RELEVANCE OF BUDDHISM FOR EMANCIPATORY DISCOURSE

Dr. S. Lourdunathan, Dept of Philosophy, Arul Anandar College, Karumathur

Indian social history is inseparably interconnected with Buddhism both as culture
and liberation movement. The question namely How Buddhism be conceived as
constitutive of liberation potential/praxis is worth considering. The intention is not
to hurt ones psychological dispositions rather to de-construct our constructs in
order that better construct be plausible.

The sociology of Buddhism in India has manifold existential dimensions:
1. Ancient Buddhism but Caste Institutionalised: It exists strictly as an
institutional religion
exclusive of Hinduism
as Hinanyana and
Mahayana versions,
adhered and practices
within and beyond
the geography of
Northern India in the
tribal settings. Rituals,
institutional practices,
forms of worship, rules and regulations, Buddhists cannons, monasteries and
nunneries etc form the actual social world of this typology of Buddhism where in
Buddha, is deemed more than an historical person as Divine. Within this domain
of Buddhism, caste is not considered as anti-social and discriminatory but as part
and parcel of its religious/social ethos. For instance Ancient version of Buddhism
(as institutionalised practice) caste division is quite authenticated and followed.
2. Buddhism as Applied Hinduism or Advaitic Buddhism (Hindu Revivalism):
Within Indian philosophical social world view, Buddhism has been continuously
construed as an applied version of Hinduism. In this sense it is a kind of
reconstructed Hinduism or an extended form of Hinduism one may even call it
Applied Hinduism where in Buddhism is treated as yet another form inclusive
religion within the mosaic of Hindu religions. This is sort of an inclusive sense;
all encompassing strategy of reconstructive Hinduism. We locate two
subdivisions of this reconstructed or revived Hinduized forms of Buddhism.
Buddha pictured as one among the many Gods of Hinduism goes to evolve a sort
of devotional (bhakti) cult and there is its abridge version with in philosophical
category. The concept of Anatama, Anitya, Nirvana etc are almost equivalent to
the idea of Advaitic theory of world as maya or illusion and hence Buddhism is
sort of an extended version philosophical Hinduism. One may term it as the
Advaitic Buddhism. Most Indian Renaissance writings fall within this category of
Advaitic Buddhism which is but an condensed version of Advaita and
Buddhism.
3. Nietzsche Buddhism: Western thinking has also been attractive of Buddhism.
For instance the writings of Nietzsche especially The Anti-Christ. It consists of
the idea that the sayings of Jesus and Buddha largely share similar ideas and
Buddha being the forerunner within the Asian ethos, his insights has strong
reflections on Jesus sayings. Whereas the church as an institutionalised religion is
sort of an anti-Christ has adopted the Greek, Roman Ruling philosophy, a
particular form of political domination is in fact against very teachings of Jesus.
In the similar line, one can argue that the institutionalised Buddhism is sort of
Anti-Buddhism which has evolved over a period of history, inculcating the
politics of casteism and evolved into a culturally institutionalised form religion
and society. All the attempts to re-construct Buddhism within the national or
political boundaries of Hinduism could be viewed in terms Anti-Buddhism,
similar to that of Nitetzsches Anti Christ and the role of emancipation calls for
an emancipation of Buddhism (on an intellectual plane) from its false religious
identifications.
The question is when Indian scholars engage Buddhism as emancipator ethos, do
they discourse of the very emancipation of Buddhism from its Hindu
ramifications or are they simple adopt the rhetoric-logic that Buddhism is anti-
caste and anti-ritual and anti-superstitious and therefore viable to promote
liberation politics.
4. Ambedkarian Buddhism: We can also locate the Ambedkarian type of
Buddhism. Ambedkar Buddhism is again a constructed Buddhism, (though
different from the above mentioned Hindu re-constructions). It operates within
the boundaries of enlightenment morality or Indian modernity. Buddhism is a
religion that propels social change on the grounds of justice, liberty and fraternity
and all the more Buddhism is originates within Indian cultural soil. Within
Buddhism there is no caste. Hence viable of promoting liberation discourse. But
then the question is Indian Buddhism is either Hindu-Buddhism or it is a sort of
caste-inclusive ancient Buddhism. If and when conversion as a political strategy
of affirming the identity of the downtrodden and the untouchables, can
Buddhism contain the potentials of a caste-free liberation discourse? All the more
conversion to Buddhism raises yet another difficulty namely which version of
Buddhism one is to be converted? Can such conversion be constitutive of ones
religious ethos or mere a political strategy of reframing or refraining from caste-
Hindu politics? There is a lot of confusion here and the role of social intellectuals
is to clarify this kind of Ambedkarian Buddhist Call. More over one has to also
take note of the postmodern critique against the promises of modernity. The
postmodern sensibilities propel the idea that modernity is a failure in the sense of
not-able-to- reach its promised land, namely the land of liberty, and justice and
progress of society. Be it capitalist or Marxist, both fall within a category of an
over-arching rationality, a ruling rationality as if it is a objective and scientific
truth. But the question of truth, it is argued that it is subjective, conditioned and
therefore no-truth. Now the argument is this: if Ambedkars version of engaging
Buddhism on the grounds of modernity (secularism and Justice and democracy
etc) be taken seriously as a viable proposal, but when modernity itself can be
located of its own-failures, how could Ambedkar Buddhism with in the
parameters of modern democracy vouch for the liberation of the downtrodden
and the untouchables.
