Monday, March 12, 2007

The teachings of Buddha misunderstood

Buddha described Mara (Kama) as “another name for evil passions.” It appears that Mara is another name for the forces of darkness, commonly referred to as Satan, who has been continuously trying to lead humanity away from the true path. It appears that Satan did the same in case of Buddha’s teachings as well, so much so that the entire set of concepts that the Buddhists give as proof of their arguments appear to be set on flawed foundations.
Fact remains that coming of another Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) was necessitated because of the enormous evils that had penetrated the Indo-Aryans of the time. Study of the several incidents related to Siddhartha Gautama’s life confirms the extent of mal-practices that were involved. Some of them were such that you cannot fathom those happening even in this kaliyug (this age of darkness).
This is evident in Buddha’s cousins’ penchant for game and hunting. This is also evident in the hard labour that masters made their servants do. Even the priests, at the time of indulging in the ritual sacrifices, thrashed the servants or made them perform acts beyond their capacity. Greater example is that of the family priest Udayin, who gave the idea of construction of a harem to Buddha’s father Suddhodana “with very beautiful inmates” “to prevent the prophecy (relating to coming of another Prophet) from coming true.” The family priest gave long lectures to Siddharth Gautama and tried his best to make him fall to beckoning of all the beautiful women in the harem. And Siddharth Gautama’s chief sin was that he “was addicted to the company of saints and sages”. Does this not show the degradation in morals and a very materialistic outlook of the priests and people of the period, including Siddharth Gautama’s father. Will any priest today suggest that a harem be built for a person indulging in spiritual learning? Or will any father of today go on to build such a harem for his son? This shows that the society had reached its nadir or lowest point. How could the Manifest Self remain a passive witness without attempting to rectify this by sending another Preacher? Thus another birth of Bodhisata, named Sumedha, as Mahamaya’s child, who was called Siddharth Gotama, became inevitable.
Family priest Udayin’s words to the inmates of the harem built specifically for Siddharth show how the graceful movement, how the coquetry, grace and beauty of women have brought to naught all the penance, all the spirituality of great sages who have succumbed to the desires. Read the words of Udayin and see how Satanic forces have used women’s sensuality time and again to disrupt man from attaining closeness to God. Likewise, men’s ego and anger too has always worked against them and against mankind. See whether it is more apt in today’s world of peeping cleavages and displaying physical contours. That is perhaps why nearly all the scriptures, including the Puranas, the Vedas as well as the sayings of Prophet Mohammad and Ali have repeated time and again that towards the end of the world and prior to the appearance of the Divine Saviour (Mahdi – the Awaited) it would become extremely difficult for adherents to abstain from sins.
Udayin said: “Ye are all skilled in all the graceful arts, ye are proficient in understanding the language of amorous sentiments, ye are possessed of beauty and gracefulness, ye are thorough masters in your own styles.
“With these graces of yours, ye are able to move even sages who have lost all their desires, and to ensnare even the gods, who are charmed by heavenly nymphs.
“By your skill in expressing the heart’s feelings, by your coquetry, your grace, and your perfect beauty ye are able to enrapture even women, how much more easily men.
“Thus, skilled as ye are, each set in your own proper sphere, it should not be beyond your reach to captivate and capture the prince and hold him in your bondage.
“Any timid action on your part would be fit for new brides whose eyes are closed through shame.
“What though this here be, great by his exalted glory, yet ‘great is the might of woman.’ Let this be your firm resolve.
“In olden times a great seer, hard to be conquered even by gods, was spurned by a harlot, the beauty of Kasi, planting her feet upon him.
“And the great seer Viswamitra, though plunged in a profound penance, was carried captive for ten years in the forests by the nymph Ghritaki.
“Many such seers as these have women brought to naught, how much more than a delicate prince in the first flower of his age?
“This being so, boldly put forth your efforts that the prosperity of the king’s family may not be turned away from him.
“Ordinary women captivate simple men; but they are truly women, who subdue the nature of high and hard.”
Does this speech not reveal the mindset of men who have used women for their own advantage, at times to subdue other men? It is this nature of some women because of which we find some Buddhist sages speaking so ill of women on the whole. Christian priests tried to further suppress women so much so that in the post-Jesus society there was a time when Christian women were to observe such staunch purdah that even the presence of another man in the house of a married woman was looked as sin. This was the other extreme. Islam tried to rectify this and gave a middle path where the sensuality was to be subdued in the strictest terms and attempt was made to bring out the positive features of a woman’s personality. Unfortunately, the Muslim clergy misunderstood the Islamic teachings and interpreted them to make women a household slave, much on the lines of what was happening in Christian Europe at that time.
However, curtailing the sensuality necessitated that a dress code be made obligatory. Please remember, the dress code was never to wear a burqah or confine women to the interiors of the house but to wear clothes where the physical contours or too much of skin was not visible. And the dress code was equally present for men as well. The male dominated society of the Muslims couldn’t understand this and instead of making her work shoulder-to-shoulder with men, while adhering to the dress code, they confined her to the house, thus hampering her development. The result was that women who rebelled against this treatment started wearing clothes that left little to imagination.
