Buddha or Karl Marx
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Contents
______________________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Note in the source publication: Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar:
Writings and Speeches, Vol. 3:
The Committee found
three different typed copies of an essay on Buddha and Karl Marx in loose
sheets, two of which have corrections in the author’s
own handwriting. After scrutinising these, this
essay is compiled incorporating the corrections. The essay is divided into
sub-topics as shown below: Introduction
1. The Creed of the Buddha
2. The Original Creed of Karl Marx
3. What survives of the Marxian Creed?
4. Comparison between Buddha and Karl Marx
5. Means
6. Evaluation of Means
7. Whose Means are More Efficacious?
8. Withering away of
the State
— Editors.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
A comparison between Karl Marx
and Buddha may be regarded as a joke. There need be no surprise in this. Marx
and Buddha are divided by 2381 years. Buddha was born in 563 BC and Karl Marx
in 1818 AD Karl Marx is supposed to be the architect of
a new ideology-polity a new Economic system. The
Buddha on the other hand is believed to be no more than the founder of a
religion, which has no relation to politics or economics. The heading of this
essay " Buddha or Karl Marx " which suggests either a comparison or a
contrast between two such personalities divided by such a lengthy span of time
and occupied with different fields of thought is
sure to sound odd. The Marxists may easily laugh at it and may ridicule the very idea of treating Marx and Buddha on
the same level. Marx so modern and Buddha so
ancient! The Marxists may say that the Buddha as
compared to their master must be just primitive. What comparison can
there be between two such persons? What could a Marxist learn from the Buddha?
What can Buddha teach a Marxist? None-the-less a comparison between the two is a
attractive and instructive Having read both and
being interested in the ideology of both a
comparison between them just forces itself on me.
If the Marxists keep
back their prejudices and study the Buddha and understand what he stood for I feel sure that they will
change their attitude. It is of course too much to expect that having been determined to
scoff at the Buddha they
will remain to pray. But this much can he said that
they will realise that there is something in the
Buddha's teachings which is worth their while to
take note of.
The Buddha is generally
associated with the doctrine
of Ahimsa. That is taken to be the be-all and
end-all of his teachings. Hardly any one knows that what the Buddha taught is
something very vast: far beyond Ahimsa. It is
therefore necessary to set out in detail his
tenets. I enumerate them
below as I have understood them from my reading of the Tripitaka
:
2. Not every Religion is worth having. 3. Religion must relate to facts
of life and not to theories and speculations about God, or Soul or Heaven or Earth.
4. It is wrong to make God the
centre of Religion.
5. It is wrong to make salvation
of the soul as the centre of Religion.
6. It is wrong to make animal
sacrifices to be the centre of religion.
8. Man and morality must be the
centre of religion. If not, Religion is a cruel
superstition.
9. It is not enough for Morality
to be the ideal of life. Since
there is no God it must become the Jaw of life. 10. The function of Religion is
to reconstruct the world and to make it happy and not to explain its origin or
its end.
11. That the unhappiness in the
world is due to conflict of interest and the only way to solve it is to follow
the Ashtanga Marga.
13. That it is necessary for the
good of Society that this sorrow be removed by removing its cause.
14. All human beings are equal.
15. Worth and not birth is the
measure of man.
16. What is important is high
ideals and not noble birth.
17. Maitri
or fellowship towards all must never be abandoned. One owes it even to one's
enemy.
18. Every one has a right to
learn. Learning is as necessary for man to live as food is.
19. Learning without character
is dangerous.
20. Nothing
is infallible. Nothing is binding forever. Every
thing is subject to inquiry and examination. 21. Nothing is final.
22. Every thing is subject to the law of causation.
23. Nothing is permanent or sanatan. Every thing is subject to change. Being is
always becoming.
24. War is wrong unless it is
for truth and justice.
25. The victor has duties
towards the vanquished. This is the creed of the Buddha in a summary form. How
ancient hut how fresh! How wide and how deep are
his teachings!
Let us now turn to the creed of Karl Marx as originally propounded by him. Karl Marx is no doubt the father of modern socialism or
Communism but he was not interested merely in propounding
the theory of Socialism. That had been done long before him by others. Marx was
more interested in proving that his Socialism was
scientific. His crusade was as much against the capitalists as it was against those whom he
called the Utopian Socialists. He disliked them both. It is necessary to note this point because
Marx attached the greatest importance to the
scientific character of his Socialism. All the doctrines which Marx propounded
had no other purpose than to establish his
contention that his brand of Socialism was scientific and not Utopian.
By scientific socialism what Karl Marx meant was that his brand of socialism was inevitable
and inescapable
and that society was moving towards it and that
nothing could prevent its march. It is to prove this contention of his that
Marx principally laboured. Marx's contention rested on the following theses.
They were:—
(i) That the purpose of philosophy is to reconstruct the world and not to explain the origin of the universe.
(ii) That the force which shapes the course of history are primarily
economic.
(iii) That society is divided into two classes, owners and workers. (iv) That there is always a class conflict going on
between the two classes.
(v) That the workers are exploited by the owners who misappropriate the
surplus value, which is the result of the workers' labour.
(vi) That this exploitation can be put an end to by nationalisation of the
instruments of production i.e. abolition of private property.
(viii) That this growing impoverishment of the workers is resulting in a
revolutionary spirit among the workers and
the conversion of the class conflict into a class struggle.
