Website Editor’s Note : The following article was written by our member Tanvi Patel, last year, as part of her project work at the JNU, where she was doing her post graduate course. We are reproducing it without any changes, and would welcome comments and posts from readers. In particular we would like to get the reactions from our friends in the Buddhist community of the followers of Dr. Ambedkar.

Ambedkar on Religion, Buddhism and Marxism

By Tanvi Patel, November 2006

• Why Convert?

In 1935 Ambedkar announced, ‘Although I have been born a Hindu, I will not die a Hindu.’ And it culminated in October 1956 in the city of Nagpur where he and 400,000 followers took the ‘three refuges’ of traditional Buddhism and an additional 22 vows.

Conversion to Buddhism became one of the aspects of dalit negation of the appropriation by the hegemonic forces of Brahmanism. Through conversion dalits sought to counteract the imposed external definitions and have strived to assert their humanity as both the autonomous makers of their identity and contributors to the making of Indian society. Conversion has been a kind of social rebirth.

Conversion was a form of escape from internal colonialism by the Hindu upper castes

He believed that Hinduism did not provide for human liberty, equality, fraternity and universal justice as it ritually hierarchized people. Through sanctions from its sacred texts Hinduism perpetrated grave injustices against the lower castes and women. It was, as a religion not self reflexive and humanitarian in the least.

Using the metaphor of Imperialism, the ‘colonized’ i.e. the dalits were unable to escape in any physical sense as they had no independent territory of their own; neither could they send the colonizers (Brahmins) home. They were unable to easily lay claim to an independent history and culture in fact they gained their identity by their incorporation into the repressive and exploitative dominant culture and society. Conversion offered an opportunity to the subordinated groups to escape the colonizers cultural and religious dominance.

Many alternatives tried by him had failed

Ambedkar had initially tried to encourage the process of Sanskritization, in the form of rejecting customs which marked caste as ‘low’, amongst the dalits. He also tried to promote reform from within Hinduism in the 20’s but these attempts were not effectual. Thus social reform within Hinduism failed to provide an ideological and organizational alternative and a new one had to be sought.

He toyed with the idea of demanding a separate homeland for the untouchables, but this was not feasible and he soon gave this idea up. He also thought of establishing a new religion to replace Hinduism but this too proved futile. Finally in the late 20’s and early 30’s he made public his decision to renounce Hinduism.

Disillusionment with Gandhi and the Congress

Conversion was resorted to by Ambedkar as he was disillusioned by Gandhi and the Congress which were dominant forces shaping the face of an imminent Independent India. He felt that Gandhi’s position on the varnashrama, that it was a legitimate part of Hinduism, was problematic as it directly promoted the maintenance of the caste system. He also felt that the Congress and Nehruvian Socialists did not give due importance to caste and local identities and so these were not, according to him, possibilities for dalit liberation. Ambedkar built a political alternative to the congress, which he believed would grant the dalits the independent voice they needed.

Marxism was not an answer

Having forsaken liberalism and religious reformation, having accepted the exploitation of workers and peasants, with a rational and secular outlook, the natural direction for Ambedkar to move should have been leftward towards Marxism which put forward a coherent theory of exploitation. But though it provided many themes which Ambedkar accepted, Marxism in its embodiment in the Indian Communist movement failed to offer a real alternative to him.

Ambedkar believed that the eradication of caste could not be possible if only the economic base was changed, what was needed, he felt, was a repudiation of Hinduism as a religion and the adoption of an alternative religion, which he found in Buddhism.

• Ambedkar on Religion

Purpose of Religion:

To him the purpose of religion was to explain the origin of the world and reconstruct the world.

Tests of Religion

In his treatise, “Buddha and future of His Religion”, after comparing Buddhism with Hinduism, while comparing Buddhism with other non-Hindu religions, Dr. Ambedkar concludes by enumerating the tests a religion must pass:

“(i) That society must have either the sanction of law or the sanction of morality to hold it together. Without either society is sure to go pieces. In all societies law plays a very small part. It is intended to keep the minority within the range of social discipline. The majority is left and has to be left to sustain its social life by the postulates and sanction of morality. Religion in the sense of morality, must therefore, remain the governing principle in every society.

(ii) That religion as defined in the first proposition must be in accord with science. Religion is bound to lose it respect and therefore become the subject of ridicule and thereby not merely lose its force as a governing principle of life but might in course of time disintegrated and lapse if it is not in accord with science. In other words, religion if it is to function, must be in accord with reason which is merely another name for science.

(iii) That religion as a code of social morality must recognize the fundamental tenets of liberty, equality and fraternity. Unless a religion recognizes these three fundamental principles of social life religion will be doomed.

(iv) That religion must not sanctify or ennoble poverty. Renunciation of riches by those who have it may be a blessed state. But poverty can never be. To declare poverty to be a blessed state is to pervert religion, to perpetuate vice crime, to consent to make earth a living hell.”

Dr. Ambedkar asks which religion fulfills these requirements today, reminding that the days of the Mahatmas are gone and the world cannot have a new Religion. It will have to make its choice from existing religions. Some of the religions might satisfy one or two tests but Buddhism is the only religion satisfying all tests. He observes:

“So far as I know the only religion which satisfies all these tests is Buddhism. In other words Buddhism is the only religion which the world can have. If the new world - which be it realized is very different from the old - must have a religion - and the new world needs religion for more than the old world did - then it can only be religion of the Buddha.” [Buddha and future of his religion”, p. 9]

• Some Tenets of Buddhism

In his first sermon after enlightenment, Buddha spoke of the avoidance of two extremes, of worldly yielding to the passions and sensuality, on one hand and extreme and painful self-mortification on the other. This is what is called the ‘Middle Way’ defined as ‘right views, right aspirations, right speech right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right contemplation.’

Following this is the discussion on the four truths. These are that sorrow exists, that there is an origin of sorrow, an ending to sorrow and a path to the ending of sorrow. The origin of suffering lies in craving; it is the overcoming of this that is the way to end suffering.

‘Men freed from bonds of strong desire are free; none other share such perfect liberty…Affliction is not known where no desires abide; where these are, endless rises sorrow’s tide. When dies away desire, that woe of woes, even here the soul unceasing rapture knows (Kural No. 37)

Ambedkar believed that some of the Buddha’s most important teachings were enumerated in the Tripitakas wherein the Buddha talks of the necessity of a religion which is rational, compassionate and moral. He believed that the function of religion was to reconstruct the world, not necessarily to explain its origin or end. The Buddha believed that it was the desire to possess that caused misery as greed caused conflicts of interests between different classes. The Buddha also emphasized the equality of all humans and it was high ideals and not noble birth that made a man great.

The Buddha used the concept of Karma in a very different way from the Hindu Brahmanas. Buddha stressed on the ethicisation of karma, that it was actions of violence and non violence against any sentient being, which affected human destiny. He emphasized the importance of righteous and loving actions over hollow rituals and sacrifices.

There are significant differences between the different Buddhist sects such as Mahayana, Theravada, Vajrayana etc. The animosity between different sects is primarily because there has been a tendency to forget the Buddha’s injunction to avoid and extreme attachment to views.

Ambedkar wanted to provide his followers with a ‘bible’, a simple but comprehensive text of Buddhism, based on what he felt were the most important passages of the Pali canon. Thus he took up as his last work, the task of rewriting Buddhist scriptures.

• Why Buddhism over other religions?

Ambedkar wanted a religion that would recognize the spiritual brotherhood of mankind, the recognition of the dignity of the individual human being and his right to the opportunity for growth. He was searching for a religion which recognized the role of love and compassion, but not one that preached paternalistic charity which hurt individual dignity. He found these values and a promise of rational action in Buddhism that was guided by reason and a universalistic set of moral values.

Impact of Buddhism on Early Dalit Thinkers

A Dalit leader Pandit Iyothee Thass of Tamil Nadu first took up Buddhism at the beginning of the 20^th C and gave it a mass base in Tamil Nadu and in parts of Burma and South Africa settled by Dalit migrant labourers. He identified dalits with Buddhists by arguing that the Tamil Paraiyas were not only Buddhists but descendents of the Buddha’s own clan, the Sakyas. In this interpretation acceptance of Buddhism by dalits would not really be a ‘conversion’ to a new religion but liberation and a return to their original identity.

Bhima Bhoi of Orissa in the early 19^th C created the Mahima Dharma cult aimed at the upliftment of dalits. This was fashioned around Mahayana Buddhist principles.

Ambedkar’s choice of Buddhism owed much to Iyothee Thass and to Laxmi Narasu another leader of this Sakya Buddhism of the early 20^th C.

Buddhist past of India

Ambedkar was influenced by the Buddhist past of India. The rise of the Magadha Mauryan states has been characterized by Ambedkar as that of the ‘Buddhist revolution’ which was revolutionary in transcending Vedic tribal particularism and in denying caste and gender inferiority. He was convinced that the Buddhist Age was tremendously rational and enlightened. Ambedkar argued that Dalits were in fact originally Buddhists who had been rendered untouchable. He looked at the conversion of untouchables to Buddhism as a kind of returning home

The Rejection of Conversion to other Religions

Ambedkar had rejected Jainism, as it was too austere, it glorified wantlessness and suffering, and this did not appeal to the materialistic mind of Ambedkar. Judaism and Zoroastrianism do not encourage conversion of other people into their fold.

