The Radical Buddhism Project - User contributions [en]

Category:Editorial Guidelines

2026-11-01T22:09:05Z

Lajos: Created page with "{{main|Editorial Guidelines}} category:Project"

{{main|Editorial Guidelines}}
[[category:Project]]

Editorial Guidelines - Citation Format

2026-11-01T22:08:25Z

Lajos: Created page with "This page sets out the citation format of the Radical Buddhism Project (RBP). It applies to bibliographies and footnotes on all pages of the wiki, including biographies, country profiles, contextual and topical articles, and the identification lines of texts and translations. General rules are on Editorial Guidelines. The "How to Cite" sections that readers use to cite RBP pages themselves are described on Editorial Guidelines - Encyclopedic Pages and Editorial..."

This page sets out the citation format of the Radical Buddhism Project (RBP). It applies to bibliographies and footnotes on all pages of the wiki, including biographies, country profiles, contextual and topical articles, and the identification lines of texts and translations. General rules are on [[Editorial Guidelines]]. The "How to Cite" sections that readers use to cite RBP pages themselves are described on [[Editorial Guidelines - Encyclopedic Pages]] and [[Editorial Guidelines - Texts and Translations]].

== Full Citation Standards ==
=== Global Formatting Rules for Non-Latin and Foreign Materials ===
* '''Personal Names:''' All personal names must be written in Latin script first, immediately followed by the original script in parentheses if it uses a non-Latin script.
** ''Example:'' Lin Qiuwu (林秋梧)
* '''Title Translations:''' If a book, article, or blog post title is written in a language other than English, the title must be kept in its original language, immediately followed by an English translation enclosed in square brackets.
* '''Journal Titles:''' Journal titles must always be given in their original language/script.

=== Standard Templates by Publication Type and Region ===
All examples of books and articles given below are fictional.

==== Western / English Publications ====
* '''Book:''' Surname, Given Names (Year of First Publication). ''Book Title in Italics''. Publisher.
** ''Example:'' Smith, John Arthur (1934). ''Radical Buddhism in Early Taisho Japan''. Academic Press.
* '''Journal Article:''' Surname, Given Names (Year). "Article Title". ''Journal Title in Italics'' Vol.No: Page Range.
** ''Example:'' Doe, Jane Mary (2012). "Zen and the State: The Case of Uchiyama Gudo". ''Journal of Buddhist Politics'' 14.2: 145–168.
* '''Chapter in Edited Volume:''' Surname, Given Names (Year). "Chapter Title". In: Editor Surname, Given Names (Ed./Eds), ''Volume Title in Italics'': Page Range. Publisher.
** ''Example:'' Doe, Jane Mary (2012). "Zen and the State Revisited". In: Smith, John Arthur (Ed.), ''Essays on Radical Buddhism'': 45–68. Academic Press.

==== Chinese Publications ====
* '''Book / Complete Journal:''' Surname Given Names (Original Script) (Year). 《Book Title in Original Script》 [English Translation of Title]. Publisher.
** ''Example:'' Chen Boqiang (陳伯強) (1932). 《左翼佛教與社會改革》 [Left-wing Buddhism and Social Reform]. Kaiming Book Company.
* '''Journal Article / Book Chapter:''' Surname Given Names (Original Script) (Year). 〈Article Title in Original Script〉 [English Translation of Article Title]. 《Journal Title in Original Script》 Vol.No: Page Range.
** ''Example:'' Wang Zhiming (王志明) (2015). 〈林秋梧的階級鬥爭觀與佛法之融會〉 [The Convergence of Lin Qiuwu's View of Class Struggle and the Buddha-dharma]. 《台灣佛教史學報》 12.3: 88–112.

==== Japanese Publications ====
* '''Book:''' Surname Given Names (Original Script) (Year). 『Book Title in Original Script』 [English Translation of Title]. Publisher.
** ''Example:'' Uno Hiroichi (宇野普一) (1975). 『大正時代の仏教社会主義運動』 [Buddhist Socialist Movements of the Taisho Era]. Shōwa Shuppan.
* '''Journal Article:''' Surname Given Names (Original Script) (Year). 「Article Title in Original Script」 [English Translation of Article Title]. 『Journal Title in Original Script』 Vol.No: Page Range.
** ''Example:'' Tanaka Taro (田中太郎) (1998). 「内山愚童の思想的背景」 [The Ideological Background of Uchiyama Gudo]. 『仏教政治研究』 4.1: 22–45.

