“SEVEN PRICIPLES OF PUBLIC LIFE
Selflessness
Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits from themselves, their family, or their friends.
Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organizations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Objectivity
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.”
(Source: Lord Nolan’s report (1995), on “Standards in Public life”, Vol- I, quoted in Supreme Court Cases (1998) 1 SCC page, 268.)
“These principles of public life are of general application in every democracy and one is expected to bear them in mind while scrutinizing the conduct of every holder of a public office. It is trite that the holders of public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public interest alone and , therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being pushed under the carpet. If the conduct amounts to an offence, it must be promptly investigated and the offender against whom a prima facie case is made out should be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld and the rule of law vindicated. It is the duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard against the erosion of the rule of law.”
(Supreme Court Cases (1998) 1 SCC page,268.)
Compiled by
Dr. U.N.Biswas,
Convener, Dharmachakra- An effort to spread the message of Dharmachakra in the National Flag of India.
27 April 27, 2009
e-mail id: dhammachakra2 @ gmail.com
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
THE BUDDHA, GANDHI
The Buddha, Gandhi & Ambedkar
U.N.Biswas
Non-Violence ( Avihimsa/ Ahimsa)
Recorded history in India starts from 6th century B.C. That was the time of the Buddha. The Master defines and explains non-violence on different occasions. ( Dhp.225,261,270,300.)
In fact the term non-violence has been translated from the term, Avihimsa/Ahimsa used by the Buddha. The Buddha is the author of the term Ahimsa and Ahimsa way of living. He did what he said.
Ahimsa is harmlessness, non-cruelty, non-violence. This is the core meaning of non-violence. The Thought of harmlessness is avihisa-vitakka, one of the three components of Right thought of Eight Fold Path of The Buddha.
“He who harms living beings is for that reason, is not a noble one; he who does not harm any living being is called a noble one. (Dhp.270.)
“The arahats who do not harm others and are always in their actions, go to deathless Nibbana, where there is no sorrow.” (Dhp.225.)
“ Only a wise man who comprehends The Four Noble Truths and the Dhamma, who is harmless and virtuous, who restrains his senses and has rid himself of moral defilements is indeed a thera.” (Dhp.261.)
“Fully alert and ever vigilant are Gotama Buddha’s disciples, whose mind by day and by night always takes delight in being compassionate.(lit. harmless”)( Dhp. 300.)
Ahimsaka, Ahimsa, Ahimsa, Ahimsaya means harmlessness, non-cruelty and non-violence.
Compassion is the antidote of cruelty and atrocities. Non-killing is one of the Panca-silas. Non-killing however is a qualified statement. Non-violence in the doctrine of the Master is best explained in the episode of the commander-in-chief who called on the Master and asked him, ‘I defend the country from foreign aggression and maintain law and order in the times of internal troubles. In the course of my duty, I use force and in the process sometimes lives are lost. Oh master you say, abstain from killing. Am I not killing people? Am I not violating the silas? The commander was in great remorse. The Master then replied, you are doing your duty. Your duty is to protect the independence of the country and to maintain peace within the country. You do not use force for your personal craving. You are performing public duty. There is nothing wrong, if your action causes deaths.’ The commander was satisfied and left the Master.
We cannot survive without killing for our survival. Here also the Master was very clear in his directions. There may be need to kill to survive. This is natural. The way of the Buddha is the middle path. When we need to kill to survive depends on situational variables.
We can illustrate this by the recent Mumbai terrorist carnage. We were on war and we had to fight to defend and in that action we killed the enemy and some of our brave soldiers were killed. It will be absurd and foolish on our part to say that we had not been non-violent.
Let us take some contemporary dictionary meanings of non-violence.
“Non-violence is using peaceful methods, not force, to bring about political or social change.” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, P.863.)
“Non-violence implies active resistance to an unjust law or custom by such acts as demonstrations, boycotts and disruptions of the normal functioning of society
“Mahatma Gandhi, an adherent of pacifism and admittedly inspired by Thoreau’s philosophical anarchism, founded Gandhism ( or satyagrha), a specific method of civil disobedience that successfully used non-violent techniques to free India of British rule.” .”(Use The Right Word, TheReader’s Digest, London, 1968, p. 14.)
Gandhi used this method in freedom struggle. Whether this method brought us freedom is still debated. Secondly it is also not a fact that Gandhi created Indian philosophy of non-violence. In any case, we are not dealing here the history of our freedom struggle. We are only trying to rationally understand the meaning of non-violence.
The million dollar question, does caste accept non-violence or breeds violence?
Caste, Non-violence & Gandhi
Gandhi is universally perceived as a person of great eminence. He had profound knowledge of Indian society and its culture. Was he not aware of the harmful, cruel and violent character of caste? Did he not know that caste is cruel and brutal? Did he not realize that caste kills? Had he not seen victims of caste hatred? How can he then advocate caste? Being a strict follower of ahimsa, non-violence, how could he ignore the violence of caste? We are not prepared to buy the thesis that Gandhi did not have the insight of the genesis of the inherent nature of caste violence. It is needless to mention that he resorted to non-violent civil disobedience for liberation struggle. But we are on caste. How could he affirm caste when he knew that caste breeds tremendous hatred and hatred leads to violence! Let us end this section with the following table:
Ahimsa
Varna( Caste)
1.
Harmlessness
Harm
2.
Non-violence
Violence
3.
Non-cruelty
Cruelty
Justice Social
One of the objectives of the preamble of the Constitution of India is social justice. India is a democratic country since 26th January 1950. In addition to political democracy, we have taken pledge to establish social and economic democracy in the society. This is a very important objective of the preamble of the Constitution of India and the objectives stated in the preamble of the constitution are the basic structure of the Constitution and these cannot be amended by the parliament. Social democracy means a society of equality, liberty and fraternity and this trinity cannot be separated. Unfortunately, equality is shockingly absent in our society.(1)
The society is divided into graded inequality. Secondly, economic inequality in the society is immense. Even after sixty years of Independence, we have failed achieve social democracy and without social democracy, our political democracy is meaningless.
