B.R. Ambedkar is of the view that while all prophets promised salvation, Buddha didn’t make any such promise. True, but we must understand the reason. Buddha was one who had come to show the way to salvation and hence called himself marga data. Moksha-data or one who gives salvation was someone else, higher than Buddha. That is why he did not call himself Moksha-data. If you are reading my posts, you must be knowing who the Moksha-data are. Fact is that all the messengers including Rama and Krishna were marga-datas or those who showed the way to salvation. None claimed to be Moksha-data. All they did was to talk about the merits of salvation, but so did Buddha.
* * * * *
One of the chief teachings of
Buddha is that Dhamma means reaching perfection in life. The perfections are
perfection in body, speech and mind. Krishna taught the same but only in a
different manner. His Purushottam or the Perfect man is one who has attained
all these. There is again no difference. Neither is there any difference with
the teachings of Ahlulbayt.
* * * * *
There is one more point that
proves that Buddha’s teachings were based on Divine assistance. Hope you agree!
For instance, it is possible
for an extra brilliant mind to sit and ponder and come to conclusion about the
cause of human sufferings, their cure, etc. But how can that mind foretell the
conclusions that none other than the creator knows, at that point of time. For
instance, it is only now that we know that whereas oxygen gives energy to our
body for all the minor and major acts that it performs, at the same time it
burns up the body and it is because of oxygen that youthfulness degenerates
into old age.
And Buddha said:
“All things, O Bhikkus, are on
fire. And what, O Priests, are all these things which are on fire?
“The Eye, O Bhikkus, is on
fire; forms are on fire; eye-consciousness is on fire; impressions received by
the eye are on fire; and whatever sensation, pleasant, unpleasant, or
indifferent, originates in dependence on impression received by the type, that
also is on fire.”
“And with what are these on
fire?” “With the fire of passion say I, with the fire of hatred, with the fire
of infatuation, with birth, old age, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and
despair are they on fire.”
“The ear is on fire; sounds
are on fire; the nose is on fire; odours are on fire. The body is on fire;
ideas are on fire; and whatever sensation, pleasant, unpleasant, or indifferent
originates in dependence on impression received by the mind, that also is on
fire.
“And with what are these on
fire.
“With the fire of passion, say
I; with the fire of hatred; with the fire of infatuation; with birth, old age,
death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief, and despair are they on fire.”
“Perceiving this, O Bhikkus,
the learned and noble conceive an aversion. And in conceiving this aversion, he
becomes divested of passion, and by the absence of passion he become free and
when he is free he becomes aware that he is free.”
* * * * *
In great detail, Buddha
explains his theory of the impermanence of all things as per which all things
are in a continuous phase of becoming that would lead it to Sunnya Vad (Zero
State). The moral of this doctrine, as per Buddha, is to cultivate detachment.
Also, we see that nearly every chapter of Gita talks of detachment, though
excludes the talk on Sunnya Vad, and includes the talk on self-realization.
Eventually, the two are endeavouring to come to same conclusion.
* * * * *
There is no doubt that Buddha
was against ritual sacrifices. He minced no words in condemning it. But what
sacrifices was he condemning? Fire sacrifices, animal sacrifices, etc. These
sacrifices formed the chief part of Hindu religion at that time. Even today,
there are a few who continue this practice. These sacrifices were performed to
the burning of fire and to the chanting of hymns from the Vedas.
From where did these
sacrifices originated is not known. We have seen in our study of the Vedas that
they talk about serious subjects, of the sacrifices of life and happiness,
peace, etc. given by a few for the benefit of humanity. In our study of the
Vedas, we have seen that not a single verse of Vedas endorses the traditional
sacrifices and the practice originated perhaps due to misunderstanding of the
Vedic hymns. Alternately, these sacrifices could have been used as a ploy by
the revered sages of the period, so as to safeguard the true verses of Vedas
from getting lost. Making the common people remember the verses by heart was
important, as writing had not developed by then. Had it not been for these
rituals, it would have become impossible for the Vedic hymns to reach to us
unaltered.
With time these sacrifices
deviated to such an extent that people were performing grand sacrifices, at
times consisting of thousands of animals to be sacrificed, and paying no heed
to the moral and ethical values that are prerequisite for entering in the fold
of any religion. If Buddha, the enlightened, was against such sacrifices, it is
quite understandable. They had never been part of true Hindu religion and were
result of deviation.
