NOTES ON BUDDHA AND HIS DHAMMA [PART – 10]

B.R. Ambedkar says that twice Buddha was requested by his followers to appoint a successor but every time Buddha refused. Why? Several reasons come to our mind. Firstly, he knew that his was a divinely appointed designation and it was not up to him to appoint a successor. One who appointed him would himself appoint someone else at a suitable time and place.

Or is it that Buddha knew that his disciples were not that worthy? Or can there be a possibility that unworthy but shrewd disciples had won over the hearts of the rest of the disciples. This is merely a hypothesis but there are certain indicators that made us frame this hypothesis.

B.R. Ambedkar says that Buddha carved for himself no place in his religion by laying down any conditions. This is the reason, as per him, that not much is known of the incidents of his life. But if that was so, Buddha also did not stop his followers from doing so. Why is it that his followers didn’t try to write the incidents of his life, after Buddha had passed away from amidst them?

More importantly, when the first Buddhist congregation was held soon after the death of Buddha at Rajagraha, it is explicitly written that Kasyapa presided over the congregation. Who made him the President? B.R. Ambedkar says that Buddha had clearly rejected any question of a successor. Even if a President was to be appointed, why not one from the five Parivrajakas, who were one of the first converts. Also, why not Ananda, who had the distinction of being Buddha’s personal attendant and was also alongside him when Buddha died?

What we find, on the other hand, is Kasyapa presiding over the congregation, that too in a manner that it appears that he wanted to control what was to be discussed and what not to be discussed. Kasyapa raised only two questions during the congregation, one regarding the Dhamma and the other regarding the Vinaya. B.R. Ambedkar writes that he (Kasyapa) closed the questions after Dhamma and Vinaya were told. What was the reason for closing the questions? Why were others not given a chance to speak?

See what B.R. Ambedkar has written:

“Kasyapa then should have put the third question to someone present in the congregation to record some important incidents in the life of the Buddha.

But Kasyapa did not. These were the only two questions with which he thought the Sangh was concerned.

If Kasyapa had collected the record of the Buddha’s life we would have had today a full-fledged biography of the Buddha.

Why did it not strike Kasyapa to collect the record about the Buddha’s life?

It could not be indifference. The only answer one can give is that the Buddha had carved no niche for himself in his religion.”

This statement of B.R. Ambedkar proves that the Buddha’s not carving any niche for himself in his religion were not the words of Buddha himself but conclusions drawn by B.R. Ambedkar due to his inability to cast an opinion on Kasyapa’s integrity. There are several instances where what Buddha did in private is known to us. Had there been a second person alongside Buddha, we could have thought that the other person narrated the incident. But there are narrations talking of how Buddha attain enlightenment, his throwing of food in the river Nairanja to see whether it moved upstream or downstream, what did he do to attain enlightenment, etc. that were performed exclusively in private. This shows that Buddha was not trying to hide incidents from his life from getting known. Moreover, the entire region at least was following what this erstwhile prince of Sakya was up to since Buddha took the Parivraja. Remember, that was the period when Buddha had not even attained enlightenment. If records were not kept about Buddha’s life, it was because somebody wanted that they should not be kept. Later in these notes we will give two or three incidents to prove that Kasyapa’s intentions could be doubtful.

The same is the case of naming Buddha’s teachings as a religion. Not once did Buddha say so. Also, we find that even at the time of the Congregation, Kasyapa mentions the word Dhamma meaning path, thus showing that till that time, at least, Buddha’s teachings had not been labeled as a separate religion. Is it not an irony that those very people who said that Buddha had carved no niche for himself named his religion as Buddhism but did not keep the records of the life of the propagator of their religion?

There is one more point that proves our hypothesis. Let us study the circumstances in which Kasyapa accepted Buddha’s Dhamma. When we study the same for the five Parivrajakas, Yashas and several others, we find that they had the choice of accepting or denying Buddha’s Dhamma and yet accepted it on the basis of its truth. On the other hand, Kasyapa accepted Buddha’s Dhamma under circumstances where he had no other choice of continuing with his earlier path of giving fire sacrifice.