He was drawn to Sikhism for some time due to its emphasis on equality. Also he believed that as Sikhism was a home-grown religion it may not alienate the dalits. But later Ambedkar saw that caste feeling did prevail amongst the Sikhs and the fact that the Sikhs as a community were only concentrated only in one region, Punjab, made him refrain from converting to that religion.

Islam, though it was supposed to be equalitarian, did in practice have many hierarchical structures. Other factors that made him wary of Islam were the foreign origin of this religion, the forced conversion of dalits to Islam and the social evils amongst Muslims for instance the condition of women in that community.

.As it had a large following in India he felt that the dalits identity may get compromised if they converted to this religion. Also in this period of the partition brewing he did want to antagonize the situation.

He was also critical of Christianity too, as it was seen as a foreign religion. Here too he observed the practice of caste distinctions. The Christian concept of rewards and punishments after death was to him like the Hindu karmic theory which supported social positions of the caste system based on past life karma, this he did not agree with.

Earlier in the late 20’s Ambedkar viewed Buddhism as a religion linked to Hinduism. Because of the vast majority of upper caste individuals who had turned to Buddhism in the 19^th C, it was seen as a kind of reformed Hinduism, he therefore did not consider converting to it, it was only later after studying Buddhism did his resolve grow stronger.

Buddhism had a emancipatory social message of equality, compassion and justice

Society can be cruel and discriminate against people; therefore it is necessary to have a religion that preaches equality felt Ambedkar.
The Buddha taught that sadhamma must break down barriers between man and man, that worth and not birth is the measure of man and it must promote equality between man and man. Buddhism questioned the rule of inequality in life wherein the weakest are always marginalized and deprived. It promoted equality which would help the best to survive, even though the best may not be the fittest. Ambedkar felt that this religion combined three principles which no other religion does. It taught Prajna (understanding as against superstition) Karuna (love) and Samata (equality) all of which he deemed to be very essential.

Buddhist texts are consistent throughout in emphasizing that righteous and wise men can come from any Varna or social group. In contrast to the Brahmanical tendency to downgrade physical labour, Buddhism gives a dignified place to it. In many Jatakas the Bodhisattva is a farmer or an artisan or a poor wage-worker; and often shown as a skilled ironsmith, or carpenter, or engineer. These tendencies in Buddhism gave it an immense transformative power which posed a challenge to Brahmanism by advancing the emancipation of the dalits.

‘The religion of the Buddha is perfect justice, springing from a man’s own meritorious disposition.’ (Buddha and His Dhamma)

Brought Karma Theory to Bear on the Present Life Only

Buddhism rejected the idea of ‘Moral Law as ensuing from divine will which binds man to obey God, and it is obedience to God which maintains the moral order’. The concrete human self is the focus of the Buddha’s teachings Instead of a ‘first cause’ as espoused by the Upanishads, Buddhism believes in a causal chain of karma which is more scientific and empirical than the Upanishadic first cause thesis. ‘“It is the Kamma Niyam and not God which maintains the moral order in the universe.” That was the Buddha’s answer to the question. The moral order of the universe may be good or it may be bad. But according to the Buddha, the moral order rests on man and on nobody else.’(Buddha and his Dhamma)

Thus Buddhism gives agency to the individual to determine his/her own karma by stressing on freedom of choice in actions which then determine karma. Thus the chain of karma can be destroyed and overcome. This made Buddhism rather progressive as it gave its adherents the a new lease on life by making them see the possibilities of their own free will and agency, it encouraged its adherents to question the ‘divine commandments’.

Discouraged Supernaturalism and Encouraged Rationality

Buddhism is based on reason and experience. The Buddha advised his followers not to accept his teachings blindly without reference to reason and experience. Buddha preached as a guide or margadata and not as a god or mokshadata. While founders of other religions asserted infallibility for themselves, the Buddha made no such claim.

‘There are few things put forth as commands. It is not authoritative in nature in fact its adherents are given agency. ‘The tone is calm and discursive; ideas are presented; they are urged, but the basis is rational; it is calmness, the truth, reasonability that convinces everyone.’ (Omvedt 2003: 63)

The Buddha rejected superstitions. He maintained that not only every event has a cause but the cause is the result of some human action or natural law.

In repudiating supernaturalism, the Buddha had three objects.
17. His first object was to lead man to the path of rationalism.
18. His second object was to free man to go in search of truth.
19. His third object was to remove the most potent source of superstition, the result of which is to kill the spirit of inquiry. This doctrine of Kamma and Causation is the most central doctrine in Buddhism. It preaches Rationalism, and Buddhism is nothing if not rationalism.
22. That is why worship of the supernatural is not Dhamma. (Buddha and His Dhamma)

Buddhism is a universal religion he felt, which did not allow itself to be passed into oblivion as it was based on reason and experience as opposed to the sterile and static doctrines of other religions. Buddhism’s rationality and stress on the observable human experience appealed to Ambedkar’s modern sensibilities. He saw justice and reason as necessary prerequisites for a peaceful coexistence.

Buddhism also remained in consonance with a material and modern world that Ambedkar strove for his people to be a part of. It was a common misconception that Buddha regarded ascetism as an ideal; in fact he was averse to any absolutist position. ‘It is the control of passions, self-discipline, the removal of lust and desire that is the dominant theme in all the early recorded teachings. Even in the midst of worldly luxury it is said that a person can attain such self control.’ (Omvedt 2003: 55)

In the words of the Buddha:

‘Anyone who, though adorned in fine clothes is tranquil, who is peaceful, disciplined, self controlled, virtuous, who renounces violence towards all beings, such a person is a Brahman, a samana, a bhikku’ (Dhammapada No. 142 in Omvedt 2003: 55)

In fact Buddhism also allowed the eating of meat, provided that the one eating has not personally killed or had the animal killed. ‘The one who kills not the one who (unknowingly) eats is guilty.’ This fit in well with the dietary habits of the dalits, who were non-vegetarian. Also it gave the Mahars a reason to abandon ‘ritually impure’ caste based occupations like tanning, or butchering.

Love and righteousness are more important to the Buddhist than simple adherence to rules and rituals. This is in major contrast both to the ritualistic, caste bound pseudo-morality of the Brahmans, and to the literalistic, non-psychological morality of the Jains.

KN Kadam feels that the Buddhist principle of Dhamma is the life and breathe of the Indian Constitution, which Ambedkar played a great role in formulating.

• The Similarities between Marxism and Buddhism

The language used may be different but the meaning is the same for many ideas of Marx and the Buddha. If for misery one reads exploitation Buddha is not very different form Marx. They disliked the acquisitive instinct in man. The Buddha believed that tanha or desire or the desire to possess which causes (class) conflicts is the root cause of misery and evil in the world. Though Buddha never stated it directly, the previous idea indicates that he may have been against private property and this brings him closer to Marx who too believed that a truly equitable society could be brought about only if private property were abolished. Both thinkers accepted that class conflict existed, that it came about through man’s greed, which was a cause of misery and exploitation. Dr. Ambedkar feels that, on this point there is complete agreement between the Buddha and Karl Marx. He explicates his position to his disciple Ananda as follows:

14. “This is the chain of causation, Ananda. If there was no craving, would there arise pursuit of gain? If there was no pursuit of gain, would there arise passion? If there was no passion, would there arise tenacity? If there would be no tenacity, would there arise the love for private possessions? If there would be no possession, would there arise avarice for more possession?”
15. “There would not, Lord.”
16. “If there would not be the love of private possession, would there not be peace?”
17. “There would be, Lord.”
18. “I recognise the earth as earth. But I have no craving for it,” said the Lord.
19.  Therefore it is, say I, that by extirpating all cravings, by not lusting after them, but by destroying and abandoning and renouncing them all, that I acquired enlightenment. (Buddha and His Dhamma)

Thus we see that Buddha’s solution for escaping the cycle of misery was destroying craving within oneself. This he believed could be achieved by being part of the Sangha as the Sangha was democratic, communistic in it’s sharing of property, and extremely flexible. If any precedence was given to one bhikku it was in terms of seniority, not in terms of birth or social status or of any presumed ‘merit’ of knowledge. This is similar to the way Communists declassed members before they entered the party.

In the Tripitakas the Buddha states that the function of religion is to reconstruct the world and to make it happy and not to explain its origin or end. This pattern of thought is mirrored in Marx’s emphasis on praxis and his disdain for idle theory. Marx’s famous saying in the Theses of Feuerbach, ‘Philosophers have only interpreted the world differently; the point however is to change it’ is very similar to that made by the Buddha.

Buddha in the same Tripitaka states that God must not be the centre of Religion. The rational nature of the Buddha made him question the existence of a singular ‘God’ as he had never seen or experienced this phenomenon. Thus Buddha can on a level, be considered to be an atheist. Marx too did not believe in God for the same reasons that Buddha did not. But the Buddha did recognize a need for religion while Marx believed that religion was the ‘opium of the masses’ (add here)

Both the Buddha and Marx believed in dialectics. The Buddha’s rational nature made him believe that everything was subject to enquiry and examination and that nothing was final, not even his own teachings. This was much like Marxist philosophy which was self reflexive and critical and open to changing itself from within.

To remove the cause of misery Buddha also preached the Panch Sila. ‘Abstinence from stealing i.e. acquiring or keeping by fraud or violence the property of another’ was one of its tenets. This is much like the Marxists critique that the capitalists wrongfully and fraudulently appropriated the surplus profits that were the product of the exploited labour force.

