Vol. 11 · pages 101–105
The Buddha and His Dhamma
This text was extracted automatically from the official PDF of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, so it may contain small errors. Always check the original page before quoting.
PDF page 101 (printed page 82)
82 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
I
9. Prajapati Parmesthin started with the problem:
“Did being come out of non-being ?” His view was that
this was an irrelevant question. For him water was
the original substance of that which exists. For him
the original matter—water—came neither under the
definition of being nor under that of non-being.
10. Paramesthin did not draw any distinction
between matter and motive power. According to him
water transformed itself into particular things by some
inherent principle to which he gave the name Kama,
Cosmic Desire.
11. Anila was another Vedic Philosopher. To him
the principal element was air (vayu). It possesses the
inherent capacity for movement. It is endowed with the
generating principle.
12. Dirghtamas maintained that all living beings
rest and depend ultimately on the sun. The sun held
up and propelled by its inherent force went backward
and forward.
13. The sun is composed of a grey coloured substance
and so are lightning and fire.
14. The sun, lightning and fire formed the germ of
water. Water forms the germ of plants. Such were the
views of Dirghatamas.
15. According to Narayana, Purusha (God) is the first
cause of the universe. It is from Purusha that the sun,
the moon, the earth, water, fire, air, mid-air, the sky,
the regions, the seasons, the creatures of the air, all
animals, all classes of men, and all human institutions,
had originated.
16. Hiranyagarbha. From doctrinal point of view
he stood midway between Parmeshthin and Narayan,
Hiranyagarbha means the golden germ. It was the great
power of the universe, from which all other powers and
existences, divine and earthly, were derived.
17. Hiranyagarbha means fire. It is fire that
constituted the solar essence, the generating principle
of the universe.
18. From the point of view of Vishvakarman it
was quite inadequate and unsatisfactory to hold that
water was the primitive substance of all that is, and
PDF page 102
83
THE BUDDHA AND HIS PREDECESSORS
I
then to derive from it this world as a whole by giving
it an inherent power of movement. If water be the
primitive substance which is endowed with the inherent
principle of change, we have yet to account for that from
which water derived its being, and derived the motive
power, the generating principle, the elemental forces,
the laws and all the rest.
19. Vishvakarman held the view that it was God
which was the motive power. God is first and God is
last. He is earlier than the visible universe ; he had
existed before all cosmic forces came into being. He is
the sole God who created and ordained this universe.
God is one, and the only one. He is the unborn one
(aja) in whom all the existing things abide. He is the
one who is mighty in mind and supreme in power. He
is the maker—the disposer. As father he generated us,
and as disposer he knows the fate of all that is.
20. The Buddha did not regard all the Vedic Sages
as worthy of reverence. He regarded just ten Vedic
Rishis as the most ancient and as the real authors of
the Mantras.
21. But in the Mantras he saw nothing that was
morally elevating.
22. In his view the Vedas were as worthless as a
desert.
23. The Buddha, therefore, discarded the Mantras
as a source from which to learn or to borrow.
24. Similarly, the Buddha did not find anything in
the philosophy of the Vedic Rishis. They were groping
to reach the truth. But they had not reached it.
25. Their theories were mere speculations not based
on logic nor on facts. Their contributions to philosophy
created no social values.
26. He therefore rejected the philosophy of the Vedic
Rishis as useless.
§2. Kapila-The Philosopher
1. Among the ancient philosophers of India the most
pre-eminent was Kapila.
PDF page 103 (printed page 84)
84 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
I
2. His philosophical approach was unique, and
as philosopher he stood in a class by himself. His
philosophy was known as the Sankhya Philosophy.
3. The tenets of his philosophy were of a startling
nature.
4. Truth must be supported by proof. This is the
first tenet of the Sankhya system. There is no truth
without proof.
5. For purposes of proving the truth Kapila allowed
only two means of proof—(1) perception and (2)
inference.
6. By perception is meant mental apprehension of
a present object.