(ix) That as the workers outnumber the owners,
the workers are bound to capture the State and establish their rule, which he called the dictatorship of the
proletariat.
I hope I have reported correctly the propositions, which formed the original basis of Marxian Socialism.
Before making a comparison between the ideologies of
the Buddha and Karl Marx it is necessary to note
how much of this original corpus of the Marxian
creed has survived; how much has been disproved by history and how much has
been demolished by his opponents.
The Marxian Creed was propounded
sometime in the middle of the nineteenth century. Since then it has been
subjected to much criticism. As a result of this criticism much of the
ideological structure raised by Karl Marx has broken to pieces. There is hardly
any doubt that Marxist claim that his socialism was inevitable has been
completely disproved. The dictatorship of the Proletariat was first established in 1917
in one country after a period of something like seventy
years after the publication of his Das Capital the
gospel of socialism. Even when the Communism—which is another name for the dictatorship
of the Proletariat—came to Russia, it did not come as something inevitable
without any kind of human effort. There was a revolution and much deliberate
planning had to be done with a lot of violence and blood shed, before it could step into Russia. The rest of the
world is still waiting for coming of the Proletarian Dictatorship. Apart from
this general falsification of the Marxian thesis that Socialism is inevitable, many of the other propositions
stated in the lists have also been demolished both by logic as well as by
experience. Nobody now I accepts the economic interpretation of history as the
only explanation of history. Nobody accepts that the proletariat has been progressively
pauperised. And the same is true about his other premises.
What remains of the Karl Marx is
a residue of fire, small but still very important. The residue in my view
consists of four items:
(i) The function of philosophy is to reconstruct the world and not to waste
its time in explaining the origin of the world. (ii)
That there is a conflict of interest between class and class. (iii) That private ownership of property brings power to one class and
sorrow to another through exploitation.
(iv) That it is necessary for the good of society that the sorrow be removed by the abolition of private
property.
Taking the points from the
Marxian Creed which have survived one may now enter upon a comparison between
the Buddha and Karl
Marx.
On the first point there is
complete agreement between the Buddha and Karl Marx. To show how close is the
agreement I quote below a part of the dialogue between Buddha and the Brahmin Potthapada.
"Then, in the same terms, Potthapada asked
(the Buddha) each of the following questions:
1. Is the world not eternal?
2. Is the world finite?
3. Is the world infinite?
4. Is the soul the same as the
body?
5. Is the soul one thing, and
the body another?
7. Does he neither live again,
nor not live again, after death ? And to each question the exalted one made the same reply: It was this.
28. "
But why has the Exalted One expressed no opinion on
that ? " (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 lust, 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 it is that I express no opinion upon it. " On
the second point I give below a quotation from a dialogue between Buddha and Pasenadi King of Kosala:
" Moreover, there is always strife going on between kings, between '
nobles, between Brahmins, between house holders,
between mother and son, between son and father, between
brother and sister, , between
sister and brother, between companion and companion.
. ." ' Although
these are the words of Pasenadi, the Buddha did not deny that they formed a true picture of
society.
As to the Buddha's own attitude
towards class conflict his doctrine ''. of Ashtanga Marga recognises
that class conflict exists and that it is ; the class conflict which is the cause of misery.
On the third question I quote
from the same dialogue of Buddha with Potthapada;
" Then what is it that the
Exalted One has determined? " " I have
expounded, Potthapada, that sorrow and misery
exist! " I have expounded, what is the origin
of misery. I have
expounded what is the cessation of misery: I have expounded what is method by which one may reach the cessation of
misery.
' Because that
questions Potthapada, is calculated to profit, is concerned with the Dhamma redounds to the beginnings of right conduct, to detachment, to purification
from lusts, to quietude, to tranquillisation of
heart, to real knowledge, to the insight of the higher stages of the Path and
to Nirvana. Therefore is it, Potthapada that I have put forward a statement as to
that. '
That language is different but the meaning is the
same. If for misery one reads exploitation Buddha is not away from Marx.
On the question of private property the following
extract from a dialogue between Buddha and Ananda
is very illuminating. In reply to a question by Ananda the Buddha said:
"I have said that avarice is because of possession. Now in what way that is so, Ananda, is to be understood after
this manner. Where there is no possession of any sort or kind whatever by any
one or anything, then there being no possession whatever, would there, owing to
this cessation of possession, be any appearance of avarice? " 'There would not.
Lord".
'Wherefore, Ananda, just that is the ground, the basis, the genesis, the
cause of avarice, to wit, possession.
31. 'I have said that
tenacity is the cause possession. Now in what way that is so, Ananda, is to be
understood after this manner. Were there no tenacity of any sort or kind
whatever shown by any one with respect to any thing, then there being whatever,
would there owing to this cessation of tenacity, be any appearance of
possession? ' 'There would not. Lord.'
'Wherefore, Ananda, just that is the ground, the basis,
the genesis, the cause of possession, to wit tenacity. ' On the fourth point no
evidence is necessary. The rules of the Bhikshu Sangh will serve as the best testimony on the subject.
According to the rules a Bhikku
can have private property only in the following eight articles and no more.
These eight articles are: —
1 I
3. I
4. A girdle for the loins.
5. An alms-bowl.
6. A razor.
7. A needle.
8. A water strainer.
Further a Bhikku was completely forbidden to receive
gold or silver for fear that with gold or silver he might buy some thing beside
the eight things he is permitted to have.
We must now come to the means.
