Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India

From The Radical Buddhism Project

⚠  Awaiting Peer Review  ⚠

This encyclopedia entry is complete but has not yet undergone review by an area specialist.

Marxist interpretations of Buddhism in India are readings of Buddhist doctrine, monastic institutions, and history by Indian writers who used Marxist categories such as class, mode of production, ideology, and dialectics. The earliest example found by the project dates from 1910, when Dharmanand Kosambi read the Buddhist sangha as a form of collective ownership. The best-documented body of work is the Communist-orbit writing of the 1950s to the 1970s, which includes the anthology Buddhism: The Marxist Approach (1970). Most of the writers discussed here were not Buddhists, and several judged Buddhism harshly. They belong to the Radical Buddhism Project as interpreters of Buddhism from a Marxist standpoint, and the page marks the cases in which a writer was also a Buddhist monk, a socialist who used Buddhist ideas, or both. The literature developed largely apart from the Ambedkarite movement.

Scope and Terms

[edit]

The following four things should be separated: (a) a writer's own interpretation of Buddhist doctrine or history, (b) Buddhist vocabulary or ideas used inside a Marxist or socialist argument, (c) institutional Buddhist activism, and (d) a personal Buddhist identity. Nearly every writer on this page falls under (a) alone. Dharmanand Kosambi and, in part, Sharad Patil also show (b), and Dharmanand Kosambi and Rahul Sankrityayan were Buddhist monks earlier in life. The page also keeps apart two bodies of evidence that are easily merged: the interpretations that individual writers made of Buddhism, and the record of the communist parties on caste, which V. Geetha examines in her study of B.R. Ambedkar and socialism.[1] Douglas Ober's chapter "When the Buddha Met Marx" is the fullest narrative account of the encounter between Buddhism and Marxism in India.[2]

Early Marxist Readings, 1910–1956

[edit]

Dharmanand Kosambi

[edit]
➣ Main article: Dharmanand Kosambi

Dharmanand Kosambi (1876–1947), a Marathi Pali scholar and former Buddhist monk who remained a Gandhian within the Indian National Congress, wrote the earliest Marxist-minded reading of the Buddhist order that the RBP has found (thus far). In a letter to the Marathi newspaper Kesari written at Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1910, he argued that the sangha rested on "collective ownership which is the highest stage of democracy," and that the Buddha could not have built such a body had he not been born in a republic.[3] Ober counts the thesis among the most persuasive and enduring arguments of modern Indian Buddhism, while also calling it a modernist claim.[4] His Hindi Sanskriti ani Ahimsa (1935) follows a Marxist scheme of primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, and capitalism, within which Buddhist and Jain non-violence is the thread of progress. He took Marx's economic analysis to be right as far as it went, but held that Marx had never considered non-violence.[5] Ober describes the result as a "democratic Buddhist socialism" in which non-violence takes precedence over the Marxist emphasis on exploitation.[6] His editor argues that he was the first to explain Marx and socialism to Maharashtra in Marathi; the claim was not checked.[7]

Rahul Sankrityayan

[edit]
➣ Main article: Rahul Sankrityayan

Rahul Sankrityayan (1893–1963), a Hindi polymath who was trained as a Buddhist monk and later joined the Communist Party, produced the most explicit Marxist reading of Buddhist philosophy by an Indian scholar with monastic training. In Samyavad hi Kyon? (1935) he presented the sangha as a precedent for communal property, and in Bauddh Darshan (1948) he wrote that the Buddha, aware of the evils of individual property, wished to abolish it within his own order.[8] He read impermanence and dependent origination as anticipations of dialectical thinking, but held that Buddhism, especially in its Yogacāra form, stayed closer to Hegelian idealism than to materialism, and that "seen from a class perspective" it acted as an intermediary of the ruling class.[9] He also cautioned that it would be erroneous to say that Buddhism helped Marx or came near his fundamentals.[10] He declined to call himself a follower of the Buddhist religion, since for him culture and religion were not the same thing.[11]