Social equality cannot be established in caste-ridden society. Caste creates inequality, hatred and violence and therefore is not compatible with social equality. The Buddha did away with caste discrimination to introduce social equality in Indian society. This is one of the greatest contributions of Buddhism to Indian culture. To Swami Vivekananda, ‘the breaking down of caste’ by the Buddha was new in India and it was a ‘tremendous movement’.(2) The social ideal of the Buddha was equality in the society. All persons are equal. No body is born low or high. Only deeds of a person determine the position of a person in the society. Birth does not make a Brahmin or an out caste. Every individual has the freedom to make or unmake himself. Each person has to diligently work out his own salvation. Distinction on the basis of caste was not only irrational to him, it was inhuman and undemocratic. The Buddha never surrendered before the tyrannical Brahmin said Swamiji (3) He did not find any reason and ethics behind the concept of the superiority of Brahmin on the basis of birth and therefore ‘denounced’ it. He preached equality and could establish social justice. Irrationality and inhuman character of caste have been mentioned in Buddhist texts viz. ‘Vasala and Vasettha Suttas of Suttanipata, the Madhura, Assalayana and Canki Suttas of the Majjhimanikaya’ (4) The Buddha taught people to rise against caste discrimination and achieve casteless society. A socially equal society had dignity among individuals and freedom from caste bondage resulted an era of economic prosperity. Each individual could educate himself and contribute to national wealth. Down the ages, when social equality of the Buddhist order was replaced by the resurgence of rigid caste system of Brahmanism, society plunged in social strife and also lost economic prosperity.(5)
The Buddha never claimed superiority over others. He said, ‘I am a man amongst men’. (6)Gandhi intensely believed in non-violence and he not only practiced non-violence but taught others to practice it. He was always prepared to sacrifice his life for non-violence, yet there is a huge difference between the Buddha and Gandhi. As a Hindu, Gandhi believed in caste, self, soul, permanence and God. There is no existence of caste, self, soul, permanence or God in the doctrine of the Buddha. ( 7) Gandhi advocated and campaigned for the liberation of the persecuted lower rungs of the caste hierarchy within the frame work of caste system. He never sought to abolish caste system. (8) His struggle for abolition of untouchability was certainly genuine but it he never attempted to destroy caste, which is the root of untouchability. Untouchability emanates from caste. Unless the root of untouchability is cut, untoucability will continue to flourish. Dr Radhakrishan pleaded to scrape both caste and untouchability which were eating away the vitality of India.(9) Long after, the apex court of India identified caste as the root of all evils of contemporary India.
Who then after the Buddha launched vigorous movement to annihilate caste to establish social equality in India? Neither Gandhi,Nehru or Netaji but Ambedkar was the only man after the Buddha, who generated nation wide campaign for annihilation of caste in India. Gandhi opposed him and Nehru, who knew the venom of caste, yet did not join Ambedkar’s mission of social reconstruction. Had Gandhi and Nehru been with him in his efforts in this direction, history of India would have been different; Ambedkar would have created a caste less society in India. ( 10) Had only Gandhi and Nehru made common cause with Ambedkar! (11)
Ambedkar, right from his boyhood, was drawn to the casteless doctrine of the Buddha. After sustained preparations for more than three decades, on 14th October, 1956, at Nagpur, the holy place of the Buddhist Nagas,( the Ancient ancestors of Ambedkar and his people) with more than half a million of his followers, true to the great tradition of Buddhists, without shedding a single drop of blood, threw the faith devoid of social democracy in the dust bin of history and returned to the original doctrine of the Buddha; and in one stroke, revived Buddhism in India.
Thus, Ambedkar, not Gandhi, Nehru, or no one else, is the greatest non-violent social revolutionary of 20th Century. He resurrected the ideal of social justice of the Buddha and revived the original and rational Buddhism which was wiped out of India .The Buddhists of India and abroad, if the have any sense of history, must realize this truth of history.
U.N.Biswas,
Convener, Dharmachakra.
28 March 2009,
Salt Lake City, Calcutta-70091
References
1. .”( Amedkar, B.R.: Speech in the Constituent Assembly of India, 25 November, 19549.”
“We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of two things in Indian society. Once of these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality which means elevation for some and degradation for others.
On the economic plane, we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty. On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so laboriously built up
2. Swami Vivekananda: Buddhistic India, (Delivered on February, 2, 1900 at Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, California ) The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Advaita Ashram, Calcutta, 1997, Vol.III, P. 527.
3.ibid, p.529.
4. Banerjee, Anukul Chandra: Buddhism- Its Contribution to Indian Culture, Bulletin of Tibetology, New Series, 1981, No.3, 4 August, Sikkim Research Institute of Tibetology,Gangtok, India.
5. ) Mitra, Asok: The Caste and Class in Indian Society, The Asiatic Society, 1995, p.31.
“Few people must have known better than Nehru how Varnashram and Brahmanical dominance slowly crippled India down the ages. After all this is what is implicit in a letter 1 have just referred to. He knew how India's vitality was at a high level, precisely for this reason, when Buddhism made its tremendous sweep by doing away social and caste barriers, restoring confidence and dignity among the lowest of the low ushering in social equity and equality of opportunity. Nowhere was this equality of opportunity and redemption of the lowest of the low better demonstrated than in the canonization of the eighty four Siddhas in Buddhist literature.”
“Nehru knew how Brahminical resurgence after Buddhism restored social inequality and Varnashram plunged India in to social and political fragmentation.”
“The fate of India is largely tied up with the Hindu outlook. If the present Hindu outlook does not change radically, I am quite sure that India is doomed. The Muslim outlook may be, and I think often is worse but it does not make very much difference to the future of India".
6.Swami Vivekananda: The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Advaita Ashram, Calcutta, 1997, Vol.III, P. 527
7.ibid, p.529.
8. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, A Centenary Tribute,Govt. of West Bengal, Calcutta, 1993,pp.5-9. “I have never felt comfortable with Gandhiji's affirmation of Hindus' Varnashram caste or caste hierarchy. To me his nationwide, movement for social reform and his adoption of the word Harijan for his political mouth, all within the frame work of Varnashrarn fail to make much sense and there was certainly no substitute for Ambedkar's plea for equal partnership and respect for all.”