==== Blog Posts and Websites ====
* '''Template:''' Surname, Given Names (Original Script) (Year, Month Day). Appropriate Punctuation Title [English Translation]. Appropriate Punctuation Blog Title. URL [Archived via Wayback Machine URL].
** ''Example (English):'' Green, David (2018, March 14). "The Anarchist Monks of Meiji Japan". ''Radical Dharma Blog''. http://example-blog.com [Archived at https://archive.org...]
* '''Mandatory Archiving Rule:''' Before listing any online source or blog post, the editor must submit the live URL to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine (archive.org) to generate a permanent link. Both links must be present in the citation.

=== Multi-Author Name Ordering Rules ===
When a bibliographic item (book, journal article, or blog post) has multiple authors, the names must not be uniformly inverted. Instead, they must follow standard academic indexing conventions:
* '''The First Author Rule:''' The very first author listed must always have their name inverted with the surname first to facilitate clean alphabetical indexing.
** ''Western Template:'' Surname, Given Names
** ''East Asian Template:'' Surname Given Names (Original Script)
** ''Note:'' For East Asian names, natural order already places the surname first, so no comma or reordering is needed. The "inverted" and "natural" forms are identical in this case.
* '''Subsequent Authors Rule:''' All following authors must be listed in their natural, preferred presentation order.
** For Western authors, this means Given Name followed by Surname (e.g., ''David Smith'').
** For East Asian authors, this means preserving their native or preferred ordering, typically Surname followed by Given Name (e.g., ''Tanaka Tarō'' or ''Chen Boqiang'').
* '''Conjunctions:''' Separate authors with commas, and use an ampersand (''&'') before the final author in the list.

==== Examples ====
* ''Example A (Multi-Author English Journal Article):''
** '''Visible Text:''' Doe, Jane Mary, David Smith, & Robert J. Jones (2012). "Zen and the State: The Case of Uchiyama Gudo". ''Journal of Buddhist Politics'' 14.2: 145–168.
* ''Example B (Multi-Author Japanese Publication):''
** '''Visible Text:''' Tanaka Taro (田中太郎), & Uno Hiroichi (宇野普一) (1998). 「内山愚童の思想的背景」 [The Ideological Background of Uchiyama Gudo]. 『仏教政治研究』 4.1: 22–45.
* ''Example C (Multi-Author Chinese Publication):''
** '''Visible Text:''' Wang Zhiming (王志明), & Chen Boqiang (陳伯強) (2015). 〈林秋梧的階級鬥爭觀與佛法之融會〉 [The Convergence of Lin Qiuwu's View of Class Struggle and the Buddha-dharma]. 《台灣佛教史學報》 12.3: 88–112.

=== Special Manuscript and Edition Rules (Books) ===
* '''Primary Listing Target:''' List the most common or readily accessible edition of a text (typically the first edition).
* '''Multi-Edition Handling:''' If the most common edition is a later printing, the primary "(Year)" after the name remains the year of first historical publication. The publisher field at the end must show both the modern publisher and the edition year.
** ''Template:'' Surname, Given Names (Original Year). Title [Translation] (Publisher, Edition Year).
* '''Annotation Offloading:''' Move alternative printings, reprints, or minor manuscript variations to the descriptive annotation beneath the citation.

== Footnote Referencing Standards (Notes) ==
The following rules apply universally to inline footnotes across all categories of pages (biographies, country profiles, topical articles, and the footnotes of translations and original texts).