The means of bringing about Communism, which the Buddha propounded, were quite
definite. The means can he decided into three parts. Part I consisted in observing the Pancha
Silas. The Enlightenment gave birth to a new
gospel, which contains the key to the solution of the problem, which was haunting
him.
The foundation of the New Gospel
is the fact that the world was full of misery and unhappiness. It was fact not
merely to be noted but to be regarded as being the first and foremost in any scheme of salvation. The recognition of
this fact the Buddha made the starting point of his gospel.
To remove this misery and
unhappiness was to him the aim and object of the gospel if it is to serve any useful purpose.
Asking what could be the causes
of this misery the Buddha found that there could be only two.
A part of the misery and
unhappiness of man was the result of his own misconduct. To remove this cause of misery he preached
the practice of Panch Sila.
The Panch
Sila comprised the following observations: (1) To abstain from destroying or
causing destruction of any living things (2) To abstain from stealing i.e. acquiring or keeping by
fraud or violence, the property of another: (3) To
Abstain from telling untruth: (4) To abstain from lust: (5) To abstain from
intoxicating drinks.
A part of the misery and
unhappiness in the world was according to the Buddha the result of man's inequity towards man. How was this inequity to be
removed ? For the removal of man's inequity towards
man the Buddha prescribed the Noble Eight-Fold Path. The elements of the Noble
Fight-Fold Path are:
(1) Right views i.e. freedom from superstition: (2) Right aims,
high and worthy of the intelligent and earnest men; (3) Right speech i.e.
kindly, open, truthful:
(4) Right Conduct i.e. peaceful, honest and pure; (5) Right livelihood i.e.
causing hurt or injury to no living being; (6) Right perseverance in all the
other seven; (7) Right mindfulness i.e. with a watchful and active mind; and
(8) Right contemplation i.e. earnest thought on the deep mysteries of life.
The aim of the Noble Eight-Fold
Path is to establish on earth the kingdom of righteousness, and thereby to
banish sorrow and unhappiness from the face of the world.
The third part of the Gospel is
the doctrine of Nibbana. The doctrine of Nibbana is
an integral part of the doctrine of the Noble Eight-Fold Path. Without Nibbana
the realisation of the Eight-Fold Path cannot be accomplished.
The doctrine of Nibbana tells
what are the difficulties in the way of the realisation of the Eight-Fold Path.
The chiefs of these difficulties
are ten in number. The Buddha called them the Ten Asavas,
Fetters or Hindrances.
The first hindrance is the delusion of self.
So long as a man is wholly occupied with himself, chasing after every bauble
that he vainly thinks will satisfy the cravings of his heart, there is no noble
path for him. Only when his eyes have been opened to the fact that he is but a
tiny part of a measureless, whole, only when he begins
to realise how impermanent a thing is his temporary individuality can he even
enter upon this narrow path.
The second is Doubt and
Indecision. When a man's eyes are opened to the
great mystery of existence, the impermanence of every
individuality, he is likely to be assailed by doubt and indecision as to his
action. To do or not to do, after all my individuality is impermanent, why do
anything are questions, which make him indecisive or inactive. But that will
not do in life. He must make up his mind to follow the teacher, to accept the truth and to enter on the struggle or
he will get no further.
The third is dependence on the
efficacy of Rites and Ceremonies. No good resolutions, however firm will lead to anything unless a man gets rid of
ritualism: of the belief that any outward acts. any
priestly powers, and holy ceremonies, can afford him an assistance of any kind.
It is only when he has overcome this hindrance, that men can be said to have fairly entered upon the
stream and has a chance sooner or later to win a victory.
'' The fourth consists of the bodily passions...
The fifth is ill will towards other individuals. The
sixth is the suppression of the desire for a future life with a material body
and the seventh is the desire for a future life in an immaterial world.
The eighth hindrance is Pride
and nineth is self-righteousness. These are
failings which it is most difficult for men to overcome, and to which superior
minds are peculiarly liable
a Praisaical contempt for those who are less able
and less holy than themselves.
The tenth hindrance is
ignorance. When all other difficulties are conquered this will even remain, the
thorn in the flesh of the wise a.nd good, the last enemy and the bitterest foe
of man.
Nibbana consists in overcoming these hindrances to the pursuit of the Noble
Eight-Fold Path.
The doctrine of the Noble
Eight-Fold Path tells what disposition of the mind which a person should
sedulously cultivate. The doctrine of Nibbana tells of the temptation or
hindrance which a person should earnestly overcome if he wishes to trade along
with the Noble Eight-Fold Path
The Fourth Part of the new Gospel is the
doctrine of Paramitas. The doctrine of Paraimitas inculcates the practice of ten virtues in
one's daily life.
These are those ten virtues—d) Panna (2) Sila (3) Nekkhama (4) Dana(5) Virya(6)
Khanti(7) Succa(8) Aditthana(9) Mettaa-nd (10) Upekkha.
Panna or wisdom is the light
that removes the darkenss of Avijja, Moha or Nescience. The Panna requires that one
must get all his doubts removed by questioning those wiser than him self, associate
with the wise and cultivate the different arts and sciences which help to
develop the mind.
Sila is moral temperament, the
disposition not to do evil and the disposition to do good; to be ashamed of
doing wrong. To avoid doing evil for fear of punishment is Sila. Sila means
fear of doing wrong. Nekkhama
is renunciation of the pleasures of the world. Dana
means the giving of one's possessions, blood and limbs and even one's life for
the good of the others without expecting anything in return.