Narendra Deva

[edit]
➣ Main article: Narendra Deva

Narendra Deva (1889–1956) was a founder of the Congress Socialist Party in 1934, a self-described Marxist, and the author of the Hindi treatise Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan (1956). That Deva synthesized Marxism and Buddhism is a claim made by others: a tribute printed in the 1956 book, the blurb of a 1979 collection of his writings, and later commentators describe such a synthesis, but the sources read do not show Deva arguing it himself.[12] His socialist essays contain a Marxist critique of religion without reference to Buddhism, and his treatise contains only brief social passages, on the śramaṇa tradition of dissent, on caste in the canon, and on the governance of the sangha.[13] His biographer Rakesh Ankit nevertheless concludes that he was "a Marxist and a Buddhist" to the end.[14] Deva's case thus differs from the others on this page: Marxism and Buddhism run in parallel through his life and are not joined in a single argument.

The Tribal-Sangha Thesis

[edit]

The most durable claim of this literature is that the early Buddhist order was organized on the model of the tribal assemblies (ganas) of the Gangetic region, with assembly decision making, voting, and collective property. The claim did not originate with Marxists. K.P. Jayaswal's Hindu Polity (1924) read the Buddhist samgha as a copy of the political samgha, and later writers mentioned below, Chattopadhyaya and Ram Bilas Sharma, both rely on or argue with his work.[15] Dharmanand Kosambi (1910), Rahul Sankrityayan (1935), D.D. Kosambi, and Chattopadhyaya each state a version of it.

D.D. Kosambi

[edit]

Damodar Dharmanand Kosambi (1907–1966), the son of Dharmanand Kosambi, was a mathematician and a historian of ancient India.[16] His book The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline (preface dated 31 July 1964) is a Marxist-influenced outline of Indian history in which Buddhism appears as a product of social change. Its method statement defines history as the account of successive changes in the means and relations of production, and also rejects mechanical determinism and the rigid stage scheme: "Indian history does not fit precisely into this rigid framework either."[17] (Nevertheless, the book does not appear to name Marx or Engels anywhere.)

In his account, the religions of the sixth-century Gangetic region answered the needs of new classes of free peasants and traders, and all rejected Vedic ritual. The sangha, he writes, conducted its meetings "precisely on the lines of the tribal sabha assembly," and early Buddhism was "the most social of religions." He reads Asoka's dhamma as a tool by which the state reconciled classes, and holds that the civilizing work of the Buddha and of Asoka was never continued. His account of decline is economic: the monasteries became landholding, wealth-bearing institutions, which at Nalanda was, in his judgment, "nowhere near the Buddhism preached by the Founder," and a drain on the economy. It differs in emphasis from Ambedkar's, which, in Geetha's account, drew on Jayaswal's thesis of a Brahmanical counter-revolution against Buddhism.

Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya

[edit]

Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya (1918–1993) was a Bengali Marxist philosopher best known for Lokāyata (1959) and Indian Philosophy: A Popular Introduction (1964).[18] He wrote as a self-declared Marxist and took his comparative method from George Thomson.[19] The chapter "Samgha and Niyati" (pp. 459–524) is his main treatment of Buddhism. It rejects both of the older views of early Buddhism, that it was a movement of social reform, as Rhys Davids held, and that it was nothing of the kind, as Oldenberg held, and argues that the Buddha alone among his contemporaries could give people "the illusion of liberty, equality and fraternity" that was being destroyed in reality.[20] The monarchies of Kosala and Magadha were annihilating the free tribes, including the Sakyas and Vajjians, and the Order was modeled deliberately on surviving tribal democracies: the seven conditions of welfare that the Buddha gave to the Vajjians reappear for the monks, admission to the Order recalls adoption in Morgan's account of the Iroquois, and the communal ownership of robes and the ban on handling gold and silver are read as "communistic" custom.[21] Doctrine, in this reading, is ideology: the Four Noble Truths and dependent origination turned the concrete suffering of the age into a "metaphysics of misery," and the samgha was a classless colony inside a class society.[22] He treats the Buddha's contemporaries among the teachers of the age, such as Makkhali Gosala and Ajita Kesakambali, as "philosophers of frustration" who tried to understand reality and not to build an illusion.[23]

Primitive Communism: Three Positions

[edit]