=== First Mention Rule ===
* '''Standard Formulation:''' The very first time a source is cited inside a page's footnotes, it must use the exact full citation format specified in [[#Full Citation Standards|Full Citation Standards]] above.
* '''Locators:''' A specific page number, section, or chapter number must follow the full citation.
** ''Example (Book):'' Smith, John Arthur (1934). ''Radical Buddhism in Early Taisho Japan''. Academic Press, p. 45.
** ''Example (Journal):'' Doe, Jane Mary (2012). "Zen and the State: The Case of Uchiyama Gudo". ''Journal of Buddhist Politics'' 14.2: 145–168, sec. 3.

=== Subsequent Mention Rule ===
* '''Standard Formulation:''' Every subsequent time the exact same source is cited on that same page, it must be shortened to prevent footnote bloat. The shorthand string requires the author's surname, the publication year, and an abbreviated version of the title.
* '''Title Typography Rules:''' The abbreviated title must preserve the original source's typography style:
** Use ''italics'' for books, journals, or complete volumes.
** Use "quotation marks" for Western journal articles, chapters, or blog posts.
** Use 「」 for Japanese articles/chapters and 『』 for Japanese books/journals.
** Use 〈〉 for Chinese articles/chapters and 《》 for Chinese books/journals.
* '''Locators:''' Append the specific page, chapter, or section numbers to the end of the shorthand string.
** ''Example (Book Subsequent):'' Smith (1934), ''Radical Buddhism'', pp. 88–89.
** ''Example (Western Article Subsequent):'' Doe (2012), "Zen and the State", p. 150.
** ''Example (Japanese Book Subsequent):'' Uno (1975), 『大正時代の仏教』, p. 12.
** ''Example (Chinese Article Subsequent):'' Wang (2015), 〈林秋梧的階級鬥爭〉, sec. 2.

[[category:Project]]
[[category:Editorial Guidelines]]

Editorial Guidelines - Encyclopedic Pages

2026-11-01T22:08:05Z

Lajos: Created page with "This page sets out the editorial rules for the encyclopedic pages of the Radical Buddhism Project (RBP): biographies, country profiles, and contextual and topical articles. General rules (tone, American English, page titles, authorship) are on Editorial Guidelines. The format for citations is on Editorial Guidelines - Citation Format. Rules for the text archive are on Editorial Guidelines - Texts and Translations. == Biographical Pages == === Page Section Ar..."

This page sets out the editorial rules for the encyclopedic pages of the Radical Buddhism Project (RBP): biographies, country profiles, and contextual and topical articles. General rules (tone, American English, page titles, authorship) are on [[Editorial Guidelines]]. The format for citations is on [[Editorial Guidelines - Citation Format]]. Rules for the text archive are on [[Editorial Guidelines - Texts and Translations]].

== Biographical Pages ==
=== Page Section Architecture ===
Every biographical entry must strictly adhere to the following eight-part sequence:
# '''Introduction:''' 100–200 words summarizing who the figure was, their Buddhist tradition, core ideological alignment, and historical significance to radical Buddhism.
# '''Biography:''' 250–1,000 words providing a chronological narrative of their life, traditional training, ordination (if applicable), political awakening, activist years, and state response or legacy.
# '''Ideas:''' An analytical synthesis of their specific philosophical and theological innovations, detailing how they reconciled radical politics (e.g., socialism, anarchism, anti-imperialism) with the Dharma, alongside their critiques of mainstream Buddhist institutions.
# '''Writings:''' A chronological catalog of the author's own texts. (See the rules below.)
# '''Secondary Literature in English:''' A selective, reverse-chronological bibliography of English scholarly analysis. (See [[#Shared Rules for Literature Sections|the shared rules for literature sections]].)
# '''Secondary Literature in Other Languages:''' A hyper-selective, reverse-chronological bibliography of analysis written in non-English languages. (See [[#Shared Rules for Literature Sections|the shared rules for literature sections]].)
# '''How to Cite This Article:''' A pre-formatted citation block mirroring APA style rules for readers to reference the entry. (See [[#How to Cite This Article|below]].)
# '''Notes:''' The references (footnotes) triggered by <code><nowiki><references /></nowiki></code>.