5. Pragmatic Buddhism, namely Buddhism as context of political conversion and
reservation remains to be highly utilitarian, temporal, conditional and not
necessarily emancipatory but projects a sort of representative, which is not-
sufficiently representative of the downtrodden.
6. Christian Buddhism: There is also a Christian version of Buddhism prevalent
among theological scholarship. The argument is that Christianity is a religion of
the poor and needy. It cares for the sick and work towards the alleviation of
social pain. So also, Buddhist moral accounts for the removal of suffering as its
four noble paths. Accordingly Christianity and Buddhism are similar morally
though geo-politically different. But the issue which one fails to take note of is
this: while Buddhist metaphysics is a complete annihilation of the forms of
suffering, the Christian thought celebrates suffering. That which celebrates
suffering cannot truly alleviate suffering rather it will continue to maintain
suffering as a necessary pre-condition for care-projects. So the Christian-inclusive
Buddhism is again problematic as problematic as that of hindu version of
Buddhism, both are tactics and not foundational.
7. The Ayothidasar version of Buddhism within the linguistic cultural frame is still
not beyond suspicion. Its argument that the Tamil nation originally Buddhist and
all discriminated communities, the Dravidans are originally Buddhists and
therefore Buddhism is the identity of the Dravidian calls for serious instantiation
and substantiation. All more one cannot go back or walk back in history and one
can only walk ahead or progress within the context of the present conditions of
living. To set a political call to trace back to ones Buddhist roots perhaps consist
of the danger of missing the present moment a technological global society and if
intellectualism emphasis on the issue of an ancient Buddhist identity one might
miss the identity within the practical domains of an ever growing society.
8. There is also a sort of National (political) Buddhism; the logic is that Buddhism
is Nation and Nation is Buddhism and hence those are outsiders are aliens to
the Nationhood (nation-wood)Buddhism, and hence must either be excluded,
extinguished, eliminated or included by reservation-cake. For example Sri
Lankan Buddhism can we call this militant National Buddhism, if so, what
about Buddhist tall ideals of Compassion and Brotherhood and non-injury.
9. Inverted Colonial model: In the similar vein, one can see some parallels: India is
Hindu and Hindu is India and the rest should either be excluded or strategically
included. I do not want to blame certain fundamental camps alone for this
strategy. How about the evangelical politics? The entire globe is to be
evangelised, what is evangelised is holy/godly/Christian and what is not and
what lies outside the border of evangelization is sinful, pagan, and hence do
social works. I suspect it is the European Christian, the British Colonial, the
French-colonial imaginations that seeded this type patriotic cultural trans-
nationalism deep down it is discriminatory in nature. From where cultural
nationalism finds its Bethlehem.
10. The Psychological or Body Buddhism: There is also an untold sense of
Buddhism that seems to capturing the well-employed, sophisticated, the western,
and the rich. I may call it as the Body Buddhism. The Body Buddhism is the type
of culture which provides Zen Pills, Massage tastes, Relaxation techniques,
Restaurant Stays and pieces and bits of sensual nourishments. Those who are
educated to be employed to serve the profit interests of the transnational
corporations, seems to undergo heavy work-pressure. They do not have time to
think, critically engage or participate life rather they are calendarised within the
calendar-programme of the companies for the maximum turnover interest of
their employing companies. They are increasingly and educationally robbed of
their social mind, ethos and individuality and dignity. In that empty space these
minds are filled with programmes, projects and profits. These programmed life-
machines needs to be revived by the kind of Body-Buddhism, I mentioned above.
Can this Body Buddhism be emancipatory or just regulatory within the
mechanics of a technocracy?
11. Ancient Buddhism is caste ridden; National Buddhism is militant and it can
shake hands with similar typologies of religion based national politics. Christian
Buddhism is all the more is deceitful and derogatory. Modern Buddhism of
Ambedkar is politically regulative but pragmatic to the extent of registering a
protest and it has not yielded a complete democracy. And democry is shattering
in terms of caste and power democracy upon the shoulders of technologically
acquired money power. Ayothidasar Buddhism similar to that Ambedarian in a
broad sense however the Dravidian roots as Buddhism adds to ones historical
glory, a sense of cultural pride; the Dravidian as linguistic and religious
connotations has paid its political party interests sufficiently and now-a-days, the
Dravidian party interests arguments of the calculations to continuous power by
modes of appropriations. Hence the issue is emancipation within the above
categories or schools of thought seems not-that-promising for the downtrodden.
So where are we and where we are heading towards?

12. The intellectual foundations of Buddhism when perceived as a category of
protest against the forms of discrimination and oppression, tracing either to its
ancient history or to Ambedkarian engagement of Buddhism, I believe, needs to
be further evidenced and evaluated. One cannot escape the postmodern criticism
as well.

13. All the above positions I place before you -many of you are day-to-day writers in
Tamil leading journals and magazines, and I am not a writer by profession except
a reader and an analyst not with the idea of weakening your political or social
or religious involvement the arguments are raised with the view re-locating
your political position in augmenting Buddhism as viable movement in terms of
anti-caste movement.

Amen