• Where Ambedkar agreed with Marxists

Marx expounded his theories about 150 years ago. Most of Marxism is demolished during these years. But what remains of the Karl Marx, Dr. Ambedkar feels, is a residue of fire, small but still very important. The residue in his opinion consists of four items:

(i) The function of philosophy is to reconstruct the world and not to waste its time in explaining the origin of the world.

(ii) That there is a conflict of interest between class and class.

(iii) That private ownership of property brings power to one class and sorrow to another through exploitation.

(iv) That it is necessary for the good of society that the sorrow be removed by the abolition of private property.

The achievements of the Soviet Union exercised a powerful attraction for Ambedkar. This lasted through much of the 1940s with Ambedkar calling for nationalization of land and basic industries for some time calling himself a state socialist. Ambedkar like some communists felt that State Socialism was necessary for the rapid industrialization of India. Private enterprise cannot do it, and if it did it would produce those inequalities of wealth which private capitalism has produced in Europe and which should be a warning to Indians. He accepted that class and exploitation was a result of property, but took a far more conservative stand on the abolition of private property.

Ambedkar in the 1930s lead the anti-landlord struggles in the Konkan and fights of textile workers in Bombay- in both cases uniting with caste Hindus and also sharing a platform with communists. During the same time there was for a brief period a coming together of the socialists, communists and Dalits under the banner of the Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti. Themes that they united on were land reforms and peasant rights. Where he broke with the Marxists was over issues of caste and religion.

Though Ambedkar saw Buddhism as an alternative to Marxism, he ironically posed Marxist questions. His words echoed his interpretation of Marx’s famous saying in the Theses of Feuerbach, ‘Philosophers have only interpreted the world differently; the point however is to change it.’ In his essay on ‘Buddha or Karl Marx’ Ambedkar had rephrased this as ‘The function of philosophy is to reconstruct the world and not to waste its time in explaining the origin of the world.’ He used Marxian ideas to formulate the problems but used Buddhist mans and methods to achieve these ends.

Ambedkar saw the Sangha as the ideal Communist society wherein there a was democratic, communistic sharing of property, where status was in terms of seniority, not in terms of birth or social status or of any presumed ‘merit’ of knowledge.

• The Divergences between Buddhism and Marxism

Similar End Divergent Means

The ends of Buddhism and Marxism were similar but differed in the methods they used to achieve these ends. Buddhism aimed to change the thought of men through the Dhamma, to transform man by changing his moral disposition so that the he would follow the right path voluntarily. “The Buddha’s method was different. His method was to change the mind of man: to alter his disposition: so that whatever man does, he does it voluntarily without the use of force or compulsion. His main means to alter the disposition of men was his Dhamma and the constant preaching of his Dhamma. The Buddha’s way not to force people to do what they did not like to do although it was good for them. His way was to alter the disposition of men so that they would do voluntarily what they would not otherwise to do.” (Buddha and his Dhamma)

The emphasis was on the ethicisation of the emerging market economy and monarchy, through righteous living for householders and the righteousness of the ruler. The Commune of the Sangha tried to change the outlook of the lay people directed to righteous behaviour, through love, while Marxism stressed on the use of violence and force to break the existing system and thereby change it. Ambedkar believed that force could not be a lasting means to effect change. He stated the problem with using force as follows ‘…force failing no further hope of reconciliation is left. Power and authority are sometimes bought by kindness; but they can never be begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated violence.’ (Buddha or Karl Marx)

But some thinkers feel that Ambedkar’s critique of Marxism using violence and force is unjust as in Marxism violence is not violence but self defence. In fact Ambedkar himself believed that violence was necessary when he preached self protection for the untouchables.

Ambedkar believed that Buddhism offered fraternity, liberty and equality while Communism could offer some amount of equality but not fraternity and liberty as Marxism dismissed values like compassion and brotherhood as bourgeois illusions and its methods included the use of violence or force that compromised the rights of some people. Even the equality that communism provided, Ambedkar felt, was not adequate as there was little room for individual choice in a society that functioned based on a rigid doctrine.

Thus one can say that Marxism and Buddhism differed with regard to their views about humans in society. Positivist and empirical Marxism, as mentioned above, did not encourage questioning, it was doctrinaire and there was no scope given to individual choice, thus human nature was seen as a collective product. Buddhism on the other hand encouraged questioning, it was not doctrinaire and believed in the importance of the transformation of the individual from which social change would flow.

On Religion

Ambedkar felt that the Dhamma was ‘sacred morality’ and served the function of social integration. In contrast to Marx and Weber, he did not believe that religion would vanish with the progression of modernity, but that a new and rational religion would develop to give a moral basis to the values of rationality and individualism. Gail Omvedt believes that the Navayana Buddhism of Ambedkar is an example of Durkheim’s projected religion of rationality.

Marx viewed religion was simply looked upon as alienation and never considered as a solution to human exploitation. Marx had given a scientific explanation of religion, that “Religion was the Opium of the people” which had no emancipatory potential. Marx believed that it only allowed people to anesthetize themselves, thereby, Religion changed material struggle into a kind of spiritual comfort. It transformed real needs to hopes of an illusory world. What Marxism did not account for was that death, disease and old age are human realities that continue even in a classless society, thus Marxism does not have an answer or solution to the universal nature of human suffering that cuts across class boundaries.

Buddhism and the Economy

For the Marxists religion is seen as part of the ‘ideological superstructure’ which is produced by the socio-economic structures, but having no independent causal influence on them. But Ambedkar maintained that religion and cultural change could indeed influence the economic base.

It was Max Weber who pioneered theories discussing the economic role of religion and his linkage of capitalism with Protestantism in Europe, went a step beyond Marx. He stated that people see meaning of life and salvation as being as important as material interests. Also Religious ideologies and world views can affect the ways in which material interests operate. He said that some religions foster the creation of an ethically motivated individual who is oriented to economic entrepreneurship. But his indication was not towards Buddhism as he saw it as anti-rational, anti-individualistic and other-worldly, as its rules of the Sangha did not support a rational economic ethic though Gail Omvedt feels that this is an untenable argument as it ignores the rationality inherent in Buddhism and downplays the continued association of Buddhism with commerce and merchants. She believes that both Protestantism and Buddhism gave social sanction and respect to the successful merchant and to accumulation done through moral means. Both encouraged rationalism and denied the ritualistic life.

For the growth of capitalism a religion is needed which is rational and which supports economic activity and prosperity. Buddhism fulfills both these criteria. Historical evidence shows that in the first millennium BC while the society was dynamic and prospering, Buddhism endorsed and gave an ethical foundation to growth by promoting equality and mobility.

The Sangha realized that though itself it had collective property, this model could not be applied to the lay people. It was not a socially realistic prescription for economic life. Therefore, monarchy and the market were both supported but an effort was made to humanize and moralise them.

Unlike Marxism, Buddhism does not ask the wealthy to give up their private property, but asks them to feel for those less fortunate and show greater concern for human relations. It emphasizes the 8 fold path and other teachings, so that once the values of love and kindness to all sentient beings, have been imbibed, exploitation of the less privileged would automatically stop. Marxists would criticize this idea as serving the interests of the bourgeois and being status quoist, as, though there is an effort to soften and humanize it, the master-employer relationship is maintained.

Buddhism supported the acquisition of wealth; in fact possession of private property was the crucial characteristic of the gahapati or householder. : ‘He (a householder) should divide his money in four parts; on one part he should live, with two expand his trade and the fourth he should save against a rainy day.’ (Buddhist text in Omvedt 2003: 70.). This sounds almost capitalist as there is stress on reinvestment for profit but there is no mention of redistributing the profits amongst the workers or those less fortunate.

Separate social categories are maintained throughout Buddhist writings but efforts are made to humanize the relationship between these categories. Yet the fact remains that as the very basis of these social categories is never questioned there is maintenance of a patriarchal and to an extent hierarchical society. The Buddhist ethics is what would be called by Marxists to be an ethics appropriate to capitalism, and not to a classless society. But Gail Omvedt says that welfare economies of the sort supported by Buddhism in which employees are assured their rights and benefits, probably fares better than some communist economies where hierarchy and exploitation are practiced ironically in the name of abolishing inequality.

• Differences between Ambedkar and the Marxists

Ambedkar was disillusioned by the Marxists as they had been rather unreceptive about the Poona Pact, which was to deal with the issues of the Dalits. EMS Namboodiripad’s comment in his History of the Indian Freedom Struggle makes this clear: ‘However this was a great blow to the freedom movement, for this lead to the diversion of the people’s attention from the objective of full independence to the mundane cause of the upliftment of Harijans.’

The indifference to caste by the communists becomes a central lacuna at a time when Marxism was penetrating India as a powerful ideology. This lack of attention to caste can be seen in the following ways: as a failure to press the issue in the workers’ and peasants’ organizations within which they worked; as a failure to form any separate organization or front to represent dalits or take up struggles on caste issues (ironically the Gandhian and Hindu fundamentalists did have these) and as a failure to mention programmes for untouchability and caste issues in the political programmes of the Communist Party or other front parties. It was not until the second congress of the CPI in 1948 that the issue was taken up in detail.

The communists’ fight for untouchable rights proposed a confrontation with Ambedkar, denouncing him as ‘separatists’ ‘opportunistic’ and ‘pro-British’. It also treated caste prejudice as ‘bourgeois divisiveness’, it made no effort to go into the specificity of caste exploitation and asked untouchables to join the ‘democratic revolution’ (of which they were a ‘reverse force’ not the main force).

