Buddhism in India

Conclusion 279

of the Buddhist path. This is what some of the new forms of

‘engaged Buddhism’ seem to be doing.^4

At the same time, the Buddhist caution against ditthimilitates

against a simple addition of Marxist or other enlightenment faith to

a Buddhist framework. Ambedkar’s own evolution, from conven-

tional liberal economics through Marxism to an effort to express a

Buddhist perspective on a welfare state, reminds us of that. Marx

can teach us much about capitalism—and the Marxist vision of

going beyond it to an empirically achievable classless and casteless

non-patriarchal society still has its relevance. But the capitalist society

of today, and possibilities of going beyond it, has to be analysed on

its own, without the attachment to ‘isms’ (ditthi) that so frequently

have proved a barrier rather than a help to understanding.

Buddhism and Brahmanism

in Indian History

What, then, of Ambedkar’s formulation that the conflict between

Buddhism and Brahmanism was a decisive one in the social history

of India?

As a general principle of a socio-historical analysis of Indian

society, it may be said to be necessary but insufficient. Much of this

history did indeed include such a confrontation as a part of its

development. Yet it is necessary again to guard against overstatement.

To say that ‘Buddhism’ and ‘Brahmanism’ as frameworks or ideolo-

gies or philosophies were a factor in history, in the sense that they were

not simply ‘reflections’ of a socio-economic base but played an auto-

nomous role, is one thing. To say they can serve as a sole or even major

determining explanation is another. In the first sense Ambedkar’s

formulation was correct, in the second sense it is inadequate.

Looking at any historical period or phase solely in terms of

contending ideological/philosophical views will not tell us very

much about the changes in these philosophies over time. Neither

Bodhisattva, whose compassion for all is designed to help the
whole world achieve liberation.
In one sense Mahayana ‘socialised’ the striving of the individual to
overcome karmic determination by allowing for the transfer of merit.
But it was still done within the framework of escaping from the rounds
of rebirth in which the sorrowful nature of the world of contingency
(samsara) was left unchanged. The extreme example of this is ‘Pure
Land’ Buddhism in which Amitabha Buddha has achieved the power
to give every believer rebirth in a Pure Land of delight and glory
(sukhavati, for which a better translation would be ‘Joyous Land’)
from which he/she will then attain enlightenment. While this clearly
shortens the way to liberation and postulates the end of most sorrow
and suffering even before final liberation still, for those who reside in
the Joyous Land, the Joyous Land itself is beyond all the universe,
beyond time, beyond the heavens, unconnected with life here and now.
It might be argued, though, that there is also something of a
contradiction in the ethical teachings of early Buddhism and the
idea that the world is only a realm of sorrow which has to be
escaped from. So much of Buddhist ethics is in fact aimed at, or
seems to be aimed in such a way that it would have the result of
lessening sorrow and exploitation. The kind of self-controlled,
compassionate, righteous behaviour adjoined in the Dhamma
should, in fact, have the result of transforming the world, at least to
some extent. The notion of a ‘Joyous Land’ from which enlighten-
ment would be easy implies that in the absence of very empirical
forms of exploitation and suffering, an individual can more easily
achieve true freedom at a psychological level. In this case, whether
any elements of the ‘Joyous Land’ can be achieved here and now is
a question of the actual nature of empirical social life.
During the pre-capitalist era, in an age of undeveloped science
and rational understanding of natural processes, it was perhaps
natural: to assume that there was no ‘rational’ way to order the social
world. In the 19th and 20th century, when the ideal of a ‘classless
society’ was linked to a scientific understanding of historical
economic laws, and even said to be an inevitable result of the
functioning of these, ‘Sukhavati now’ began to seem a possibility to
human beings. Ideals of the French Revolution merged into those
of liberalism and socialism. In spite of all the tragedies of 20th
century history, which have often seemed to mock such human
hopes, it can still be argued that actual social betterment is a part

278 Buddhism in India

(^4) Perhaps a parallel could be suggested in African American gospel/freedom music,
where we can trace the transition from seeing the ‘land of freedom’ sought in heaven
to escaping from slavery to the ‘free land’ of Canada. Odetta’s ‘Freedom Trilogy’—
‘I’ll go home to my Lord and be free’/‘Come go with me to that land...’/‘I’m on my
way, and I won’t turn back’—shows this clearly.