Sridhar Suroshe
A Rational Reformer
Dr. Ambedkar was the heir of enlightenment.
And therefore, he was the Voltaire of India.
He accepted the fundamental values of enlightenment. These values are rational knowledge and rational ethics. In the teachings of enlightenment, there was an important place for the program of social transformation based on these rational values. The sole end of this social transformation was this: by transforming established social institutions, moral codes, and rules into ones that are consistent with rationalistic knowledge and ethics—that is, with the rationalistic frame-reference of life. Ambedkar wholeheartedly accepted these values and programs.
The outline of rational knowledge can be given as follows:
From the enlightenment point of view, rational knowledge’s ideal is embodied in science—the scientific method, scientific outlook, or temper. Observing events occurring in nature, forming hypotheses for their explanation, inferring logical conclusions from these hypotheses, which can be validated by observation, and if these conclusions are consistent with observation, then consciously accepting that hypothesis—this is a general form of scientific method and source of scientific outlook. It is the fundamental theory of enlightenment that the scientific method is the only method to gain valid knowledge. Reason is the only guide.
This view implies a very important conclusion regarding the validity of human knowledge: that man must find out the truth with his own efforts because truth is not revealed anywhere for human beings. Religious traditions are generally based on the truths that are said to be revealed by God or the transcendent principle within the universe. God himself reveals the truth that is useful to man, or he reveals it through the messenger of God, and man has to accept this ‘truth’ by faith.
The philosophy of enlightenment rejects the traditional religious standpoints on how man gains knowledge of truth. The origin of truth can be found in the human experience and his observations. The observations, which are consistent with each other, give the true datum to man about things in the external world. The rational man considers the statement merely as a belief. Though that statement is presupposed to be a ‘true statement’, he examines it. And if the statement survives in that critical evaluation and is still consistent with observation, then that is accepted as truth.
This is the enlightenment position. In the practice of knowledge, there is no place for faith. This is the core essence of rationalism. Here, the comparison between enlightenment rationalism and the Buddha’s teaching will be fruitful.
Now, the Buddha’s standpoint about knowledge is similar and consistent with this rational knowledge. The Buddha does not accept the right to reveal the truth of any religious scripture, divine revelation, or authority of any messenger of God. The Buddha’s teaching is that whatever is achieved as knowledge (bodhi) is achieved through our own efforts, with our own contemplation based on self-experiences, and not from anyone with faith. Even the Buddha did not teach his disciples (bhikkhus) that they should accept his teachings with faith and blindly believe that the knowledge he gained is valid. On the contrary, he encouraged free and skeptical inquiry. He said to them, “What I say to you, you must rethink about that, examine and re-examine it, and after critical examination, you can accept it.”
In the ‘Anguttara Nikaya’ the Buddha says—
“This I have said to you, O’ kalamas; but you accept it, not because it is the report, not because it is a tradition, not because it is so said in the past, not because it is given from the scripture, not for the sake of discussion, not for the sake of particular method, not for the sake of careful consideration, not for the sake of forbearing with wrong views, not because it appears to be suitable, not because your preceptor is a recluse; but if you yourself understand that this is so meritorious and blameless, and, when accepted, it is for the benefit and happiness, then you may accept it.”
It is clear from the above instance that the Buddha was a rationalist and a realist to the core, both in his method of approach to problems and their solutions. In this sense, Ambedkar claims that the Buddha was a rational man.
Let’s take a look at rational ethics.
The moral teaching of enlightenment is simple. It is famous that liberty, equality, and fraternity are the fundamental moral values of enlightenment. These are formal values. It means that relations among man and man, family, occupation, state institutions, etc. are all social institutions, and the modes or methods of their practices must be consistent with these values. This is the fundamental principle of this rational morality. For example, if one man is of supreme status and another is of lower status, then the latter is bound to behave according to the will of the former. This is exploitation, which has its origins in inequality or unequal social status. This system is inconsistent with the value of equality.
Kant, the greatest enlightenment philosopher, says, “Man must be considered as an end-in-itself, not as the means of others’ will.”
It’s the teaching of enlightenment that all individuals have equal liberty to make their own decisions about what they should do. This type of social system is needed because it is consistent with liberty and equality. Therefore, liberty, equality, and fraternity are the values that form a social framework, and in this social framework, every individual is free to give shape to his life in accordance with his conscious thoughts through his decisions.
What an individual is trying to achieve for himself—and also if he has taken the decision to attain it for others—will definitely be achieved with his own efforts. This is the essence of an individual’s life. An individual has dignity, and this dignity should not be hampered by the social system. The modification or transformation of such a social system becomes necessary to preserve the value of individual dignity. This is the essence of the philosophy of enlightenment. In this sense, both the Buddha and Ambedkar were rational and radical social reformers. The Buddha’s struggle against the ‘Varna system’ and Ambedkar’s struggle against the ‘Caste system’ are the products of their rationalism—rational knowledge and rational morality.