Also what bothered Ambedkar about the Marxists in India were their upper caste origins. He felt that their caste-status made them unwilling to look at forms of exploitation which questioned their male, upper-caste interests and also that they were incapable of handling caste or other ‘non-class’ contradictions.

Ambedkar believed that a science of historical materialism, which Marx had initiated was not capable of handling ‘non-class’ factors such as caste and patriarchy. ‘The class category provided a marvelous tool for Indian Marxists to interpret what they saw around them within one grand framework of a theory of exploitation and liberation, but at the same time blinding them to other factors in their environment, so that instead of being inspired by the multifaceted struggles of low caste peasants and workers to develop their own theory and practice, they instead sought to narrow these struggles and confine them within a ‘class’ framework.’ (Omvedt 1994:184)

Marxism downplayed non-economic factors such as gender and caste arguing that these could be taken care of with the socialist revolution and Ambedkar disagreed with the undue importance that Marxists gave to the economic sector also he believed that many of Marx’s these like the economic interpretation of history, the inevitability of revolution and the pauperization of the proletariat were not entirely true.

To him the effect of the Marxists on the social movements of Dalits was to pull them away from solutions that were socio-cultural in nature. Thus Ambedkar turned upside down the Marxian concept of base-superstructure. He believed that property was not the only source of power, religion and social status too could generate power and felt India needed a social-religious revolution rather than an economic one. He believed that if caste was annihilated the economic base would automatically change. Buddhism he stressed was an all round alternative to Marxism, capable of solving the problems of conflict and suffering as Marxism could not.

Amberkar did not agree with the Marxian concept of the ‘Withering away of the State’ as he felt that this had not happened in any communist society and was unlikely to happen. He also felt that the communists were unable to give a satisfactory answer to what would take the place of the State if it did wither away. He feels the building up of the Communist State is a useless effort. If it cannot be sustained except by force and if it results in anarchy when the force holding it together is withdrawn what good is the Communist State? He therefore avers that, the only thing which could sustain it after force is withdrawn is Religion. He observes: “But to the Communists, Religion is anathema. Their hatred to Religion is so deep seated that they will not even discriminate between religions which are helpful to Communism and religions which are not. The Communists have carried their hatred of Christianity to Buddhism without waiting to examine the difference between the two.” [Buddha and His Dhamma]

Also Ambedkar had problems with the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat that the Marxists proposed as he felt that any sort of dictatorship was violent and undemocratic. He felt that the communists did not recognize the fact that the Buddha had established communism within the Sangha without any force or violence.

He agreed with Marx that there was a need to reconstruct the world so as to make it more beneficial to the marginalized and bring about equity. But he argued that this need not be done through force and violence which the Communist’s used, as the strikes and actions they prompted were often to the detriment of the weakest sections of society. Ambedkar felt that though Marxism spoke of collective ownership what occurred in practice was actually state ownership where the dominant nationalist party replaced the class party with claims to represent the oppressed masses.

He believed that the world could be reconstructed effectively through non-violent means, through the Buddhist Dhamma and Sangha.

Marxists criticized Ambedkar as being ‘petty bourgeois’, identifying the idealism (return to religion) and reformism presumed to be implicit in his theory with a kind of backward ‘peasantist’ consciousness; this has invariably been the response of even the most favourable left assessments.

• Where Ambedkar had divergences with Buddhism.

His rejection of the theory that the Buddha took Parivraja

The traditional answer is that the Buddha took Parivraja because he saw a dead person, a sick person and an old person. Ambedkar feels that this answer is absurd as if the Buddha took Parivraja at the age of 29, how is it he did not see these three sights earlier? As these were common events, Ambedkar feels it is impossible to accept the traditional explanation that this was the first time he saw them. Ambedkar believed that the Buddha actually left his home left to avoid a war over water between the two tribal oligarchies of Sakyas and Koliyas. Thus in Ambedkar’s interpretation, the Buddha’s search began with the Marxist problem of social exploitation and class struggle.

Rejection of the primacy of ‘The Four Aryan Truths’

Ambedkar felt that the four Aryan truths are a great stumbling block in the way of non-Buddhists accepting the gospel of Buddhism. For the four Aryan Truths deny hope to man. The four Aryan Truths made, according to him, the gospel of the Buddha a gospel of pessimism. He suspected that they did not form part of the original gospel but were a later accretion by the monks. Ambedkar had initially objected to the predominance of dukkha and then given it an extremely social interpretation, identifying it with social-economic exploitation. With this the goal of action becomes not only the liberation of the individual seeker, but the transformation of the world.

According to Ambedkar the Buddha’s first sermon is not a proclamation of the four Aryan truths but of the ‘middle path’, rejecting asceticism on the one hand and indulgence in worldly luxury on the other, followed by the statement of a simple but noble morality. Carol Anderson a scholar on Buddhism believes that the four noble truths were not always central to Buddhism but that they emerged as a central teaching only in the middle of the first millennium. Her theory supports Ambedkar’s contention.

His reluctance to accept the Karma Theory

The third problem relates to the doctrines of soul, of karma and rebirth. The Buddha, Ambedkar says, denied the existence of the soul. But he is also said to have affirmed the doctrine of karma and rebirth. This to Ambedkar seems contradictory, as if there was no soul, how could there be karma or rebirth? Ambedkar feels that this contradiction needs to be resolved.

Ambedkar did not want the Karma theory in Buddhism as it convinced people to accept their social lot in life and thereby justified the caste system. Ambedkar seeks to reinterpret karma, at one point referring to it as biological-genetic inheritance.

Ambedkar also made a radical reinterpretation of Nirvana. According to him nirvana is not a metaphysical or psychological state or attainment, but a society founded on justice and peace. Thus he brought the transcendent view of Nirvana down to earth. It is an engaged Buddhism which disregards notions of another world and translates that into a society based on equality.

The Role of the Bhikku

The fourth problem relates to the Bhikkhu. Ambedkar believed that the Sangha should be a community dedicated to social service, but this idea of his runs counter to the traditional notion of any monastic organization in which the primary goal is spiritual self realization of the members. Ambedkar gives more importance to the social message of the Buddha as he believed that spiritual elevation would not be possible if people were robbed of humanity and condemned to social slavery.

The guiding principle he puts forward for what he takes and what he rejects is simple. Arguing that there were after all numerous interpolations in the texts and corruptions of time, he goes on to say of the Buddha, ‘There is, however one test which is available. If there is anything which could be said with confidence it is: He was nothing if not rational, if not logical. Anything therefore that is rational and logical, other things being equal may be taken to be the word of Buddha.’ (Ambedkar 1992:350-51)

To this Gail Omvedt responds asking whether this was simply Enlightenment rationality in the guise of religion. Was it going too far?’

• Ambedkar’s Version of Buddhism

Ambedkar’s version of Buddhism does not accept in totality the scriptures of the Theravada the Mahayana or the Vajrayana. His Buddhism is sometimes called Navayana, a kind of modernistic Enlightenment version of the Dhamma. In Navayana the goal of the Buddha’s teachings is oriented to social reconstruction and individual advance in this life.

Some Buddhists ask whether Ambedkar’s version of Buddhism is legitimate, whether it is in keeping with the Buddhist tenets. But Gail Omvedt says that throughout the centuries there have been numerous reinterpretations of what the Buddha said and this is what gave rise to different sects with divergent perceptions Buddhism. In fact the Buddha encouraged his followers to rely on their own intellect and experience rather on scriptures or authority to interpret what Buddhism was to them. Thus it can be said that there is no one true and faultless version of Buddhism, so Ambedkar’s version of Buddhism stands valid, it is contested only because it is relatively new.

• Neo-Buddhism: It’s History and Present Status

Ambedkar’s choice of Buddhism was met by the existing Buddhist organizations of India with stark indifference. In contrast to the enthusiasm of many grass-roots Mahars for conversion, Buddhist spokesmen in India responded with dismay to Ambedkar’s announcement of conversion. The telegram sent by the secretary of the Mahabodhi society (in Calcutta) began, ‘Shocked very much to read your decision to renounce Hindu religion… Please reconsider your decision.’

The explanation was simple: the Mahabodhi society though started by Sinhalese Buddhists was then dominated by Bengali Brahmins.

Today the small wave of high caste conversions to Buddhism have dried up and it has now come to be identified as an ‘Untouchable religion.’ But the conversion to Buddhism for many ex-untouchables has been liberating and beneficial.

The democratic Buddhist values and political philosophy of Ambedkar are widely disseminated amongst Buddhists throughout Maharashtra. There is a high rate of literacy and political consciousness amongst Buddhists, a willingness to work only for cash and a militant resistance to the power of Brahmins and dominant landowners such as the Marathas and Hatkars. ‘There is a widespread refusal to perform traditional polluting duties such as scavenging and a widespread refusal to participate in certain kinds of Hindu rituals.’ (Fitzgerald: 229)

But despite these apparent progresses Fitzgerald believes that the Buddhist community today lives by two contradictory value systems one through either habit or domination, the other through commitment or struggle. Buddhism represents a coherent democratic critique of caste and of Hindu ritual, even though the movement is still dominated and restricted by traditional notions of hierarchy. There have been cases in Parbhani district where Mahar Buddhists practice untouchability against other scheduled castes. Fitzgerald in the course of his study encountered Buddhists forcing Mangs to beg for water from the Buddhist well. Buddhists say that they are reluctant to give Mangs water because they still performed polluting occupations such as skinning dead animals.