9. Radhakrishnan,S.: Speech in the Constituent Assembly of India, On Adoption of The National Flag of India, 18 July, 1949.
10. “ I feel it was tragic that Gandhiji did not make common cause with Dr. Ambedkar.”(ibid, p.31.
11. ) ibid.p.31 “Had Nehru resolutely reclaimed Dr.B.R.Ambedkar and insisted, as only he could have, yet carried the nation with him, on a time bound target of removal of discrimination against religious minorities and backward castes and classes, he would have automatically set in motion an irreversible and accelerating trend in equality, social justice and democratic norms.”
“I like to think how Dr. Ambedkar would have, helped to build a strong secular, socially egalitarian India. Ambedkar made serious contribution by insisting on the preamble and the fundamental Rights in our Constitution and its basic frame of equality and democracy. He also had a big hand in fashioning a uniform civil code, which, had we put it on the statute book, would have been removed many of the evils existing in our country today if only he had gained appropriate support from Nehru.”
.
U.N.Biswas
Non-Violence ( Avihimsa/ Ahimsa)
Recorded history in India starts from 6th century B.C. That was the time of the Buddha. The Master defines and explains non-violence on different occasions. ( Dhp.225,261,270,300.)
In fact the term non-violence has been translated from the term, Avihimsa/Ahimsa used by the Buddha. The Buddha is the author of the term Ahimsa and Ahimsa way of living. He did what he said.
Ahimsa is harmlessness, non-cruelty, non-violence. This is the core meaning of non-violence. The Thought of harmlessness is avihisa-vitakka, one of the three components of Right thought of Eight Fold Path of The Buddha.
“He who harms living beings is for that reason, is not a noble one; he who does not harm any living being is called a noble one. (Dhp.270.)
“The arahats who do not harm others and are always in their actions, go to deathless Nibbana, where there is no sorrow.” (Dhp.225.)
“ Only a wise man who comprehends The Four Noble Truths and the Dhamma, who is harmless and virtuous, who restrains his senses and has rid himself of moral defilements is indeed a thera.” (Dhp.261.)
“Fully alert and ever vigilant are Gotama Buddha’s disciples, whose mind by day and by night always takes delight in being compassionate.(lit. harmless”)( Dhp. 300.)
Ahimsaka, Ahimsa, Ahimsa, Ahimsaya means harmlessness, non-cruelty and non-violence.
Compassion is the antidote of cruelty and atrocities. Non-killing is one of the Panca-silas. Non-killing however is a qualified statement. Non-violence in the doctrine of the Master is best explained in the episode of the commander-in-chief who called on the Master and asked him, ‘I defend the country from foreign aggression and maintain law and order in the times of internal troubles. In the course of my duty, I use force and in the process sometimes lives are lost. Oh master you say, abstain from killing. Am I not killing people? Am I not violating the silas? The commander was in great remorse. The Master then replied, you are doing your duty. Your duty is to protect the independence of the country and to maintain peace within the country. You do not use force for your personal craving. You are performing public duty. There is nothing wrong, if your action causes deaths.’ The commander was satisfied and left the Master.
We cannot survive without killing for our survival. Here also the Master was very clear in his directions. There may be need to kill to survive. This is natural. The way of the Buddha is the middle path. When we need to kill to survive depends on situational variables.
We can illustrate this by the recent Mumbai terrorist carnage. We were on war and we had to fight to defend and in that action we killed the enemy and some of our brave soldiers were killed. It will be absurd and foolish on our part to say that we had not been non-violent.
Let us take some contemporary dictionary meanings of non-violence.
“Non-violence is using peaceful methods, not force, to bring about political or social change.” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, P.863.)
“Non-violence implies active resistance to an unjust law or custom by such acts as demonstrations, boycotts and disruptions of the normal functioning of society
“Mahatma Gandhi, an adherent of pacifism and admittedly inspired by Thoreau’s philosophical anarchism, founded Gandhism ( or satyagrha), a specific method of civil disobedience that successfully used non-violent techniques to free India of British rule.” .”(Use The Right Word, TheReader’s Digest, London, 1968, p. 14.)
Gandhi used this method in freedom struggle. Whether this method brought us freedom is still debated. Secondly it is also not a fact that Gandhi created Indian philosophy of non-violence. In any case, we are not dealing here the history of our freedom struggle. We are only trying to rationally understand the meaning of non-violence.
The million dollar question, does caste accept non-violence or breeds violence?
Caste, Non-violence & Gandhi
Gandhi is universally perceived as a person of great eminence. He had profound knowledge of Indian society and its culture. Was he not aware of the harmful, cruel and violent character of caste? Did he not know that caste is cruel and brutal? Did he not realize that caste kills? Had he not seen victims of caste hatred? How can he then advocate caste? Being a strict follower of ahimsa, non-violence, how could he ignore the violence of caste? We are not prepared to buy the thesis that Gandhi did not have the insight of the genesis of the inherent nature of caste violence. It is needless to mention that he resorted to non-violent civil disobedience for liberation struggle. But we are on caste. How could he affirm caste when he knew that caste breeds tremendous hatred and hatred leads to violence! Let us end this section with the following table:
Ahimsa
Varna( Caste)
1.
Harmlessness
Harm
2.
Non-violence
Violence
3.
Non-cruelty
Cruelty
Justice Social
One of the objectives of the preamble of the Constitution of India is social justice. India is a democratic country since 26th January 1950. In addition to political democracy, we have taken pledge to establish social and economic democracy in the society. This is a very important objective of the preamble of the Constitution of India and the objectives stated in the preamble of the constitution are the basic structure of the Constitution and these cannot be amended by the parliament. Social democracy means a society of equality, liberty and fraternity and this trinity cannot be separated. Unfortunately, equality is shockingly absent in our society.(1)
The society is divided into graded inequality. Secondly, economic inequality in the society is immense. Even after sixty years of Independence, we have failed achieve social democracy and without social democracy, our political democracy is meaningless.