=== Specific Rules for the "Writings" Section ===
* '''Scope of Inclusion:''' Prioritize any and all texts that directly concern radical Buddhism, engaged Buddhism, or social critiques.
* '''Cutoff Point:''' Prolific non-political works (e.g., traditional doctrinal commentaries, general poetry) may be listed if they are highly famous or influential. Truncate long lists at the editor's discretion to maintain focus.
* '''Ordering:''' Strictly chronological (earliest published to latest).
* '''Annotations:''' Each item should ideally be followed by 1–3 sentences providing a short summary or vital contextual information. This text must focus strictly on the specific document and must not duplicate the broader ideological analysis already provided in the "Ideas" section. Annotations are formatted by means of the <code><nowiki>{{annotation|...}}</nowiki></code> template, where the annotation goes on the dots.

== Country Profiles ==
=== Page Section Architecture ===
Every country profile entry must strictly adhere to the following seven-part sequence:
# '''Introduction:''' 100–200 words contextualizing the nation's political-religious landscape, summarizing core historical eras, and outlining main socio-political tensions.
# '''Buddhism in [Country]:''' 250–1,000 words tracing a macro chronological history of mainstream Buddhism, institutional structures, primary traditions, and the relationship between the state and the sangha. (Anything in this section that can be considered common knowledge does not require references.)
# '''Radical Buddhism in [Country]:''' A focused historical narrative tracking the emergence of left-wing, activist, or dissident Buddhist trends, highlighting domestic crises (e.g., colonialism, land poverty, imperial militarism, caste oppression) that mobilized monastics and laypeople. (See the constraints below.)
# '''Literature in English:''' A selective, reverse-chronological bibliography. (See [[#Shared Rules for Literature Sections|the shared rules for literature sections]].)
# '''Literature in Other Languages:''' A hyper-selective, reverse-chronological bibliography of source-language regional texts (e.g., Japanese, Chinese, Thai). (See [[#Shared Rules for Literature Sections|the shared rules for literature sections]].)
# '''How to Cite This Article:''' A pre-formatted citation block mirroring APA style rules for readers to reference the specific country entry. (See [[#How to Cite This Article|below]].)
# '''Notes:''' The references (footnotes) triggered by <code><nowiki><references /></nowiki></code>.

=== Specific Constraints for the "Radical Buddhism in [Country]" Section ===
* '''Anti-Duplication Rule:''' To prevent structural bloat, this narrative must not become excessively long by duplicating extensive text from individual biography pages. Instead, it must rely heavily on internal links to those specific individuals.
* '''Prominent Individual Subsections:''' If a specific individual is exceptionally critical to that nation's radical Buddhist history, editors may create a dedicated low-level subsection for them within this section.
** This subsection must provide a concise explanation of their relevance, restricted strictly to '''100–200 words'''.
** The top of this subsection must feature a standardized "main article" link template pointing directly to the individual's full biography page.
*** ''Syntax Example:'' <code><nowiki>{{Main|Uchiyama Gudo}}</nowiki></code>

== Contextual and Topical Articles ==
=== Purpose and Scope ===
The primary function of this category is to act as an "overflow valve" for biographical and country profile pages. To maintain scannability, any highly detailed, extensive discussions of specific events, movements, organizations, or localized historical phenomena must be offloaded into a dedicated contextual article.
* ''Example Strategy:'' If the historical narrative on the country page for Japan becomes bloated due to an extensive discussion of the Ikkō-ikki (一向一揆), that content must be extracted into its own Contextual and Topical Article. The main country page will retain only a short, condensed summary of the event accompanied by a <code><nowiki>{{Main}}</nowiki></code> link template pointing to the new page.

=== Page Section Architecture ===
Every contextual or topical entry must include the following sections:
# '''Introduction:''' 100–200 words defining the movement, event, or concept, its historical window, and its direct relevance to radical Buddhism.
# The '''core body''' of the page, clearly broken down with descriptive subheadings.
# '''Literature in English:''' A selective, reverse-chronological bibliography tailored to the topic. (See [[#Shared Rules for Literature Sections|the shared rules for literature sections]].)
# '''Literature in Other Languages:''' A hyper-selective, reverse-chronological bibliography of source-language regional texts. (See [[#Shared Rules for Literature Sections|the shared rules for literature sections]].)
# '''How to Cite This Article:''' A pre-formatted citation block mirroring APA style rules for readers to reference the topical entry. (See [[#How to Cite This Article|below]].)
# '''Notes:''' The references (footnotes) triggered by <code><nowiki><references /></nowiki></code>.

