Vol. 11 · pages 356–360

337 HOW SIMILARITIES IN TERMINOLOGY CONCEAL FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IV SECTION II KARMA § 1. Is the Buddhist Doctrine of Karma the same as the Brahminic Doctrine ? 1. There is no doctrine in the Buddha’s Dhamma which has created so much confusion as this doctrine of Karma. 2. What is its place in the Buddha’s Dhamma and what is its significance which has already been told. 3. Ignorant Hindus out of sheer want of understanding say by comparing merely the similarity of words that Buddhism is the same as Brahmanism or Hinduism. 4. The educated and orthodox section of the Brahmins also do the same. They do so deliberately to mislead the ignorant masses. 5. The educated Brahmins know full well that the Buddhist Law of Karma is quite different from the Brahminic Law of Karma. Yet they keep on saying that Buddhism is the same as Brahmanism and Hinduism. 6. The similarity in terminology gives them an easy handle for their false and malicious propaganda. 7. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the position closely. 8. The Buddha’s Law of Karma, however much may be similarity of words cannot be the same in its connotation as the Brahminic Law of Karma. 9. The premises of the two are so widely different, indeed so widely opposed that the result of the two cannot be the same. They must be different. 10. The principles of the Hindu Law of Karma may be stated seriatim for convenience. 11. The Hindu Law of Karma is based on the soul. The Buddhist is not. In fact there is no soul in Buddhism. 12. The Brahminic Law of Karma is hereditary. 13. It goes on from life to life. This is so because of the transmigration of the soul.

338 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES IV 14. This cannot be true of the Buddhist Law of Karma. This is also because there is no soul. 15. The Hindu Law of Karma is based on the existence of a soul which is distinct from the body. When the body dies the soul does not die. The soul flies away. 16. This is not true of the Buddhist Law of Karma. 17. According to the Hindu Law of Karma what happens when a man does a karma is this. His act produces two-fold results. It affects the doer and secondly it produces an impress upon his soul. 18. Each act he does produces an impress upon his soul. 19. When a man dies and when his soul escapes, the soul is full of such impressions. 20. It is these impressions which determine his birth and status in his future life. 21. This Hindu theory is inconsistent with the Buddhist theory of no-soul. 22. For these reasons the Buddhist doctrine of Karma cannot be and is not the same as the Hindu doctrine of Karma. 23. It is therefore simply foolish to talk about the Buddhist doctrine of Karma being the same as the Brahminic doctrine of Karma. 24. All that one can say is beware of this jugglery. § 2. Did the Buddha believe in Past Karma having effect on Future Life? 1. The Law of Karma was enunciated by the Buddha. He was the first to say : “Reap as you sow.” 2. He was so emphatic about the Law of Karma that he maintained that there could be no moral order unless there was a stern observance of the Law of Karma. 3. The Buddha’s Law of Karma applied only to Karma and its effect on present life.

339 HOW SIMILARITIES IN TERMINOLOGY CONCEAL FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IV 4. There is, however, an extended doctrine of Karma. According to it Karma includes Karma done in past life or lives. 5. If a man is born in a poor family it is because of his past bad karma. If a man is born in a rich family it is because of his past good karma. 6. If a man is born with a congenital defect it is because of his past bad karma. 7. This is a very pernicious doctrine. For in this interpretation of karma there is no room left for human effort. Everything is predetermined for him by his past karma. 8. This extended doctrine is often found to be attributed to the Buddha. 9. Did the Buddha believe in such a doctrine? 10. To examine this extended doctrine properly it is better to change the language in which it is usually expressed. 11. Instead of saying that past karma is transmitted it should be better if it was said that past karma is inherited. 12. This change of language enables us to test it by the law of heredity. At the same time it does no harm to the doctrine either to its de jure or de facto connotation. 13. This restatement makes it possible to pose the two questions which could not otherwise be posed and without answering which the matter could not be made clear. 14. The first question is how is past karma inherited ? What is the process ? 15. The second question is what is the nature of past karma in terms of heredity ? Is it an inherent characteristic or acquired characteristic ? 16. What do we inherit from our parents ? 17. Starting with science the new individual begins when a sperm enters the egg. Fertilization consists in fusion of the head of the sperm with the nucleus of the egg. 18. Each human being takes its origin from the union of two bits of living matter, an egg from the

340 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES IV mother which has been fertilized by a single sperm from the father. 19. That human birth is genetic is told by the Buddha to a Yakkha who came to discuss the matter with him. 20. The Exalted One was then staying near Rajagraha, on the hill called Indra’s Peak. 21. Now that Yakkha drew near to the Exalted One and addressed him as follows : ‘Material form is not the living soul’ So says th’ Enlightened One. Then how doth soul possess this body ? Whence to soul doth come Our bunch of bones and bowels ? How doth soul within the mother-cave suspended bide? 22. To this the Exalted One replied : At first the Kalala takes birth, and thence the abudde. Therefrom the pesi grows, Developing as ghana in its turn. Now in the ghana doth appear the hair, The down, the nails. And whatsoever food and drink the mother of him takes, thereby the man in mother’s womb doth live and grow. 23. But the Hindu doctrine differs. 24. It says that the body is genetic. But the soul is not. It is implanted into the body from outside—the doctrine is unable to specify the source. 25. Turning to the second question as to what is the nature of past karma, it must be determined whether it is an inherent characteristic or an acquired characteristic. 26. Unless an answer to this question is forthcoming it cannot be tested by the scientific theory of heredity. 27. But assuming there is an answer one way or the other to this question how is it possible to get any help from science whether it is a sensible theory or senseless theory.

341 HOW SIMILARITIES IN TERMINOLOGY CONCEAL FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IV 28. According to science a child inherits the characteristics of his parents. 29. In the Hindu doctrine of karma a child inherits nothing from its parents except the body. The past karma in the Hindu doctrine is the inheritance of the child by the child and for the child. 30. The parents contributes nothing. The child brings everything. 31. Such a doctrine is nothing short of an absurdity. 32. As shown above the Buddha did not believe in such an absurdity. 33. “Yes, if it were not reborn; but if it were, no.” 34. “Give me an illustration.” 35. “Suppose, O king, a man were to steal another man’s mangoes, would the thief deserve punishment?” 36. “Yes.” 37. “But he would not have stolen the mangoes the other set in the ground. Why would he deserve punishment ?” 38. “Because those he stole were the result of those that were planted.” 39. “Just so, great king, this name-and-form commits deeds, either pure or impure, and by that karma another name-and-form is reborn. And therefore is it not set free from its evil deeds ?” 40. “Very good, Nagasena !” 41. The king said : “When deeds are committed, Nagasena by one name-and-form, what becomes of those deeds ?” 42. “The deeds would follow it, O king, like a shadow that never leaves it.” 43. “Can any one point out those deeds, saying : ‘Here are those deeds or there ?’ 44. “No.” 45. “Give me an illustration.” 46. “Now what do you think, O king ? Can any one point out the fruits which a tree has not yet produced, saying :