Social equality cannot be established in caste-ridden society. Caste creates inequality, hatred and violence and therefore is not compatible with social equality. The Buddha did away with caste discrimination to introduce social equality in Indian society. This is one of the greatest contributions of Buddhism to Indian culture. To Swami Vivekananda, ‘the breaking down of caste’ by the Buddha was new in India and it was a ‘tremendous movement’.(2) The social ideal of the Buddha was equality in the society. All persons are equal. No body is born low or high. Only deeds of a person determine the position of a person in the society. Birth does not make a Brahmin or an out caste. Every individual has the freedom to make or unmake himself. Each person has to diligently work out his own salvation. Distinction on the basis of caste was not only irrational to him, it was inhuman and undemocratic. The Buddha never surrendered before the tyrannical Brahmin said Swamiji (3) He did not find any reason and ethics behind the concept of the superiority of Brahmin on the basis of birth and therefore ‘denounced’ it. He preached equality and could establish social justice. Irrationality and inhuman character of caste have been mentioned in Buddhist texts viz. ‘Vasala and Vasettha Suttas of Suttanipata, the Madhura, Assalayana and Canki Suttas of the Majjhimanikaya’ (4) The Buddha taught people to rise against caste discrimination and achieve casteless society. A socially equal society had dignity among individuals and freedom from caste bondage resulted an era of economic prosperity. Each individual could educate himself and contribute to national wealth. Down the ages, when social equality of the Buddhist order was replaced by the resurgence of rigid caste system of Brahmanism, society plunged in social strife and also lost economic prosperity.(5)
The Buddha never claimed superiority over others. He said, ‘I am a man amongst men’. (6)Gandhi intensely believed in non-violence and he not only practiced non-violence but taught others to practice it. He was always prepared to sacrifice his life for non-violence, yet there is a huge difference between the Buddha and Gandhi. As a Hindu, Gandhi believed in caste, self, soul, permanence and God. There is no existence of caste, self, soul, permanence or God in the doctrine of the Buddha. ( 7) Gandhi advocated and campaigned for the liberation of the persecuted lower rungs of the caste hierarchy within the frame work of caste system. He never sought to abolish caste system. (8) His struggle for abolition of untouchability was certainly genuine but it he never attempted to destroy caste, which is the root of untouchability. Untouchability emanates from caste. Unless the root of untouchability is cut, untoucability will continue to flourish. Dr Radhakrishan pleaded to scrape both caste and untouchability which were eating away the vitality of India.(9) Long after, the apex court of India identified caste as the root of all evils of contemporary India.
Who then after the Buddha launched vigorous movement to annihilate caste to establish social equality in India? Neither Gandhi,Nehru or Netaji but Ambedkar was the only man after the Buddha, who generated nation wide campaign for annihilation of caste in India. Gandhi opposed him and Nehru, who knew the venom of caste, yet did not join Ambedkar’s mission of social reconstruction. Had Gandhi and Nehru been with him in his efforts in this direction, history of India would have been different; Ambedkar would have created a caste less society in India. ( 10) Had only Gandhi and Nehru made common cause with Ambedkar! (11)
Ambedkar, right from his boyhood, was drawn to the casteless doctrine of the Buddha. After sustained preparations for more than three decades, on 14th October, 1956, at Nagpur, the holy place of the Buddhist Nagas,( the Ancient ancestors of Ambedkar and his people) with more than half a million of his followers, true to the great tradition of Buddhists, without shedding a single drop of blood, threw the faith devoid of social democracy in the dust bin of history and returned to the original doctrine of the Buddha; and in one stroke, revived Buddhism in India.
Thus, Ambedkar, not Gandhi, Nehru, or no one else, is the greatest non-violent social revolutionary of 20th Century. He resurrected the ideal of social justice of the Buddha and revived the original and rational Buddhism which was wiped out of India .The Buddhists of India and abroad, if the have any sense of history, must realize this truth of history.
U.N.Biswas,
Convener, Dharmachakra.
28 March 2009,
Salt Lake City, Calcutta-70091
References
1. .”( Amedkar, B.R.: Speech in the Constituent Assembly of India, 25 November, 19549.”
“We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of two things in Indian society. Once of these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality which means elevation for some and degradation for others.
On the economic plane, we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty. On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so laboriously built up
2. Swami Vivekananda: Buddhistic India, (Delivered on February, 2, 1900 at Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, California ) The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Advaita Ashram, Calcutta, 1997, Vol.III, P. 527.
3.ibid, p.529.
4. Banerjee, Anukul Chandra: Buddhism- Its Contribution to Indian Culture, Bulletin of Tibetology, New Series, 1981, No.3, 4 August, Sikkim Research Institute of Tibetology,Gangtok, India.
5. ) Mitra, Asok: The Caste and Class in Indian Society, The Asiatic Society, 1995, p.31.
“Few people must have known better than Nehru how Varnashram and Brahmanical dominance slowly crippled India down the ages. After all this is what is implicit in a letter 1 have just referred to. He knew how India's vitality was at a high level, precisely for this reason, when Buddhism made its tremendous sweep by doing away social and caste barriers, restoring confidence and dignity among the lowest of the low ushering in social equity and equality of opportunity. Nowhere was this equality of opportunity and redemption of the lowest of the low better demonstrated than in the canonization of the eighty four Siddhas in Buddhist literature.”
“Nehru knew how Brahminical resurgence after Buddhism restored social inequality and Varnashram plunged India in to social and political fragmentation.”
“The fate of India is largely tied up with the Hindu outlook. If the present Hindu outlook does not change radically, I am quite sure that India is doomed. The Muslim outlook may be, and I think often is worse but it does not make very much difference to the future of India".
6.Swami Vivekananda: The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Advaita Ashram, Calcutta, 1997, Vol.III, P. 527
7.ibid, p.529.
8. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, A Centenary Tribute,Govt. of West Bengal, Calcutta, 1993,pp.5-9. “I have never felt comfortable with Gandhiji's affirmation of Hindus' Varnashram caste or caste hierarchy. To me his nationwide, movement for social reform and his adoption of the word Harijan for his political mouth, all within the frame work of Varnashrarn fail to make much sense and there was certainly no substitute for Ambedkar's plea for equal partnership and respect for all.”
9. Radhakrishnan,S.: Speech in the Constituent Assembly of India, On Adoption of The National Flag of India, 18 July, 1949.