Let us highlight another important point! Imagine a man living in present society who is fully given up to materialistic pursuits. There can still be found men who maintain harems. But do such men boast about it in front of the society, more importantly, their sons. Even in the present society, when morals are fast loosing ground, it will be difficult to find a person who talks about his own carnal life to his son, lest make preparations to have his son succumb to the lust of a carnal life. On the contrary we find Suddhodana and his ministers spend a great deal of their time “in consultation hoping to find some means to draw Siddharth to the pleasures of carnal life and thus to dissuade him from the likely turn which he may give to his life.” (Quoted from B.R. Ambedkar’s book)
This example shows the extent to which materialism and pleasure exploits had enveloped the society at that time. Therefore, it was but natural that Buddha would have addressed this problem with great intensity. When materialism existed to such extent, it was but natural that people be asked to leave all and proceed to forest. This was the only solution available. But we must remember that all the messengers gave solutions to the problems that were more topical in nature during that particular period. It is this reason why we find Krishna criticizing the evils of sanyasa and ritual worship in Gita. Because in Krishna’s period the basic problem facing the people in general was not materialism alone but also wrong understanding of the Vedic teachings and false rituals that got attached to societal living as well as to the lives of the sanyasis.
This explains why these messengers appear to be saying different things. Otherwise, if you go deeper into what they have to say, you will find all saying one and the same thing.
It is this reason why we find that when the sanyasa itself got misunderstood, Messengers had to work to bring the people back to living in the cities. We find one such incident in an Upanishad where the forest of Bimbisara is described to be buzzing with people who had brought all their materialistic evils to the forest, in the name of sanyasa, and Narada had to tell them to first go and live for a particular period in the city and then come to live in forest. Remember, Messengers also have to keep in mind the mindset of the people and the affect of their teachings would have on them. When all the people had come to live in the forest, then if Narada had ordered them to go back to city life, nobody would have obeyed. Such was the intensity with which people adhere to their beliefs, even if they are on wrong. Our role is to find the truth about the ideal way that God wants us to lead – the right path – which we are supposed to tread from the teachings of these messengers. Go deeper and you will find that all talk of one and only one path.
Prince Siddharth’s response to attempts to lure him towards material things in life is what all the Divine Messengers – be it Krishna or Moses, Jesus or Mohammad – would have given. We all need to salute him for his steadfastness in front of all attempts by the most beautiful women of the time. See what he said:
“This speech manifesting affection is well-befitting in thee; but I will convince thee as to where thou wrongly judgest me.
“I do not despise worldly objects, I know that all mankind is bound up therein. But remembering that the world is transitory, my mind cannot find pleasure in them.
“Yet even though this beauty of women were to remain perpetual, still delight in the pleasures of desires would not be worthy of the wise man.
“And as for what thou sayest as to even those great men having become victims to desire, do not be led away by them; for destruction was also their lot.
“Real greatness is not to be found there, where there is destruction, or where there is attachment to worldly objects, or a want of self-control.”
“And when thou sayest, “’Let one deal with women by guile,’ I know about guile, even if it be accompanied with courtesy.
“That compliance too with a woman’s wishes pleases me not, if truthfulness be not there; if there be not a union with one’s soul and nature, then ‘out upon it’ say I.
“A soul overpowered by passion, believing in falsehood, carried away by attachment and blind to the faults of its objects, what is there in it worth being deceived?
“And if the victims of passion do deceive one another, are not men unfit for women to look at and women for men?
“Since then these things are so, thou surely wouldst not lead me astray into ignoble pleasures.”
We invite you to read the aforementioned statement of Buddha again? Is it not clear that he has very clear views about existence of soul and its role? I fail to understand why people get misled into saying that Buddha denied the existence of soul. You might say that this was the view of Buddha prior to attaining enlightenment. But we will show here that contrary to what the Buddhist’s normally believe Buddha did believe in the presence of soul. And this can be ascertained from the existing books of the Buddhists. There is no doubt that Buddha’s true views are yet to be understood.
Why did the system of hermitages collapse? This happened because the way of life that these hermits had adapted was not the desired way of life as per Buddhism. Universality of religion lies in the ability of the entire society to accept and live that religion. Clearly, it was not possible for the entire society to start living in caves and hermitages. The initial zeal and enthusiasm made the adherents live a harsh life in such places. But when this died slowly or materialism started brewing inside those very monasteries, the entire structure started to crumble like a pack of cards.
They were doing all this in remembrance of Buddha whom people had seen passing from amongst themselves, with a shaven head, and clothes of a hermit and begging for food in a bowl. They didn’t realize that this was a life that Buddha was forced to live due to certain compulsions, which were the consequence of his promise made to the Sangh.