Chattopadhyaya builds on Morgan's primitive communism, which he treats as the inspiration for the sangha.[24] D.D. Kosambi names primitive communism neutrally as the first stage in the standard sequence but rejects its idealized form as the "Golden Age" legend in modern dress, while agreeing that the sangha copied the tribal sabha.[25] Sharad Patil, as reported by Sarwate, calls it a rhetorical device used by Marx and Engels.[26] Ramkrishna Bhattacharya is reported to have grouped D.D. Kosambi with Chattopadhyaya as holding that early Buddhism amounted to primitive communism; Kosambi's book of 1965 does not support that grouping.[27]

Buddhism: The Marxist Approach (1970)

[edit]

The anthology brings together five essays: by Sankrityayan (pp. 1–8), Chattopadhyaya (pp. 9–36), Y. Balaramamoorty (pp. 37–53), Ram Bilas Sharma (pp. 54–65), and Mulk Raj Anand (pp. 66–86).[28] It was issued by the People's Publishing House, the publishing house associated with the Communist Party of India. No essay carries a note of earlier publication, and the volume gives no biography of any contributor. Internal clues allow only rough dating: Sharma opens by referring to the Buddha Jayanti celebrations, which suggests about 1956–57 (an inference), and Balaramamoorty cites a Moscow edition of Marx and Engels of 1949.[29] Sankrityayan's essay is a translation, and the essays may therefore predate the volume, but the sources do not establish this.

Y. Balaramamoorty

[edit]

Balaramamoorty argues that the Buddha was the first Indian thinker to make dialectics the central core of his philosophy, against the metaphysics of the Upanishads, and reads impermanence and dependent origination as the law of contradiction: "Monarchy, social tyranny, slavery, inequality — all are temporary."[30] Buddhism, he writes, raised the slogan of revolt and attacked the varna order, and stood to the transition from slavery to serfdom as the French slogans of liberty, equality, and fraternity stood to modern Europe.[31] He sets limits: its dialectics is rooted "not in materialism but only in realism," rebirth enters "by the backdoor," and nirvana as a changeless state contradicts the dialectics; he regards the Vaibhashika and Sautrantika schools as nearest to modern materialism, with a literature mainly in Chinese that awaits translation.[32]

Ram Bilas Sharma

[edit]

Sharma's essay is the sharpest criticism of Buddhism in the volume. Siddhartha belonged to the Sakya gana, but the Buddha's field of activity was the feudal monarchies of Magadha and Kosala and not the ganas, and in Sharma's words he "supplied a state-religion, a well-organised church," because he left the basic contradiction between small producers and exploiters untouched.[33] The cessation of desire spoke of greed and suffering in general and not of class greed, and salvation by self-purification is acceptable to ruling classes and discourages the organization of the masses; the teaching of impermanence is "a philosophy of resignation and not of struggle."[34] He calls the Buddha an idealist in method and outlook, using Sankrityayan's Bauddh Darshan (pp. 16–17, 30–31, 33) against Buddhist logic and for the claim that wealthy princes and merchants funded Buddhism.[35]

Mulk Raj Anand

[edit]

Anand's essay "The Nature of Buddhist Art" is art-historical and is outside the scope of the RBP. Its Marxist argument comes in the closing pages: village republics with communal land rights, and the folk creativity of the laity, gave Buddhist art its vitality, and the art owed more to the pooled resources of the laity than to the impositions of monks or the upper orders.[36]

Disagreements among the Essays

[edit]

The essays do not share a single verdict, and the volume does not reconcile them. On materialism, Sharma holds that the middle path rejects materialism and makes the Buddha an idealist; Balaramamoorty finds the dialectics grounded in realism and not in materialism; Sankrityayan finds "several features of advanced materialism" in Buddhism while noting that Buddhists refused the name; and Chattopadhyaya describes the Mahavastu origin story, though not the doctrine, as "stark materialism — though a primitive and naive one."[37] On the class character of the sangha, Chattopadhyaya calls the samghas "classless organisations within the framework of the class society," an "illusion" of the equality of primitive communism that explains both Buddhism's success and its later fate as a state religion; Sharma reads the same Vinaya rule, the exclusion of runaway slaves, as showing the outlook of propertied classes and not the grandeur of primitive communism; and Balaramamoorty stresses a revolutionary opposition to varna and monarchy.[38] On the political base, Sankrityayan writes that the Buddha preferred the political system of the republics, Chattopadhyaya that he drew on the tribal ganas while rejecting Jayaswal's republican-state reading, and Sharma that his field was the monarchies, although Sharma relies on Jayaswal.[39]