10. “ I feel it was tragic that Gandhiji did not make common cause with Dr. Ambedkar.”(ibid, p.31.
11. ) ibid.p.31 “Had Nehru resolutely reclaimed Dr.B.R.Ambedkar and insisted, as only he could have, yet carried the nation with him, on a time bound target of removal of discrimination against religious minorities and backward castes and classes, he would have automatically set in motion an irreversible and accelerating trend in equality, social justice and democratic norms.”
“I like to think how Dr. Ambedkar would have, helped to build a strong secular, socially egalitarian India. Ambedkar made serious contribution by insisting on the preamble and the fundamental Rights in our Constitution and its basic frame of equality and democracy. He also had a big hand in fashioning a uniform civil code, which, had we put it on the statute book, would have been removed many of the evils existing in our country today if only he had gained appropriate support from Nehru.”
.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Swamiji on The Buddha
Swamiji on the Buddha
U.N.Biswas
(Buddhism, The Fulfilment of Hinduism, At the Parliament of Religions, Address of Swami Vivekananda, Chicago, 26th September, 1893, should not be taken as his final views on the Buddha or Buddhism. His address in 1900( the address under discussion) is substantially different from the address of 1893. Mr. S.K.Ghosh, a genuine scholar on Swamiji, is of the opinion that as time rolled, Swamiji, as a seer, discovered the nature of the doctrine of the Master. Having gone through again, i, fully agree with him. Swamiji did not agree to the doctrine of the Buddha, but one can be absolutely sure, that he understood the original doctrine like Ambedkar. Perhaps they were the two great persons of India of modern times who could unravel the true nature of the doctrine.)
1.Caste
1. Three Acts: The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.) and The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Human rights are, “the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by the courts in India.” [Section 2(d)] of The Protection of Human Rights Act. Caste denies all these rights and to prevent these violations, we have two acts, The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.) and yet more than two thousand offences are committed infringing right to life, liberty, equality and dignity of individuals, humiliations, indignities, harassment, bonded labour, forced labour, denial equal wages, denial of self-respect to women and many other such crimes to terrorize the socially marginalized sections of the people of India. The root of all these violations is caste. Dr. Radhakrishnan , during adoption of Buddhist concept of Dharmachakra in the National Flag of India, said, “ If this country has suffered in the recent, it is due to our resistance to change. There are so many challenges hurled at us and if we have not got the courage and strength to move along with the times, we will be left behind. There are so many institutions which are worked in to our social fabric like caste and untouchability. Unless these are scrapped, we cannot say that we either seek truth or practice virtue.”(Constituent Assembly, 22 July 1947.)
Caste breeds violence, harm and injury while non-violence is absence of violence, harm and injury. Therefore, caste is not compatible with non-violence. The Buddha did away with caste. Dr. Radhahrishnan pleaded for scrapping away of caste and we all know how Ambedkar resurrected the movement against caste launched by the Buddha. Gandhiji vigorously worked to abolish untouchability within the frame work of caste. The Supreme Court of India, some time back, observed that the root of all evils in Indian society is caste.
Swamiji considered breaking down of caste by the Buddha was a ‘tremendous movement.’ The Buddha preached the idea of equality. “You see that non-killing of animals and charity towards animals was already an existing doctrine when he was born; but it was new with him- the breaking down of caste, that tremendous movement.”( Buddhistic India, Delivered at the Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, California, on February 2, 1900.) The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda,Advaita Ashrama, Vol.III,Calcutta,1997,p.527.)
2.The Doctrine of the Buddha
Buddhism denies self, soul, god or permanence. “You know he denied that there was any soul in man – that is, in the Hindu sense of the word. Now, we Hindus believe that that there is some thing permanent in man, which is unchangeable and which is living through all eternity. And that we call Atman, which without beginning and without end. And [we believe] that there is something permanent in nature [and that we call Brahman, which is also without beginning and without end]. He denied both of these. He said that there is no proof of anything permanent.” Everything is in constant state of flux. It is like the waves of a flowing river, it is continuously changing. “So is this life; so is all body, so is all mind.”(ibid, p.529.)
The Buddha did not believe in self. “The Master says that selfishness is the greatest curse of the world; that we are selfish and therein is the curse. There should be no motive for selfishness.” ( ibid,p.529.)
Swamiji as a Hindu monk, believed in self, God, soul and immortality. Gandhi, as a Hindu, also adhered to the doctrine of self, God, soul and permanence.
A Buddhist never sheds blood to spread Buddhism. This is his heritage right from the day the Buddha set the wheel of law rolling at the deer garden of Ancient Ishipatana, modern Sarntah, near Varanasi. Buddhism flourished all over India and then came a time, when Buddhism was wiped out from India except Bengal, where majority of the people, were still Buddhists. The overthrow of the Buddhist Palas by the orthodox Brahmins hammered the last nail in the coffin. A large number of monks fled to neighboring countries. Buddhist practices continued in disguise in Bengal. That tradition flows in the folk-culture of Bengal.
3. No Bloodshed to Spread the Doctrine
Not a single drop of blood has been shed to propagate Buddhism. This is unique. Imagine half a million people in one place only in 1956, instead of taking the way of the Buddha with him, take arms and fight, what would happen! Blood for blood! That was not to be. It was the most non-violent, peaceful gathering that 20th century had witnessed. Suddenly, and at once, Buddhism, which had been driven out of India, had returned. A new era in the history of India had begun. He was the greatest non-violent social revolutionary of 20th century. .
“Excepting the Buddistic religion, there is not one religion in the world which could make one step without bloodshed- not one which could get a hundred converts just by brain power alone. No, no. All through.” ( ibid, p. 532.)
4. Defiance against Tyrannical Brahiminism
Prof. Mitra in his Preface to ‘The Tribes Castes of Bengal’, 1951, precisely chronicles the rise and fall of excellence in Indian society. He correlates the rise with the ascendancy of Buddhism and the fall with the dominance of Brahminism. He maintained the same stand when he spoke on the occasion of Babashaeb centenary celebration organized by the Government of West Bengal and Dr. Bhupendranath Dutta Memorial Lecture delivered by him in 1994, at The Asiatic Society.
