Vol. 11 · pages 361–365

342 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES IV 47. ‘Here they are, or there ?’ ” 48. “Certainly not, sir,” 49. “Just so, great king, so long as the continuity of life is not cut off, it is impossible to point out the deeds that are done.” 50. “Very good, Nagasena.” § 3. Did the Buddha believe in Past Karma having effect on Future Life? —concluded 1. The Buddha’s doctrine of Past Karma is thus in keeping with science. 2. He did not believe in the inheritance of Past Karma. 3. How can he, having held to the view that birth is genetic and whatever inheritance comes to the child it comes through its parents ? 4. Apart from logic there is more direct evidence on the point contained in a sutta called the Cula— Dukkha—Khanda—Sutta which contains a dialogue between the Buddha and the Jains. 5. In this dialogue this is what the Buddha says :—“Niganthas, you have done evil in the past ; extirpate it by these severe austerities. Every present restraint on body, speech and mind will hereafter undo the evil doings of the past. Hence, by expelling through penance all past misdeeds, and by not committing fresh misdeeds, the future becomes cleared; with the future cleared, the past is wiped out ; with the past wiped out, Ill is no more ; with Ill no more (Painful) feelings are no more ; and, with painful feelings now no more, all Ill will be outworn.—This teaching commends and approves itself to us, and we rejoice in it.” 6. Thereupon, I said to those Niganthas :— “Do you know, reverend sirs, whether you had an existence before this or you were not non-existent ?” 7. “No, Sir.” 8. “Do you know that, in a former existence, you were guilty, and not guiltless, of misdeeds ?”

343 HOW SIMILARITIES IN TERMINOLOGY CONCEAL FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IV 9. “No.” 10. “Do you know that (in that former existence) you were guilty, and not guiltless, of this or that specific misdeed ?” 11. “No.” 12. Secondly the Buddha asserts that the status of a man may be governed not so much by heredity as by his environment. 13. In the Devadaha—Sutta this is what the Buddha says : Some recluses and Brahmins there are who affirm and hold the view that, whatsoever the individual experiences—be it pleasant or unpleasant or neither— all comes from former actions. Hence, by expiation and purge of former misdeeds and by not committing fresh misdeeds, nothing accrues for the future, the misdeeds die away ; as misdeeds die away, Ill dies away ; as Ill dies away, feelings die away ; and as feelings die away, all Ill will wear out and pass. This is what the Niganthas affirm. 14. If it is because of their birth’s environment that creatures experience pleasure and pain, the Niganthas are blameworthy, and they are also blameworthy, if environment is not the cause. 15. Now these statements of the Buddha are very relevant. How could the Buddha throw doubt on past karma if he believed in it ? How could the Buddha maintain pain and pleasure in present life being due to environment if he believed that it was due to past karma ? 16. The doctrine of past karma is a purely Brahminic doctrine. Past karma taking effect in present life is quite consistent with the Brahminic doctrine of soul, the effect of karma on soul. But it is quite inconsistent with the Buddhist doctrine of non-soul. 17. It has been bodily introduced into Buddhism by some one who wanted to make Buddhism akin to Hinduism or who did not know what the Buddhist doctrine was. 18. This is one reason why it must be held that the Buddha could not have preached such a doctrine.

344 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES IV 19. There is another and a more general reason why it must be held that the Buddha could not have preached such a doctrine. 20. The basis of the Hindu doctrine of past karma as the regulator of future life is an iniquitous doctrine. What could have been the purpose of inventing such a doctrine ? 21. The only purpose one can think of is to enable the state or the society to escape responsibility for the condition of the poor and the lowly. 22. Otherwise such an inhuman and absurd doctrine could never have been invented. 23. It is impossible to imagine that the Buddha who was known as the Maha Karunika could have supported such a doctrine.

345 HOW SIMILARITIES IN TERMINOLOGY CONCEAL FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IV SECTION III AHIMSA § 1. The different ways in which it was interpreted and followed 1. Ahimsa or non-killing forms a very important part of the Buddha’s teachings. 2. It is intimately connected with Karuna and Maitri. 3. The question has, however, been raised whether His Ahimsa was absolute in its obligation or only relative. Was it only a principle? Or was it a rule? 4. People who accept the Buddha’s teachings find it difficult to accept Ahimsa as an absolute obligation. They say that such a definition of Ahimsa involves the sacrifice of good for evil, the sacrifice of virtue for vice. 5. This question requires to be clarified. There is no subject which is a matter of greater confusion than this subject of Ahimsa. 6. How have the people of Buddhist countries understood and practised Ahimsa ? 7. This is an important question which must be taken into account. 8. The monks of Ceylon fought against and asked the people of Ceylon to fight against the foreign invaders. 9. On the other hand the monks of Burma refused to fight against the foreign invaders and asked the Burmese people not to fight. 10. The Burmese people eat eggs but not fish. 11. This is how Ahimsa is understood and followed. 12. Recently the German Buddhist Association passed a resolution by which they accepted all the Panch Silas except the first which deals with Ahimsa. 13. This is the position about the Doctrine of Ahimsa.

346 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES IV § 2. True Meaning of Ahimsa. 1. What does Ahimsa mean? 2. The Buddha has nowhere given any definition of Ahimsa. In fact he has very seldom, if at all, referred to the subject in specific terms. 3. One has, therefore to spell out his intention from circumstantial evidence. 4. The first circumstantial evidence on the point is that the Buddha had no objection to eating meat if it was offered to him as part of his alms. 5. The monk can eat meat offered to him provided he was not a party to the killing of it. 6. He resisted the opposition of Devadatta who insisted that the monks should be prohibited from eating meat given to them by way of alms. 7. The next piece of evidence on the point is that he was only opposed to the killing of animals in yajna (sacrifice). This he has himself said. 8. Ahimsa Permo Dharma is an extreme Doctrine. It is a Jain Doctrine. It is not a Buddhist Doctrine. 9. There is another piece of evidence which is more direct than circumstantial which almost amounts to a definition of Ahimsa. He has said: “Love all so that you may not wish to kill any.” This is a positive way of stating the principle of Ahimsa. 10. From this it appears that the doctrine of Ahimsa does not say “Kill not. It says love all.” 11. In the light of these statements it is quite easy to have a clear understanding of what the Buddha meant by Ahimsa. 12. It is quite clear that Buddha meant to make a distinction between will to kill and need to kill. 13. He did not ban killing where there was need to kill. 14. What he banned was killing where there was nothing but the will to kill. 15. So understood there is no confusion in the Buddhist doctrine of Ahimsa. 16. It is a perfectly sound or moral doctrine which everyone must respect.