Virya is right endeavour. It is doing with all your might with thought never
turning back, whatever you have undertaken to do.
Khanti is forbearance. Not to meet hatred by harted
is the essence of it. For hatred is not appeased by hatred. It is appeased only
by forbearance.
Succa is truth. An aspirant for Buddha never speaks a lie. His speech is truth
and nothing but truth.
Aditthana is resolute determination to reach the goal. Metta
is fellow feeling extending to all beings, foe and friend, beast and man.
Upekka is detachment as distinguished from
indifference. It is a state of mind where there is neither like nor dislike.
Remaining unmoved by the result and yet engaged in the pursuit of it.
These virtues one must practice
to his utmost capacity. That is why they are called Paramitas
(States of Perfection).
Such is the gospel the Buddha
enunciated as a result of his enlightenment to end the sorrow and misery in the world.
It is clear that the means
adopted by the Buddha were to convert a man by
changing his moral disposition to follow the path voluntarily.
The means adopted by the
Communists are equally clear, short and swift. They are (1) Violence and (2)
Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
The Communists say that there
are the only two means of establishing communism. The first is violence. Nothing short of it will suffice to break up the existing
system. The other is dictatorship of the proletariat. Nothing short of it will
suffice to continue the new system.
It is now clear what are the
similarities and differences between Buddha and Karl
Marx. The differences
are about the means. The end is common to both.
We must now turn to the evaluation of means. We must ask whose means are superior and lasting in
the long run. There are, however some
misunderstandings on both sides. It is necessary to
clear them up. Take violence. As to violence there are many people who seem to shiver at the very thought of it. But this is only a sentiment. Violence cannot
be altogether dispensed with. Even in non-communist countries a
murderer is hanged. Does not hanging amount to violence? Non-communist countries go to war with
non-communist countries. Millions of people are killed. Is this no violence? If
a murderer can be killed, because
he has killed a citizen, if a soldier can be killed
in war because he belongs to a hostile nation why cannot a property owner be killed if his
ownership leads to misery for the rest of humanity? There is no reason to make
an exception in favour of the property owner, why
one should regard private property as sacrosanct.
The Buddha was against violence.
But he was also in favour of justice and where justice required he permitted
the use of force. This is well illustrated in his
dialogue with Sinha Senapati
the Commander-in-Chief
of Vaishali. Sinha having come to know that the
Buddha preached Ahimsa went to him and asked:
"The Bhagvan preaches Ahimsa. Does the Bhagvan preach an offender
to be given freedom from punishment? Does the
Bhagvan preach that we should not go to war to save our wives, our children and
our wealth? Should we suffer at the hands of
criminals in the name of Ahimsa.?"
Buddha replied. You have wrongly
understood what I have been preaching. An offender must be punished and an
innocent man must be freed. It is not a fault of the Magistrate if he punishes
an offender. The cause of punishment is the fault
of the offender. The Magistrate who inflicts the punishment is only carrying
out the law. He does not become stained with Ahimsa. A man who fights for justice and safety cannot
be accused of Ahimsa. If all the means of maintaining peace have failed then
the responsibility for Himsa
falls on him who starts war. One must never surrender to evil powers. War there
may be. But it must not be for selfish ends...."
There are of course other
grounds against violence such as those urged by Prof. John Dewey. In dealing with those who contend that the end
justifies the means is morally perverted doctrine, Dewey has rightly asked what
can justify the means if not the end ? It is only
the end that can justify the means.
Buddha would have probably
admitted that it is only the end which would justify the means. What else
could? And he would have said that if the end justified violence, violence was
a legitimate means for the end in view. He certainly would not have exempted
property owners from force if force were the only
means for that end. As we shall see his means for the end were different. As
Prof. Dewey has pointed out that violence is only another name for the use of
force and although force must be used for creative purposes a distinction
between use of force as energy and use of force as violence needs to be made.
The achievement of an end involves the destruction of many other ends, which
are integral with the one that is sought to be destroyed. Use of force must be
so regulated that it should save as many ends as
possible in destroying the evil one. Buddha's Ahimsa was not as absolute as
the Ahimsa preached by Mahavira the founder of Jainism. He would have allowed force only as energy.
The communists preach Ahimsa as an absolute
principle. To this the Buddha was deadly opposed.
As to Dictatorship the Buddha
would have none of it. He was born a democrat and he died a democrat. At the time he lived there were 14
monarchical states and 4 republics. He belonged to the Sakyas
and the Sakya's kingdom was a republic. He was
extremely in love with Vaishali which was his
second home because it was a republic. Before his Mahaparinirbban
he spent his Varshavasa in Vaishali. After the
completion of his Varshavasa he decided to leave Vaishali and go elsewhere as
was his wont. After going some distance he looked back on Vaishali and said to Ananda.
"This is the last look of Vaishali which the Tathagata is having ".
So fond was he of this republic.
He was a thorough equalitarian. Originally the Bhikkus,
including the Buddha himself, wore robes made of rags. This rule was enunciated
to prevent the aristocratic classes from joining the Sangh.
Later Jeevaka the great physician prevailed upon
the Buddha to accept a robe, which was made of a
whole cloth. The Buddha at once altered the rule and extended it to all the
monks.