“Few people must have known better than Nehru how Varnashram and Brahmanical dominance slowly crippled India down the ages. After all this is what is implicit in a letter 1 have just referred to. He knew how India's vitality was at a high level, precisely for this reason, when Buddhism made its tremendous sweep by doing away social and caste barriers, restoring confidence and dignity among the lowest of the low ushering in social equity and equality of opportunity. Nowhere was this equality of opportunity and redemption of the lowest of the low better demonstrated than in the canonization of the eighty four Siddhas in Buddhist literature.”
“Nehru knew how Brahminical resurgence after Buddhism restored social inequality and Varnashram plunged India in to social and political fragmentation.”
The Buddha defied the irrational dictates of the Brahmins.“And never that man bent before even the power of the tyrannical Brahmins. Never that man bent.” ( ibid, p.529.)
5. Nothing Remains except Reputation
What remains is character, nothing else.( ibid, p.530.) Reputation, says a character in Shakespeare, ‘is the immortal part of a person. Another character of Shakespeare, says, “Good name in man and man, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; it’s something,
nothing;
‘Twas mine, ‘tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches my good name
Robs of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.( The Tragedy of Othello The Moor of Venice by William Shakespeare.)
Napoleon was not only a great warrior; he had profound depth of knowledge.
“ A great reputation is like a great sound. Laws, institutions, monuments, nations perish, but the sound endures and echoes down the generation… I feel the infinite within me.”
The Buddha was one of the most cursed of his time. He was accused of murder. Once a woman alleged that he impregnated her. Again he was the most praised man during his life time. The Buddha did never retaliate. The Buddha took both abuse and praise in equanimity
6. The Buddha- a historical personality
Recorded history of India starts with the Buddha era and we have enormous records about the life and doctrine of the Buddha. The Buddha was a historical personality. “And that man was born- the great man Buddha. Most of you know about him, his life.” .. “he is one of the most historical prophets of the world.” ( Buddhistic India, [ Delivered at the Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, California, on February 2, 1900.] The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda,Advaita Ashrama, Vol.III,Calcutta,1997, p.524.)
7. Rationality
The Buddha could foresee of spinning of all kinds of myths around him after his after his death. His message was very clear. Test by reason before you accept any doctrine or opinion. Irrationality has no room in his doctrine. He warned people not to believe anything attributed to him which did not pass the test of reason.
. “These are memorable words of Buddha: .. “ Test everything, try everything, and then believe it, and if you find it for the good of many, give it to all.”
The greatest man that the world ever seen. “ The sanest philosopher the world ever saw. Its best and its sanest teacher.” ( ibid, pp.528-529.)
8. No claim of superiority
The Buddha never claimed superiority. He said that he was a man among men. “When kingdoms were at his feet, he was still the same man, maintaining, “I am a man amongst men.”( ibid, p.527.)
9. Diligently Work out
No miracle, no blessings can give salvation. One has to diligently workout gown’s salvation. A teacher can only give us the way to reach the goal, he can tell how he has achieved it but he cannot work it out for us.
. “And O, thou Ananda, I am passing away. Weep not for me. Think not for me. I am gone. Work out diligently your own salvation.” ( ibid,p.528.)
10. Hindus never understood the Buddha
Swamiji says, he could not understand him. That is his humility. When he delivered the address in 1893 in Chicago, his vision of Buddhism appears to be tentative. As he went deep inside the doctrine of the Master, he discovered its scientific character and universal appeal to do good to man. He differed from the Master so far the doctrine is concerned but his understanding was complete.
The Hindus could not understand the Buddha. “Well I did not understand his doctrine- we Hindus never understood it.” (ibid, p.529.)
Swamiji certainly discovered Buddhism but as a Hindu, differed from the doctrine of the Master. He was a Hindu Monk who believed in self, soul, immortality and God which are diametrically opposite to Buddhism. He, like Gandhi, exhorted people to abolish untouchability. He gave clarion call to treat the untouchables as brothers, yet, his stand on the issue, has not escaped serious criticism.
“Swami Vivekanada was wild with rage at the pollution prescriptions of the Tamil Aaiyars and Iyengars and Malayali Nambbdris. But right in North Calcutta orthodox Banik families- as I have ascertained from a lady of a renowned Banik house in Calcutta- Gandha, Kangsha, Swarna and Sanka- who by no means that low in he caste hierarchy- would not knowingly let their shadows cross a Brahmin’s thali of food.”( Mitra, Asok: 1993.)
Gandhi, like Swamiji, as a Hindu, subscribed Hindu belief of self, soul, god and immortality.
Gandhi worked within the frame work of Varnashram, while Ambedkar visualized building a new India on the foundations of democratic values of equality, liberty, fraternity, dignity and justice. Prof. Mitra was never impressed by the model of social reconstruction within caste system.
“I have never felt comfortable with Gandhiji's affirmation of Hindus' Varnashram caste or caste hierarchy. To me his nationwide, movement for social reform and his adoption of the word Harijan for his political mouth, all within the frame work of Varnashrarn fail to make much sense and there was certainly no substitute for Ambedkar's plea for equal partnership and respect for all. It was plain, right from the first round table conference that Gandhiji had failed and would fail to take the wind out of B. R. Ambedkar's sail if he did not act otherwise. I feel it was tragic that Gandhiji did not make common cause with Dr. Ambedkar. Gandhiji's default made it possible for Dr. Ambedkar to move to strength while both lived. But after their death, Ambedkar's message has gained strength and Gandhiji's Varnashram has become a menace and tool in the hands a conservative upper caste Hindu political dominance. I like to think how Dr. Ambedkar would have, helped to build a strong secular, socially egalitarian India. Ambedkar made serious contribution by insisting on the preamble and the fundamental Rights in our Constitution and its basic frame of equality and democracy. He also had a big hand in fashioning a uniform civil code, which, had we put it on the statute book, would have been removed many of the evils existing in our country today if only he had gained appropriate support from Nehru. Only Nehru could have helped (Emphasis added.)(Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, A Centenary Tribute,Govt. of West Bengal, Calcutta, 1993,pp.5-9.)
In Buddhism, there is no room for caste, self, soul, God and permanence. Swamiji, has categorically stated this. On the occasion of 2553rd birth anniversary of the Buddha, we may once gain look back to the original doctrine of the Buddha. Those who intend to understand the Buddha may like to go through what Swamiji said on the Buddha.
U.N.Biswas,
Convener, Dharmachakra
- An Effort to spread the message of Dharmachakra in the National Flag of India.
8 May 2009
CG 22, Sector II, Salt Lake City, Calcutta-700091.
U.N.Biswas
(Buddhism, The Fulfilment of Hinduism, At the Parliament of Religions, Address of Swami Vivekananda, Chicago, 26th September, 1893, should not be taken as his final views on the Buddha or Buddhism. His address in 1900( the address under discussion) is substantially different from the address of 1893. Mr. S.K.Ghosh, a genuine scholar on Swamiji, is of the opinion that as time rolled, Swamiji, as a seer, discovered the nature of the doctrine of the Master. Having gone through again, i, fully agree with him. Swamiji did not agree to the doctrine of the Buddha, but one can be absolutely sure, that he understood the original doctrine like Ambedkar. Perhaps they were the two great persons of India of modern times who could unravel the true nature of the doctrine.)
1.Caste
1. Three Acts: The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.) and The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Human rights are, “the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by the courts in India.” [Section 2(d)] of The Protection of Human Rights Act. Caste denies all these rights and to prevent these violations, we have two acts, The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.) and yet more than two thousand offences are committed infringing right to life, liberty, equality and dignity of individuals, humiliations, indignities, harassment, bonded labour, forced labour, denial equal wages, denial of self-respect to women and many other such crimes to terrorize the socially marginalized sections of the people of India. The root of all these violations is caste. Dr. Radhakrishnan , during adoption of Buddhist concept of Dharmachakra in the National Flag of India, said, “ If this country has suffered in the recent, it is due to our resistance to change. There are so many challenges hurled at us and if we have not got the courage and strength to move along with the times, we will be left behind. There are so many institutions which are worked in to our social fabric like caste and untouchability. Unless these are scrapped, we cannot say that we either seek truth or practice virtue.”(Constituent Assembly, 22 July 1947.)
Caste breeds violence, harm and injury while non-violence is absence of violence, harm and injury. Therefore, caste is not compatible with non-violence. The Buddha did away with caste. Dr. Radhahrishnan pleaded for scrapping away of caste and we all know how Ambedkar resurrected the movement against caste launched by the Buddha. Gandhiji vigorously worked to abolish untouchability within the frame work of caste. The Supreme Court of India, some time back, observed that the root of all evils in Indian society is caste.
Swamiji considered breaking down of caste by the Buddha was a ‘tremendous movement.’ The Buddha preached the idea of equality. “You see that non-killing of animals and charity towards animals was already an existing doctrine when he was born; but it was new with him- the breaking down of caste, that tremendous movement.”( Buddhistic India, Delivered at the Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, California, on February 2, 1900.) The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda,Advaita Ashrama, Vol.III,Calcutta,1997,p.527.)
2.The Doctrine of the Buddha
Buddhism denies self, soul, god or permanence. “You know he denied that there was any soul in man – that is, in the Hindu sense of the word. Now, we Hindus believe that that there is some thing permanent in man, which is unchangeable and which is living through all eternity. And that we call Atman, which without beginning and without end. And [we believe] that there is something permanent in nature [and that we call Brahman, which is also without beginning and without end]. He denied both of these. He said that there is no proof of anything permanent.” Everything is in constant state of flux. It is like the waves of a flowing river, it is continuously changing. “So is this life; so is all body, so is all mind.”(ibid, p.529.)
The Buddha did not believe in self. “The Master says that selfishness is the greatest curse of the world; that we are selfish and therein is the curse. There should be no motive for selfishness.” ( ibid,p.529.)
Swamiji as a Hindu monk, believed in self, God, soul and immortality. Gandhi, as a Hindu, also adhered to the doctrine of self, God, soul and permanence.
A Buddhist never sheds blood to spread Buddhism. This is his heritage right from the day the Buddha set the wheel of law rolling at the deer garden of Ancient Ishipatana, modern Sarntah, near Varanasi. Buddhism flourished all over India and then came a time, when Buddhism was wiped out from India except Bengal, where majority of the people, were still Buddhists. The overthrow of the Buddhist Palas by the orthodox Brahmins hammered the last nail in the coffin. A large number of monks fled to neighboring countries. Buddhist practices continued in disguise in Bengal. That tradition flows in the folk-culture of Bengal.
3. No Bloodshed to Spread the Doctrine
Not a single drop of blood has been shed to propagate Buddhism. This is unique. Imagine half a million people in one place only in 1956, instead of taking the way of the Buddha with him, take arms and fight, what would happen! Blood for blood! That was not to be. It was the most non-violent, peaceful gathering that 20th century had witnessed. Suddenly, and at once, Buddhism, which had been driven out of India, had returned. A new era in the history of India had begun. He was the greatest non-violent social revolutionary of 20th century. .
“Excepting the Buddistic religion, there is not one religion in the world which could make one step without bloodshed- not one which could get a hundred converts just by brain power alone. No, no. All through.” ( ibid, p. 532.)
4. Defiance against Tyrannical Brahiminism
Prof. Mitra in his Preface to ‘The Tribes Castes of Bengal’, 1951, precisely chronicles the rise and fall of excellence in Indian society. He correlates the rise with the ascendancy of Buddhism and the fall with the dominance of Brahminism. He maintained the same stand when he spoke on the occasion of Babashaeb centenary celebration organized by the Government of West Bengal and Dr. Bhupendranath Dutta Memorial Lecture delivered by him in 1994, at The Asiatic Society.
“Few people must have known better than Nehru how Varnashram and Brahmanical dominance slowly crippled India down the ages. After all this is what is implicit in a letter 1 have just referred to. He knew how India's vitality was at a high level, precisely for this reason, when Buddhism made its tremendous sweep by doing away social and caste barriers, restoring confidence and dignity among the lowest of the low ushering in social equity and equality of opportunity. Nowhere was this equality of opportunity and redemption of the lowest of the low better demonstrated than in the canonization of the eighty four Siddhas in Buddhist literature.”