One may ask at this juncture the reason for materialism making inroads into the Buddhist hermitages. The reason is simple. Buddha’s overzealous followers had tried to see his teachings as a new religion when in truth there were not. All Buddha had done was to remove the evils that had permeated in the society that believed in the Vedas. Several of those who accepted his teachings were Brahmins. Portraying Buddha’s teachings as a religion had a negative effect as several ardent believers of Vedas rejected the teachings. Therefore, a lot many serious people who would have otherwise contributed to development of Buddha’s teachings did not come under its fold. After Asoka’s conversion, the new recruits were mainly those who converted due to compulsion. A lot many of these entered the caves and hermitages and thereafter corrupted the entire system. Infighting, fight for supremacy, ego tussles and all other evils of a materialistic society entered these hermitages. This led to the entire system collapsing once Hindu kings replaced Asoka.
Moreover, when materialism had engulfed the society to such an extent, as we have shown in case of Sidhartha Gautama’s family, it was but natural that the Preacher should have asked his followers to shed all of it and come to hermitages. Buddhists made it a rule and started seeing those who continued to live a normal life with inferiority. Consequently, the entire system was bound to fail.
For reasons best known to the learned scholars, attempt was made to make Buddha’s teachings lighter. This was perhaps because the ‘scholars’ themselves could not adhere to the teachings fully. To give an example, Siddhartha Gautama traversed the journey from Bodhisatta to Buddha in one life itself but it was told to the Bodhisattas (learners of Buddhism) that a Bodhisatta has to be a Bodhisatta for ten lives to become a Buddha. Does anybody know of the previous lives? This means that all would continue to remain Boddhisattas for all times and no one would aspire to become Buddha in his lifetime. Consequently, the term ‘Bodhisatta’ became a ritual with no real attempt by them to become Buddhas or attain arahatship. It was also taught that in the sixth life a Bodhisatta becomes prepared to fully grasp the evolution of things, its cause, the Twelve Nidanas, and this knowledge awakens compassion in his heart for all beings. In the seventh birth, he practices charity, patience, tactfulness, energy, calmness, intelligence and the highest wisdom. The inherent meaning was that these traits are not desirable in the earlier births.
True reason for performing fire sacrifices too had been forgotten. How the fire sacrifice itself had degenerated can be understood by the statement of a renowned ‘sage’ of the period - Uruvella Kassyapa - in front of Siddhartha Gautama. “It is sights and sounds, and also tastes, and women of sense desire that the sacrifices promise; because I understood that those things are impure that I took no more delight in sacrifices and offerings.”
This statement clearly indicates that fire sacrifice had begun to be understood as mere ritual and not salvation or place in heaven but material things were understood to be the reward for performing the fire sacrifice.
One area that the Buddhists have truly not understood is Siddhartha Gautama’s views related to soul, karma and rebirth. B.R. Ambedkar himself is perplexed at this as he writes: “The third problem relates to the doctrines of soul, of karma and rebirth. The Buddha denied the existence of the soul. But he is also said to have affirmed the doctrine of karma and rebirth. At once a question arises. If there is no soul, how can there be karma? If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth? These are baffling questions. In what sense did the Buddha use the words karma and rebirth? Did he use them in a different sense than the sense in which they were used by the Brahmins of his day? If so, what sense? Did he use them in the same sense in which the Brahmins used them? If so, is there not a terrible contradiction between the denial of the soul and the affirmation of karma and rebirth? This problem needs to be resolved.”
There seems no doubt about Buddha’s belief in the presence of soul. There are several examples that prove this. Our view is that there is not an iota of difference in this regard, between the theory propounded by Krishna and that propounded by Buddha. Did Buddha say that his God was different from the God of Krishna, particularly when it were the believers of Vedas who were coming under the fold of his teachings? Did he ever say that his path was different from that of Rama and Krishna? Is it not sad that we take them to be preaching two different religions? If Krishna, Rama or Siddhartha Gautama owed their origin to one source and clearly it must be as we all believe that there is but One God, their definition and understanding of the path too must be the same. Problem, if any, lies with the self-proclaimed experts who sit down to write commentaries on their respective subjects of expertise.
A clear example which shows that Buddha very much believed in the presence of a soul can be seen in his conversation with Bimbisara – the king of Magadhas. In spite of such clear proofs, people went out of the way to prove that Buddha was against the presence of soul. This was perhaps because they were hell-bent on proving that Buddha’s religion was different from that of his predecessors, viz. Rama, Krishna, Mahavira and other preachers.
Buddha said: “I am not so afraid even of serpents nor of thunderbolts falling from heaven, nor of flames blown together by the wind, as I am afraid of these worldly objects.
“These transient pleasures, - the robbers of our happiness and our wealth, and which float empty and like illusions through the world, - infatuate man’s minds even when they are only hoped for, - still more then they take up their abode in the soul.
“The victims of pleasure attain not to happiness even in the heaven of the devas, still less in the world of mortals; he who is athirst is never satisfied with pleasures, as the fire, the friend of the wind, with fuel.