You will be interested to know
that the Buddha is actually endorsing the true sacrifices that Vedas talk
about, which we have highlighted in our commentary. People who embraced
Buddha’s teachings, and were performing those ritual sacrifices at the time,
felt that Buddha was against the sacrifices of the Vedas but didn’t realize
that those sacrifices had no sanction even in true Hinduism. We have shown in
our commentary of Gita that Krishna too condemned performing of ritual
sacrifices.
Buddha’s answer to Brahmin
Udayin confirms that the sacrifices given while treading the true path, as were
given by the devas when they would come on earth, were the true sacrifices. The
following translation shows that the same subject is being talked about in
spite of the fact that this has been translated by a misguided translator, who
himself never understood the true meaning of sacrifice nor knew anything about
the identity of the devas. See what Buddha has said, as per existing
translations:
“Fit sacrifice performed in
season due
And free from cruelty, to such
draw near
Those well-trained in the
God-life, even those
who have the veil rolled back
while (yet on earth),
who have transcended time and
going. Such do
the enlightened praise, those
skilled in merit.
“Whether in sacrifice or act
of faith,
Oblation fitly made with heart
devout
To that good field of Merit, -
those who live
The Good – life, sacrificed,
conferred, - so given
Lavish the offering; devas
there with are pleased.
Thus offering, the thoughtful,
thereby becoming wise,
Wins the blissful world from
suffering fire.”
Read again. The ‘veil rolled
back’ refers to the devas, who were in veil as they were not visible during
Buddha’s period, who were ‘well-trained in the God-life’ and ‘who have
transcended time’. These devas gave oblations, either through sacrifice of life
or happiness (some devas were even kept in prison for a long time) or even
sacrifices in acts of faith like giving away of the only bread in possession to
a beggar while getting ready to break their fast, that too for three days in
succession. If you read the lives of Ahlulbayt, you will realize how they gave
all sort of sacrifices through their lvies. If anybody comes and say that all
this is wishful thinking on part of us, then we wish to point out that the same
translation also refers to the devas, thereby confirming that Buddha was
talking of devas and none else. It is pity that the followers of Buddha did not
try to explore who these devas were, even when there existed clear texts
talking of devas being pleased of our offerings ‘in sacrifice or act of faith’
or of ‘oblation fitly made with heart devout’. Is it not the fact that this
sentence includes all, not even excluding the Buddha? And is it not a prove
that Buddha too is talking of devas (who, we have proved, when came in human
body were called Ahlulbayt).
Winning of the blissful world
from suffering fire is a clear reference to heaven and hell. We fail to
understand why the immediate followers of Buddha were hell-bent on proving that
there was no heaven and hell in Buddha’s teachings. Moreover, we have shown
earlier in these notes that Buddha has referred to Brahma’s heaven, which
further proves that the devas, even as per the Buddha, are those to whom all
our acts go. They are the ones who would bestow heaven or hell, they are the
ones who are masters of our organs of senses and actions, as has been said in
the Upanishads.
Does all this not endorse
our understanding of the Vedas and Upanishads? Also, does it not endorse the
fact that Buddha was preaching the same path and in fact continuing the
teachings of Krishna earlier, and Rama even before Krishna?
Fact is that the existing
beliefs about self, Manifest Self, about God and about sacrifices were so
deviated that Buddha had to criticize them vehemently. People unaware of the
true teachings of the Vedas and Krishna saw the existing practices as Hindu practices
and when Buddha criticized them, it was interpreted as though he was
criticizing the teachings of Vedas and Krishna. This too confirms our
conclusion that Buddha and Krishna belonged to the same chain of Messengers
[Avatars]. When people deviated from the path shown by Krishna, there was a
need to send another Avatar, just as the need to send Krishna arose when people
had deviated from the Vedas and the teachings of earlier Messengers, including
Rama. A very significant example of this is given in a Purana, which lists the
descendants of Rama by name and concludes the discussion by naming a person who
fought against Krishna in the battle of Mahabharata and got killed. Is it not a
clear example of deviations occurring? The direct descendent of Rama fighting
against the epitome of goodness and virtue – Krishna – and getting killed by
none other than Krishna.
If you read Buddha’s words
again, you will even find reference to ‘God’, something which is refuted by at
least one school of Buddhists. And we have shown how Buddha has referred to the
devas and also Brahma on several occasions.
* * * * *
Another example to prove our
point is that when questions like ‘How was the Universe created; Is it
everlasting, etc.?’ were asked, Buddha refused to entertain these questions and
said that they could only be asked and entertained by wrong-headed people. ‘To
answer these questions required omniscience which nobody had’, he said.
We have seen in the Vedas and
the Upanishads that there exist long passages that talk about the creation of
the Universe, the role of the devas and their relationship with the Absolute
God on one hand and we, the humans, on the other hand. Yet, the adherents of
the Vedas were unable to understand that and were either doubting those very theories
or misinterpreting them when Buddha arrived. Buddha knew that the people in
general were not sufficiently elevated to understand these complex issues. If
they were still asking such questions, and not giving time to the more
important task of elevating their self and their moral and ethical values, then
they were wrong-headed people.
Fact remains that the wrong
beliefs of the people as regard to the God, to the devas, to the purpose of
creation, to their own soul, had become so deviated that Buddha did not find
befitting to reply to their questions and stressed solely on the need to
perform righteous deeds in life. When he did criticize God or soul, which was
to give them a jolt out of their slumber from applying their mind regarding the
corruption that they had allowed to penetrate in their beliefs.
* * * * *
B.R. Ambedkar has written a
long list of questions that people used to ask about the Self and the origin of
the universe. Innumerable questions that are mentioned is enough to suggest
that people of the time were more involved in spending time and energy in
discussing these subjects while the more important area of doing good to others
and leading a life of virtuousness and piety was ignored. It was but natural
that Buddha condemned such thinking. The same is the condition today, of all,
be they Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims?
Take for instance the origin
of the Universe. The questions that were asked were about its creation,
existence and future. They were like: the world is everlasting, - the world is
not everlasting, – the world is finite, - the world is infinite, - the body is
the life (jiva), - the body is one thing and life another, - truth-finder
exists after death, - he both exists and does not exist after death, - he
neither exists nor does not exist after death.”
Some said the universe was
created by Brahma, others said it was created by Prajapati sacrificing himself.
There were innumerable similar questions that were hotly debated.
There is no doubt that there
must have been an answer to these questions. For instance, there must be some
beginning to the universe, even if the beginning was not what the people of the
time believed it to be. The very fact that Buddha said that such questions
could be asked by wrong-headed persons proves that he was not against the
origin of universe, after all there must be some origin, but against spending
time in seeking answers to these questions which are least important in
comparison to the overall important need to do good deeds and work to make this
world a better place to live, something for which man has been created.
The same logic can be extended
to other areas like the concept of God, existence of soul etc. Experts of
Buddhism are wrong when they try to prove that Buddha was against these when Buddha
was actually trying to focus on other more important areas concerning mankind.
Moreover, if we acknowledge Buddha as belonging to the same chain of
Messengers, there was no need to spend time imparting the same teachings that
had already been given by the Vedas and the Upanishads earlier.
Buddha himself said that
knowledge is never final. There is always something more to be known. On the
basis of this we are sure that learned scholars would add new dimensions to
knowledge and give more examples to endorse our view, based on our inferences
presented here.
B.R. Ambedkar unnecessarily
tries to put forward the argument that these theories were merely speculative.
Our view is that they may have been true or false, but the amount of interest
people had in such subjects angered Buddha as they were supposed to spend time
in improving themselves.
Then B.R. Ambedkar writes:
“The Buddha did not believe that the world was created. He believed that the
world had evolved.” Is evolution from nothingness not creation?
The Brahmins emphasized on
knowledge but their characters never showed humanity. They too had got deviated
repeatedly. Reading the Mahabharata tell how deviated their lives were from the
teachings of Gita, given by Krishna. Likewise, reading the lives of saints and
priests during Buddha’s time show how deviated they were from the teachings of
Gita. When Buddha reinforced the true teachings yet again, they were viewed as
new teachings.
B.R. Ambedkar has referred to
slaves being pushed and beaten up if they were slow in bringing condiments for
sacrifice. Such sacrifices or for that matter such knowledge was useless. That
is why Buddha was particular that he who has knowledge must have Sila (virtue)
and that knowledge without Sila was most dangerous. We again come to the
earlier point. When Buddha criticized such knowledge, B.R. Ambedkar and others
did not conclude that Buddha was against knowledge. But when he criticized the
prevailing concepts of God, soul and sacrifices, they concluded that Buddha was
against all these.
* * * * *
There is another point
regarding the Vedas. B.R. Ambedkar has construed that Buddha “denied that the
Vedas were sacred. He denied that whatever the Vedas said was final. He denied
that the Vedas were infallible.”
This too is based on
misunderstanding. The entire Vedas talk of the devas and nothing else. Brahma,
Prajapati, Indradeva, Agnideva, Varunadeva, Vasudeva, Devi Saraswati, etc. are
the subjects of discussion. During our little study so far, we have already
encountered several instances where devas, Brahma, etc. are being mentioned by
Buddha himself. In fact it is Brahma who told Buddha to start preaching to
others when Buddha was in doubt.
Yes, it is true that in Tvijja
Sutta the Buddha has declared the Vedas as a waterless desert, pathless jungle,
in fact perdition (as per present translation). In that regard, Buddha and
Krishna are on the same path as Krishna himself has said that to a true knower,
Vedas are like a pond which has been flooded by an ocean. Fact is that both
Krishna and Buddha criticized the Vedas because people of the time had
understood them wrongly and clung to the devas mentioned therein, while
forgetting the Absolute God who ought to be the purpose of all worship. Various
false myths had been generated regarding the devas and the hymns too were
translated as per their own understanding. These falsely understood hymns were
chanted in sacrifices and people expected to gain salvation out of it. Our
previous posts show how Vedas were wrongly understood. Buddha – the enlightened
- knew the true content of the Vedas by the virtue of being enlightened and
hence wanted people to disbelieve what had been told, what had been handed
down, what was commonly reported, what was the agreeable belief or view, but test
them on the basis of their intellect and understanding.
If you have read our posts,
you will realize that all that has been understood as the true Vedas is just a
pack of false understanding and Buddha actually wanted us to go for the search
of truth, just as Krishna too tried to make us do but in vain.
See Buddha’s words: “Come, O
you Kalamas, do not go merely by what you hear; do not go merely by what has
been handed down from one to another; do not go by what is commonly reported;
do not go merely by what is found in the scriptures; do not go by the
subtleties of reasoning, do not go by subtleties of logic; do not merely by
considerations based upon mere appearances; do not go merely by what looks to
be genuine; do not go merely by word of some ascetic or superior.”
“What then should we do? What
test should we apply?” asked the Kalamas.
“The tests are these,” replied
the Blessed One; “ask yourselves, do we know whether: ‘these things are
insalutary; these things are blameworthy; these things are reprehended by the
wise; these things being done or attempted lead to ill-being and to suffering.’
“Kalamas, you should go
further and ask whether the doctrine taught promotes craving, hatred, delusion,
and violence.
“This is not enough, Kalamas,
you should go further and see whether the doctrine is not likely to make a man
captive of his passions, and is not likely to lead him to kill living creature;
take what has not been given to him; go after another’s wife; utter falsehood,
and cause others to practice like deeds?
“And finally you should ask:
‘whether all this does not tend to his ill-being and suffering.’”
Truly, the understanding of
Vedas based on wrong translations led to all these evils. Those hell-bent on
proving a religion called Buddhism out of Buddha’s teachings surely got enough
points to put forth their claim.
* * * * *
Similarly, BR Ambedkar has
derived on wrong conclusion when he writes: “all religions preach that to reach
this kingdom of heaven should be the aim of man and how to reach it is the end
of all.”
True, many people are of this
opinion. But that does not mean that this thought has sanction from religion.
Krishna ridiculed those, in Gita, who performed actions in love of heaven. And
Ali said: “I do not perform virtuous deeds in love of heaven or in fear of
hell. I do them because I am in the habit of doing these.” Islam too talks of
nijaat or salvation as the higher virtue, higher than merely living in heaven.
* * * * *
In his conversation with one
Potthapeda, Buddha says clearly that he has expressed no opinion on subjects
related to the creation and existence of world, soul and its relation to body,
life after death. He gives the reason for not expressing any opinion by saying:
“Because this question is not calculated to profit, it is not concerned with
the Dhamma, it does not redound even to the elements of right conduct, nor to
detachment, nor to purification from lusts, nor to quietude, nor to
tranquillisation of heart, nor to real knowledge, nor to the insight (of the
higher stages of the Path), nor to Nirvana. Therefore is it that I express no
opinion upon it.”
See what B.R. Ambedkar writes:
“Now on another occasion the Rajah went to visit the Exalted One, and on coming
to him saluted him and set down at one side. So seated he said to the Exalted
One:
“Pray, Lord, does the
Tathagata exist after death?”
“Not revealed by me,
maharajah, is this matter.”
“Then Lord, the Tathagata does
not exist after death.”
“That also, maharajah, is not
revealed by me.”
Is it not in confirmation of
what we have said earlier?
No comments:
Post a Comment