a lie and drinking. Sila must be purified in order to abstain from these five
principles. Besides Padnya and Sila, what is necessary in Dhamma is Karuna (love for human beings). However,
Buddha did not stop with Karuna teaching, to him Maitri (love for living
beings) is more necessary than Karuna.
1.5.4. Dhamma to be Saddhamma must
pull down all social barriers. In order to pull down
all social barriers, barriers between human and human must be broken down.
Chaturvarna was strictly established in the society which divided human being
into groups, and barriers had been built. But Dhamma to be Saddhamma must break
down all those barriers between human and human. And Dhamma to be Saddhamma
taught that worth is the measure of human, not birth. Chaturvarna is based on
birth, but Buddha opposed that system. To him, an outcaste is not on the basis
of birth, but deeds. Dhamma is Saddhamma when it promotes equality between
human beings. Humans are born equal who enter into the struggle of existence.
In the struggling of life, equality helps to survive.
2. Theological
Significance
2.1.
The Buddhist concept of Trikaya
According
to Whalen Lai and Michael von Bruck, Trikaya
can be a model resting on specific structures of how to think of unity within
difference.[1]
It is the doctrine of Mahayana Buddhism that tells us that a Buddha manifests
in three different ways; those are dharmakaya,
sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya. With this concept, there is a way to
have inter-religious dialogue for different issues, because the world is full
of distinctive things, perceptions and beings. But in an absolute sense, there
are no distinctive phenomena; they are in a relative way.[2] Like
ways, Panikkar’s approach to religious pluralism is Trinitarian approach. He tries to interpret the universe of
religious and secular faiths within the framework of Trinity of God.[3] We,
people of diverse faiths and beliefs can fulfill our real identity only when we
relate to other. We can think theologically how creations are related to each
other, as even human beings are social beings, created to live together.
2.2. The Absence of God in Buddhism
Can
we believe Christ was at work in Buddha as he brought enlightenment to the people?
Many Buddhist give a good deal of thought to ultimate reality or namelessness
which is unknown to human beings which lies behind all existence. Christians
believe that we cannot know God unless He reveals to human.[4]
Can we see the presence of God and the revelation of God in the moral and
ethical teachings of Buddha? For M. M. Thomas there is Christ’s nature in all
revolutions. Panikkar also assumes that Christ is the universal redeemer. The
universal salvific will of God is present and active in all religions and that
Christ is at work in all religions through their sacraments.[5] In
line with them, S.J. Samartha stands in the acknowledgement of the presence of
Christ in the movements of innovation, in the movements within various
religions and new development in certain ideologies.[6]
2.3.
The Eightfold path of Buddhism
The
Eightfold Path of Buddhism is the means by which enlightenment may be realized.
Those are- Right View or Right Understanding, Right Intention, Right Speech,
Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right
Concentration. Likewise, in Christianity, we have Christ who says “I am the
way” through whom enlightenment/ spiritual newness is conceived. Not only that,
Christian path is the way of self-naughting and the imitation of Christ.[7]
Can we find eightfold path of Buddhism in Christ’s nature? All the eight paths
are something to do with our mind and body to show the goodness of self and the
goodness to other. If we theologically examine Jesus’ earthly life, we can find
how his life incorporates with the eightfold path of Buddha.
3. Contextual Analysis
and Critical evaluation
Some
concepts and teachings of Buddha are analyzed and I give my view as follows:
3.1. Buddha
did not see the necessity of having a person or a leader who would keep the
Dhamma, because he thought that the principle must live itself without the
authority of human. However to me, principle does not have a life. It has to be
in the hearts of human before it is followed. I have to know about the
principle. How can I know without a teller, be it human, be it book or
whatever. That is why principle does not live itself; it needs the authority of
human to be passed on to another people.
3.2.
Buddha did not claim any Divinity for himself or for his Dhamma. It may be true
in his view. And he did want to be worship as God. But his followers look upon
him more than he claimed. His statues are all over the world. He claimed
himself a way finder. Then why do people give so much respect bowing before the
statues. Buddha is not living in the statues, because he is not divine. Is not
similar with Hindu worship of idols and statues of Vishnu, Ram, Shiva, Krishna,
etc?
3.3.
Buddhism teaches Karma in which every event has a cause and the cause is the
result of some human action or natural law. If so, if human suffer serious pain
in his/her body, the pain is then caused by his/her actions sometime back. Then
why should they go for healing to Doctors or whoever. Can it be healed if it is
result of previous bad action? In southern part of Mizoram, Chakma are living who are Buddhists.
They practice a kind of ritual and sacrifice to heal their pain. But my opinion
is, if human suffering is caused by previous actions or natural law, there can
be no healing process unless it gets heal by itself.
3.4.
Buddha opposed the notion of the existence of soul. But how can a human rebirth
without a soul? Is not the soul that migrates into another body of life after
death? Or does human die and lie nowhere until he/she is reborn? If there is
nothing that lives after a body dies (like soul), how can human reborn. To
reborn, there should be something which is brought to the new life, if not, it
cannot be reborn, and it will be another life completely different.
Bibliography
Appleton, George. The Christian Approach to the Buddhist. London:
Edinburgh House Press,
1958.
Lai, Whalen and Michael
von Bruck. Christianity and Buddhism: A
Multi-Cultural History of
their
Dialogue. New York: Orchis Books, 2001.
Osborne,
Arthur. Buddhism and Christianity in the
light of Hinduism. London: Rider &
Company, 1959.
Thomas, M. M. Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake: Towards an
Ecumenical Theology of
Pluralism.
Geneva:
WCC Publications, 1987.
Internet
Source
http://buddhism.about.com/od/mahayanabuddhism/fl/The-Trikaya.htm
(Accessed November 15 2016).
[1] Whalen Lai and Michael von Bruck,
Christianity and Buddhism: A
Multi-Cultural History of their Dialogue (New York: Orchis Books, 2001),18.
[2] http://buddhism.about.com/od/mahayanabuddhism/fl/The-Trikaya.htm
(Accessed November 15 2016).
[3] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake: Towards an
Ecumenical Theology of Pluralism (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1987), 31.
[4] George Appleton, The Christian Approach to the Buddhist
(London: Edinburgh House Press, 1958), 51.
[5] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 34.
[6] M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, 83.
[7] Arthur Osborne, Buddhism and Christianity in the light of
Hinduism (London: Rider & Company, 1959), 120-122.
No comments:
Post a Comment