What the Volume Does Not Discuss

[edit]

In the pages read, none of the five essays mentions Ambedkar, Dalit or untouchable movements, or the mass conversions of 1956. Balaramamoorty writes that Buddhism as a religion is now practically extinct in India, and Sharma complains that the passivity of individual salvation remains popular with certain leaders and thinkers, without naming any.[40] The Communist-orbit reading of Buddhism at this date thus appears entirely disconnected from the Ambedkarite movement.

Later Syntheses

[edit]

Sharad Patil

[edit]

Sharad Patil (1925–2014) was a Marathi historian, Sanskritist, and political organizer who tried to join Marxism with the thought of Phule and Ambedkar and, later, with Buddhist epistemology. However, this account rests on one chapter, by Sarwate, with name-level mentions in the volume edited by Pradeep Gokhale.[41] Born on 17 September 1925 into a Satyashodhak family in Dhule district, Khandesh, he joined the communist student movement, worked as an artist for the party, and was a full-time activist of the CPI(M) from its founding in 1964 until 1978, when he left after an internal struggle over caste and founded the Satyashodhak Communist Party.[42] His early program was "Marxism-Phule-Ambedkarism," which he later described as a historical document, and from the early 2000s he developed what he called "Sautrantika Marxism," joining Marxism to the Sautrantika school of Dignaga and Dharmakirti, and a method of "multilinear historical materialism."[43]

Patil held that Indian Marxists treated caste as superstructure and failed, and that Indian Marxism was itself "inherently Brahmanical."[44] He found that Buddhist impermanence "resonated deeply with dialectics," and he translated dialectics into Marathi as anitya, later kshanikavada.[45] He argued that the Buddha led a revolution that ended slavery based on varna and promoted jati against it, a claim that Sarwate lists among Patil's constructed myths, and he took Dharmakirti's list of signs of ignorance, which includes caste vanity, as the basis of an anti-caste epistemology.[46] He faulted Ambedkar's account of jati as static and unhistorical.[47] The reception is divided: Gail Omvedt criticized his reliance on literary rather than archaeological evidence, and Gokhale said that applying Buddhist idealist philosophies against caste is "like using an axe to shave one's beard," while Sarwate calls Patil's categories coherent and internally consistent.[48]

Tulsi Ram

[edit]

The Hindi Dalit writer Tulsi Ram (1949–2015), a professor of international studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University and a specialist on the former Soviet Union, is a minor case. Kapoor's reading of his autobiography Murdahiya (2010) describes a life shaped by the communist movement and by an intimate relationship with Buddhism as a possible anti-caste outlook; no formal conversion or organizational Buddhist role appears in the pages read.[49]

Marxist Readings and the Ambedkarite Movement

[edit]

Ambedkar's own comparison of Buddhism and Marxism, in "Buddha or Karl Marx" and in his Kathmandu address of 1956, is covered on his page, since it compares the two as rival remedies and is not a Marxist reading of Buddhism; see B.R. Ambedkar. Geetha shows that he worked with the Communist Party in Bombay in the 1930s, but that the communists were not willing to join him in exploring the connected worlds of labor, caste, and class, and that he did not consider himself a socialist while socialism remained a presence in his thought.[50] Her survey of earlier Marxist historians of India, among them S.A. Dange, M.N. Roy, and Bhupendranath Dutta, finds Buddhism entering only as a field of class struggle in Dutta's reading.[51] Gopal Guru credits the manifesto of the Dalit Panthers with first bringing Ambedkar and Marx together and argues that Ambedkar's Buddhism can be neither reduced to Marxism nor opposed to it.[52] The manifesto itself criticizes the Communist Party of India for failing to combine class struggle with the struggle against untouchability;[53] Sharad Patil approached the question from the opposite side, as a communist who turned to Phule and Ambedkar. An earlier overlap of Buddhism and communism, in the person of M. Singaravelu in Madras, is treated on the page Tamil Buddhist Movement.