There is ambiguity both in the ordinary Buddhist’s objective situation and also in their sense of self identity.

This may be because the spiritual aspect has taken a backseat what is more important is the egalitarian and emancipatory aspect of Buddhism, its potential for socio-political liberation. Fitzgerald believes it is a ‘conscious deliberate and well-articulated counter ideology of fundamental democratic change.’

But there are Buddhist organizations like Trailokya Bauddha Mahasangha Sahayak Gana which have developed a sophisticated contemporary doctrine which is fundamentally consistent with Ambedkar’s materialist and political praxis. For example the term dhamma revolution for them means both the moral and mental revolution of individual enlightenment and also the ending of caste and the establishment of a democratic society- through committed social action.

The assertion of Dalits and other low caste groups has taken on renewed force, beginning with the rise of the Dalit panthers in the 70’s. Today the interest in Buddhism among radical activists from Dalit Bahujan backgrounds is greater than ever. There are significant indications that the Buddhists are breaking with the traditional system. In this they are odds not only with the high castes but ironically also with other scheduled castes.

• Critique of Ambedkar

Buddhism Chosen as a Political Strategy

Many believe that Ambedkar chose Buddhism mostly as a political strategy- as the Dalits by converting, would create their own identity amongst the Buddhist religion which had a very small population in India, whereas if they chose Islam or Christianity, the Dalits might have gained resources, but they would be lost in the mass of existing members of these religions.

Accused of propounding a diluted and incorrect version of Buddhism

Many Buddhists are critical of the views he propounded in ‘The Buddha and his Dhamma’. They believe that the Buddhism interpreted by him is not in keeping either with Theravada or Mahayana.

Others believe he was the enunciator of ‘Ambedkarism’ rather than Buddhism. Ambedkar’s ‘Buddha and hid Dhamma’ came under some amount of criticism from scholars, who accused him of tempering with texts and being instrumental and opportunist in his approach to Buddhism. “It frequently seems as if Ambedkar approached Buddhism not with the heart of faith but with the scalpel of a practical reformer and seemed to believe that he could take what he wanted and leave the rest” (Omvedt 2003:7)

Did he promote the rejection of an indigenous Dalit culture?

Even though Ambedkar claimed he wanted to break away from upper caste hegemony he himself and other dalit leaders after him have laid emphasis on the need to look and act like the upper castes and classes in terms of dress, education, occupation and manners. ‘Here you see in this conference these 20,000 to 25,000 women present. See their dress, observe their manners, mark their speech; can anyone say that they are untouchable women?’ Report of the depressed classes Nagpur session, (Meshram 1942 in Pandey 2006)

Did he take the anti-Hindu stand too far?

Unlike the Dali Lama who emphasizes the closeness of Hinduism and Buddhism Ambedkarite tendency in Buddhism makes every effort to not recognize convergences between Hinduism and Buddhism, it is overtly anti-Hindu and tries to maximize the separateness of Buddhism. In fact in the extra 11 vows which the Mahars were made to take when they converted to Buddhism emphasized that the Mahars reject all forms of Hindu ritual and worship including death rituals, such a drastic shift in such a short period could have made the process of conversion difficult and in certain cases ineffectual.

Rejection of Alternative Models of Development

He rejected any dialogue with alternative economic models as he baselessly associated these with the Gandhian tradition which promoted a village economy and ‘Ram-Raj’. He clearly did not see the imminent problems with the technocratic state-socialism and the large scale industrialization that it promoted.

Bibliography:

• Ambedkar, BR, 1992, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar writings and Speeches, Vol 11, compiled by Vasant Moon, Bombay, Government of Maharashtra.

• Benjamin N and Mohanty BB, Ambedkar’s Quest for the Right Social Equality: An Interpretation, Social Action, Vol. 51, April June 2001.

• Doddamani, Rajendra B, Dr. Ambedkar’s Concept of Buddhism, Mainstream, April 26, 2003

• Fitzgerald, Timothy, Ambedkar Buddhism in Maharashtra, Contributions to Indian Sociology, 31 (2), 1997

• Ghosh, Kunal, Buddha Vivekananda, Ambedkar, Progression in Indian Thought, Mainstream, Annual, 1997

• Gore, MS, 1993 The Social Context of an Ideology: Ambedkar’s Political and Social Thought, Sage Publications, New Delhi

• Kadam, MN, 1991, Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar and the significance of His Movement: A Chronology, Popular Prakashan, Bombay

• Kamble, Ramesh, Contextualising Ambedkarian Conversion, Economic and Political Weekly, October 11, 2003

• Keer, Dhananjay, 1954, Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan, Bombay

• Ling, Trevor, 1966, Buddha, Marx and God, Macmillan, London

• Narain AK, Ahir DC Ed, 1994, Dr. Ambedkar, Buddhism and Social Change, BR Publishing, New Delhi

• Omvedt, Gail, 2003, Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahmanism and Caste, Sage Publications, New Delhi

• Omvedt, Gail, 1994, Dalits and the Democratic Revolution: Dr Ambedkar and the Dalit Movement in Colonial India, Sage Publications, New Delhi

• Pandey, Gyanendra, The Time of the Dalit Conversion, Economic and Political Weekly, May 6, 2006

• Pinto, Ambrose, Hindutva vs Ambedkarism: Views on Conversion, Economic and Political Weekly, October 7, 2000

• Srinivasan, R, Dalit Buddhists before Dr. Ambedkar, New Quest, 121, January-February, 1997

]]> http://www.dharmaraincentre.org/2007/08/02/ambedkar-on-religion-buddhism-and-marxism/feed/ http://www.dharmaraincentre.org/2007/07/08/you-can-submit-an-article/ http://www.dharmaraincentre.org/2007/07/08/you-can-submit-an-article/#comments Sun, 08 Jul 2007 14:37:38 +0000 dharmaraincentre Your Blog http://www.dharmaraincentre.org/2007/07/08/you-can-submit-an-article/ In order to publish an article on this blog page, click on the link below. A comment box will open up. Fill in the required details and type or paste your entire article within the comment box.

Please do include an introductory paragraph about yourself. This can be separated from the main article, when published on the blog.

When you submit the form, your article will be sent to the moderator who will post it on this page. All posts will appear on this page, latest first. You can also comment on any post already on the page, as usual. Happy Blogging!

Click here to post your article.

June 13th, 2007

The world as we have come to know it, is actually a purposely ignorant manner of intelligence. Now you may ask how intelligence can actually be ignorance, and so I will explain it for you in detail.

We know intelligence to be of a higher level of understanding than what is perceived as common sense, common knowledge. It is the knowledge the common person is not so much aware of. It can be in forms of technology, psychology, science, medicine, mathematics, you get the point. But we must look at what we consider intelligence. Based on the list of the five above, we can relatively say that the common person views them as an intelligent focus of the mind.