Once the Buddha's mother Mahaprajapati Gotami who
had joined the Bhikkuni Sangh heard that the Buddha
had got a chill. She at once started preparing a scarf for him. After having
completed it she took to the Buddha and asked him to wear it. But he refused to
accept it saying that if it is a gift it must be a gift to the whole Sangh and
not to an individual member of the Sangh. She pleaded and pleaded but he
refused to yield.
The Bhikshu
Sangh had the most democratic constitution. He was only one of the Bhikkus. At
the most he was like a Prime Minister among members
of the Cabinet. He was never a dictator. Twice before his death he was asked to
appoint some one as the head of the Sangh to control it. But each time he
refused saying that the Dhamma is the Supreme Commander of the Sangh. He refused
to be a dictator and refused to appoint a dictator.
What about the value of the
means? Whose means are superior and lasting in the long run?
Can the Communists say that in
achieving their valuable end they have not destroyed other valuable ends? They
have destroyed private property. Assuming that this is a valuable end can the
Communists say that they have not destroyed other valuable end in the process
of achieving it? How many people have they killed for achieving their end. Has
human life no value ? Could they not have taken
property without taking the life of the owner ?
Take dictatorship. The end of
Dictatorship is to make the Revolution a permanent revolution. This is a
valuable end. But can the Communists say that in achieving this end they have
not destroyed other valuable ends ? Dictatorship is
often defined as absence of liberty or absence of
Parliamentary Government. Both interpretations are not quite clear. There is no liberty even
when there is Parliamentary Government. For law means
want of liberty. The difference between Dictatorship and Parliamentary Govt. lies in this. In Parliamentary Government every
citizen has a right to criticise the restraint on liberty imposed by the
Government. In Parliamentary Government you have a duty and a right; the duty
to obey the law and right to criticise it. In
Dictatorship you have only duty to obey but no right to criticise it.
We must now consider whose means
are more lasting. One has to choose between Government by force and Government
by moral disposition.
As Burke
has said force cannot be a lasting means. In his speech on conciliation with
America he uttered this memorable warning:
" First, Sir, permit me to observe, that the use of force alone is but
temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of
subduing again; and a nation is not governed which is perpetually
to be conquered. "
" My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not always the effect of
force, and an armament is not a victory. If you do not succeed, you are without
resource, for, conciliation failing, force remains; but force failing, no
further hope of reconciliation is left.
Power and authority are sometimes bought by kindness; but they can never
be begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated violence.
A further objection to force is
that you impair the object by your very endeavours to preserve it. The thing
you fought for is the thing, which you recover, but depreciated, sunk, wasted
and consumed in the contest. "
In a sermon addressed to the Bhikkus the Buddha has shown the difference between
the rule by Righteousness and Rule by law i.e. force. Addressing the Brethren
he said:
(2) Long ago, brethren, there
was Sovereign overlord named Strongtyre, a king
ruling in righteousness, lord of the four quarters of the earth, conqueror, the protector of his people. He was the possessor of
the celestial wheel. He lived in supremacy over this earth to its ocean bounds,
having conquered it, not by the courage, by the sword, but by righteousness.
(3) Now, brethren, after many
years, after many hundred years. after manu
thousand years, king Strongtyre command a certain
man, saying:
"Thou should est see, Sir, the Celestial Wheel
has sunk a little, has slipped down from its place,
bring me word. "
Now after many many hundred
years had slipped down from its place On seeing this he went to King Strongtyre
and said: "Know. sir, for a truth that the
Celestial Wheel has sunk, has slipped down from its place. "
The king Strongtyre, brethren, let the prince his eldest son be sent for and speak thus:
' Behold, dear boy, my Celestial Wheel has sunk a little, has slipped down
from its place. Now it has been told me; If the Celestial Wheel of a wheel
turning King shall sink down, shall slip down from its place, that king has not
much longer to live. I have had my fill of human pleasures; 'It's time to seek after divine joys, Come, dear boy,
take thou charge over this earth bounded by the ocean. But
I, shaving, hair and beard, and donning yellow robes, will go forth from home into the homeless state.
So brethren. King Strongtyre, having in due form established his
eldest son on the throne, shaved hair and bearded, donned yellow robes and went
forth from home into homeless state. But on the seventh day after the royal
hermit had gone forth, the Celestial Wheel
disappeared.
(4) Then a certain man went to
the King, and told him, saying: Know, 0 King, for a truth, that the Celestial
Wheel has disappeared!
Then that King, brethren, was
grieved thereat and afflicted with sorrow. And he went to the royal hermit, and
told him, saying, Know, sir, for a truth, that the Celestial Wheel has disappeared.
And the anointed king so saying,
the royal hermit made reply. Grieve thou not, dear son, that the Celestial Wheel has disappeared, nor be
afflicted that the Celestial Wheel has disappeared. For no paternal heritage of
thin, dear son, is the Celestial Wheel. But verily, dear son, turn thou in the Ariyan turning of the Wheel-turners. (Act up to the
noble ideal of duty set before themselves by the
true sovereigns of the world). Then it may well be that if thou carry out the
Ariyan duty of a Wheel-turning Monarch, and on the feast of the moon thou wilt
for, with bathed head to keep the feast on the
chief upper terrace, to the Celestial Wheel will manifest, itself with its
thousand spokes its tyre, navel and all its part complete. (5) 'Put what, sire is this Ariya
duty of a Wheel-turning Monarch?' This, dear son,
that thou, leaning on the Norm (the law of truth and righteousness) honouring, respecting and revering it, doing homage to
it, hallowing it, being thyself a Norm-banner, a Norm-signal, having the Norm
as thy master, should provide the right watch, ward, and protection for thine own folk, for the
army, for the nobles, for vassals, for brahmins and
house holders, for town and country dwellers, for the religious world, and for
beasts and birds. Throughout thy kingdom let no wrongdoing prevail. And
whosoever in thy kingdom is poor, to him let wealth be given.