“There is no calamity in the world like pleasures, people are devoted to them through delusion; when he once knows the truth and so fears evil, what wise man would of his own choice desire evil?”
This is a long sermon and Buddha talks about various evils plaguing our society. See how he has talked about devatas as well but the translators erred into translating that as gods. Fact that Buddha did not deny the presence of devatas and talked of them shows clearly that he very much knew of the presence of devatas and their role in this cosmos. If there is not much reference to the devatas in the existing literature that is related to Siddhartha Gautama, it is either because it was deliberately not given due to attempts to portray Buddhist teachings as separate from the earlier ones or because Siddhartha Gautama’s focus was elsewhere, on other pressing evils that he wanted to remove.
Is it not evident that the pleasures and other evils that Buddha is talking about are the evils plaguing the society and are to be fought by the members of the society while living in the society itself?
In his book, B.R. Ambedkar has written a long list of questions that people used to ask about the Self and the origin of the universe. Innumerable questions that are mentioned is enough to suggest that people of the time were more involved in spending time and energy in discussing these subjects while the more important area of doing good to others and leading a pious life was ignored. It was but natural that Buddha condemned such thinking.
Take for instance the origin of the Universe. The questions that were asked were about its creation, existence and future. They were like: the world is everlasting, - the world is not everlasting, – the world is finite, - the world is infinite, - the body is the life (jiva), - the body is one thing and life another, - truth-finder exists after death, - he both exists and does not exist after death, - he neither exists nor does not exist after death.
Some said the universe was created by Brahma, others said it was created by Prajapati sacrificing himself. There were innumerable similar questions that were hotly debated.
There is no doubt that there must have been an answer to these questions. For instance, there must be some beginning to the universe, even if the beginning was not what the people of the time believed it to be. The very fact that Buddha said that such questions could be asked by wrong-headed persons proves that he was not against the origin of universe, after all there must be some origin, but against spending time in seeking answers to these questions which are least important in comparison to the overall important need to do good deeds and work to make this world a better place to live, something for which man has been created.
The same logic can be extended to other areas like the concept of God, existence of soul etc. Experts of Buddhism are wrong when they try to prove that Buddha was against these when Buddha was actually trying to focus on other more important areas concerning mankind. Moreover, if we acknowledge Buddha as belonging to the same chain of Messengers, there was no need to spend time imparting the same teachings that had already been given by the Vedas and the Upanishads earlier.
Buddha himself said that knowledge is never final. There is always something more to be known. On the basis of this we are sure that learned scholars would add new dimensions to knowledge and give more examples to endorse our view, based on our inferences presented here.
B.R. Ambedkar unnecessarily tries to put forward the argument that these theories were merely speculative. Our view is that they may have been true or false, but the amount of interest people had in such subjects angered Buddha as they were supposed to spend time in improving themselves.
Then B.R. Ambedkar writes: “The Buddha did not believe that the world was created. He believed that the world had evolved.” Is evolution from nothingness not creation?
The Brahmins emphasized on knowledge but their characters never showed humanity. B.R. Ambedkar has referred to slaves being pushed and beaten up if they were slow in bringing condiments for sacrifice. Such sacrifices or for that matter such knowledge was useless. You have also seen how material benefits like beautiful women and wealth were sought out of sacrifices. That is why Buddha was particular that he who has knowledge must have Sila (virtue) and that knowledge without Sila was most dangerous. We again come to the earlier point. When Buddha criticized such knowledge, B.R. Ambedkar and others did not conclude that Buddha was against knowledge. But when he criticized the prevailing concepts of God, soul and sacrifices, they concluded that Buddha was against all these.
However, fact remains that Buddha talked about soul enough number of times for us to believe that he believed in its presence. Yes, he criticized those who believed that the soul is eternal. If you look at the wordings of Buddha, you will realize that his objection is not against the presence of soul but against the belief that it is eternal. People who were already confused because of the elaborate discussions that took place prior to Buddha’s teachings wrongly concluded that there was no soul.
Buddha says that some of the sages and recluses are even able to tell the place and form of their previous births. This confirms that Buddha is not against rebirth. Also, if you have read our commentary of Gita, you must have read Krishna’s dialogue wherein he says that while Arjuna is not aware of his previous birth, he (Krishna) is fully aware of each of his previous birth. Does this not show that Krishna’s views were similar to those of Buddha’s and if the people of the time were not able to reach this conclusion, it was because of their preconceived notions and ignorance? Muslims would naturally say they are different as their religion does not believe in the concept of rebirth. We can prove from Quran that it too talks of rebirth. Only thing is that the Muslims have not understood the true concept.
