Axioms and Proofs

 The Buddhist literature shows that the Devas were a community of human beings. There are so many Devas who come to the Buddha to have their doubts and difficulties removed. How could this have been possible unless the Devas were human beings.

             - B.R. Ambedkar, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India

Comments

  1. ...erm, I think Dr Ambedkar has been incorrect here. If one reads Samyukta Nikaya (Theravadin), then it is clear that Devas are NOT human beings. It clearly makes a distinction between human beings and devas - while not considering them as eternal/immortal Gods or something. However, devas were still considered to be beings in elevated, celestial planes who reached those levels because of their past deeds - but still NOT high enough to the greatness of Buddha, whatever. (generally the story in Buddhism/hagiographies is that ALL humans/devas et al need to go to Buddha for salvation, fair enough)

    ISTR that Buddha calls himself (or others call him) as sattha deva manussanam - meaning, a friend of devas and normal human beings.

    So. (I did not understand the point behind you quoting him or the context thereof, but anyway...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saying Ambedkar is 'incorrect here' is the most polite way of putting it :-)
      Mine was a snide "no comment", eye-roll quotation.

      I am quite unacquainted with the material you mention. But I'd say no such familiarity is necessary to see the utter ridiculousness of Ambedkar's claim here. IMO these are the areas, where the otherwise formidable writer, seem to be either out of depth or borderline malicious.

      It is an unfinished manuscript published posthumously, so one should not judge it too harshly. But insofar as it reflects his thinking at that stage of his political life, his finding in Buddhism something he could - regardless of the 'truth' - craft a weapon out of, it is worth seeing it for what it is.

      It is not just Buddha's humanhood that he holds as an axiom here, by extension he limits those who interact with the Buddha also to a mere humanhood.

      He then uses that to 'prove' that the purAnic stories concerning Devas are to be taken literally and NOT metaphorically and people ought to bring to unhesitatingly feel disgust and what not.

      So I thought I'd point out these were his axioms and standards of proofs (in this subject).

      Invoking a corrosive disgust rather than engage with the semiotics, is something you expect of the DK types. That Ambedkar too resorted to this, is disappointing (atleast to me).

      Delete
    2. +1. He was but a product of his times and politics.

      Ambedkar was uniform in his shallowness with respect to religions, especially the dharmic ones. He was a bright, intelligent guy (in any case a couple of orders of magnitude smarter & well accomplished than Chacha types), who was bitter, who did not understand the 'parable of the pedestrian' etc etc... but his contribs in THREE areas are dear to me and I respect him for them, in spite of the fact that he was never a mass leader, even for those few scheduled communities that he thought he represented.

      1. His essential sizing up of Islam - and the nature of Pakistan and a typical momin.

      2. His focus on dharmic religion as opposed to adharmic/abrahamic ones - and eventual conversion to one of the former.

      3. His great, incisive report on Water resources/management for India.

      END

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Will KamalHassan apologise for Mahanadhi ?

Judex Ergo Sum

Kamal - the writer/director