Discuss Ambedkar’s understanding of Buddhism

 

Buddha is mortal, not a tone- declared God

Ambedkar’s understanding of Buddhism. Ambedkar starts by stating that what separates Buddha from the rest of the other is his tone- renunciation. “ All throughout the Bible, Jesus contend (s) that he's the Son of God and that those who wish to enter the area of God will fail, if they don't honor him as the Son of God. Mohammed went a step further. Like Jesus he also claimed that he was the runner of God. But he further claimed that he was the last runner. Krishna went a step beyond both Jesus and Mohammed. Ambedkar’s understanding of Buddhism He refused to be satisfied with simply being the Son of the God or being the runner of God; he wasn't happy indeed with being the last runner of God. He wasn't indeed satisfied with calling himself a God. He claimed that he was ‘Parameswhar‘ or as his followers describe him” Devadhideva,” God of Gods,” Ambedkar writes about them.

 But Buddha, he wrote, “ noway pirated to himself any similar status. He was born as a son of man and was happy to remain a common man and sermonized his philosophy as a common man. He noway claimed any supernatural origin or supernatural powers nor did he perform cautions to prove his supernatural powers. The Buddha made a clear distinction between a Margadata and a Mokshadata. Jesus, Mahommed and Krishna claimed for themselves the Mokshadata. The Buddha was satisfied with playing the part of a Margadata.”

 

 Reason and experience, not eyeless faith

. Ambedkar compares the four religious preceptors to find another distinction between Buddha and the rest. He says that both Jesus and Mohammed claimed that what they tutored was the word of God and ( therefore) was beyond question. Krishna was, according to his own supposition, a God of Gods and thus the question of infallibility didn't indeed arise. The Buddha claimed no similar infallibility for what he tutored. In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, he told Ananda that his followers shouldn't accept his tutoring as correct and binding simply because they radiated from Him. Ambedkar’s understanding of Buddhism. Being grounded on reason and experience, the followers were free to modify or indeed to abandon any of his training if it was plant that at a given time and in given circumstances they don't apply.

“ Buddha wanted his religion to remain evergreen and serviceable at all times. That's why he gave liberty to his followers to chip and chop as the musts of the case needed. No other religious schoolteacher has shown similar courage. They were hysterical of permitting form, because the liberty to repair may be used to demolish the structure they had reared. Buddha had no similar fear. He was sure of his foundation. Ambedkar’s understanding of Buddhism. He knew that indeed the most violent heretic won't be suitable to destroy the core of His religion.” Morality, not rituals.

Comparing Buddhism with Hinduism, Ambedkar writes, “ Hinduism is a religion which isn't innovated on morality. Morality is a separate force which is sustained by social musts and not by instruction of Hindu religion. The religion of Buddha is morality. Ambedkar’s understanding of Buddhism. It's bedded in religion. It's true that in Buddhism there's no God. In place of God there's morality. What God is to other persuasions, morality is to Buddhism.”

 Ambedkar also differentiates between ‘Dharma’ (Hinduism) and ‘Dhamma’ (Buddhism). “ The Vedic meaning of the word” Dharma” didn't connote morality in any sense of the word. The Dharma as enunciated by the Brahmins meant nothing further than the performances of certain airs or observances, i.e. Yagans, Yagas and offerings to Gods. The word Dhamma, as used by the Buddha, had nothing to do with ritual or observances. In place of Karma, Buddha substituted morality as the substance of Dhamma.”

Renouncing Hinduism

 By asking one central question that Ambedkar believed “ every religion must answer”, he gives out the reason why Hindus might turn to Buddhism. He asks what internal and moral relief does a religion bring to the suppressed and the crushed “ Does Hinduism give any internal and moral relief to the millions of Backward Classes and the Slated Gentries  It does not. Do Hindus anticipate these Backward Classes and the Slated Gentries to live under Hinduism which gives them no pledge of internal and moral relief? Such an anticipation would be an maximum futility.

 “ Hinduism is floating on a flash point. Moment it appears to be defunct. But it's not. It'll come active once these potent millions have come conscious of their declination and know that it's largely due to the social gospel of the Hindu religion. One is reminded of the defeat of Paganism by Christianity in the Roman Empire. When the millions realised that Paganism could give them no internal and moral relief, they gave it up and espoused Christianity. Ambedkar’s understanding of Buddhism. What happed in Rome is sure to be in India. Ambedkar’s understanding of Buddhism. The Hindu millions when they're enlightened are sure to turn to Buddhism.”

 Ambedkar had declared his decision to renounce Hinduism in 1936, in his ‘Obliteration of Caste’ speech. But he converted to Buddhism only in 1956. Ambedkar spent these two decades to study other prominent persuasions and chose one he plant to be the stylish among all. His hunt for a innocently sound religion that looked at the weal of every human being took him to Buddhism. And that's how he and his followers converted to Buddhism.

For PDF and Handwritten

WhatsApp 8130208920