Krishna has elaborated on the need to get rid of the continuous cycle of rebirth and attain union with the Paramatma. This has been called salvation. To achieve salvation, it is necessary to perform good deeds and abstain from allowing one to become a slave to the organs of senses and actions, anger, just, greed, etc. Does Buddha not talk of salvation through performing righteous deeds? What is the difference then? Fact is that the people of the time, while believing in the eternal nature of soul and world, had forsaken the concept of performing righteous deeds and were not aware that the ultimate aim of soul is to attain union with Paramatma i.e. gain freedom from the cycle of rebirth. Therefore, it is obvious that their belief was based on wrong understanding, both from the point of view of Krishna and Buddha. Instead of performing righteous deeds to gain salvation, they had concluded that since rebirth is a continuous process, there was no need to perform good acts or pursue leading a righteous life. Is this thought not worth criticizing? Was not there a need to stress on righteous living, which was very much forgotten? This is what the Buddha did.
Does this not show that the path of Krishna and Buddha was the same? And that Buddha’s stress was on other things than Krishna’s because of the need of the time.
Buddha confirms this view by saying this in regard to soul and world: “These, brethren, are those other things, profound, difficult to realize, not to be grasped by mere logic, subtle, comprehensible only by the wise, which the Tathagata, having himself realized and seen face to face, hath set forth; and it is concerning these that they who would rightly praise the Tathagata in accordance with the truth, should speak.” Does this not show that, as per Buddha, soul can only be comprehended by wise and thus it means that Buddha is not against the presence of soul?
The various questions, which have been mentioned by Buddha in regard to the soul, world and other similar things indicate that the people of the time were involved in meaningless debates regarding these subjects. For instance, a hot and raging topic was that “the soul after death, not subject to decay and unconscious,
i) has form,
ii) is formless,
iii) neither has, nor has not, form
iv) is finite,
v) is infinite,
vi) is both,
vii) is neither.”
Such meaningless debates without knowing the truth meant that Buddha had to deny them all.
Further, as regards to the soul, we have seen that Buddha has never said that there was no soul. In fact, whenever the question is asked to him, he replies by asking another question. In Mahali Sutta, he even tries to explain this by telling a story. He tells a story how, in ancient days, a similar riot having taking place [as was taking place because of differences regarding the presence of soul]. The king had all the blind men in the city brought together, and had an elephant brought in. Each of the blind men touches a different part of the elephant. The King then asks them to explain what an elephant is like. He who had felt the head said it was like a water-pot. He who had felt the ear said it was like a winnowing basket. He who had felt the tusk said it was like a plough-share. He who had felt the trunk said it was like a plough-handle. He who had felt its legs said it was like a pillar. He who had felt its back said it was like a mortar. He who had felt its tail said it was like a pestle. He who had felt its bristles said it was like a broom. And each one was so sure he was right that they clamoured one against the other, and came to blows, to the amusement of the king.
Then comes the moral:
‘In such points Brahmans and recluses stick
Wrangling on them, they violently discuss –
Poor folk! They see but one side of the shield!’
Only a fool would conclude from the aforementioned story that there was no elephant at all.
This explains clearly why Buddha discouraged the view that people had made of soul and yet never said there was no soul. People were seeing just one aspect and though each of them may be partially right, they were grossly on the wrong. For neither a winnowing basket, a pot or a pillar can describe an elephant. Likewise, Buddha was asking his followers to search what soul is in reality and the followers, perhaps out of their over enthusiasm to show Buddha’s path as different from his predecessors, interpreted it otherwise.
Now see how, in order to remove one duality, B.R. Ambedkar has created greater dualities.
On page 348 he writes: “The Blessed Lord preached that there was rebirth. But the blessed Lord also preached that there was no transmigration.”
Now combine this statement with his earlier view. Buddha preached that there was rebirth but there is nothing like past karmas. Does that mean that we keep taking birth after birth without rebirth having any link to the previous birth or the sins of previous birth having any relation to future birth?
B.R. Ambedkar agrees that Bhikkus erred at times in transmitting the content of Buddha’s teachings. He writes:
“The Buddhist canonical literature is as vast as ocean. To memorize all this was indeed a great feat.
In reporting the Buddha it has often been found that he has been misreported.
Many cases of misreporting had been brought to the knowledge of the Buddha while he was alive.”
When there can be “many” cases of misreporting, why should we have doubt if there are certain cases of misunderstanding, particularly in the light of misreported teaching.
In this regard, B.R. Ambedkar has given a test. He says that anything that is irrational, illogical or not profitable should not be accepted. Fact is that we are trying to do the same all through in this BOOK.
Moreover, to distinguish between irrational, illogical or not profitable teachings and the rest, man should have true and complete knowledge. Or else, there are innumerable cases of people who considered fire worship to be rational, logical and profitable act one day but when exposed to Siddhartha Gautama’s teachings, considered it as an irrational, illogical and unprofitable act the next day. That is why it is essential that we base our acts on the path shown by those whose enlightenment had a direct link with the Creator and hence there is no chance of our getting astray. That is why it also becomes essential that instead of disapproving Buddha’s link with anyone higher, we should try to identify his teachings with higher ups, who are fully aware of the process and purpose of creation and who bestowed Buddha with the 32 signs, even at the time of his birth, knowing fully well that this child was going to be the next Buddha.