7. Inference is threefold : (1) from cause to effect,
as from the presence of clouds to rain ; (2) from effect
to cause, as from the swelling of the streams in the
valleys to rain in the hills, and (3) by analogy, as when
we infer from the fact that a man alters his place when
he moves that the stars must also move, since they
appear in different places.
8. His next tenet related to causality—creation and
its cause.
9. Kapila denied the theory that there was a being
who created the universe. In his view a created thing
really exists beforehand in its cause just as the clay
serves to form a pot, or the threads go to form a piece
of cloth.
10. This is the first ground on which Kapila rejected
the theory that the universe was created by a being.
11. But there are other grounds which he advanced
in support of his point of view.
12. The non-existent cannot be the subject of an
activity : There is no new creation. The product is really
nothing else than the material of which it is composed :
the product exists before its coming into being in the
shape of its material of which it is composed. Only a
definite product can be produced from such material ;
and only a specific material can yield a specific result.
PDF page 104
85
THE BUDDHA AND HIS PREDECESSORS
I
13. What then is the source of the empirical
universe ?
14. Kapila said the empirical universe consists of
things evolved (Vyakta) and things that are not evolved
(Avyakta).
15. Individual things (Vyakta Vastu) cannot be the
source of unevolved things (Avyakta Vastu).
16. Individual things are all limited in magnitude
and this is incompatible with the nature of the source
of the universe.
17. All individual things are analogous, one to
another and, therefore, no one can be regarded as the
final source of the other. Moreover, as they all come into
being from a source, they cannot constitute that source.
18. Further, argued Kapila, an effect must differ
from its cause, though it must consist of the cause.
That being so, the universe cannot itself be the final
cause. It must be the product of some ultimate cause.
19. When asked why the unevolved cannot be
perceived, why does it not show movement which would
make it perceivable, Kapila replied :
20. “It may be due to various causes. It may be that
its fine nature makes it imperceptible, just as other
things of whose existence there is no doubt, cannot be
perceived ; or because of their too great a distance or
proximity ; or through the intervention of a third object,
or through admixture with similar matter ; or through
the presence of some more powerful sensation, or the
blindness or other defect of the senses or the mind of
the observer.”
21. When asked : “What then is the source of the
universe ? What makes the difference between the
evolved and unevolved part of the universe ?
22. Kapila’s reply was : ‘Things that have evolved
have a cause and the things that have not evolved have
also a cause. But the source of both is uncaused and
independent.’
23. “The things that have evolved are many in
number and limited in space and name. The source
is one, eternal and all-pervasive. The things evolved
PDF page 105 (printed page 86)
86 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
I
have activities and parts : the source is imminent in
all, but has neither activities nor parts.”
24. Kapila argued that the process of development
of the unevolved is through the activities of three
constituents of which it is made up, Sattva, Rajas and
Tamas. These are called three Gunas.
25. The first of the constituents, or factors,
corresponds to what we call as light in nature, which
reveals, which causes pleasure to men ; the second is
that impels and moves, what produces activity ; the
third is what is heavy and puts under restraint, what
produces the state of indifference or inactivity.
26. The three constituents act essentially in close
relation, they overpower and support one another
and intermingle with one another. They are like the
constituents of a lamp, the flame, the oil and wick.
27. When the three Gunas are in perfect balance,
none overpowering the other, the universe appears static
(Achetan) and ceases to evolve.
28. When the three Gunas are not in balance, one
overpowers the other, the universe becomes dynamic
(sachetan) and evolution begins.
29. Asked why the Gunas become unbalanced, the
answer which Kapila gave was this disturbance in the
balance of the three Gunas was due to the presence of
Dukha (suffering).
30. Such were the tenets of Kapila’s philosophy.
31. Of all the philosophers the Buddha was greatly
impressed by the doctrines of Kapila.
32. He was the only philosopher whose teachings
appeared to the Buddha to be based on logic and facts.
33. But he did not accept everything which Kapila
taught. Only three things did the Buddha accept from
Kapila.
34. He accepted that reality must rest on proof.
Thinking must be based on rationalism.
35. He accepted that there was no logical or factual
basis for the presumption that God exists or that he
created the universe.
36. He accepted that there was Dukha (suffering)
in the world.