== Shared Rules for Literature Sections ==
The following rules apply to the "Secondary Literature in English," "Secondary Literature in Other Languages," "Literature in English," and "Literature in Other Languages" sections of every biography, country profile, and contextual or topical article. Each entry is formatted according to [[Editorial Guidelines - Citation Format]].
* '''Ordering:''' Strictly reverse-chronological (most recent to oldest).
* '''The Selectivity Triad:''' Curate entries based on three core values:
** ''Recent:'' Prioritize modern scholarship that updates or refines older views.
** ''Free Open Access:'' Highly prefer peer-reviewed, open-source materials to maximize reader accessibility.
** ''Influential:'' Prioritize foundational, heavily cited, or groundbreaking scholarly works.
* '''Academic Threshold:''' In principle, only published scholarly work qualifies for inclusion.
* '''The Exclusion Clause:''' Non-scholarly online sources, blog posts, or self-published materials are barred, ''except'' when virtually no academic literature has been published about the subject, or a particular online source is demonstrably influential in the discourse.
* '''Hyper-Selectivity:''' The "Other Languages" section must be curated even more strictly than the English section. Limit it to definitive source-language texts or major international breakthroughs.
* '''Single Language Rule:''' If all literature in the "Other Languages" section is in the same language, replace "Other Languages" in the section title with the name of that language.
* '''Annotations:''' Each source requires a brief, 1–3 sentence annotation highlighting its specific value, scope, or methodology without duplicating content from other sections. Annotations are formatted by means of the <code><nowiki>{{annotation|...}}</nowiki></code> template, where the annotation goes on the dots.

== How to Cite This Article ==
To provide readers with clean, stable citations for compiled entries, the penultimate section of every encyclopedic page (biography, country profile, and contextual or topical article) must feature a copyable text box using the template below. The name ordering rules and the hidden authorship change log are defined on [[Editorial Guidelines#Conventions for Citation Blocks|the main Editorial Guidelines page]].

=== Citation Structural Template ===
Surname, Given Name [First Main Author], Natural Name [Subsequent Main Authors], & Natural Name [Other Authors] (Year of Last Change). "Title of Wiki Page". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of Exact Date of Last Change (DD Month YYYY). URL.

=== Examples ===
* ''Example A (Single Main Author, No Secondary Contributors):''
** '''Visible Text:''' Smith, John Arthur (2026). "Uchiyama Gudo". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of 14 May 2026. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Uchiyama_Gudo</nowiki>.
* ''Example B (Multiple Main Authors + Appended "Other" Authors following an authorized revision):''
** '''Visible Text:''' Chen, David, John Arthur Smith, & Jane Mary Doe (2026). "Taiwan". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of 13 July 2026. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Taiwan</nowiki>.

=== Example of the Section Code ===
<pre><nowiki>== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "Wen Guangxi". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Wen_Guangxi</nowiki>.</nowiki></pre>

[[category:Project]]
[[category:Editorial Guidelines]]

Editorial Guidelines - Texts and Translations

2026-11-01T22:07:50Z

Lajos: Created page with "This page sets out the editorial rules for the text archive of the Radical Buddhism Project (RBP): original source texts and their English translations. It covers page titles and archival codes, the standard page layout, page markers, the transcription and translation conventions, and the treatment of damaged and censored passages. General rules (tone, American English, authorship) are on Editorial Guidelines. Rules for encyclopedic pages are on Editorial Guideline..."

This page sets out the editorial rules for the text archive of the Radical Buddhism Project (RBP): original source texts and their English translations. It covers page titles and archival codes, the standard page layout, page markers, the transcription and translation conventions, and the treatment of damaged and censored passages. General rules (tone, American English, authorship) are on [[Editorial Guidelines]]. Rules for encyclopedic pages are on [[Editorial Guidelines - Encyclopedic Pages]]. The format for citations is on [[Editorial Guidelines - Citation Format]].