Another area that should be restudied by the scholars of Buddhism is the events related to Buddha’s death. B.R. Ambedkar says that twice Buddha was requested by his followers to appoint a successor but every time Buddha refused. Why? Several reasons come to our mind. Firstly, he knew that his was a divinely appointed designation and it was not up to him to appoint a successor. One who appointed him would himself appoint someone else at a suitable time and place.
Or is it that Buddha knew that his disciples were not that worthy?
Or can there be a possibility that unworthy but shrewd disciples had won over the hearts of the rest of the disciples. This is merely a hypothesis but there are certain indicators that made us frame this hypothesis.
B.R. Ambedkar says that Buddha carved for himself no place in his religion by laying down any conditions. This is the reason, as per him, that not much is known of the incidents of his life. But if that was so, Buddha also did not stop his followers from writing down the incidents of his life. Why is it that his followers, who as per records were fighting with each other for possession of Buddha’s belongings and ashes, didn’t try to write the incidents of his life after Buddha had passed away from amidst them?
More importantly, when the first Buddhist congregation was held soon after the death of Buddha at Rajagraha, it is explicitly written that Kasyapa presided over the congregation. Who made him the President? B.R. Ambedkar says that Buddha had clearly rejected any question of a successor. Even if a President was to be appointed, why not he be from the five Parivrajakas, who were one of the first converts. Also, why not Ananda, who had the distinction of being Buddha’s personal attendant and was also alongside him when Buddha died?
What we find, on the other hand, is Kasyapa presiding over the congregation, that too in a manner that it appears that he wanted to control what was to be discussed and what was not to be discussed. Kasyapa raised only two questions during the congregation, one regarding the Dhamma and the other regarding the Vinaya. B.R. Ambedkar writes that he (Kasyapa) closed the questions after Dhamma and Vinaya were told. What was the reason for closing the questions? Why were others not given a chance to speak?
See what B.R. Ambedkar has written:
“Kasyapa then should have put the third question to someone present in the congregation to record some important incidents in the life of the Buddha.
But Kasyapa did not. These were the only two questions with which he thought the Sangh was concerned.
If Kasyapa had collected the record of the Buddha’s life we would have had today a full-fledged biography of the Buddha.
Why did it not strike Kasyapa to collect the record about the Buddha’s life?
It could not be indifference. The only answer one can give is that the Buddha had carved no niche for himself in his religion.”
This statement of B.R. Ambedkar proves that the Buddha’s not carving any niche for himself in his religion were not the words of Buddha himself but conclusions drawn by B.R. Ambedkar due to his inability to cast an opinion on Kasyapa’s integrity. There are several instances where what Buddha did in private is known to us. Had there been a second person alongside Buddha, we could have thought that the other person narrated the incident. But there are narrations talking of how Buddha attain enlightenment, his throwing of food in the river Nairanja to see whether it moved upstream or downstream, what did he do to attain enlightenment, his conversation with Brahma, etc. that happened exclusively in private. This shows that Buddha was not trying to hide incidents from his life from getting known. Who else would have told of things that happened when Buddha was all alone? Moreover, this was the period when Buddha had not attained enlightenment and the glare of the people had not shifted towards him. But we still know of those incidents that happened in Buddha’s life.
Later, upon taking Parivraja and attaining enlightenment, the entire region was following what this erstwhile prince of Sakya was up to. If records were not kept about Buddha’s life, it was because somebody wanted that they should not be kept. Our conclusion is that Kasyapa was the mole in the camp and his intentions were doubtful.
Buddha‘s last words themselves indicate that he was concerned about the continuance of the order that he had created among the fraternity.
Look at Buddha‘s last wordings to find traces of this concern. From these words, it is clear that he had apprehensions about Channa creating mischief. If he already had these apprehensions, why did he not expel Channa from the brotherhood when he was still recruiting more people till the last moment; the case of Sudhoddhama the Wanderer is an example. This show that Buddha identified certain people as mischief mongers but didn‘t say so because these people were held in high esteem by the lay people and doing any such thing without proofs of their offence would have alienated others from the teachings.
The “extreme penalty” was to be applied in case of Channa when Buddha had departed from this world. This meant that Channa was not to be spoken to, not to be admonished, not to be instructed, and just left alone.
Even during the last moments, Buddha spoke chiefly of the doubts or perplexity that might still be remaining in the mind of the members of fraternity about the Buddha, about the Norm, or the Order, or the Path, or the Way to the Path. This shows that he was concerned that people might deviate from the teachings or ignore them. He repeated his question thrice to the 500 brethren present, indicating stress and concern. After this he confirmed that the 500 brethren of him were all winners, assured from the Downfall, assured of reaching the Supreme Wisdom.
