By P.K.Balachandran/Sunday Observer
Colombo, October 20: Indian rights activist and father of the Indian Constitution, Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, had converted to Buddhism in 1956 after deeply studying all the major religions and social and economic philosophies. Since Marxism was gaining ground in various parts of the world after the 1917 Russian revolution, Ambdekar was naturally drawn to it.
He found that Buddhism and Marxism shared some major goals such as social equality and a society devoid of exploitation of man by man. But they differed on the way to achieve that kind of society.
Marxism argued that violence was inescapable while Buddhism not only abhorred violence but believed that violence would only beget violence and that too in an endless cycle.
Buddhism emphasised the need to change the individual’s way of thinking along a set of parameters set by the Buddha. If individuals changed, society would change, the Buddha believed. A continual renewal of this process would ensure the continuance of social equality without the use of force.
In the book The Essential Writings of B.R.Ambedkar ( edited by ValerianRodrigues, Oxford 2000), there is a chapter on Marxism and Buddhism. Ambedkar begins the chapter by enumerating the basics of Marxism and Buddhism and then he compared them from his perspective.
The basics of Marxism are as follows: The purpose of philosophy is to reconstruct the world and not to explain the origin of the universe. The forces which shape the world are primarily economic. Society is divided into two classes- owners and workers, which are in perpetual conflict because the owners exploit the workers to amass wealth only for themselves. But such exploitation only leads to increasing poverty, which in turn leads to a violent class war.
The class war will lead to the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat Marxism says. However, eventually, a classless society will emerge and upon which, the State will wither away.
According to Ambedkar, Marx was right in saying that the function of philosophy is to reconstruct the world and not to explain the origin of the world; that there is a conflict between classes and that social unity and happiness lie in the abolition of private property which lies at the root of unhappiness and conflict.
But he points out that the sequence of events predicted by Marx did not take place. The world’s only Marxist country at that time, Soviet Russia, did not develop into a democratic state. Ambedkar also noted that the world was not converted to the idea of the centrality of economic forces in social and political evolution. Few held the view that capitalism had progressively pauperized the proletariat, he pointed out.
Be that as it may, both Marx and the Buddha saw private property as the source of conflict and sorrow. The Buddha told his disciple Ananda that avarice arises from possession of property. That is why he decreed that a Bhikkus in the Sangha should have no private property other than three robes, a girdle for the loins, an alms bowl, a needle and a water strainer. The Bhikku was forbidden to accept good or silver because he could use it acquire some property.
On the means to be adopted to secure social equality and end exploitation, the Buddha was very clearly against violence or even any form of misconduct. He enunciated the Pancha Sila for this. The Pancha Sila were: avoid destruction/killing; avoid appropriating the property of another; abstain from uttering lies and falsehood; and abstain from lustful thinking and acts and also from intoxicating drinks.
Social inequity could be removed by following the eight-fold path that will establish the “Kingdom of Righteousness”, Buddha said. It comprised: rejecting superstitions; having the right aims worthy of high minded people; avoidance of falsehoods; sticking to right conduct based on non-violence, honesty and right thoughts; right mindfulness, right perseverance and right contemplation (on the deep mysteries of life).
Buddha wanted his followers to rid themselves of delusions about themselves. “So long as a man is wholly occupied with himself, chasing after every bauble that he vainly thinks will satisfy the cravings of his heart, there is no noble path for him,” Ambedkar said interpreting the Buddha.
The Buddha urged his followers to shed their faith in rites and ceremonies as these could not ensure the attainment of any goal including a desired after life. In addition, man should shed ill will towards others, arrogance, self-righteousness and pride. Above all man, should fight ignorance which is his bitterest enemy.
The Buddha’s concept of Paramithas or States of Perfection is meant to inculcate ten virtues to mark one’s everyday life. These are: Panna which is cultivation of wisdom though rights associations; Sila; disposition not to do evil but only good; Nekkhama, renunciation of the pleasures of the world; Dana, giving one’s possessions for the good of others; Virya, right endeavour or the determination to do what one set out to do; Khanti, observing forbearance and shedding hatred as hatred cannot be ended by hatred but only by forbearance; Succa, saying only the truth; Aditthana determination to reach the goal; Metta fellow feeling for people and all living creatures; Upekka, observing detachment but not indifference.
These virtues, to be cultivated for the good of one and all, do not find a place in Marxism where the achievement of peace and social equality is premised on violence and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Ambedkar notes that Marxism predicts the dissolution of the State and the emergence of a classless society, the idyllic end of the revolution. But he points out that it fails to explain the process by which this will come about and also how social order will be maintained in the Stateless era.
Though the Buddha was against violence or force, he was not against the use of force if it was needed to secure justice. Violence could be used, but only after all peaceful means had failed. The Buddha was a thorough democrat as he hailed from the land of the Sakyas which was a democracy. At the time of the Buddha, India had 14 monarchies and 4 republics and the Sakyas were under an elected government.
The Buddha was a thoroughgoing equalitarian, Ambedkar says. In the beginning, the rule in the Sangha was that Bhikkus should be in rags, a rule which was promulgated to prevent aristocrats from joining the Sangha. Later, when the physician Jeevaka advised the Buddha to wear a robe made of whole cloth, he took the advice but insisted that all other Bhikkus should also be clothed likewise.
Once when the Buddha got a chill, his mother Mahaprajapathi Gothami gave him a shawl. But he refused to wear it unless other Bhikkus also got one.
Comparing Buddhism with Communism, Ambedkar says: “The Buddha established communism in the Sangha. But it was without dictatorship. It may be that his communism was on a very small scale. But it was communism without dictatorship.”
“The Buddha’s mind was different. His method was to change the mind of man, to alter his disposition, so that whatever he does, he does voluntarily without the use of force or compulsion. The Buddha’s main means to alter the disposition of man was his Dhamma and the constant preaching of his Dhamma.”
Ambedkar acknowledged that the Russian revolution had done some good to the people of Russia and that the Russian type of dictatorship was good for backward countries. But he was against permanent dictatorship. Humanity does not want economic progress only. It is thirsting for spiritual values too, he argues. But permanent dictatorship pays no attention to spiritual values. Materialism is alright up to a point as man needs material comforts. But he must grow spiritually as well, Ambedkar said.
He endorsed the call of the French Revolution for Fraternity, Liberty and Equality. All three are needed for a harmonious society, he said. “It seems that the thee can coexist only if one follows the way of the Buddha,” Ambedkar’s said in conclusion.
END