Religious contemplation
There is no doubt that Dr. Ambedkar is firmly on enlightenment’s side. Therefore, his interpretation of human grief (dukkha) and want (trishna) in the Buddha’s Dhamma is very different from traditional interpretations. The origin of grief or sorrow is not to be found in human nature but is deeply rooted in the exploitation of one man by another man. Therefore, Ambedkar’s religious contemplation is quite peculiar. He accepted modern rationalism from the heart. But the higher moral values that were developed in Indian religious-spiritual traditions—which can be denoted as ‘sadharana dharma’ (general duties)—can play the role of the foundational basis of sound and just social and individual life, as Ambedkar thought it. Gautama Buddha first preached these values in Indian tradition and not only preached but imbibed, self-actualized, and then preached. His journey from ‘Siddhartha to the Buddha’ is a sign of significant change in his personality and, therefore, in his identity as a human being.
Pragnya (wisdom), meytri (friendship), Karuna (compassion), mudita (happiness), upeksha (indifference), etc. are these values that blossomed in Indian religious-spiritual traditions. Ambedkar found out that rationalism and these moral values consistently fit into the teachings of the Buddha and the Buddhist philosophy, or Darshana. And therefore, he revitalized Buddha’s Dhamma. These values not only try to attain social justice and social morality but definitely go beyond these social ends.
The Buddha’s Dhamma is the only religion that is consistent with science and rationalism. Dhamma is the only ultimate religion of the future for mankind. But the concept of human nature in which these values find their basis is surely the concept of that human nature that stands beyond the boundaries of science and modern rationalism.
It is Ambedkar’s claim that he is propounding the essence of the Buddha’s teachings. The Buddha’s thoughts are valid, but many inconsistent and distorted things have entered the Buddhist tradition. It is Ambedkar’s claim that he is setting aside all these things and propounding the original thoughts of Gautama Buddha in their classic and purest form.
Therefore, we cannot say that it was Ambedkar’s claim to look for answers to such questions as: What is ‘living’ and what is ‘dead’ in the Buddha’s teachings, which he preached during his entire lifetime? Which thoughts are still valid and nurture the good life, and which are invalid and therefore rejectable? From this point of view only, Ambedkar’s interpretation of Buddhism is a ‘modern’ interpretation.
In the modern sense of the term, we can say that both Ambedkar and the Buddha’s teachings result in some kind of secular humanism. ‘Secular’ means ‘limited to this time, to this world’. Therefore, it is worldly humanism. But this worldly humanism has the foundational basis of humanitarianism. This humanitarianism has its source in humanitarian values rooted in Indian religious and spiritual traditions. This humanitarianism goes beyond the very idea of human nature, which is sketched into the philosophy of rationalism and modern science.
Possibility of Synthesis principle
When we want to establish moral values on the ground of humanitarianism, we have to transcend reason. Because there is no such framework in rationalism that can justify and cooperate with the moral values that originate from religious and spiritual traditions. But, on the one hand, the Buddha’s dhamma is consistent with a rational way of life, and on the other hand, it is inspired by the moral values of other Indian religious-philosophical traditions.
In this sense, Ambedkar’s religious ‘Dhamma revolution’ is a synthesis of the enlightenment’s reason and moral values deeply rooted in Indian cultural and philosophical traditions. Therefore, the legacy of Ambedkar is to be found in rationalism and morality, which go beyond reason and, therefore, might be transcendental. Ambedkar’s idea is that reason and morality are well-unified into the Buddha’s dhamma. In Ambedkar’s words, “Morality is Dhamma, and Dhamma is morality.” But, at the end, one question remains: “Is there any principle of unification that can synthesize transcendental moral values with reason?” If there is hope to get an answer, then there is a way to rightly understand the essence of Ambedkar’s religious contemplation—morality and rationalism—and the synthesis principle, which unifies the trinity of religious values, moral values, and rational values.
~~~
Sridhar Suroshe is a graduate (BA) in economics from Fergusson College, Pune, and a postgraduate (MA) in economics from Amolakchand College, Yavatmal. His articles have been published in ‘Aajcha Sudharak’ (Today’s Reformer), a Marathi magazine devoted to rational thinking and social reforms. Currently, a series of his articles—’Marxchi Arthmimansa’ (A critique of Marxian economics)—are being published in ‘Aajcha Sudharak’. He is interested in philosophy, economics, and the history of mankind.