When Buddha died and prior to dying when he announced that all the 500 brethren in his company were on the right path, Kasyapa was not among them. Therefore, there is no sanction from Buddha that Kasyapa was on the right path. We recount here the words of B.R. Ambedkar regarding the ‘venerable Maha Kasyapa’. Such was the respect that Kasyapa had built for himself that B.R. Ambedkar, who does not use similar words for Ananda whom Buddha praised even on his death-bed, is using such adjectives in Kasyapa’s praise. He writes: “Venerable Maha Kasyapa was journeying along the high road from Pava to Kushnara with a great company of brethren (at the time when Buddha passed away).”
See what B.R. Ambedkar writes further which will give you an idea that Kasyapa being venerable is itself a subject of dispute. He writes: “Just at the time (when venerable Maha Kasyapa was journeying) a certain naked ascetic was coming along the high road to Pava.
And the venerable Maha Kasyapa saw the naked ascetic coming in the distance; and when he had seen him he said to the naked ascetic: “O friend! Surely thou knowest our Master?”
“Yes, friend! I know him.” “This day the Samana Gautama has been dead a week!”
Immediately on hearing the news the brethren were overcome with grief and started weeping.
Now at that time a brother named Subhadda, who had been received into the Sangh in his old age, was seated in their company.
And this Subhadda addressed the brethren and said: “Enough brethren! Weep not, neither lament! We are well rid of the great Samana. We used to be annoyed by being told, ‘This beseems you, this beseems you not.’ But now we shall be able to do whatever we like and whatever we do not like, that we shall not have to do! Isn’t it good he is dead? Why weep, why lament? It is a matter of joy.”
So great and harsh a disciplinarian the Blessed One was.”
This passage from B.R. Ambedkar’s book indicates the mindset of the Buddhist writers who do not want to see anything negative or criticize those who had given company to the Buddha; just as majority of Muslims do not wish to see that those around Mohammad could be wrong. Why is it that they do not understand that when the forces of noor were focusing on a particular region and sent a messenger among people of that region so that people follow the right path, it is inevitable that the forces of darkness would not have concentrated their efforts on that region?
Fact is that these lines truly indicate that something was wrong. Instead of trying to point that out, B.R. Ambedkar concludes by saying: “So great and harsh a disciplinarian the Blessed One was.”
Are these words not serious and worthy of investigation, spoken as they are immediately upon hearing the news of Buddha’s death. Was there no need to analyze and try to understand the purpose of such utterances, instead of merely concluding that this statement too praises Buddha’s disciplinarian life? Try to use your reasoning capacities! If this incident has come down to us in its exact form, then it suggests that there were Bhikkus, and not one or two, who were fed up with Buddha’s teachings. It appears from Subhadda’s statement that he was straightforward and concerned and was merely mocking at the fraternity for what they used to say. Since Subbhadda was traveling with ‘venerable Maha Kasyapa’ and others, he surely must have been witness to such conversation and the news of Buddha’s death and the sight of Bhikkus weeping on hearing the news gave vent to the anger in him.
This also shows that there were surely some who were annoyed with Buddha’s teachings and were likely to benefit if the teachings were molded as per their choice. If these people tried or went on to sabotage Buddha’s teachings or some portions of it, why do we want to overlook it?
We ask the Buddhists of today what they would do if somebody shows happiness upon the fact that Buddha died. Won’t you grab his neck? Even if you are an ardent follower of Buddha who is against harming a living being, at least you will try to put forth your point or voice your dissent. Why is it that the ‘venerable Maha Kasyapa’ didn’t say a word? Or is it that the words of Subbhadda were aimed at Kasyapa himself? This is also authenticated by the fact that, true to Subbaddha’s words, Kasyapa is visible again, only a few days later, presiding over a conclave that interpreted Buddha’s teachings in the manner he liked and ignored stress on what he did not like.
To Kasyapa, it was good that Buddha had died. This was the chance that he had been waiting for. Yet, he surely must have wept and lamented upon hearing the news, which gave vent to Subbaddha’s anger, as he had been hearing such things during the course of the journey. Is it not a logical conclusion?
You will ask, if this conclusion is logical, why Buddha’s followers didn’t object to the changes. Answer lies in Subbhadda’s statement itself. “But now we shall be able to do whatever we like and what we do not like, that we shall not have to do!” Moreover, it was more profitable to portray Buddha’s teachings as separate from the earlier Messengers or Avatars and become the revered figures of this new religion than being one in many. The great number of converts to Buddha’s teachings during his lifetime included the rich and the powerful and presiding and controlling them meant all the joys of the world. Unfortunately for them, in spite of all their efforts, their mischief did not remain hidden behind the interpretations of the commentators permanently, and it is being unearthed now, when God has decided that there will remain only one religion, that of the True Path and all the rest will get exposed.
One question remains! Why is it all and sundry go on to call Kaysapa with such glorified attributes like ‘venerable Maha Kasyapa’. Part of the answer we have already given earlier. A little later we will give another point to justify our view.