== Page Titles and Archival Codes ==
All pages in the text archive are titled with an archival code, never with the literal title of the text. The general titling restrictions that apply to every page on the wiki are on [[Editorial Guidelines#Page Titling and URL Conventions|the main Editorial Guidelines page]]. The formula for the archival codes is repeated here for convenience.

{{:Editorial Guidelines}}

== Page Layout ==
Every original text page and every translation page must follow the same layout, in the order given below. Sections marked "optional" are left out when they would be empty.

{| class="wikitable"
! Order !! Element !! Original text page !! Translation page
|-
| 1 || Identification line || Required || Required
|-
| 2 || Table of contents || Required || Required
|-
| 3 || Main section || <code><nowiki>== Text ==</nowiki></code> || <code><nowiki>== Translation ==</nowiki></code>
|-
| 4 || <code><nowiki>== Translation Notes ==</nowiki></code> || Not used || Optional
|-
| 5 || <code><nowiki>== Source Note ==</nowiki></code> || Optional || Optional
|-
| 6 || <code><nowiki>== How to Cite This Page ==</nowiki></code> || Required || Required
|-
| 7 || <code><nowiki>== Notes ==</nowiki></code> || Required if the page has endnotes || Required if the page has endnotes
|-
| 8 || Copyright status banner || Required || Required
|-
| 9 || Categories || Required || Required
|}

=== 1. Identification Line ===
The first line of the page identifies the '''original''' text in the RBP citation style (see [[Editorial Guidelines - Citation Format]]), including the publisher or journal details of the edition used. The identification line is the same on the original text page and on its translation page, except for the links described below.
* '''Author:''' The author's name links to the author's biography in the RBP.
* '''Original-language title:''' On a translation page, the original-language title links to the original text page if it is available in the RBP. On the original text page itself, it is not linked.
* '''English title:''' The English translation of the title is placed between square brackets. On an original text page, it links to the translation page if a translation is available in the RBP. On the translation page itself, it is not linked.
* '''Square brackets around a link:''' Write the square brackets as <code><nowiki>[</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code> when they directly enclose a link, to avoid confusion with wiki link syntax.

''Example (original text page UG08MKK):''
<pre><nowiki>[[Uchiyama Gudo|Uchiyama Gudō (内山愚童)]] (1908). 『無政府共産革命』 [[[UG08MKK-T|Anarcho-Communist Revolution]]]. Publisher Name.</nowiki></pre>

''Example (translation page UG08MKK-T):''
<pre><nowiki>[[Uchiyama Gudo|Uchiyama Gudō (内山愚童)]] (1908). 『[[UG08MKK|無政府共産革命]]』 [Anarcho-Communist Revolution]. Publisher Name.</nowiki></pre>

(The publisher in these examples is a placeholder.)

=== 2. Table of Contents ===
Directly below the identification line, insert the following code, which displays the table of contents without section numbers: <code><nowiki><div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div></nowiki></code>

=== 3. Main Section: Text or Translation ===
The main section is titled <code><nowiki>== Text ==</nowiki></code> on an original text page and <code><nowiki>== Translation ==</nowiki></code> on a translation page. It contains the full text, with page markers as described in [[#Page Markers and Pagination|Page Markers and Pagination]].

'''Heading levels.''' Level 2 headings (<code><nowiki>==</nowiki></code>) are reserved for the standard sections of the page layout. Headings that belong to the text itself (parts, chapters, sections) start at level 3 (<code><nowiki>===</nowiki></code>) and go down from there. Page markers are not headings and never appear in the table of contents.

=== 4. Translation Notes (optional; translation pages only) ===
The section <code><nowiki>== Translation Notes ==</nowiki></code> contains explanations and comments about the translation that cannot fit in endnotes (for example, the rendering of a key term used throughout the text, or the translator's approach to a particularly difficult passage).

