Why ambedkar choose buddhism

Some had issued death threats to Ambedkar. His own people were confused, some of them having openly opposed it. The religious establishments of some minority communities were, however, enthused to make a bid to attract him towards them. As a follow-up of this declaration and in order to have a blueprint for the tasks ahead, a conference titled Mumbai Ilakha Mahar Parishad Mumbai Province Mahar Conference was organised from May 30 to June 1, at Mumbai.

It shared the venue with two more conferences, namely, the conference of Mahar ascetics and the conference of Matangs from the Bombay province. Here he tried to systematically explain why Dalits needed to change their religion.

He had just developed this explanation in his celebrated text, Annihilation of Caste. His conclusion in Annihilation of Caste was that castes being mainly part of the rules of the Hindu religion, which were sourced from the Dharmashastras Smritis and Puranas , could not be annihilated unless the Dharmashastras were destroyed. He divided the scriptures of the Hindu religion into two parts: the religion of rules and the religion of principles, the latter being provided in the Vedas and Upanishads, which he observed did not have much influence on the religion in practice.

He assessed that the Hindus would never be prepared for destroying the Dharmashastras and hence he had decided for himself to renounce Hinduism. Ambedkar thus argued that there was no hope for Untouchables to live a respected life within Hinduism. The only way they could escape from their caste bondage was to renounce it. In explaining the existential consideration, he mainly indicated the pitiful plight of Dalits.

They suffered atrocities at the feeblest violation of the caste code as perceived by the caste Hindus. Ambedkar termed it a class conflict. He elaborated his point as follows:. It is not a question of dominance or of injustice over one man; it is a question of dominance perpetrated by one class over the other.

It is a question of injustice heaped by one class over the other [ He argued that his way of thinking is to dismiss Hindu way of thinking of Bhagavad-gita which depends on a savage corruption of Sankhya reasoning of Kapila.

Spiritually, since he was keen on Buddhism during his childhood, he made a pledge to turn into a Buddhist and having rejected the Hindu social and political life as well as Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, or socialism, Ambedkar settled on a conclusion during the final months of his life in October with about half a million Dalit individuals, to convert to Buddhism for equality and liberation. In particular, he focused on the real lessons of the Buddha, especially in his reevaluations of the "Buddha's legitimate lessons", introduced expressly and principally through the books The Buddha and the Future of His Religion , and The Buddha and His Dhamma.

These books received varied responses. Some scrutinized him as having confounded the Buddha's instruction, and some upheld his view.

The critical effect of his transformation to Buddhism changed his life profoundly, as well as the course of Indian Buddhism since it ushered in a new time of Buddhist restoration in India. Today in India, if there is regard and veneration for Buddhist qualities, and Buddhism is viewed as the expansive pathway to salvation by millions of individuals, the credit generally goes to Ambedkar. Reinterpretation of Buddhism in Indian context. Insightfully, Ambedkar's push to recreate neo-Buddhism likely may be viewed as a deviation from conventional Buddhism; however Gokhale brought out four highlights of Ambedkar's reproduction of Buddhism.

To begin with, Ambedkar only included Buddhist worldly conviction and practices, and barred the faith in different universes and past and future.

Second, Ambedkar underscored logical judiciousness as the center of the Buddhist way to deal with the idea of the world and man. Basically, Ambedkar thought about whatever disregarded the authority of experience and reason as non-Buddhist components. Fourth, as indicated by Ambedkar, ethical quality is the foundation of Buddhism, while different religions set ethical quality in the possession of mystical gods.

What follows are a portion of his Buddhist ideas and standards:. First, Ambedkar argued that: The Buddha's Law of karma applied distinctly to karma and its consequences for the current life. The all-inclusive Buddhist regulation of karma, including past karma, is a most malignant precept that is regularly discovered to be credited to the Buddha.

It was reasonable that he upheld only this common understanding of karma teaching and prohibited karma of previous lives since it might legitimize the Hindu's clarification of the casualties of social abuse by viewing their sufferings as discipline for offenses in previous lives. Second, Ambedkar questioned the Four Noble Truths, usually considered the Buddha's fundamental lessons, on the grounds that, in his view, they deny optimism to man and make the gospel of the Buddha a gospel of cynicism.

Rather than attributing sufferings to the psychological conditions of obliviousness and need, he argued that social conditions as the reason for huge sufferings, for example, destitution and injustice. He thought of the Four Noble Truths as a later gradual addition by monks. He didn't discover expectation and bliss in the third and fourth noble truths, which talk about the end of suffering as a condition of inward harmony and the way to its end.

Third, he considered Buddhist ethical quality as universalist and self-evident not requiring other beliefs, including supernatural religious conviction. As a rule, he considered mystical religion as the hindering stones for profoundness and objectivity since they just fabricate a God-man relationship and sabotage social relations among men. In his point of view, the Buddha characterized religion as an approach for a realm of honesty on the planet.

Likewise, since the more profound quality is basically social, he prohibited in his model the individualistic, spiritualistic part of Buddhism, particularly the part of meditation.

He additionally characterized the ethical quality as consecrated in light of the fact that it is general and can't be violated. With these pragmatist, humanist, and sensible methodologies, he stressed profound ethical quality as the foundation of Buddhism that replaces god, soul, supplications, love, customs, functions, penances, and others.

I would like to conclude by saying that while Gandhi was a social reformer, Ambedkar was a social revolutionary, a political pioneer, a unique humanist, and an advocate of the neo-Buddhist development in India. After an intensive assessment of Ambedkar's life, political and social exercises, and his perspectives on ways to free the untouchables, I arrive at the resolution that Ambedkar went to Buddhism as a way of freedom because of its precepts of liberty, equality and fraternity for the oppressed.

As a result of his conversion to Buddhism, a great many Dalits have followed his guidance to become Buddhists, and are making an incredible effort as free men. Future examinations may have to decide how far these devotees of Ambedkar are able to make the most of their life or experience as Buddhists who are only a small portion of the populace in a Hindu majority nation.

Remember Me. Local Web. About Us Contact Us Newsletters. Home News. Why did Dr Ambedkar choose Buddhism? Published on 07 January Other Related Articles. As per Ambedkar, Hinduism had failed to secure basic human rights.

Further, during his growing up years, there were a number of cultural icons that went on to influence his decision. For instance, as discussed by Gauri Vishwanathan, the 12th century Dalit martyre of South India, Nandanar had a strong influence on him. He had inaugurated a tradition of protest from below regarding right to worship for the untouchables.

One other historical figure who had an impact on Ambedkar was king Ashoka, whose conversion to Buddhism after the battle of Kalinga is known to have initiated an era of tolerance and service for humanity. The most popular view among scholars is the fact that Buddhism was seen as the most modern and rational religion by Ambedkar.

The strongest proponent of this theory is religion studies specialist, Christopher Queen. By converting to Buddhism, Queen suggested, Ambedkar fulfilled one of the most basic requirements of attaining modernity- the exercise of individual choice based on reason and historical consciousness.

How can two human beings ever claim to be equal in their bearing and traits even when their finger prints are not the same or equal in any sense except that they may have equal number of fingers in their hands or equal number of eyes, ears, nose, tongue or hands and feet.

Can a child having same number of limbs and senses ever be equal to a grown up Man or Woman in skills or understanding or wisdom? Could Mr Ambedkar have ever claimed that every person of his own cast is equal in wisdom, education and understanding to his own self? No doubt, certain vested interests following Chaturvarna philosophy misinterpreted it and brought in distortions such as untouchability into it.

Untouchability appears to be impossible in Chaturvarna philosophy when investigated minutely. Famous sage Sootji — being borne in a Shudra family himself, imparted knowledge and wisdom to a large number of Rishis and Munis as described in famous Puranas such as Shri Madbhagvat Maha Puran,. For example further, a cobbler Shudra who made shoes for the masses can never be declared untouchable if a brahmin, or Kshatriya or Vaishya wears the shoes made by that cobblers hands , because every time they wore those shoes they became impure if a Shudra is to be considered impure and untouchable, etc.

A Nation devises its own laws and rules to be followed by the citizens of various religions of that Nation to meet certain objectives. Those set of Laws, Rules and Regulations, may even be called a way of life for the citizens of that Nation. Can those laws, rules and regulation be called a religion? Vedic Philosophy describes different ways of life that may be practised by individuals to meet the objectives as preferred by that or those individuals or a community. That is the reason the Indian Continent has so many different religions or Sampradayas practising their own ways of lives barring Christians, Muslims, Parasis and Chinese who follow their own ways of life or religion set of principles.

Vedic philosophy never anywhere, preaches conversions unlike Muslims and Christians. Vedic philosophy emphasises mainly on eradication of ignorance and motivates or advises principly towards attaining true knowledge to meet the supreme objective of every human being as he may decide for himself after knowing the truth of life or existence.

Arise from the deep sleep of ignorance, get enlightened or attain enlightenment from whom who knows deserving knower of the Vedas. Thanking in anticipation. Islamabad chrustanity have no Indian identity as such they are European religion. Buddhism is Hinduism minus the caste plus meditation.

Buddhism is the most polite and least BS religions out there. Ambedkar made the right choice there. Buddha tried to remove some teaching of Hinduism back in the day but unfortunately though he was revered by many his teaching were left unaccepted. Buddha is Avatar if Vishnu as per Hinduism as Buddhism Buddha was the ultimate form a human being can achieve via meditation. Unfortunately vipassana is not really popular now a days in Indian Buddhist. This particular thing needs to be improved.

You can never take Buddhism out of Hinduism or Hinduism out of Buddhism. Ambedkar also was son of this soil which has given birth to so many notable personalities and religions such as Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism. The essence again in all these is Hinduism. Do your homework. A PhD and yet so ignorant. A Hindu sees Lord Buddha as yet another incarnation…. Sunday, 14 November, Sign in. Forgot your password? Get help. Privacy Policy. Password recovery.

Young Muslims saying my hijab my choice because French politicians are obsessed with the veil. How Hinduism incorporated Buddha and then distanced the religion. Bhudisam is no way related to hindhuisam , if so then why bramins killed so many buddist monks. When did they kill Buddhists monk, and if they did then does Hinduism validates such killing?