If we look at the world today, it seems like there is less intelligence and more ignorance in the minds of people. Some can argue that it is human nature, which is another article altogether, some may say it is lack of education, diet, environment, government influence, family influence. The list can go on.
What we are really looking at is nothing mysterious. The problems of our world, people, and environment; which is actually the immediate surroundings, people, countries, oceans, universe and the many out there and all lands within them, are outcomes of causes planted by ignorance, greed, anger and arrogance. How have these causes been planted?
Since the formation of communities and societies, people needed a manner in which to base moral behavior on, a manner in which they can follow, a philosophy. Because our current environmental problems, (see my definition of environment above) are within the modern world, we will look at one manner in philosophy of the modern world which is one of the most powerful ideas in shaping the modern mind. It is the root cause of the outcomes we face every day.
It is taken from what science has labeled, “The Animal Kingdom”. Ready?
“Survival of the Fittest”. Yes, the great quote and philosophy those in power stand by, those who want power cultivate, and those who see others in power try to work into every aspect of their mind. It is a manner of behavior which every human carries in almost all of their daily actions.
Humans have observed animals, and decided that it is the stronger, more aggressive one which dominates and has power. So, they emulate animals, thinking it is proper for the human world. This philosophy was observed by humans who could not understand why a great amount of good people experience poverty, hunger, and loss in competition, while those who are aggressive, angry, do evil/bad things, have loads of money seem to always have somewhat of a “fulfilling” life. Take a look at that point. In today’s world, the majority of those who have great amounts of money seem to be the ones doing the not-so-nice things in the world.
What we are seeing is not the philosophy of survival of the fittest, but the outcomes of their past good causes, the process of karma. Just because people have money, a big house, nice cars, and fancy clothes, doesn’t mean they are virtuous, morally cultivated, respectful people. Money and virtue do not go hand in hand, but an outcome of properly cultivated virtue may be money, given certain planted causes. Think of the mind as the ground, thoughts, emotions, and desires to be seeds that are planted, and what you experience, as the result of your planting/cultivating.
People experienced loss, inequality, separatism, hurt to the ego, and decided that in order to “get ahead” one must hurt others and make sure the competitive mind is always on point. They purposely conditioned, forged in their minds that one must be stronger than the rest, and do what it takes to make the next dollar, or whatever money one’s country uses.
This “re-educating” led our modern world into vast competition. Everyone wants and wants. They try to “get ahead” and it is done at the expense of other’s misfortune.
This is what is meant by “Forging Unintelligence”. It is not human nature to be competitive, nor is it human nature to be egotistical. It is conditioning and repetition of the same conditions which give one what they have always received, and as a result of seeing the same things over and over again, one begins to believe the world is just that way.
Forging unintelligence simply means to plant into one’s mind, thoughts of anger, greed, ignorance, and arrogance. These four are the foundation of our world’s problems as well as for our own unhappy experiences. It builds the excuse of why one should believe in “survival of the fittest”. Believing in self= ego, others= everyone else/separatism, living beings= that there is such things as living beings, and a life = that there is such a thing as living and dying, then the current model of the world makes a lot of sense.
Why is it unintelligent? It is so because if one were to look at the outcomes we are faced with in our daily lives, one will realize that it is based on what has been done in our past, and that life is continuous, never ends, so therefore there is no life, for there is no death.
Competition is in everything we do…conditionally, and everything we do is based on our conditions. The meaning of conditions, used here, is what is within our mind which allows us to accept, not accept and to experience and understand what we have the ability to, the capability to.
When we are on line at the store buying groceries, we try to get a stable stance so others will not try to cut in front, so they will feel inferior, and not attempt. This is a false sense of security we place in our minds. If we are walking in the street, we are mindful of our belongings, mindful of who is looking at us, at how fast the cars are going so we may have good timing to cross the street and be the first, or one of the first people to make it to the other side.
We look at other’s clothing and compare whose clothing is more expensive, cleaner, and colorful. Some marvel at how pretty another one is, if they are prettier than another, who is stronger, stands more upright and gives an impression of authority. The list can go on, but what we should look at really is how our mind works when faced with what we experience in every moment, every breath, and every thought.
You are not free until you can recognize your faults and place in the corner your good points. Do not wear your good points on your collar, sleeve, or even paste in on your forehead. It plants the seeds of ego and competition, and will keep you where you always were, and give you what you always received.
Our past and current world model has been formed by greed, anger and ignorance. That is why we have outcomes of war, famine, natural “disasters”, societal problems, family problems. To do what is wrong is more accepted than to do what is right. People only look at their outcomes. They are worried about what they are going to get in return. That is unintelligent and it has been fed to us by our schools, television, and parents.
It’s not wrong if you understand it and change it, but it is wrong when those around you, as well as yourself, are being affected in a manner which is not wise. As said before, ordinary people look at their outcomes; fear their outcomes. Wise people look at their causes; fear their causes. This fear isn’t the fear we all know. It is more of a concern.
The whole manner of survival of the fittest in the Buddhist school of cultivation does not hold ground one bit. Why, because we simply ask who is the one surviving, who is the one fittest? If there is an “I” which is surviving, an “I” which is more fit than the next, then wisdom is not present, only ignorance.
To change what we experience, we must let go of our views of everything. That doesn’t mean to be dull, like a vegetable growing in the field, just sitting there basking in the sun like beach bums. It means to not attach to dual thinking. See as if not seeing, but do not close your eyes and say you see nothing, because you are still seeing darkness which is something. If one sees nothing, there are seeing something. Ask, “Who is seeing?” Maybe you’ll get an answer, maybe you won’t. If you get an answer, you haven’t found who is seeing yet. If you don’t get an answer, do not be too attached to not getting an answer and then you will get one, but it is sudden…and not sudden.
What is experienced is an outcome of desire. In any order one wishes to put it, thought, desire, outcome; outcome, desire thought, in any order they are the same thing. For instance, sexual desire begins simply by the thought of it, but the thought of it comes from the outcome of having experienced it before, and that outcome is a result of a desire from thinking of experiencing it. The connection is endless, just like our conditions we live by.
Change your mind, and you will change all of what you experience. Continue planting seeds of anger, greed and ignorance, and you will always experience the world as the common person does. Plant seeds of wisdom, patience and compassion, and you will realize that experience is false, and all things are illusion. This is wisdom. Real and not real do not exist. Extinction and non extinction do not exist. Detach from thoughts of separation, and be wise.

Still as we are,
gaining the light of this world,
we must be still.

Nature is much,
but claims none.

Follow these ways and you are enlightened.

Heaven is present
Yet does not express to everyone.

Follow this,
and you will know yourself.

Breath is everlasting
and gives to all within and without.

Follow this,
and you are immortal.

2

Using life to show others a truth
will cause one to arrive at an early death.
Using life to enjoy the truth one feels within,
longevity remains.

If the overall truth of all that is pervades
all things, then why are Humans the only ones to resist?

Because Humans still view themselves as separate.

When the perception of Unity is felt,
all things will exist One as All.

3

Wind has its time to form an expression.
Earth has its time to manifest condition.
Humans must adhere to the changes in
time, for time is associated to action
in this dimension, and our mind is
programmed to anchor in emotion.

Change means to let go.
Stillness means to be light.

When change, stillness and light
are in harmony,
one will be light enough to change
while being still.

4

Empty.

To conceive of being so causes
one not to be.

To conceive is to grasp.
To grasp is to attach.

When one attempts to achieve emptiness,
and grasps hold of the way of achieving this state,
one becomes further away from emptiness
and closer to stagnancy.

The way can never be grasped to reach a
conclusion, for the way changes.
Emptiness has no conclusion, for even emptiness
changes.

To become empty
is to be inconclusive.
To be inconclusive one
must not hold on to their ways of becoming.

5.

Absence is the key to enlightenment.
Enlightenment is the key to all being.

In the consciousness of Being all,
absence does not exist.
There is no separation, hence,
there is no superiority.

During life, know that the Being who is
all knows nothing.
and one who knows nothing
knows all.

Therefore, one must realize but

Drop perception.

To perceive to know
is to conclude in the moment.
To perceive to know for that moment
and release conclusion is progress.

6

Perceiving to Perceive.

7

When eyes are closed
energy is held within.
When breath is slow,
energy is utilized.

Both are two of the many expressions
of vital energy we will call Spirit.
Both contain principle,
yet this principle is used differently in many expressions.

8

To be still and moving is simple.
Being simple becomes complicated at first.
In center, of extreme or not,
There is another center.
In this place, there is yet another.

Slow movement is not slow enough to
stop time, and yet
time is only perception,
but exists not in conclusion of itself.

Be conscious of what perception you are using
to experience being still and moving,
simple and complicated,
extreme and center.

Experience is the key,
and accumulates over time.

What manner is used to perceive of time?
Who is experiencing?

9

Character can be cultivated successfully
through emotion and intent.

In the beginning,
we are of a character which expresses
joy, sorrow, tranquility, chaos,
etc.

Here, we are fluctuating between
both extremes, yet without concluding
to any one of them as acceptable,
not acceptable, better or worse.

After many years of childhood we pick
and choose according to our environment and
the people within it, animals, plants.

Once it becomes repetitious,
our natural distinction between freewill
and imposed reality become distorted.

Character should not be dependant upon
one’s environment. Environment is dependant
upon one’s character.

If your character is manifesting in a
dull expression, so will your environment.

Why are so many people quick to change
their place rather than themselves?

Holding on to comfort and that which
is fixated upon comfort will create
ignorance and laziness.

This stagnancy will manifest conclusive
realities, and hence addictions, ego and
skepticism.

10

To change
to let go,
receive nothing and see the beauty
of Nature.

We grow accustomed to things.
Things do not change, but mind does,
naturally.

When the mind is fixated to accept things
as a conclusive reality,
then the mind is forced to perceive
one expression of creation.

Freedom can not be achieved by these means.

How can one exist freely if their
mind is chained to fixed expressions
of things, reality, freedom and non-freedom?

11

To be clear is a misconception,
for clarity is still a perception
unless the perception being used
is used by a non-attached mind.

Both clarity and non-attachment
have attachments as long as the mind
is being used to perceive them.

In order for the mind to not hold attachment,
there must not be a body.

Yet,

if the use of perception is the only attachment the mind has,
and the body is not overwhelmed by emotion,
then clarity can be experienced.

It is only after experiencing through a mind
One must work in both extremes to
a Human expression of natural and not natural.

It is through both expressions that
that which is and that which is not
can experience the extremes of its choices
of manifestation while being centered.

If this was common knowledge,
wouldn’t everyone see truth in all they do?

12

Nature is the will of Heaven.
The Way tells us that the will of Nature
is a harmoniously expressed will.

Even chaos is embraced, yet
chaos is not chaotic, for it is
part of the will of Heaven.

Nature holds both Yin and Yang
within and without, and does not
revere to either one as superior.

So why does man hold favor for the
perception of superiority when within
there is both a perception of
weakness and power,
struggle and easy,
knowing and ignorant?

Because they believe conditions
to be real

13

The Way does not attempt to out do
itself. It does not ask through its
presence to seek for the greater of itself.

Even though the way of all
is expressed by all, each one
is just as grand.

The way is not higher than itself
for it is without separation.

Any expression with intention
of being the greater of paths is not a
path to the genuine.

Expression of a way to be more
of itself is not the way to enlightenment.

The Way is simple, constant and
seems to change to fit one’s expressions.

But it doesn’t.

One changes expressions to fit the Way,
And still, there is nothing that needs to fit.

.

14

Gathering Qi through the body,
inhaling from all extensions.

Remain with both ends of the
upward Yang channel pulling
in opposite directions.

Knees bent just enough with hips
and tailbone down and forward.

Head pulling upward from the crown.
Feet forward.