Literature in English

[edit]
  • Sarwate, [given name] (2025). "The Caste Subconscious and the Dialectical Logic of Sharad Patil". In: Banerjee, Prathama (Ed.), Textual Lives of Caste Across the Ages: Hierarchy, Humanity and Equality in Indian History: 211–227. Bloomsbury Academic. [The only extended English study of Patil and the sole evidential base for his life and ideas here. Its critiques of Ambedkar and of Indian Marxists are Patil's, reported by the author.]
  • Ober, Douglas (2023). Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India. Stanford University Press. [Chapter 6, "When the Buddha Met Marx" (pp. 227–251), is the fullest narrative of the encounter, with accounts of Dharmanand Kosambi, Sankrityayan, and Deva.]
  • Guru, Gopal (2021). "New-Buddhism, Marxism and the Caste Question in India". In: Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.), Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste: 111–126. Routledge. [Argues that Ambedkar's Buddhism can neither be reduced to Marxism nor set against it, and credits the Dalit Panthers' manifesto with first joining Ambedkar and Marx. It is an argument about Ambedkar and says little about the Marxist interpreters on this page.]
  • Geetha, V. (2021). Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India. Palgrave Macmillan. [The fullest study of Ambedkar's relations with socialism and the Communist parties and of the Left's historiography of India. It places Marxist writing on Buddhism in the context of the Left's treatment of caste.]
  • Kosambi, Meera (Ed.) (2010). Dharmanand Kosambi: The Essential Writings. Permanent Black. [English translations of Dharmanand Kosambi's writings on the sangha and socialism, with an Introduction that makes the editor's own arguments about his priority and his influence on Ambedkar.]
  • Sankrityayan, Rahul, Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, Y. Balaramamoorty, Ram Bilas Sharma, & Mulk Raj Anand (1970). Buddhism: The Marxist Approach. People's Publishing House. [The primary exhibit for the Communist-orbit reading of Buddhism, with five essays that disagree with one another. It carries no dates of original publication and does not mention Ambedkar.]
  • Kosambi, D.D. (1965). The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline. [A historian's outline of Indian history to the decline of Buddhism, with an economic account of the sangha and its decline. The imprint is unconfirmed.]
  • Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad (1959). Lokāyata: A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism. People's Publishing House (7th ed. 1992). [Chapter VII, "Samgha and Niyati," is the longest Marxist argument about early Buddhism by an Indian author; chapter V treats Buddhist Tantra. Influential in Marxist Indology.]

Literature in Other Languages

[edit]
  • Deva, Narendra (1956). बौद्ध-धर्म-दर्शन Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan [Buddhist Religion and Philosophy]. Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad. [Deva's scholarly treatise, with a memoir and tributes that supply the attributed synthesis of Marxism and Buddhism. Hindi.]
  • Sankrityayan, Rahul (1948). बौद्ध दर्शन Bauddh Darshan [Buddhist Philosophy]. Kitab Mahal. [The source of Sankrityayan's class reading of Buddhist history and philosophy; second edition, with a first chapter of 1932 added. Hindi.]
  • Kosambi, Dharmanand (1935). हिंदी संस्कृति आणि अहिंसा Hindi Sanskriti ani Ahimsa [Indian Civilization and Non-violence]. [His fullest work of political theory, in which a Marxist scheme of history is tempered by Buddhist and Jain non-violence. Marathi.]
  • Patil, Sharad (1993). मार्क्सवाद-फुले-आंबेडकरवाद Marxvad-Phule-Ambedkarvad. Sugava. [The programmatic statement of "Marxism-Phule-Ambedkarism," known to the project only through Sarwate's report. Marathi.]

How to Cite This Article

[edit]

Brons, Lajos (2026). "Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India". The Radical Buddhism Project. Version of 27 October 2026. http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Marxist_Interpretations_of_Buddhism_in_India.

Notes

[edit]
  1. ↑ Geetha, V. (2021). Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 51–52, 85, 117–119, 159–160, 221.
  2. ↑ Ober, Douglas (2023). Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India. Stanford University Press, pp. 227–251 and endnotes to chapter 6 (pp. 329–332).
  3. ↑ Ober (2023), Dust on the Throne, pp. 232–233, quoting Kosambi, Dharmanand (1910). Kesari, 25 October 1910, in the translation of Kosambi, Meera (Ed.) (2010). Dharmanand Kosambi: The Essential Writings. Permanent Black, Selection 5.
  4. ↑ Ober (2023), Dust on the Throne, pp. 233–234.
  5. ↑ Ober (2023), Dust on the Throne, pp. 237–238, 240–241; M. Kosambi (Ed.) (2010), Essential Writings, Selection 7.
  6. ↑ Ober (2023), Dust on the Throne, p. 241.
  7. ↑ M. Kosambi (Ed.) (2010), Essential Writings, Introduction, endnotes 24–34.
  8. ↑ Sankrityayan, Rahul (1935). साम्यवाद ही क्यों? [Why Communism?]. Kitab Mahal (3rd ed. 1943), p. 38; Sankrityayan, Rahul (1948). बौद्ध दर्शन [Bauddh Darshan]. Kitab Mahal (2nd ed.), p. 30
  9. ↑ Sankrityayan (1948), Bauddh Darshan, p. 59.
  10. ↑ Sankrityayan (1970), "Buddhist Dialectics". Ober (2023), n. 22 (p. 332), says the essay first appeared in New Age in 1956 and was republished under other titles.
  11. ↑ Joshi, Maya (2009). "Rahul Sankrityayan's Journeys of the Self: Nation, Culture, Identity". Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences 16(1&2): 119–147, pp. 136–138.
  12. ↑ Deva, Narendra (1956). बौद्ध-धर्म-दर्शन Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan [Buddhist Religion and Philosophy]. Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad, front matter pp. 52–56 (tribute by Jagannath Upadhyaya) and 71 (preface by Sri Prakasa); Deva, Narendra (1979). Towards Socialist Society. Ed. Brahmanand. Centre of Applied Politics, foreword and p. 7; Ober (2023), Dust on the Throne, p. 250.
  13. ↑ Deva (1979), Towards Socialist Society, pp. 283–286, 302–306; Deva (1956), Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan, pp. 1–3, 12–15, 31.
  14. ↑ Ankit, Rakesh (2017). "Marxist Guru, Socialist Neta, Buddhist Acharya, Gandhi's Shishya: the many Narendra Deva(s) (1889–1956)". Global Intellectual History (online first, 6 September 2017). DOI: 10.1080/23801883.2017.1370241, pp. 6, 14 (offprint pagination). The characterization is the author's own verdict.
  15. ↑ Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad (1959). Lokāyata: A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism. People's Publishing House (7th ed. 1992), pp. 468–469, 489; Sharma, Ram Bilas (1970). "Some Aspects of the Teaching of Buddha". In: Buddhism: The Marxist Approach: 54–65. People's Publishing House, pp. 54–55.
  16. ↑ M. Kosambi (Ed.) (2010), Essential Writings, Introduction.
  17. ↑ Kosambi, D.D. (1965). The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline.
  18. ↑ Chattopadhyaya (1959), Lokāyata.
  19. ↑ Chattopadhyaya (1959), Lokāyata, pp. xii, xvi, xviii.
  20. ↑ Chattopadhyaya (1959), Lokāyata, pp. 459–467.
  21. ↑ Chattopadhyaya (1959), Lokāyata, pp. 468–475, 483–494.
  22. ↑ Chattopadhyaya (1959), Lokāyata, pp. 494–504, 507.
  23. ↑ Chattopadhyaya (1959), Lokāyata, pp. 507, 524.
  24. ↑ Chattopadhyaya (1959), Lokāyata, pp. 483–493; Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad (1970). "Some Problems of Early Buddhism". In: Buddhism: The Marxist Approach: 9–36. People's Publishing House, p. 14, where he adds that this does not make the Buddha a communist.
  25. ↑ Kosambi (1965), Culture and Civilisation, PDF 22, 24, 28, 94, 107. Both PDF 22 and PDF 28 must be cited, since they say different things.
  26. ↑ Sarwate, [given name] (2025). "The Caste Subconscious and the Dialectical Logic of Sharad Patil". In: Banerjee, Prathama (Ed.), Textual Lives of Caste Across the Ages: Hierarchy, Humanity and Equality in Indian History: 211–227. Bloomsbury Academic, p. 213.
  27. ↑ Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1994). "From Buddha to Marx". In: Chattopadhyaya, Alaka (Ed.), Essays in Indology: Birth Centenary Tribute to Mahapandita Rahula Sankrityayana. Manisha Granthalaya, as discussed in Joshi (2009), "Journeys of the Self," p. 138. The essay was not read directly.
  28. ↑ Sankrityayan, Rahul, Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, Y. Balaramamoorty, Ram Bilas Sharma, & Mulk Raj Anand (1970). Buddhism: The Marxist Approach. People's Publishing House. First edition January 1970; second edition September 1973.
  29. ↑ Sharma (1970), "Some Aspects", p. 54; Balaramamoorty, Y. (1970). "Buddhist Philosophy". In: Buddhism: The Marxist Approach: 37–53. People's Publishing House, p. 43.
  30. ↑ Balaramamoorty (1970), "Buddhist Philosophy", pp. 37, 39.
  31. ↑ Balaramamoorty (1970), "Buddhist Philosophy", pp. 42–43.
  32. ↑ Balaramamoorty (1970), "Buddhist Philosophy", pp. 43, 46–48, 52–53.
  33. ↑ Sharma (1970), "Some Aspects", pp. 54–56.
  34. ↑ Sharma (1970), "Some Aspects", pp. 57–58, 65.
  35. ↑ Sharma (1970), "Some Aspects", pp. 58–65.
  36. ↑ Anand, Mulk Raj (1970). "The Nature of Buddhist Art". In: Buddhism: The Marxist Approach: 66–86. People's Publishing House, pp. 67–70, 82–84.
  37. ↑ Sharma (1970), "Some Aspects", pp. 58, 61, 64; Balaramamoorty (1970), "Buddhist Philosophy", pp. 43–46; Sankrityayan (1970), "Buddhist Dialectics", p. 8; Chattopadhyaya (1970), "Some Problems of Early Buddhism", p. 23.
  38. ↑ Chattopadhyaya (1970), "Some Problems of Early Buddhism", pp. 13, 14, 34; Sharma (1970), "Some Aspects", p. 65; Balaramamoorty (1970), "Buddhist Philosophy", pp. 42–43.
  39. ↑ Sankrityayan (1970), "Buddhist Dialectics", p. 2; Chattopadhyaya (1970), "Some Problems of Early Buddhism", pp. 15–19, 23; Sharma (1970), "Some Aspects", pp. 54–56.
  40. ↑ Balaramamoorty (1970), "Buddhist Philosophy", p. 48; Sharma (1970), "Some Aspects", p. 58.
  41. ↑ Sarwate (2025), "The Caste Subconscious", pp. 211–213, 224 n. 2; Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.) (2021). Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste. Routledge, p. xx.
  42. ↑ Sarwate (2025), "The Caste Subconscious", p. 212 and n. 2 (p. 224).
  43. ↑ Sarwate (2025), "The Caste Subconscious", pp. 211–213, 217.
  44. ↑ Sarwate (2025), "The Caste Subconscious", p. 212.
  45. ↑ Sarwate (2025), "The Caste Subconscious", p. 213 and n. 7 (p. 225).
  46. ↑ Sarwate (2025), "The Caste Subconscious", pp. 215–217, 223.
  47. ↑ Sarwate (2025), "The Caste Subconscious", pp. 214, 223.
  48. ↑ Sarwate (2025), "The Caste Subconscious", pp. 212, 222–224.
  49. ↑ Kapoor, [given name] (2025). "Rewriting Life: Caste, Body and Time in Tulsi Ram's Murdahiya". In: Banerjee, Prathama (Ed.), Textual Lives of Caste Across the Ages: 231–243. Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 231–232, 236–240.
  50. ↑ Geetha (2021), Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, pp. 2, 51–52, 85.
  51. ↑ Geetha (2021), Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, pp. 117–119, 159–160.
  52. ↑ Guru, Gopal (2021). "New-Buddhism, Marxism and the Caste Question in India". In: Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.), Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste: 111–126. Routledge, pp. 111, 114, 124.
  53. ↑ Dalit Panthers (1973). Dalit Panthers Manifesto. Bombay, p. 4.
Retrieved from "https://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/index.php?title=Marxist_Interpretations_of_Buddhism_in_India&oldid=1323"