' And when dear son, in thy kingdom men of religious life, renouncing the
carelessness arising from intoxication of the senses, and devoted to
forbearance and sympathy, each mastering self, each claiming self, each
protecting self, shall come to thee from time to time, and question the
concerning what is good and what is bad. what is criminal and what is not, what
is to be done and what is to be left undone, what line of action will in the
long run work for weal or for woe, thou shouldest
hear what they have to say and thou shouldest deter
them from evil, and bid them take up what is good. This, dear son, is the Ariyan duty of a sovereign
of the world.'
' Even so, ' sire, answered the anointed king,
and obeying, and carried out the Ariyan duty of a sovereign lord. To him, thus
behaving, when on the feast of the full moon he had gone in the observance with
bathed head to the chief upper Terrance the
Celestial Wheel revealed itself, with its thousand spokes, its tyre. its naval,
and all its part complete. And seeing this is occurred to the king: ' It has been told me that a king to whom on such a
occasion the Celestial Wheel reveals itself completely, becomes a Wheel-turning
monarch. May I even I also become a sovereign of the world.'
(6) Then brethren, the king arose from his seat and uncovering his robe
from one shoulder, took in his left hand a pitcher,
and with his right hand sprinkled up over the Celestial Wheel, saying: ' Roll onward, O Lord Wheel! Go forth and overcome, O Lord Wheel ! ' Then, brethren, the
Celestial Wheel rolled onwards towards the region of the East. and after it
went the Wheel-turning king, and with him his army, horses and chariots and
elephants and men. And in whatever place, brethren,
the wheel stopped, there the king, the victorious war-lord, took up his abode,
and with him his fourfold army. Then the all, the rival kings in the region of
the East came to the sovereign king and said 'Come, O mighty king! Welcome, O mighty king! All is thine, O mighty King!
Teach us, O mighty king! '
The king, the sovereign
war-lord, speak thus: 'Ye shall slay no living
thing. Ye shall not take that which has not been given. Ye shall not act
wrongly touching bodily desires. Ye shall speak no lie. Ye shall drink no
maddening drink. Enjoy your possessions as you have been wont to do.'
(7) Then, brethern, the
Celestial Wheel, plunging down to the Eastern ocean, rose up out again, and
rolled onwards to the region of the south.... (and
there all happened as had happened in the East). And in like manner the
Celestial Wheel, plunging into Southern ocean, rose up out again and rolled
onward to the region of the West. . . and of the North: and
there too happened as had happened in the Southern and
West.
Then when the Celestial Wheel
had gone forth conquering over the whole earth to its ocean boundary, it returned to the royal city, and stood, so
that one might think it fixed, in front of the judgement hall at entrance to
the inner apartments of the king, the Wheel-turner, lighting up with its glory
the facade of the inner apartments of the king, the
sovereign of the world.
(8) And a second king. brethern, also a Wheel-turning monarch,. . . and a third. . . and a fourth. . . and a fifth. . . and a sixth. . . and a seventh king, a victorious war-lord, after
many years, after many hundred
years, after many thousand years, command a certain man, saying:
'If thou should'est see, sirrah, that the
Celestial Wheel has sunk down, has slid from its place, bring me word.' 'Even so, sire.'
replied the man.
So after many years, after many
hundred years, after many thousand years, that man
saw that the Celestial Wheel had sunk down, had become dislodged from its
place. And so seeing he went to the king, the warlord, and told him.
Then that king did (even as Strongtyre had done). And on the seventh day after the
royal hermit had gone forth the Celestial Wheel
disappeared.
Then a certain man went and told
the King. Then the King was grieved at the
disappearance of the wheel, and afflicted with grief. But he did not go to the hermit-king to ask
concerning, the Ariyan Duty of sovereign war-lord.
But his own ideas, forsooth, he governed his people; and they
so governed differently from what they had been. did not prosper as they used
to do under former kings who had carried out the Arivan
duty of a sovereign king.
Then, brethren, the ministers and courtiers,
the finance officials, the guards and door keepers and they who lived by sacred verses came to the
King and speak thus:
'Thy people, O king. whilst thou governest them by thine own ideas differently from the
way to which they were used when former kings were carrying out the Arivan Duty
prosper not. Now there are in thy kingdom ministers and courtiers, finance officers,
guards and custodians, and they who live by sacred
verses—both all of us and others—who keep the knowledge of the Ariyan duty of
the sovereign king. to ! O king. do thou ask us
concerning it: to thee thus asking will we declare
it.'
9. Then, brethren, the king, having made the ministers and all the rest
sit down together, asked them about the Ariyan duty of Sovereign war-lord. And they declared it unto
him. And when he had heard them, he did provide the due watch and ward
protection, but on the destitute he bestowed no wealth and because this was not
done, poverty became widespread.
When poverty was thus become
rife, a certain man took that which others had not given him, what people call
by theft. Him they caught, and brought before the king, saying: 'This man, O king has taken that which was not given
to him and that is theft'.