“Nehru knew how Brahminical resurgence after Buddhism restored social inequality and Varnashram plunged India in to social and political fragmentation.”
The Buddha defied the irrational dictates of the Brahmins.“And never that man bent before even the power of the tyrannical Brahmins. Never that man bent.” ( ibid, p.529.)
5. Nothing Remains except Reputation
What remains is character, nothing else.( ibid, p.530.) Reputation, says a character in Shakespeare, ‘is the immortal part of a person. Another character of Shakespeare, says, “Good name in man and man, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; it’s something,
nothing;
‘Twas mine, ‘tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches my good name
Robs of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.( The Tragedy of Othello The Moor of Venice by William Shakespeare.)
Napoleon was not only a great warrior; he had profound depth of knowledge.
“ A great reputation is like a great sound. Laws, institutions, monuments, nations perish, but the sound endures and echoes down the generation… I feel the infinite within me.”
The Buddha was one of the most cursed of his time. He was accused of murder. Once a woman alleged that he impregnated her. Again he was the most praised man during his life time. The Buddha did never retaliate. The Buddha took both abuse and praise in equanimity
6. The Buddha- a historical personality
Recorded history of India starts with the Buddha era and we have enormous records about the life and doctrine of the Buddha. The Buddha was a historical personality. “And that man was born- the great man Buddha. Most of you know about him, his life.” .. “he is one of the most historical prophets of the world.” ( Buddhistic India, [ Delivered at the Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, California, on February 2, 1900.] The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda,Advaita Ashrama, Vol.III,Calcutta,1997, p.524.)
7. Rationality
The Buddha could foresee of spinning of all kinds of myths around him after his after his death. His message was very clear. Test by reason before you accept any doctrine or opinion. Irrationality has no room in his doctrine. He warned people not to believe anything attributed to him which did not pass the test of reason.
. “These are memorable words of Buddha: .. “ Test everything, try everything, and then believe it, and if you find it for the good of many, give it to all.”
The greatest man that the world ever seen. “ The sanest philosopher the world ever saw. Its best and its sanest teacher.” ( ibid, pp.528-529.)
8. No claim of superiority
The Buddha never claimed superiority. He said that he was a man among men. “When kingdoms were at his feet, he was still the same man, maintaining, “I am a man amongst men.”( ibid, p.527.)
9. Diligently Work out
No miracle, no blessings can give salvation. One has to diligently workout gown’s salvation. A teacher can only give us the way to reach the goal, he can tell how he has achieved it but he cannot work it out for us.
. “And O, thou Ananda, I am passing away. Weep not for me. Think not for me. I am gone. Work out diligently your own salvation.” ( ibid,p.528.)
10. Hindus never understood the Buddha
Swamiji says, he could not understand him. That is his humility. When he delivered the address in 1893 in Chicago, his vision of Buddhism appears to be tentative. As he went deep inside the doctrine of the Master, he discovered its scientific character and universal appeal to do good to man. He differed from the Master so far the doctrine is concerned but his understanding was complete.
The Hindus could not understand the Buddha. “Well I did not understand his doctrine- we Hindus never understood it.” (ibid, p.529.)
Swamiji certainly discovered Buddhism but as a Hindu, differed from the doctrine of the Master. He was a Hindu Monk who believed in self, soul, immortality and God which are diametrically opposite to Buddhism. He, like Gandhi, exhorted people to abolish untouchability. He gave clarion call to treat the untouchables as brothers, yet, his stand on the issue, has not escaped serious criticism.
“Swami Vivekanada was wild with rage at the pollution prescriptions of the Tamil Aaiyars and Iyengars and Malayali Nambbdris. But right in North Calcutta orthodox Banik families- as I have ascertained from a lady of a renowned Banik house in Calcutta- Gandha, Kangsha, Swarna and Sanka- who by no means that low in he caste hierarchy- would not knowingly let their shadows cross a Brahmin’s thali of food.”( Mitra, Asok: 1993.)
Gandhi, like Swamiji, as a Hindu, subscribed Hindu belief of self, soul, god and immortality.
Gandhi worked within the frame work of Varnashram, while Ambedkar visualized building a new India on the foundations of democratic values of equality, liberty, fraternity, dignity and justice. Prof. Mitra was never impressed by the model of social reconstruction within caste system.
“I have never felt comfortable with Gandhiji's affirmation of Hindus' Varnashram caste or caste hierarchy. To me his nationwide, movement for social reform and his adoption of the word Harijan for his political mouth, all within the frame work of Varnashrarn fail to make much sense and there was certainly no substitute for Ambedkar's plea for equal partnership and respect for all. It was plain, right from the first round table conference that Gandhiji had failed and would fail to take the wind out of B. R. Ambedkar's sail if he did not act otherwise. I feel it was tragic that Gandhiji did not make common cause with Dr. Ambedkar. Gandhiji's default made it possible for Dr. Ambedkar to move to strength while both lived. But after their death, Ambedkar's message has gained strength and Gandhiji's Varnashram has become a menace and tool in the hands a conservative upper caste Hindu political dominance. I like to think how Dr. Ambedkar would have, helped to build a strong secular, socially egalitarian India. Ambedkar made serious contribution by insisting on the preamble and the fundamental Rights in our Constitution and its basic frame of equality and democracy. He also had a big hand in fashioning a uniform civil code, which, had we put it on the statute book, would have been removed many of the evils existing in our country today if only he had gained appropriate support from Nehru. Only Nehru could have helped (Emphasis added.)(Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, A Centenary Tribute,Govt. of West Bengal, Calcutta, 1993,pp.5-9.)
In Buddhism, there is no room for caste, self, soul, God and permanence. Swamiji, has categorically stated this. On the occasion of 2553rd birth anniversary of the Buddha, we may once gain look back to the original doctrine of the Buddha. Those who intend to understand the Buddha may like to go through what Swamiji said on the Buddha.
U.N.Biswas,
Convener, Dharmachakra
- An Effort to spread the message of Dharmachakra in the National Flag of India.
8 May 2009
CG 22, Sector II, Salt Lake City, Calcutta-700091.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)