Kasyapa was a fire worshipper and he was in fact proud of this fact. Conditions became such that the Naga king Muchalinda, who was influenced with Buddha’s teachings, was already troubling Kasyapa because of Kasyapa being a fire-worshipper when Buddha came to his ashram. Buddha desired to stay in his ashram for the night. Kasyapa raised several objections in spite of the fact that Buddha was persistently insisting. Kasyapa allowed Buddha finally to stay outside while he went off to sleep in spite of knowing that his guest (Buddha) might have been burnt up by Muchalinda. He came to look at his guest only the next morning. There he saw Muchalinda paying obeisance to Buddha. The man who had not dared to come out in the night, leaving his guest to the fate of Muchalinda, knew that it would be impossible for him to continue with his fire worship anymore. Thereafter, he invited Buddha to stay there and build an ashram.

Another point! All Buddhists would agree that it was not possible for Kasyapa to gain salvation through fire-worship. The very fact that Kasyapa accepted Buddha’s Dhamma shows that he confessed that he was on the wrong. Had he achieved salvation why would he have converted? Yet B.R. Ambedkar writes: “The fame of Uruvella Kasyapa had spread far and wide. He was known to have obtained mukti (salvation) while alive. People from faraway places came to his ashram which was located on the banks of the river Falgu.”

This incident reveals that Kasyapa’s religiosity was suspect even when he was a fire worshipper. The word had been spread that he had attained salvation and he didn’t deny it even when people came to visit his ashram. Does it not show the cunningness, shrewdness and on top of it disrespect for religion on part of Kasyapa, who was taking help of a lie to achieve fame. Moreover, religiosity had not given him courage and steadfastness. If he was on true path, why was he afraid of Muchalinda? Why did he convert?

It appears that Kasyapa used all his time-tested tactics to gain a position of respect in Buddha’s camp. We will see later that Kasyapa had a following that showed no respect to Buddha, not to speak of his teachings. The simple Bhikkus might not have seen behind his plan. But the Buddha knew and that is why he kept on insisting till his last breath that Dhamma itself is sufficient. Unfortunately, Kasyapa and some more of his type didn’t allow this to happen.

We invite you to read the row over Prophet Mohammad’s succession, given a little earlier. We are sure you will find a lot many similarities and also get to realize how a teacher’s teachings can be hijacked by a select few and given a direction of their choice.

* * * * *

Fact is that the conditions that got created after Mohammad’s departure were very similar to those that were created after Buddha. Quran tells the Quraysh that ‘had it been in your hand, you would have chosen one of the elderly from your tribe as Prophet’. Mohammad was chosen not because of his eminence in society but his eminence in front of God. These two are different. Immediately after Mohammad, people chose those who were eminent and respected among them and forgot that when they had no say in choosing of the Prophet, they should have no say in the choosing of successor as well. The same happened in the case of Buddha. He was not chosen as per people’s will but because he attained the enlightenment because of the purity and level of his self and the relation that he created of the self with the Manifest Self. But people still wanted him to name a successor. How could he when he knew that this was a Divine responsibility and came from the other end rather than men themselves choosing their leader. Despite this, all indicators showed that Buddha wanted Ananda to be his successor. On the other hand, Mohammad left no stone unturned to say that the Divine Will for caliphate was in favour of Ali. When Buddha died, his head was on Ananda’s lap and when Mohammad died, his head was on Ali’s lap. Narrations tell that even when Ananda wept inconsolably after Buddha’s death, rest of the people got involved in feast and merry making. On the other hand, even when Ali was lamenting over Mohammad’s departure and making preparations for his burial, there was a group that was fighting among itself for caliphate (read my earlier post on the subject). Buddha’s teachings got deviated when Ananda was not chosen as successor, who would have tried his best to safeguard Buddha’s true teachings, Mohammad’s teachings got deviated the day Ali was not chosen as the successor. I have been saying repeatedly that the Force of Darkness use the same time-tested methods time and again to corrupt the teachings of the true path. That is why I invite you time and again to clear doubts, if any, lest Force of Darkness will corrupt the understanding yet again.