Vol. 11 · pages 451–455

432 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 28. “What think you of this, Nigrodha? Are these things blemishes in the austerities of self-mortification, or are they not ? ” 29. “Verily, Lord, these things are blemishes in the austerities of self-mortification. It is possible, Lord, that an ascetic may be possessed even of all these blemishes, much more by one or other of them.” 30. The Bhikkhus are not to be guilty of these blemishes. § 3. The Bhikkhu and the Brahmin 1. Is the Bhikkhu the same as the Brahmin? The answer to this question is also in the negative. 2. The discussion of the subject has not been concentrated at any one place. It is scattered all over. But the points of distinction can be easily summed up. 3. A Brahmin is a priest. His main function is to perform certain ceremonies connected with birth, marriage and death. 4. These ceremonies become necessary because of the doctrines of original sin which requires ceremonies to wash it off, and because of the belief in God and in Soul. 5. For these ceremonies a priest is necessary. A Bhikkhu does not believe in original sin, in God and Soul. There are, therefore, no ceremonies to be performed. He is, therefore, not a priest. 6. A Brahmin is born. A Bhikkhu is made. 7. A Brahmin has a caste. A Bhikkhu has no caste. 8. Once a Brahmin always a Brahmin. No sin, no crime can unmake a Brahmin. 9. But once a Bhikkhu is not always a Bhikkhu. A Bhikkhu is made. So he can be unmade if by his conduct he makes himself unworthy of remaining a Bhikkhu. 10. No mental or moral training is necessary for being a Brahmin. All that is expected (only expected) of him is to know his religious lore. V

433 THE BHIKKHU-THE BUDDHA’S CONCEPTION OF HIM 11. Quite different is the case of the Bhikkhu, mental and moral training is his life-blood. 12. A Brahmin is free to acquire unlimited amount of property for himself. A Bhikkhu on the other hand cannot. 13. This is no small difference. Property is the severest limitation upon the mental and moral independence of man both in respect of thought and action. It produces a conflict between the two. That is why the Brahmin is always opposed to change. For, to him a change means loss of power and loss of pelf. 14. A Bhikkhu having no property is mentally and morally free. In his case there are no personal interests which can stand in the way of honesty and integrity. 15. They are Brahmins. Nonetheless each Brahmin is an individual by himself. There is no religious organization to which he is subordinate. A Brahmin is a law unto himself. They are bound by common interests which are material. 16. A Bhikkhu on the other hand is always a member of the Sangh. It is inconceivable that there could be a Bhikkhu without his being a member of the Sangh. A Bhikkhu is not a law unto himself. He is subordinate to the Sangh. The Sangh is a spiritual organization. § 4. The Bhikkhu and the Upasaka 1. In the Dhamma there is a marked distinction between the Dhamma of the Bhikku and the Dhamma of the Upasaka or the layman. 2. The Bhikkhu is bound to celibacy. Not so the Upasaka. He can marry. 3. The Bhikkhu can have no home. He can have no family. Not so the Upasaka. The Upasaka can have a home and can have a family. 4. The Bhikkhu is not to have any property. But an Upasaka can have property. 5. The Bhikkhu is forbidden from taking life. Not so the Upasaka. He may. V

434 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 6. The Panchasilas are common to both. But to the Bhikkhu they are vows. He cannot break them without incurring penalty. To the Upasaka they are precepts to be followed. 7. The Bhikkhu’s observance of the Panchasilas is compulsory. Their observance by the Upasakas is voluntary. 8. Why did the Blessed Lord make such a distinction ? There must be some good reason for it. For the Blessed Lord would not do anything unless there was some good reason for it. 9. The reason for this distinction is nowhere explicitly stated by the Blessed Lord. It is left to be inferred. All the same it is necessary to know the reason for this distinction. 10. There is no doubt that the Blessed Lord wanted through his Dhamma to lay the foundation of a kingdom of righteousness on earth. That is why he preached his Dhamma to all without distinction, to Bhikkus as well as to laymen. 11. But the Blessed Lord also knew that merely preaching the Dhamma to the common men would not result in the creation of that ideal society based on righteousness. 12. An ideal must be practical and must be shown to be practicable. Then and then only people strive after it and try to realize it. 13. To create this striving it is necessary to have a picture of a society working on the basis of the ideal and thereby proving to the common man that the ideal was not impracticable but on the other hand realizable. 14. The Sangh is a model of a society realizing the Dhamma preached by the Blessed Lord. 15. This is the reason why the Blessed Lord made this distinction between the Bhikkhu and the Upasaka. The Bhikkhu was the torch-bearer of the Buddha’s ideal society and the Upasaka was to follow the Bhikkhu as closely as he could. 16. There is also another question that requires an answer. What is the function of the Bhikkhu ? V

435 THE BHIKKHU-THE BUDDHA’S CONCEPTION OF HIM 17. Is the Bhikkhu to devote himself to self-culture or is he to serve the people and guide them ? 18. He must discharge both the functions. 19. Without self-culture he is not fit to guide. Therefore he must himself be a perfect, best man, righteous man and an enlightened man. For this he must practice self-culture. 20. A Bhikkhu leaves his home. But he does not retire from the world. He leaves home so that he may have the freedom and the opportunity to serve those who are attached to their homes but whose life is full of sorrow, misery and unhappiness and who cannot help themselves. 21. Compassion which is the essence of the Dhamma requires that every one shall love and serve and the Bhikkhu is not exempt from it. 22. A Bhikkhu who is indifferent to the woes of mankind, however perfect in self-culture, is not at all a Bhikkhu. He may be something else but he is not a Bhikkhu. V