If you can not cultivate correct posture,
disease will soon follow and Qi can
not be transformed.

Clear the pathway for breath
and extend the limbs.

15

The basics of living are obvious.

Nature is the key to self-mastery,
but once you realize nothing,
self-mastery does not exist.

Let your perception pass through the mind,
and let mind anchor the perception of expansion.

When expansion is felt, then nothingness can fill the void.

Once this is achieved, one must continue this way until they
have created a reality based on change and emptiness,
detachment, and yet it is not acheived.

16

There is a moral code in Nature.

It does not mean that Nature is
concluded.

Nature’s moral code is to be followed
and empowered by Humanity, yet not many
in Humanity have been perceptive to know
this code.

Animals follow it, the trees emit it,
and yet humans deny it.

The wind carries it, plants and flowers
manifest it and still, Humans do not abide
by it.

This code is not hard to find, for it is all
around us.

This code is not hard to comprehend, for
it is this code which is our sense of comprehension.

What is this moral code?

If I were to label it,
Religion would start.

If I were to speak it,
the sound of it would fall upon deaf ears and unstill hearts.

If I were to show it, no one would
believe the sight of it.

But I have shed light upon the path
towards experientially knowing it.

One must see with their hearts, feel
with their minds and behold through
their eyes the way of Nature.

It is of mind.

The path is everywhere,
The code is known through this path

17

Do not let the words confuse you
by claiming label to things.

To know things
is to accumulate memory.

To remember is to piece together
accumulated thoughts, images and
emotion.

These instances have already existed.

Why recreate the past, when the present
is filling up with future memories?

18

Observe the past.

The very moment of the present
becomes history by the instant it is
perceived.

The very next moment will be the
present.

To remain mindful of the present moment,
do not grasp it with the mind, do not
remember it, do not store it in emotion.

To remain mindful,
to let go of the past,
Know that the future is already here
and that the present has already happened

19

Spirit is already cultivated as itself.

Integrating the ways of Humanity, Spirit
must surrender and embrace Human
limitation.

Who is human to have limitation?

Spirit and Human are both one idea in
creation.

Once the Spirit acquires a body, the body
becomes the living embodiment of Spirit.

Humanity is not with a limitation. It is
only when disbelief enters,
that the Human experience
is concluded.

So then,
Are we Spirit, Human or both?

Whatever the answer, there will be a
conclusion, yet which conclusion manifests
over all freedom?

Aren’t we already free?

20

Knowledge is accumulated thought
which has very little energetic value.

True knowledge cannot be accumulated.

The remains of true knowledge are vague impressions within the mind.

To tap into true knowledge one must enter
with a non-attached mind.

Yet since the mind will be using a perception,
it is attached.

The key to non-attached perception is
non-association to the perception and emotion
of what is being perceived.

21

We are driven to achieve certain goals.

Along our path to achievement
We gather various things.

On our path we grow towards acquiring
perceptions, emotions, intentions and loss
of sight.

We loose sight of our path and delve into
that which is acquired.

We create situations based on what we
have gathered.

Thus, we forget our path and remain concluded.

At the end of experiencing our acquired
ways, a realization manifests.

This realization shows nothing,
which is what we started out with.

The nothing that has manifested did not just happen.

It was always there,
covered by our acquired ways.

22

Nature does not seek for the
“extras” of life.

What has become known as the “extras”
are not natural.

Thus, Nature remains natural.

Humans seek for the extra.

Many mistake this wanting as Human
Nature.

They are wrong.

The search for more is a condition,
and is acquired through time and
forgetfulness.

The idea of not enough is not natural,
but a means to self- destruction.

Fear is not natural.

It is a misconception of what is.

There is no overcoming of fear,
only realization of truth.

23

How does one recognize their
ways if all they know are their ways?

By questioning their reaction with such ways.

This means, one must question how
their reactions are.

What emotions are associated and why,
what memories are associated to which emotions?

After, one must observe their life
and decide whether or not there is
satisfaction.

Satisfaction is not the end result, but
the means to reaching the end result
which would be re-creation or absence.

24

Reaching a state of clarity is not the
focus. For the idea of reaching concludes
perception by creating the illusion that
clarity is far away.

Humans, by condition, can only conceive
of destruction and disbelief.

Humans forgot their own beauty and magic.

The sorcery of Human nature is
unimaginable for this current conscious
mind, or more better expressed,
un-conscious mind.

That which is not,
Is that which creates all.

25
It is the one who rests,
Who rests in clarity.

What is the purpose of clarity?

It is not to be a Spiritual figure - head,
it is not to be a changer of reality or
even community.

The purpose of clarity is not to be clear,
or to not be without thought.

In being clear,
there would be no purpose of clarity whatsoever.

So what is so great about being clear?

Nothing.

26

Why listen to Nature?

What is the point to being one?

One can deafen their senses and dull the
heart from the constant voice of Nature.

One can cause their will over others.

The will of Nature and Heaven will,
eventually cause one’s intentions
to balance and re create reality.

27

Rulers speak of things to gain
from what they want.

Aspiring rulers speak of things so
they can get closer to having what the
ruler wants and what ordinary people think
a ruler should have.

Ordinary people are confused about what
to have because they are too worried about
what the ruler wants and what the aspiring
ruler is getting to.

The sage does not speak of what they have,
but achieves things by what they do with what is already there.

To speak of gaining,
is equal to not receiving it.

Both cancel each other out.

To silently place your goals to the winds, all will adhere.
That which works for all will manifest with the blessings of Heaven and Earth.

Seekers of the Way are closer
to reaching it.

Those who are of the way, intend to give it.

Speak not of your gains and means to
acquire, for this will hinder its manifestation
and ordinary people will question.

Lie to the majority,
Heaven and Earth will become restless.

One who speaks little,
but does not impose intention upon the world,
achieves Nature’s will.

What is Nature’s will?

To know this answer
one must realize their place in existence,
see past their conditions.

28

The will of man and Heaven are
not in accordance with each other
due to man’s condition of control.

Nature does not separate itself from
Heaven and man.

Man is the only creation who seeks
separation and control.

This is not the Nature of humanity.

This is the Nature of condition, ignorance
and fear.

When those who realize freedom from
condition, ignorance and fear,
Those who uphold such will succumb
to the will of True Nature.

29

A nation is not successful when
its people are of ill health.

A nation cannot be wealthy
while its people are poor.

For success to be present,
Everyone must benefit.

When a ruler rules by war,
People will rise.

When a ruler lies to the people,
People become confused.
They inherently know good from bad.

When people are conditioned with false presentations,
they eventually deteriorate.

When quality of life wanes,
Nature will enforce the will of Heaven

30

In order for there to be change, there
must be an acknowledgement of one’s
conditions.

In order for one to acknowledge their
conditions,
one must be mindful.

In order for one to be mindful,
one must breathe.

All action begins from breath.

To know your breath is to know life.

Many exhale more than they take in.
This is possible because there is more
to breath than what people think.

How to know life?

Breathe.

31

Right action,
Right thought,
Right emotion,
Right intention,
Right will.

There is no wrong outcome.

There is only that which is intentionally
created, and that which is intentionally
created due to ignorance.

All people react.

They react to action, emotion, thought,
intention and will.

To get a particular reaction one must
study emotion, gather thoughts to carry
emotion, intuit intention according to
one’s choice for emotion and strengthen
will to place intention into action to
manifest one’s will.

If any of these steps are forgotten,

an incomplete action will manifest.

Will,
Intention,
Emotion,
Thought,
Action.

Master these, and one can create reality
upon their will.

Fall victim to ignorance and the will of
others will be imposed.

32

Some do not get it.
Some take time to conceive of it.
While it never changes,
people do.

By the time of the conception of it,
they are finally freed from their body
and become it.

What is it?

To know this is to have died.
How does one know death?

By the changing of perception.
To change is to re-awaken.

To re-awaken is to have died and been re-born.

Needless to add, the opinions of the author are his own and the article is being reproduced here without any changes.

In this discussion we will look at the expedient of religion in the Buddhist school of cultivation. In doing so, we must keep in mind that each person has their own idea of what makes a practice a religion. What we will hold in mind as the basis of this discussion is that most of the world sees Bowing, Chanting, Praying, a leader of some sort guiding “followers” along the means of practice, a place of practice, and actions of practice to all be pieces which make up a religion.

Let’s look at the expedient of religion in Buddhist cultivation. Buddhism is only named Buddhism as a focal point of reference to practices which cause a living being to reveal the Complete and True mind. To attain AnutturaSamyaksambhodi. Attain is only a word used to point out what was not present in mind before revealing the true nature. One does not attain. One only lessens what is in the mind, thus revealing the true nature.

Now let’s look at some of the practices of the expedient of religion in Buddhism, and we will describe its functions in cultivating the mind. For starter, we can look at bowing, and the use of statues.

Bowing to anything is seen as a form of worship in the minds of today’s realm. But has anyone thought of it as a form of respect? In certain cultures around the world, nodding one’s head at an elder of the family, guest at the house, or even a manager or C.E.O. of a company is seen as a form of respect. Sometimes the lower the head is of the person bowing to is regarded as being very polite and respectful.

In Buddhism bowing is done in several regards. One, bowing to an elder of the Sangha (community of left home cultivators and lay cultivators of the Buddhist school), is regarded as respectful to one’s elder in cultivation. Bowing to the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, which some would be in forms of statues and various images, is regarded as a manner of respect for one’s elder of cultivation, and is a bowing towards one’s original mind.

