Buddhism in India

Buddhist Civilisation 143

dysfunctional because their fatalism rejects all attempts to alter that

society and holds out no hope for changing the human condition.

Buddhism, on the other hand, fits the needs of the new society and

provides a solution to its dilemmas: it projects the sorrows of class

exploitation, but in interpreting them idealistically, it gives only the

illusion of a solution and so reconciles people to their class position.

In this sense, it is an ‘opium of the people’ serving the interests of

the elite.

Kosambi’s interpretation is more nuanced. Chattopadhyaya does

not go into the difference between Buddhism and Brahmanism in

terms of social function. Kosambi does. He describes the increasing

irrelevance of the Vedic sacrifice to the needs of the new social

order, and the needless expenses the sacrifice entails. Buddhist non-

violence is seen as providing the final blow to the religion which

endorsed sacrifices, and as serving the interests of the rising states

in minimising the expenses of violence. For Kosambi, Buddhism is

ultimately a pacifistic religion useful to rulers. His explanation of

the triumph of Brahmanism is basically that it proved capable of

taking over from Buddhism this major achievement: it adopted

non-violence partially. Once Buddhism accomplished what had

been historically necessary, it became less relevant, and its increasing

decadence—as reflected in the wealth tied up in the monasteries

and the presumed alienation of the Sangha from the ordinary

believer—made it positively harmful. Brahmanism, in contrast,

could take over and foster a bhakti devotionalism that suited the

needs of a feudal society. Brahmans also could maintain their role

in society by pioneering the transformation of a forest-based economy

into agriculture-based economy and by absorbing hunting and

gathering tribes into a caste-based agricultural society. Though he

does not use the term, Kosambi at points comes close to viewing

Brahmanism as the ‘national religion’ of India, capable of providing

what is necessary for economic growth and capable of reform.

One important question arises from most Marxist interpretations.

Kosambi, for example, defines history as the study of the succession

of the modes of production. In the classic Marxist theory, these

stages are primitive communism slavery, feudalism and capitalism

(and then, of course, socialism). Buddhism in these terms was, for

both Kosambi and Chattopadhyaya, presumably an ideal religion

for the age of slavery. Yet it is never shown what about it is

characteristic of a slave society. Indeed, the society of the first

was related to issues of technology and production. In one rather
interesting Jataka known as the ‘Great Tunnel Jataka’ (#546), the
Bodhisattva is a teacher-advisor known as Mahosadha who can be
called an engineer: he constructs huge buildings and gardens; he
builds great ramparts with moats, reservoirs, storehouses for the
king, and he constructs a huge tunnel with ‘hundreds of lamp-cells,
also fitted with machinery, so that when one was opened all
opened, and when one was shut, all were shut.’ Mahosadha is the
son of a ‘rich man’ who is sometimes described as a merchant, but
he is called a ‘clodhopper’ and a ‘farmer’s son’ by his enemies, and
he marries a woman whose father is a merchant who has fallen on
bad days and makes his living ploughing the land. Mahosadha’s
own demonstrated ability at architecture and engineering shows a
‘hands on’ approach of this ‘commoner’ birth.

Religion and Economic Development

Now we are in a position where we can take up one of the most
important and controversial issues regarding religion and society—
the link between religion and economic development. Here the
most important contributions are those of Marx and Weber.
The Marxist view the relationship between religion and society
essentially in terms of a one-way causality. Religion, whether
described as the ‘opium of the people’ binding them to an exploitative
society or as the ‘sigh of the oppressed’ expressing their anguish
at exploitation, is seen as part of the ideological superstructure,
produced by and reflecting socio-economic structures but having
no independent causal influence on them. Thus Marxists have
generally viewed Buddhism as simply one of many ways of reflect-
ing social-economic relations, expressing in this case the needs of a
developing, agricultural-urban, surplus-producing and commercially-
oriented society, but not contributing much to it.
Two major expressions of this perspective in India are the
works of Debiprasad Chattopadhyay and D.D. Kosambi.
Chattopadhyaya’s interpretation, which we have cited in Chapter 1,
is quite simple. His major work analyses the Lokayata tradition and
sees in it the reflection of the dying communal tribal order and its
remnants. In contrast, the other samana traditions express the
misery and exploitation of the rising class society, but are socially

142 Buddhism in India