Vol. 17, Part II · pages 121–125

98 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES There is also another distinction between the four religious teachers. Both Jesus and Mohammed claimed that what they taught was the word of God and as a word of God what they taught was infallible and beyond question. Krishna was according to his own assumption a God of Gods and therefore what he taught being a word of God, uttered by God, they were original and final and the question of infallibility did not even arise. The Buddha claimed no such infallibility for what he taught. In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta He told Ananda that His religion was based on reason and experience and that his followers should not accept his teaching as correct and binding merely because they emanated from Him. Being based on reason and experience they were free to modify or even to abandon any of his teachings if it was found that at a given time and in given circumstances they do not apply. He wished, His religion not to be encumbered with the dead wood of the past. He wanted that it should remain evergreen and serviceable at all times. That is why He gave liberty to His followeres to chip and chop as the necessities of the case required. No other religious teacher has shown such courage. They were afraid of permitting repair. As the liberty to repair may be used to demolish the structure they had reared. Buddha had no such fear. He was sure of his foundation. He knew that even the most violent iconoclast will not be able to destroy the core of His religion. II Such is the unique position of Buddha. What about his religion ? How does it compare with those founded by his rivals ? Let us first compare Buddhism with Hinduism. In the short space available the comparison must be limited to a few important points indeed only to two. Hinduism is a religion which is not founded on morality. Whatever morality Hinduism has it is not an integral part of it. It is not imbeded in religion. It is a separate force which is sustained by social necessities and not by injunction of Hindu religion. The religion of the Buddha is morality. It is imbeded in religion. Buddhist religion is nothing if no morality. It is true that in Buddhism there is no God. In place of God there is morality. What God is to other religions morality is to Buddhism.

99BUDDHA . . . . . . . . . HIS RELIGION It is very seldom recognised that He propounded a most revolutionary meaning of the word “Dhamma”. The Vedic meaning of the word “Dharma” did not connote morality in any sense of the word. The Dharma as enunciated by the Brahmins and as propounded in the Purvamimansa of Jamini meant nothing more than the performances of certain karmas or to use terminology of the Roman religion observances. Dharma to Brahmins meant keeping up of observances, i.e. Yagans, Yagas and sacrifices to Gods. This was the essence of the Brahmanic or Vedic Religion. It had nothing to do with morality. The word Dhamma as used by the Buddha, had nothing to do with rituals or observances. In fact he repudiated the Yagas and Yagnas as being essence of religion. In place of Karma he substituted morality as the essence of Dhamma. Although the word Dhamma was used by Brahmanic teachers as well as by the Buddha, the content of both is radically and fundamentally different. In fact, it might be stated that the Buddha was the first teacher in the world who made morality the essence and foundation of religion. Even Krishna as may be seen from Bhagvat Geeta was not able to extricate himself from the old conception of religion being equivalent of rituals and observances. Many people seem to be lured by the doctrine of Nishkam Karma other wise called Anasaktiyoga preached by Krishna in the Bhagvat Geeta. It is taken to mean in Boyscout sense of doing good without the expectation of reward. This interpretation of the Nishkam Karma is a complete misunderstanding of what it really means. The word Karma in the phrase Nishkam Karma does not mean, action in the generic sense of the word Kanna meaning ‘deed’. It is used in its original sense in which it is used by the Brahmins and Jamini. On the point of observances there is only one point of difference between Jamini and the Bhagvat Geeta. The observance which used to be performed by the Brahmins fell into two classes : ( i) Nitya Karmas and (ii) Naimitika Kaunas The Nitya Karmas were observances which were enjoined to be performed regularly for which reasons they were

100 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES called Nitya and as a matter of religious duty, for which there was not to be any expectation of reward. On that account they were also called Nishkam Karmas. The other category of Karmas was called Naimitika that is to say they were performed whenever there was occasion, that is, whenever there was a desire to perform them and they were called Kamya Karmas because from their performance some benefit was expected to come. What Krishna condemned in the Bhagvat Geeta was Kamya Karmas. He did not condemn Nishkama Karmas. On the other hand he extolled them. The point to be borne in mind is, even for Krishna religion did not consist of morality. It consisted of Yagnas and Yagas through of the Nishkama Karmas category. This is one point of contrast between Hinduism and Buddhism. The second point of contrast lies in the fact that the official gospel of Hinduism is inequality. The doctrine of Chaturvarna is the concrete embodiment of this gospel of inequality. On the other hand Buddha stood for equality. He was the greatest opponent of Chaturvarna. He not only preached against it, fought against it, but did everything to uproot it. According to Hinduism neither a Shudra nor a woman could become a teacher of religion nor could they take Sannyasa and reach God. Buddha on the other hand admitted Shudras to the Bhikkhu Sangha. He also admitted women to become Bhikkhunis. Why did he do so? Few people seem to realise the importance of this step. The answer is that Buddha wanted to take concrete steps to destroy the gospel of inequality. Hinduism had to make many changes in its doctrines as a result of an attack made by Buddha. It gave up Himsa. It was prepared to give up the doctrine of the infallibility of the Vedas. On the point of Chaturvarna neither side was prepared to yield. Buddha was not prepared to give up his opposition to the doctrine of Chaturvarna, That is the reason why Brahmanism has so much more hatred and antagonism against Buddhism than it has against Jainism. Hinduism has to recognise the force of the Buddha’s arguments against Chaturvarna. But instead of yielding to its logic Hinduism developed a new philosophic justification for Chaturvarna. This new philosophic justification is to be found in the Bhagvat Geeta. Nobody is able to say for certain what the

