Vol. 11 · pages 366–370

347 HOW SIMILARITIES IN TERMINOLOGY CONCEAL FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IV 17. No doubt he leaves it to every individual to decide whether the need to kill is there. But with whom else could it be left. Man has Pradnya and he must use it. 18. A moral man may be trusted to draw the line at the right point. 19. Brahminism has in it the will to kill. 20. Jainism has in it the will never to kill. 21. The Buddha’s Ahimsa is quite in keeping with his middle path. 22. To put it differently the Buddha made a distinction between Principle and Rule. He did not make Ahimsa a matter of Rule. He enunciated it as a matter of Principle or way of life. 23. In this he no doubt acted very wisely. 24. A principle leaves you freedom to act. A rule does not. Rule either breaks you or you break the rule.

348 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES IV SECTION IV TRANSMIGRATION 1. The Blessed Lord preached that there was rebirth. But the Blessed Lord also preached that there was no transmigration. 2. There were not wanting people who criticized the Lord for preaching what they regarded as two such contradictory doctrines. 3. How can there be rebirth unless there is transmigration ? asked the critics. 4. There is here a case of rebirth without transmigration, they said. Can this be? 5. There is no contradiction. There can be rebirth although there is no transmigration. 6. This has been well explained by Nagasena in his replies to the questions of King Milinda. 7. Milinda, King of Bactria, asked Nagasena— “Did the Buddha believe in Rebirth (Transmigration) ?” 8. His reply was “Yes.” 9. “Is this not a contradiction?” 10. Nagasena replied, “No.” 11. “Can there be rebirth without a soul ?” 12. Nagasena said, “Of course, yes, there can be.” 13. “Explain how it can be.” 14. The king said : “Where there is no transmigration, Nagasena, can there be rebirth ?” 15. “Yes, there can.” 16. “But how can that be ? Give me an illustration.” 17. “Suppose a man, O king, were to light a lamp from another lamp, can it be said that the one transmigrates from, or to, the other?” 18. “Certainly not.” 19. “Just so, great king, is rebirth without transmigration.” 20. “Give me a further illustration.” 21. “Do you recollect, great king, having learnt, when you were a boy, some verse or other from your teacher ?” 22. “Yes, I recollect that.”

349 HOW SIMILARITIES IN TERMINOLOGY CONCEAL FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IV 23. “Well then, did that verse transmigrate from your teacher ?” 24. “Certainly not.” 25. “Just so, great king, is rebirth without transmigration.” 26. “Very good, Nagasena !” 27. The king said : “Is there such a thing, Nagasena, as the soul ?” 28. “In the highest sense, O king, there is no such thing.” 29. “Very good, Nagasena !”

350 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES IV SECTION V CAUSES OF THIS MISUNDERSTANDING 1. What the Buddha preached was heard by his audience, which largely consisted of the Bhikkus. 2. It is the Bhikkus who reported to the people at large what the Buddha had said on any particular matter. 3. The art of writing had not yet developed. The Bhikkus had therefore to memorize what they had heard. Not every Bhikku cared to memorize what he heard. But there were some who had made it their profession to memorize. They were called Bhanakas. 4. The Buddhist canonical literature is as vast as ocean. To memorize all this was indeed a great feat. 5. In reporting the Buddha it has often been found that he has been misreported. 6. Many cases of misreporting had been brought to the knowledge of the Buddha while he was alive. 7. Reference may be made by way of illustration to five such cases. One is mentioned in the Alagaddupama Sutta and the other in the Maha-Kamma-Vibhanga Sutta, a third in the Kannakatthala Sutta, fourth in the Maha-Tanha-Sankhya Sutta and fifth in the Jivaka Sutta. 8. There were perhaps many more such cases of misreporting. For we find that even the Bhikkus going to the Buddha asking him to tell them what they should do in such contingencies. 9. The cases of misreporting are common with regard to karma and rebirth. 10. These doctrines have also a place in the Brahminic religion consequently it was easy for the Bhanakas to incorporate the Brahminic tenets into the Buddhist Religion. 11. One has therefore to be very careful in accepting what is said in the Buddhist canonical literature as being the word of the Buddha. 12. There is however one test which is available. 13. If there is anything which could be said with confidence it is : He was nothing if not rational,

351 HOW SIMILARITIES IN TERMINOLOGY CONCEAL FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IV if not logical. Anything therefore which is rational and logical, other things being equal, may be taken to be the word of the Buddha. 14. The second thing is that the Buddha never cared to enter into a discussion which was not profitable for man’s welfare. Therefore anything attributed to the Buddha which did not relate to man’s welfare cannot be accepted to be the word of the Buddha. 15. There is a third test. It is that the Buddha divided all matters into two classes. Those about which he was certain and those about which he was not certain. On matters which fell into class I, he has stated his views definitely and conclusively. On matters which fell into class II, he has expressed his views. But they are only tentative views. 16. In discussing the three questions about which there is doubt and difference it is necessary to bear these tests in mind before deciding what the view of the Buddha was thereon.