In Brahma Gala Sutta, Buddha talks of himself. “He refrains from being a spectator at shows, at fairs, with nautch dances, singing, and music. At another place, he refers to nautch dances (nakkam), singing of songs (gitam), instrumental music (vaditam) and shows at fairs (pekkham), ballad recitations (akkhanam), hand music (panissaram), the chanting of bards (vetalam), tam-tam playing (kumbhathunam), fairy scenes (sobhanagarakam), acrobatic feats by Kandalas (Kandala-vam-sa-dhopanam), combats of elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, goats, rams, cocks andquails, bouts at quarter staff, boxing, wrestling and sham-fights, roll-calls, manoeuvres, reviews.”
These statements clearly indicate that Buddha admonished dancing and singing. But what we find happening on Buddha’s death is singing and dancing that continued for seven days. How will you explain this? You will be disappointed to read but it is apparent that there were more people on Kasyapa’s side who wanted to get rid of the harsh teachings imposed upon them by Buddha but at the same time also wanted to continue reaping the benefits. This number was much more than the number who wished to abide by the true teachings of Buddha and remained loyal to Ananda.
Read how B.R. Ambedkar describes the events that unfolded upon Buddha’s death:
“Then the Mallas of Kushinara said: “It is much too late to burn the body of the Blessed One today. Let us now perform the cremation tomorrow.”
And the Mallas of Kushinara gave orders to their attendants, saying: Make preparations for the funeral of the Tathagata and gather perfumes and garlands and the musicians of Kushinara.”
But in paying honour, reverence, respect, and homage to the remains of the Tathagata with dancing, and hymns and music and with garlands and perfumes; and in making canopies of their garments, and preparing decoration wreath to hang thereon, they passed the second day too, and then the third day, and the fourth and fifth and the sixth day also.
Then on the seventh day the Mallas of Kushinara thought: “Let us carry the body of the Blessed One and let us perform the cremation ceremony.”
Read Subbhadda’s statement again and compare it with the dancing and music progressing around Buddha’s dead body. Why Buddha was not cremated the same day or the next as was the excuse given on the first day? Were there some sympathizers of Kasyapa here as well who wanted to drag the cremation till he return? Or was it to make people forget the last words regarding Ananda, who, we have seen, was lamenting and crying in a corner. Music and dance and hymns, when Buddha himself was against it – you are open to arrive at your own conclusions.
If you see, even the ashes were kept for seven days and dancing and music and songs proceeded. We have seen that the ascetic had told Kasyapa that it was seven days since Buddha’s death. If the ascetic reached the place where Kasyapa was in seven days, then we are justified in concluding that it would have taken seven days for Kasyapa to return. The dancing and music continued till the time Kasyapa returned. This was followed by the congregation that Kasyapa presided, in which the subject of succession and that of documenting the life of Buddha were conveniently ignored.
There is another irony attached to it. The same people who were fighting over the ashes of Buddha a few moments before came to a collective decision during the conclave that Buddha’s life is not to be remembered, as Buddha was against it. B.R. Ambedkar writes that the King of Magadha, Ajatshatru, Licchavis of Vaishali, Sakyas of Kapilavastu, Bulis of Attakappa, Koliyas of Ramagama, Mallas of Pava, a Brahmin of Vethadipa – all wanted part of the ashes. And the Mallas of Kushinara said: “The Blessed One died in our village. We will not give away any part of the remains of the Blessed One. They belong to us.”
Remains were important but remembering the life of Buddha was not. Surely, there were certain people who didn’t want this to happen, as they feared this would either expose them or pave hurdles in their attempt to shape the Dhamma as per their liking.
The fight that nearly happened over ashes also tell clearly to what extent Buddha’s teachings were being adhered to by the majority, even when he had taught for nearly 50 years and had just departed.
In this BOOK, we have mentioned that Krishna indeed had a relationship with the Manifest Self of God, and hence he was called avatar. We have also seen that when Krishna spoke in first person as God, it was the Manifest Self of God that was speaking and at all times doing the conversation in first person, the Absolute God was present in the third person. Ali, in his last sermon given at Basra, too has talked of him being the creator, the lord of death, the light that was revealed to Moses and so on. And it was the Manifest Self that was speaking, in first person, from the mouth of Mohammad. If Buddha too talked in the same manner, on some occasions, it only gives credence to our view that he too was a Messenger of the same source. On an occasion, in Mahavagga (I,6,8) Sakya Muni (Buddha) is made to say of himself:
“I am the all-subduer; the all-wise; I have no stains, through myself I possess knowledge; I have no rival; I am the Chief Arhat – the highest teacher, I alone am the absolutely wise, I am the Conqueror (Jina).”
It was because of this relationship that led to Buddha’s deification as an omniscient and everlasting god; existent from all eternity (Anada), omnipotent and Universal Essence of a pantheistic nature.
In the end, we can only feel sorry that even Buddha was deified by his followers. This was similar to the deification given to Krishna by the Hindus, which was largely due to the conversation, made in first person, by Krishna that talks of super human deeds and capabilities.

No comments: