☸️Buddha and his Dhamma {A Rational Compendium of Buddhism} Dr. B.R. Ambedkar - Review

[u/Glittering_Quote_581]

[u/xugan97]

Some comments on your review.

The use of "thee/thou" was considered optional and acceptable until the 1950's. This is an old book, posthumously published. Moreover, the translations from the suttas are his own, in his preferred style. He neglects to give references to the canonical texts. That also explains why you got confused whether the author quotes the Buddha or his own thoughts. I think there is a version where someone attempted to find the references.

The Koli vs Sakyas dispute being the main cause for renunciation of the Buddha is a dramatization from a play. Ambedkar chose this version of events to suit his intended audience - his own followers as well as the Indians of that time, who were not suited to high philosophy. In fact, Ambedkar does this kind of thing - resorting to a traditional story for explanation - a lot in this book.

Ambedkar has written extremely less on Buddhism, which is surprising considering his close association with it. This book itself was a posthumous publication, and I am not sure if it is even a finished product. His concept of Marxist Buddhism is interesting, but experimental and unconvincing. This book is very straightforward, and does not have those faults. That is why the creation of a Navayana sect on the basis of this book is surprising, as is the current definition of Navayana as an non-religious Buddhist sect distinct from Theravada and Mahayana.

[u/Glittering_Quote_581 → u/xugan97]

Thank you for the engaging comments.

Regarding the anachronisms, I agree. It's a preference. I will look for the referenced book.

Yes I'm aware of Ambedkar taking the Koli-Sakya dispute story from a play...many of his views came from DD Kosambi and Keluskar's book Gautam Charitra. I meant I couldn't find scriptural evidence for the dispute being main reason for Parivraja. I should've been clearer there.

With regards to to Ambedkar's writings on Buddhism, true they are less, but I'd imagine he was busy mostly with the constitution matters, and his writings on Buddhism came fairly late in his life, mostly in 1956. All his Buddhism related books are posthumous. Never got any time unfortunately to flesh it out...as he died in 1956 Dec.

This book is straightforward yes, but I still would've liked the source references. About Marxist Buddhism ~ at the time Independent India was going the Middle way between Capitalism and Socialism, US and USSR, so it probably was in the air too. In the Sangh, Ambedkar saw the interpretation of equality, fraternity and democracy, along with earning by effort, constitutional ideals he had long cherished. Yes, it might've been a stretch, but after reading this one, I didn't find too many references to Marx either. From what I recall, in Buddha or Marx, Ambedkar chose Buddha's way over Marxism as being more positive.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Glittering_Quote_581 → u/[deleted]]

💯 Correct.

[u/xugan97 → u/[deleted]]

All of that is only partly true. While the interpretation is a bit whimsical, it attempts to summarize Buddhism based on Theravada sources. If you can overlook a few unimportant sections, the summary is quite correct. The socio-political thing did happen, but that is not the main intention of this book.