Buddhism in India

Introduction 9

order), and in India not only by Ambedkar himself but also by Iyothee

Thass and Laxmi Narasu, who pioneered the idea that ‘karma’

could be separated from rebirth.

In regard to the approach to religion generally and to the

Dhamma specifically, we might note the famous last words of the

Buddha (given in the Mahaparinibanna suttanta)at the time he was

facing his death:

What, then, Ananda? does the Order expect of me? I have preached

the truth without making any distinction between exoteric and eso-

teric doctrines...Should there be any one who harbours the thought,

‘It is I who will lead the brotherhood,’ or ‘The Order is dependent on

me,’ he is the one who should lay down instructions concerning the

Order. Now the Tathagata, Ananda, thinks not that it is he who

should lead the brotherhood, or that the Order is dependent on him.

Why then should he leave instructions in any matter concerning the

Order? I too, O Ananda, am now grown old and full of years; my

journey is drawing to its close, I have reached my sum of days, I am

turning eighty years old and just as a worn-out cart, Ananda, can be

kept going only with the help of thongs, so the body of the Tathagata

can only be kept going by bandaging it up...

Therefore, O Ananda, be ye lamps unto yourselves. Be ye a refuge to

yourselves. Betake yourselves to no external refuge. Hold fast to the

Truth as a lamp. Hold fast as a refuge to the Truth. Look not for

refuge to anyone besides yourselves. And how, Ananda, is a brother

to be a lamp unto himself, a refuge to himself.... Herein, O mendi-

cants, a brother continues, as to the body, so to look upon the body

that he remains strenuous, self-possessed and mindful, having over-

come both the hankering and the dejection common in the world.

[And in the same way] as to feelings...moods...ideas, he remains

strenuous, self-possessed and mindful, having overcome both the han-

kering and the dejection common in the world. And whosoever,

Ananda, whether now or after I am dead, shall be a lamp unto them-

selves, and a refuge unto themselves, shall betake themselves to no

external refuge, but holding fast to the Truth as their lamp and hold-

ing fast as their refugee to the truth...it is they, Ananda, among my

bhikkus, who shall reach the very topmost height! But they must be

anxious to learn (Digha Nikaya 2, 1941: 107–09).

These are radical words themselves, and very different from

the teachings of any other founder of a well-known religion. The

follower is urged to rely on himself/herself, that is on his/her own

The first has to do with the approach to religion. Ambedkar’s
Buddhism seemingly differs from that of those who accept by faith,
who ‘go for refuge’ and accept the canon. This much is clear from
its basis: it does not accept in totality the scriptures of the Theravada,
the Mahayana or the Vajrayana. The question that is then clearly
put forth: is a fourth yana, a Navayana, a kind of modernistic
Enlightenment version of the Dhamma really possible within the
framework of Buddhism?
The second basic difference is that between the historical, psycho-
logically and socially oriented this-worldly interpretation of the
Buddha and his Dhamma, and an ahistorical, spiritualistic, cosmo-
logical one. For instance, the Buddha to Ambedkar is a man,
though definitely an unusual and compelling one, and the goal of
the teachings is oriented to social reconstruction and individual
advance in this life.
As far as the point of ‘methodology’ is concerned—faith versus
reason in looking at religion—it can be noted that all great religious
thinkers (who have not claimed to found ‘new’ teachings) have
reinterpreted their traditions. This interpretation/reinterpretation
may be done consciously or in the belief that one is recovering a
‘true’ religion. Interpretation within the Buddhist tradition itself
was originally done by the group who carried on the Sangh after
Gotama’s death and collected the first ‘scriptures’ which came to
constitute the Pali canon. There is enough uncertainty in what the
words of the Buddha really were, in terms of standards of historical
scholarship, to make various interpretations possible. Quite likely
these first interpretations which gave birth to Theravada Buddhism
depended much on the ‘common-sense’ religious–philosophical
thinking of the time, including the karma/rebirth framework,
which Gotama himself may have been attempting to transcend.
Reinterpretation was done again, perhaps more ‘consciously,’ by
many followers of the Mahayana, with brilliant thinkers such as
Nagarjuna taking the lead themselves, to deconstruct and displace
the ‘four noble truths’ from their position of centrality, while par-
allel trends developed that transformed the Buddha into a cosmo-
logical and transcendent central figure more important than any
divinity. Tantric or Vajrayana Buddhism represented a further
reinterpretation. Finally in the period of the modern revival of
Buddhism in India and elsewhere, there are radical reinterpreta-
tions by Sangharakshata (in changing the nature of the Buddhist

8 Buddhism in India