Thereupon the king speak thus to
the man. 'Is it true sirrah, that thou hast taken
what no man gave thee, hast committed what men call theft.' It is true, O king.' 'But why?'
'O king, I have nothing to keep me alive.'
Then the king bestowed wealth on that man, saying: 'With
this wealth sir, do thou both keep thyself alive, maintain thy parents,
maintain children and wife, carry on thy business.' 'Even
so, O king,' replied the man.
10. Now another man, brethren, took by theft what was not given him. Him
they caught and brought before the king and told him., saying:
'this man, O king, hath
taken by theft what was not given him'.
And the king (spoke and did even
as he had spoken and done to the former man.)
II. Now men heard brethren, that
to them who had taken by theft what was not given them, the King was giving
wealth. And hearing they thought, let us then take by theft what has not been
given us.
Now a certain man did so. And
him they caught and charged before the king who (as before)
asked him why he had stolen. 'Because, O king I
cannot maintain myself. Then the king thought: If I bestow wealth on anyone so ever who has taken by
theft what was not given him, there will be hereby and increase of this
stealing. Let me now put final stop to this and inflict condign punishment on
him, have his head cut off!
So he bade his man saying ' now look ye! bind this
man's arms behind him with a strong rope and tight knot, shave his head bald,
lead him around with a harsh sounding drum, from road to road, from cross ways
to cross ways, take him out by the southern gate and to the south of the town,
put a final stop to this, inflict on him uttermost penalty, cut of his head.'
' Even so, O king ' answered the
men, and carried out his commands.
12. Now men heard, brethren,
that they who took by theft what was not given them were thus put to death. And
hearing they thought, let us also now have sharp swords made ready for
themselves, and them from whom we take what is not given us—what they call
them— let us put a final stop to them, inflict on them uttermost penalty., and their heads off.
And they got themselves sharp
swords, and came forth to sack village and town and city, and to work highway
robbery. And then whom they robbed they made an end of, cutting off their
heads.
13.
Thus, brethren, from goods not being bestowed on the destitute poverty grieve
rife; from poverty growing rife stealing increased, from the spread of stealing
violence grew space, from the growth of violence the destruction of life
common, from the frequency of murder both the span of life in those beings and
their comeliness also (diminished).
Now among humans of latter span
of life, brethren, a certain took by theft what was not given him and even as
those others was accused before the king and questioned if it was true that he
had stolen. 'Nay, O king,'
he replied, 'they are deliberately telling lies.' 14. Thus from goods not being bestowed on the
destitute, poverty grew rife... stealing... violence... murder... until lying
grew common.
Again a certain man reported to
the king, saying ' such and such a man, O king! has taken by theft what was not given him '— thus
speaking evil of him.
15. And so, brethren, from goods
not being bestowed on the destitute poverty grew rife... stealing...
violence... murder... lying... evil speaking grew abundant.
16. From lying there grew
adultery.
17. Thus from goods not being
bestowed on the destitute, poverty...
stealing... violence... murder...
lying... evil speaking. . . immorality grew rife.
18. Among (them) brethren, three things grew space incest, wanton greed
and perverted lust.
Then these things grew apace
lack of filial piety to mother and father, lack of religious piety to holy men,
lack of regard for the head of the clan.
19. There will come a time, brethren, when the descendants of those humans
will have a life-span of ten years. Among humans of this life span, maidens of
five years will be of a marriageable age. Among such humans these kinds of
tastes (savours) will disappear; ghee, butter, oil of tila,
sugar, salt. Among such humans kudrusa grain will
be the highest kind of food. Even as to-day rice and curry is the highest kind
of food, so will kudrusa grain will be then. Among such humans the ten moral
courses of conduct will altogether disappear, the tenimmoral courses of action
will flourish excessively; there will be no word for moral among such humans,
the ten moral courses of conduct will altogether disappear, the ten immoral
courses of action will flourish excessively, there will be no word for moral
among such humans—far less any moral agent. Among such humans, brethren, they
who lack filian and religious piety, and show no
respect for the Head of the clan—'tis they to whom homage and praise will be
given, just as to-day homage and praise are given to the filial minded, to the
pious and to them who respect the heads of their clans.
20. Among such humans, brethren,
there will be no (such thoughts of reverence as are a bar to intermarriage
with) mother, or mother's sister, or mother's sister-in-law, or teacher's wife,
or father's sister-in-law. The world will fall into promiscuity, like goats and
sheep, fowls and swine, dogs and jackals.
Among such humans, brethren keen
mutual enmity will become the rule, keen ill-will, keen animosity, passionate
thoughts even of killing, in a mother towards her child, in a child towards its
father, in brother to brother, in brother to sister, in sister to brother. Just
a sportsman feels towards the game that he sees, so will they feel.
This is probably the finest
picture of what happens when moral force fails and brutal force takes its
place. What
the Buddha wanted was that each man should be morally so trained that he may himself become a sentinel for the
kingdom of righteousness.
The Communists themselves admit
that their theory of the State as a permanent dictatorship is a weakness in
their political philosophy. They take shelter under the plea that the State
will ultimately wither away. There are two questions, which they have to
answer. When will it wither away? What will take the place of the State when it
withers away? To the first question they can give no definite time.