101BUDDHA . . . . . . . . . HIS RELIGION Bhagvat Geeta teaches. But this much is beyond question that the Bhagvat Geeta upholds the doctrine of Chaturvarna. In fact it appears that this was the main purpose for which it was written. And how does the Bhagvat Geeta justify it ? Krishna says that he as God created the system of Chaturvarna and he constructed it on the basis of the theory of Guna - Karmawhich means that he prescribed the status and occupation of every individual in accordance with his innate gunas (or qualities). Two things are clear. One is that this theory is new. The old theory was different. According to the old theory the foundation of Chaturvarna was the authority of the Vedas. As the Vedas were infallible so was the system of Chaturvarna on which it rested. The attack of the Buddha on the infallibility of the Vedas had destroyed the validity of this old foundation of Chaturvarna. It is quite natural that Hinduism which was not prepared to give up Chaturvarna and which it regarded as its very soul should attempt to find for it a better foundation which the Bhagvat Geeta proposes to do. But how good is this new justification given by Krishna in the Bhagvat Geeta ? To most Hindus it appears to be quite convincing, so convincing that they believe it to be irrefutable. Even to many non-Hindus it appears to be very plausible, very enticing. If the Chaturvarna had depended only on the authority of the Vedas I am sure it would have long disappeared. It is the mischievous and false doctrine of the Bhagvat Geeta which has given this Chaturvarna-which is the parent of the castesystem-apparently a perpetual loss of life. The basic conception of this new doctrine is taken from the Sankhya philosophy. There is nothing original about it. The originality of Krishna lies in applying it to justify Chaturvarna. It is in its application that the fallacy lies, Kapila, the author of the Sankhya system held that there is no God, that God is necessary only because matter is believed to be dead. But matter is not dead. It is active. Matter consists of three Gunas : Raj, Tamas and Satva. Prakriti appears to be dead only because the three gunas are in an equilibrium. When the equilibrium is disturbed by one of the gunas becoming dominant over the other two, Prakriti becomes active. This is the sum and subtance of the Sankhya philosophy. There can be no quarrel with this theory. It is perhaps true. It may therefore be granted that each

102 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES individual as a form of Prakriti is made up of the three gunas. It may even be granted that among the three gunas there is a competition for dominance of one over the other. But how could it be granted that a particular guna in a particular individual which at one time—say at the time of his birth-happens to dominate his other gunas will continue to dominate them for all times, till his death? There is no ground for this assumption either in the Sankhya philosophy or in actual experience. Unfortunately neither Hitler nor Mussolini were born when Krishna propounded his theory. Krishna would have found considerable difficulty in explaining how a signboard painter and a bricklayer could become dictators capable of dominating the world. The point of the matter is that the Prakriti of an individual is always changing because the relative position of the gunas is always changing. If the gunas are ever changing in their relative position of dominance there can be no permanent and fixed system of classification of men into varnas and no permanent and fixed assignment of occupations. The whole theory of the Bhagvat Geeta therefore falls to the ground. But as I have said the Hindus have become infatuated by its plausibility and its “good look” and have become slaves of it. The result is that Hinduism continues to uphold the Varna system with its gospel of social inequality. These are two of the evils of Hinduism from which Buddhism is free. III Some of those, who believe that only the acceptance of the Gospel of Buddha can save the Hindus are filled with sorrow, because they do not see much prospect of the return or revival of Buddhism in India. I do not share this pessimism. In the matter of their attitude to their religion, Hindus today fall into two classes. There are those who hold that, ‘all religions are true including Hindu’ and the leaders of other religions seem to join them in this slogan. There cannot be a thesis more false than the thesis that all religions are true. However this slogan gives the Hindus, who have raised it, the support of the followers of other religions. There are Hindus who have come to realize that there is something wrong with their religion, the only thing is that they are not ready to denounce it openly. This