Bowing to one’s original mind is bowing to the Buddhas, which is basically dropping ego, personality, being and a life, and emptying all forms of discrimination and attachment. This is a cultivation of humility. There is no superiority in the Buddhist school, only recognition of one’s cultivation. Though there is no superiority, there is a manner in which cultivators know what they are not capable of. Those who have attained spiritual penetrations are more capable than one who hasn’t, and thus would be respected according to their cultivation.

So bowing isn’t a manner of worship, mindless worship, or hailing and praising in dependency of a higher being as in other religions. Bowing to the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is a cultivation method for developing a patient, compassionate, humble mind and character. Bowing to the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is simply bowing to one’s own original mind. Though many cultivators who use this expedient may seek to depend while making offerings, and bowing to show they are being humble and should be rewarded, they are missing the point and being an example of what one shouldn’t cultivate in Buddhism.

Buddhas and Bodhisattvas do offer their help, yet their help is to offer methods in which living beings can cultivate in order to live a more happier life and attain what they wish. This is not due to living being’s dependency, but it is due to patience, compassion and wisdom which is cultivated in its highest level through Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.

Offerings are another expedient practitioners cultivate. Offerings are in all manners of religions worldwide. Some offer money, food, clothing, housing, books, etc. The minds of people vary during these acts of offerings to whomever they offer up to. In Buddhism, offering food to the Sangha is to show respect for those who are cultivating ways one may not be cultivating. For example; the Sangha is made up of Left home people…monks and nuns. They have no money to buy things on their own, so they accept that living without the use of money is the biggest challenge for all humans, and so they do not work in society as lay people do.

The Sangha of Buddhism is viewed as a community of cultivators whom will be, and may have already, attained enlightenment and will teach these ways to the lay community. Because of the many mannerisms of cultivation, they do not spend time working for companies, or businesses of any sort. The lay people of the Buddhist school support them in faith that when the monks and nuns have reached a high level of wisdom, they will teach those who have not left the home life. Also, because giving is a good thing to do, they give to those who are doing what the majority of this world cannot do.

Cultivation towards awakening and teaching the cultivation of attaining enlightenment is not something which can be learned in an academic setting. Much of what cannot be left aside by the worldly mind must be left aside if high levels of cultivation are to be realized.

Offerings that are of food to the statues on the alter are not made to the statues, but to the minds of those doing the offerings. Offerings to the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are offering up to one’s own original nature. It is further pushing the roots of the desire to attain enlightenment further down into the mind-ground, strengthening one’s faith in the teachings of that of Sakyamuni Buddha and the many Buddhas of the ten directions. Though living beings ask for things in return while making offerings, and sometimes receive them, it is not do to the offerings so much so as it is due to their proper time for receiving such things.

YET, making great offerings to cultivators of the way will add momentum to the great things one is to be receiving anyway. If their intention on receiving some particular outcome is strong enough, with great faith that it will thus be the way they intend for it to be, it will certainly be received the way one has intended it to be. This is due to the sincerity (constant one minded concentration ) of the mind during offering.

Things just do not turn around because of crying, bowing, and constantly asking for something. Things turn because of the sincerity of the mind, the momentum added to the karma during the concentration. Good things come from good causes, bad things come from bad causes. Giving always results in good effects, and not giving results in not receiving anything from others in times of need, or out of good gesture.

We have covered only two aspects of the mannerisms of Buddhist religious cultivation.
Next we will look at several methods of cultivation in the Buddhist school of the religious expedient. They are Recitation of the Buddha’s name and Sutras, Chanting Mantras, Utilizing Prayer, and Ceremonial rites.

We will begin with the recitation of the Buddha’s Name, for it is a quite lengthy explanation which will take eons to describe it in its full wonderful context, but here, we will just take a small look … which will be lengthy.

Reciting the Buddha’s name is an expedient of cultivation that has been utilized in a religious setting, as perceived of by non-Buddhists and some Buddhists alike. Firstly, some of the main reasons for reciting the Buddha’s name is to always keep the Buddhas on one’s mind. Constantly in a mind of remembrance, yet not of a past tense, but of a present one. Always having the Buddhas on one’s mind, one will speak with a mind of a Buddha, be compassionate with the mannerisms of a Buddha, always be in a state of Patience as a Buddha, and be “merged” in the sea of pure Wisdom as a Buddha. Recitation of Amitabha Buddha’s name in sincerity will also result in being born in his Land of Ultimate Bliss. More to be discussed on that later on.

These qualities are cultivated all within Buddha name recitation. How so? Because all Buddhas of the Ten directions are these qualities when being expressed through the minds of living beings. When the mind is of peace, one will radiate peace. When the mind is of anger, one will radiate anger, and all who come into their presence will inherently detect anger. What is of the mind will be that which is experienced. Since we can always experience what is of the mind, why not cultivate to experience that which is good?

There is more that comes with Buddha Name Recitation. Who’s name is being recited? Amitabha Buddha of the Western Pure Land. The next few lines will be taken from Xuan Hua Shangren’s commentary on the meaning of Amitabha Buddha’s name because it is only wise to utilize a higher understanding when speaking of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.

Taken from a commentary on ‘The Buddha Speaks the Amitabha Sutra’ by Shifu Xuan Hua Shangren;

“Amitabha, the next word in the title, is a Sanskrit word which
means “limitless light.” Amitabha’s other name, Amitayus, means
“limitless life.”

“But,” you might ask, “the Sutra says that it has been ten kalpas
since Amitabha realized Buddhahood. Ten kalpas is a definite
length of time. Why do you speak of ‘limitless life’ and then
measure it out in time?”

Amitayus, “limitless life,” refers to his blessings and virtue
“Limitless light” refers to his wisdom. His wisdom light is limitless
and bright. Limitless life, limitless light. Not only are his blessings,
virtues, and wisdom limitless but so are his spiritual powers, his
eloquence, his attributes, and his teachings. There is no way to
count them because they are infinite, nowhere present and nowhere
absent.

Where did the limitless come from? Mathematicians should
know that the limitless comes from the one. One is many and many
are one. A scholar once wrote a book and said, “Large numbers are
written by starting with one and then employing many place
holding zeros. Keep adding zeros until the space between heaven
and earth is filled. When you have written all over your walls and
covered your floors, can you determine the total? Couldn’t you still
add another zero? Numbers are endless.”

Amitabha Buddha’s life, wisdom, merit, virtue, and Way-power
are all infinite and unbounded. If you want a big figure, go ahead
and write columns of zeros.

Knowing that there can be no definite total, the Buddha, who is
the perfection of intelligence, just said, “Limitless and uncountable.”

Mathematics can explain infinity, and scientists have sent
men into space to study it, but having arrived in empty space,
there’s still more empty space beyond. There’s no end to it.
Numbers go on infinitely and in this way we can understand the
vast expanse of Amitabha Buddha’s blessedness, his virtue, and his
wisdom. Therefore he is called Amita.

Both Amitabha and Shakyamuni Buddha were people who
became Buddhas. They did not descend from the heavens or ascend
from the depths of the earth. As people they cultivated the Dharma
and now they are sages, people who have realized the result.
According to the classification of Sutra titles, this Sutra is
established by reference to a person, but not a person like us. He is
a Buddha, one who has realized the result. We are living beings; we
have not realized the result, but are cultivating the cause of
Buddhahood. Once Buddhahood is realized, we will be sages. This
sage’s name, Amitabha, is used to classify the title of the Sutra.”

Recitation further deepens one’s roots of the Buddhist school of cultivation in their minds, and builds momentum for when their seed ripens into a plant, and the plant brings forth the fruit of Bodhi (enlightenment). You can’t eat it though! Recitation keeps the mind in a one pointed focus. As from the above excerpt on the commentary on the Amitabha sutra, Amitbaha is us and we are Amitabha. Therefore, we are reciting our own mind, pushing away the accumulated knowledge, and transforming it from mundane thoughts, to less attached ones which make the mind lighter, and more resonant with the Buddha mind.

We keep in mind that repeating a name over and over again brings the images and mind of such name. That is what happens in Buddha name recitation. Reciting one name over and over again reminds us of our true nature, and those qualities. The benefits are too vast to describe in full detail, and the mannerisms of doing so are not sufficient. But we can touch on the surface.

In this expedient, one is putting faith in Amitabha and his virtue and wisdom as well as in rebirth in Amitabha’s Buddha land called the Western Pure Land. A vow of Amitabha is that if someone sincerely recites his name 10 times, they will be reborn in his Western land of Ultimate Bliss. If you want to know more about the Western Pure Land, you can find it by google searching Amitabha Sutra with commentary by Xuan Hua Shangren, possibly spelled Hsuan Hua Shangren. It is too much to go into in such a manner as this one. Just keep in mind that all lands are not lands, but are called lands for the sake of saying so, and Buddha Lands are actual places. All is of mind, and of no mind, and neither of the two. Recitation also keeps one’s mind in a proper posture so as not to be taken by emotions, desires, demons, etc.

One can recite Amitabha Buddha’s name, Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva’s name, or any of the endless amounts of Buddhas and Bodhisattva’s names as well. This will also create affinities with them.

Reciting sutras have a similar function as reciting the Buddha’s name. Reciting Sutras is to plant the tools of attaining enlightenment deep into the mind-ground, to always remember the teachings, and set forth towards teaching others about them. Sutras are keys to awakening