Dictatorship for a short period may be good and a welcome thing even for making
Democracy safe. Why should not Dictatorship liquidate itself after it has done
its work, after it has removed all the obstacles and boulders in the way of
democracy and has made the path of Democracy safe. Did not Asoka set an example? He
practised violence against the Kalingas. But
thereafter he renounced violence completely. If our victor’s to-day not only
disarm their victims but also disarm themselves there would be peace all over
the world.
The Communists have given no
answer. At any rate no satisfactory answer to the question what would take the
place of the State when it withers away, though this question is more important
than the question when the State will wither away. Will it. be succeeded by
Anarchy? If so the building up of the Communist State
is an useless effort. If it cannot be sustained except by force and if it results in anarchy when the force holding it
together is withdraws what good is the Communist
State. The only thing, which could sustain it after force is withdrawn, is
Religion. But to the Communists Religion is anathema.
Their hatred to Religion is so deep seated that they will not even discriminate between religions which are helpful to Communism and religions which are not; The Communists have carried their hatred of
Christianity to Buddhism without
waiting to examine the difference between the two. The charge against
Christianity levelled by the Communists was two
fold. Their first charge against Christianity was
that they made people other worldliness and made them suffer poverty in this world. As can be seen from
quotations from Buddhism in the earlier part of
this tract such a charge cannot be levelled against
Buddhism.
The second charge levelled by
the Communists against Christianity cannot be
levelled against Buddhism. This charge is summed up in the statement that Religion is the opium of
the people. This charge is based upon the Sermon on the Mount which is to be
found in the Bible. The Sermon on the Mount sublimates poverty and weakness. It
promises heaven to the poor and the weak. There is no
Sermon on the Mount to be found in the Buddha's teachings.
His teaching is to acquire wealth. I give below his Sermon on the subject to Anathapindika
one of his disciples.
Once Anathapindika came to where
the Exalted One was staying. Having come he made
obeisance to the Exalted One and took a seat at one side and asked 'Will the Enlightened One tell what things are
welcome, pleasant, agreeable, to the householder but which
are hard to gain.'
The Enlightened One having heard
the question put to him said ' Of such things the first is to acquire wealth
lawfully.'
'The third is to live long and reach great age.' 'Of
a truth, householder, for the attainment of these four things, which in the world are welcomed,
pleasant agreeable but hard to gain, there are also
four conditions precedent. They are the blessing of faith, the blessing of virtuous conduct, the blessing of liberality and the blessing of wisdom.
The Blessing of virtuous conduct
which abstains From taking life, thieving, unchastely, lying and partaking of
fermented liquor.
The blessing of liberality
consists in the householder living with mind freed from the taint of avarice,
generous, open-handed, delighting in gifts, a good
one to be asked and devoted to the distribution of
gifts.
Wherein consists the blessing of
Wisdom? He know that an householder who dwells with
mind overcome by greed, avarice, ill-will, sloth, drowsiness,
distraction and flurry, and also about, commits wrongful deeds and neglects
that which ought to be done, and by so doing deprived of happiness and honour.
Greed, avarice, ill will, sloth
and drowsiness, distraction
and flurry and doubt are stains of the mind. A householder who gets rid of such
stains of the mind acquires great wisdom, abundant wisdom, clear vision and
perfect wisdom.
Thus to acquire wealth
legitimately and justly, earn by great industry, amassed by strength of the arm
and gained by sweat of the brow is a great blessing. The householder makes
himself happy and cheerful and preserves himself full of happiness; also makes his
parents, wife, and children, servants, and labourers, friends and companions
happy and cheerful, and preserves them full of happiness.
The Russians do not seem to be paying any attention
to Buddhism as an ultimate aid to sustain Communism when force is withdrawn.
The Russians are proud of their
Communism. But they forget that the wonder of all
wonders is that the Buddha established Communism so
far as the Sangh was concerned without dictatorship. It may be
that it was a communism on a very small scale but it was communism I without
dictatorship a miracle which Lenin failed to do.
The Buddha's method was
different. His method was to change the mind of man:
to alter his disposition: so that whatever man
does, he does it voluntarily without the use of force or compulsion. His main
means to alter the disposition of men was his Dhamma
and the constant preaching of his Dhamma. The Buddhas
way was not to force people to do what they did not like to do although it was good for them. His way was to alter the
disposition of men so that they would do voluntarily what they would not
otherwise to do.
It has been claimed that the
Communist Dictatorship in Russia has wonderful achievements to its credit.
There can be no denial of it. That is why I say that a Russian Dictatorship
would be good for all backward countries. But this is no argument for permanent Dictatorship. Humanity does not only
want economic values, it also wants spiritual
values to be retained. Permanent Dictatorship has paid no attention to
spiritual values and does not seem to intend to. Carlyle
called Political Economy a Pig Philosophy. Carlyle was of course wrong. For
man needs material comforts" But the Communist Philosophy seems
to be equally wrong for the aim of their philosophy seems to be fatten pigs as
though men are no better than pigs. Man must grow materially as well as
spiritually. Society has been aiming to lay a new foundation was summarised by
the French Revolution in three words, Fraternity,
Liberty and Equality. The French Revolution was welcomed because of this
slogan. It failed to produce equality. We welcome the Russian Revolution
because it aims to produce equality. But it cannot be too much emphasised that
in producing equality society cannot afford to sacrifice fraternity or liberty.
Equality will be of no value without fraternity or liberty. It seems that the
three can coexist only if one follows the way of the Buddha. Communism can give
one but not all.
कोणत्याही टिप्पण्या नाहीत:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा