NOTES ON BUDDHA AND HIS DHAMMA [PART – 12]

It is said that past Karma is inherited in the next birth. Buddhists go on to explain this in flowery language. It is even said Buddha foretold that human birth is genetic. On the other hand, it is said that there is no soul and the elements of the body disintegrate and get united with the elements. When the next birth takes place it is not necessary that the same part of elements is used. If that is so, how can past Karma have an affect on future birth? The answer is simple. We have proved from Gita that Hindus of that period didn’t understand the true concept of rebirth as told by Krishna. By denying the presence of soul, Buddha is only reaffirming the same and confirming that he fully agrees with Krishna, though only in the original form of teachings. This has to be true, as we have proved time and again in these notes that Buddha agreed to the presence of soul and has talked about it on various occasions.

We mention here three different statements of B.R. Ambedkar separated only by 11 pages in his book, which reveal the duality in understanding Buddha’s teachings.

See what B.R. Ambedkar writes on page 341:

“In the Hindu doctrine of Karma a child inherits nothing from its parents except the body. The past Karma in the Hindu doctrine is the inheritance of the child by the child and for the child.

The parent contributes nothing the child brings everything.

Such a doctrine is nothing short of absurdity. As shown above the Buddha did not believe in such an absurdity.”

At one place he says that parents also contribute in childbirth and at other place say that disintegrated elements recombine to form another birth. Who combines them is not told? See page 331:

“According to Buddha there are four elements of Existence which go to compose the body. They are (i) Prithvi; (2) Apa; (3) Tej; and (4) Vayu.

Question is when the human body dies what happens to these four elements? Do they also die along with dead body? Some say they do!

The Buddha said no. They join the mass of similar elements floating in (Akash) space.

When the four elements from this floating mass join together a new birth takes place.

This is what the Buddha meant by rebirth?

The elements need not and are not necessary from the same body which is dead. They may be drawn from different dead bodies.

It must be noted that the body dies. But the elements are ever living.

This is the kind of rebirth in which the Buddha believed.”

At another place, he tells the Jains in a Sutta called the Cula-Khanda that: “Niganthas, you have done evil in the past; extirpate it by these very austerities. Every present restraint on body, speech and mind will hereafter undo the evil doings of the past.”

So as per the aforementioned quotes, it is the rejoining of elements that becomes rebirth but at the same time past karma too contributes to rebirth. How is it possible? However, some critics say that the concept of karma is not from Buddha but has been “bodily introduced into Buddhism by someone who wanted to make Buddhism akin to Hinduism or who did not know what the Buddhist doctrine was.”

For the first time, B.R. Ambedkar has admitted that some Buddhist concepts may be the result of deliberate alteration of teachings by mischievous persons. Unfortunately, he had to say this when, because of apparent duality, he was unable to explain the teachings.

As far as we are concerned, we are of the opinion that since we believe Buddha to be an avatar of the same chain and reporting to the same source, there can be no duality in Buddha’s teachings and also between the teachings of Buddha, Rama, Krishna and other messengers associated with that one source. If there is duality, we should sit down and try to see whether we have understood it wrongly. At all times we should keep our eyes open to trace mischievous persons who are actually responsible for this duality to emerge. We should also remember that such persons could have only succeeded when they wear the garb of that very religion to which they were trying to harm. Other than mischievous persons, the foolish and the ignorant too have contributed in leading the teachings astray.

* * * * *

Now see how, in order to remove one duality, B.R. Ambedkar has created greater dualities.

On page 348 he writes: “The Blessed Lord preached that there was rebirth. But the blessed Lord also preached that there was no transmigration.”

Now combine this statement with his earlier view. Buddha preached that there was rebirth but there is nothing like past karmas. Does that mean that we keep taking birth after birth without rebirth having any link to the previous birth or the sins of previous birth having any relation to future birth?

B.R. Ambedkar agrees that Bhikkus erred at times in transmitting the content of Buddha’s teachings. He writes:

“The Buddhist canonical literature is as vast as ocean. To memorize all this was indeed a great feat.

In reporting the Buddha it has often been found that he has been misreported.

Many cases of misreporting had been brought to the knowledge of the Buddha while he was alive.”

When there can be “many” cases of misreporting, why should we have doubt if there are certain cases of misunderstanding, particularly in the light of misreported teaching.

In this regard, B.R.Ambedkar has given a test. He says that anything that is irrational, illogical or not profitable should not be accepted. Fact is that we are trying to do the same in these notes.

Moreover, to distinguish between irrational, illogical or not profitable teachings and the rest, man should have true and complete knowledge. Or else, there are innumerable cases of people who considered fire worship to be rational, logical and profitable act one day and irrational, illogical and unprofitable act the next day. That is why it is essential that we base our acts on the path shown by those whose enlightenment had a direct link with the Creator and hence there is no chance of our getting astray. That is why it also becomes essential that instead of disapproving Buddha’s link with anyone higher, we should try to identify his teachings with higher ups, who are fully aware of the process and purpose of creation and who bestowed Buddha with the 32 signs, even at the time of his birth, knowing fully well that this child was going to be the next Buddha.

* * * * *

We present here a few lines from B.R. Ambedkar’s book, which he would have liked to remain confined solely to Buddha, hell-bent as he is on cutting all links of Buddha with anybody higher. However, if you have read our commentary of Gita, see whether these lines of B.R. Ambedkar have not resounded in Gita as well. He writes:

“If one has self, let him practice self-conquest. This is the Buddhist Way of Life.

Self is the lord of self, who else could be the Lord? With self well subdued, a man finds a lord such as few can find.

The foolish man who scorns the rule of the venerable (arahat), of the elect (ariya), of the virtuous and follows a false doctrine, he bears fruits to his own destruction, like the fruits of the kattaka reed.”

See, Buddha is talking of the rule of the venerable, of the elect and of the virtuous. Venerable, agreed! Virtuous, agreed! But who are the ‘elected’ when B.R. Ambedkar takes pain to explain that Buddha did not elect a successor, was not elected himself, as he had no link with a God, and neither wanted himself to be discussed. There can be nobody more venerable and virtuous than Buddha in his time. But if his life is not to be discussed, as we have seen earlier in these notes, then whose life will be discussed. Buddha wants the virtuous, the elected and the venerable to be remembered along with their path. This shows that the virtuous, the elected and the venerable are some other beings, whose search is compulsory on us if we claim ourselves to be followers of Buddha. We will have to look in the Vedas to see who the elected are? We will find that the elected are such who are described as perfectly pure and elected ones in Quran as well.

When we find that Buddhists, guided by Buddha’s contemporaries like Kasyapa, decided not to keep the record of Buddha’s life, we will have to accept that he belonged to the categories of those who had erred or were misguided, in spite of keeping company with the Buddha.

* * * * *

Another quote of Buddha, which shows that there have been many preachers and Buddha is one of them, is given by B.R. Ambedkar on page 370 of his book:

“The Right Path is for the happiness not of the few but of all.

It must be good at the beginning, good in the middle and good at the end…

You yourself must make an effort. The Tathagatas are only preachers.”

Buddha confirms that he is one of the chain of messengers who were showing the same path, be it in the beginning, in the middle and towards the end.

* * * * *

Gita, we have seen, talks of our duty to make this world a better place to live. Argument given by Krishna is that the evils in this world are leading to its decay. Based on this argument, Krishna even sanctions a mortal fight against evil, if the need so arises.

That Buddha too agrees with this can be seen in these words by him: “He who does not rouse himself when it is time to rise, who, though young and strong, is full of sloth, whose will and thought are weak, that lazy and idle man never finds the way to knowledge.”

* * * * *

We are sure there will be people who will criticize the criticism that we have done. However, our purpose is to reach the truth. And we are only criticizing on the basis of certain arguments that we hope are strong enough to base our argument on. We welcome all criticism, but only request you to do so after you have applied your mind and done so after removing anger, ego and false pride.

Buddha himself has been subject of much criticism. His words alone have shown us the way: “There is an old saying. ‘They blame him who sits silently, they blame him who speaks much, they also blame him who says little.’ There is no one on earth who is not blamed.

There never was, there never will be, nor is there now, a man who is always blamed, or a man who is always praised.”

* * * * *

It is interesting to note the stress with which Buddha has denounced the consumption of alcohol. See: “Layman, observe this law: Shun drink; make no man drink; sanction no drinking. Mark how drink to madness leads.”

See, not only are we to restrain ourselves but we are to stop others as well. “Make no man drink” has an aura of force in it.

We have discussed at length, while commenting on Gita how Krishna’s sanction to Arjuna to fight was aimed at rectifying the evils plaguing the society. Krishna’s concept of a fight is exactly similar to the true Islamic concept of Jehad. Buddha too is giving sanction fighting the evils of the society. This is exactly the concept of true Jehad.

As regards to the Hindus, we have mentioned explicitly that drinking comprised the five great sins, as per the Upanishads. What’s more, there are only four sins mentioned and the fifth sin is to keep company with one who commits the four sins. This means that giving company to one who drinks too is a great sin, as per Upanishads. And you will be interested to note that the same is mentioned at more than one place.

Some Hindus try to justify their acts of drinking by pointing to Indradeva having soma-drink or Shiva consuming drink. We have proved that consuming the soma, as per Vedas, is something altogether different in meaning. Perhaps somebody did this false interpretation so as to give sanction to his own act. This was just as we have also seen that certain priests were accusing Indradeva of seducing the young maidens when in truth they were trying to hide their own crimes. Also, we have proved that nobody had seen Indradeva or Shiva and whatever stories are prevalent today are myths, based on wrong interpretation of the Vedic hymns and nothing else.

* * * * *

NOTES ON BUDDHA AND HIS DHAMMA [PART – 11]

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?