=== 5. Source Note (optional) ===
The section <code><nowiki>== Source Note ==</nowiki></code> explains the source of the text if it differs from the edition given in the identification line, together with any related information (for example, other editions, manuscript variants, or the history of the text's transmission).

=== 6. How to Cite This Page ===
The section <code><nowiki>== How to Cite This Page ==</nowiki></code> is a variant of the "How to Cite This Article" section on encyclopedic pages. It includes the usual hidden authorship change log. Author names follow the rules for personal names in [[Editorial Guidelines - Citation Format]] (Latin script first, followed by the original script in parentheses). The name ordering rules for translators are on [[Editorial Guidelines#Conventions for Citation Blocks|the main Editorial Guidelines page]]. Unlike the citation on encyclopedic pages, the citation credits the author of the text, and for translations also the translator(s), and the year in parentheses is the year of original publication.

''Template (translation page):''
Author Name (Original Publication Year). Title. Translated by Translator Name(s). ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of Exact Date of Last Change (DD Month YYYY). URL.

''Template (original text page):''
Author Name (Original Publication Year). Original-Language Title [English Title]. ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of Exact Date of Last Change (DD Month YYYY). URL.

The title is formatted according to the typography rules for its type and language in [[Editorial Guidelines - Citation Format]] (italics for book-length works, quotation marks for articles and other short pieces; corner brackets for Japanese and Chinese titles).

''Example (translation page):''
<pre><nowiki>== How to Cite This Page ==

Uchiyama Gudō (内山愚童) (1908). ''Anarcho-Communist Revolution''. Translated by John Arthur Smith. ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/UG08MKK-T</nowiki>.</nowiki></pre>

''Example (original text page):''
<pre><nowiki>== How to Cite This Page ==

Uchiyama Gudō (内山愚童) (1908). 『無政府共産革命』 [Anarcho-Communist Revolution]. ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/UG08MKK</nowiki>.</nowiki></pre>

The person who transcribed an original text is not named in the visible citation. Transcribers (and translators) are recorded in the hidden change log.

=== 7. Notes ===
If the page has endnotes, the section <code><nowiki>== Notes ==</nowiki></code> follows the "How to Cite This Page" section and contains only the code <code><nowiki><references /></nowiki></code>. The MediaWiki Cite extension is used for all endnotes.

=== 8. Copyright Status Banner ===
Every original text and translation page must carry a copyright status banner at the very bottom of the page, after the Notes section. Look up the appropriate banner in [[:Category:Copyright Policy]]; the available banners may change over time, so always check the category rather than relying on a remembered name. If none of the banners fits, use [[Template:Gray Banner]] to create a custom banner.

=== 9. Categories ===
The categories follow the copyright banner.
* '''Original text pages:''' <code><nowiki>[[Category:Author Name]]</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>[[Category:Original texts in Language]]</nowiki></code>
* '''Translation pages:''' <code><nowiki>[[Category:Author Name]]</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>[[Category:Translations from Language]]</nowiki></code>

For the author category, use the author's name as it appears in the title of the author's biography page.

== Page Markers and Pagination ==
To ensure absolute fidelity to the historical archive, original text transcriptions must mirror the exact pagination of the primary source edition used. Page markers serve as the low-level anchoring system across the database and must be inserted precisely where the physical page transitions, regardless of whether this split occurs in the middle of a sentence, clause, or compound phrase. Translations mirror the page markers of their original texts, so that the text pairs remain locked in sequence. Page markers are templates, not headings, so they do not appear in the table of contents.

=== Page Markers in Original Texts ===
* '''Standard Rule:''' Every new physical page of the source edition is introduced by a page marker.
** If there is an English translation of the text in the RBP wiki, use <code><nowiki>{{tpage|#}}</nowiki></code>, replacing "#" with the page number.
** If there is '''no''' English translation of the text in the RBP wiki, use <code><nowiki>{{page|#}}</nowiki></code>, replacing "#" with the page number.
* '''Changing Status:''' When a translation of a text is added to the wiki, all <code><nowiki>{{page|#}}</nowiki></code> markers on the original text page must be changed to <code><nowiki>{{tpage|#}}</nowiki></code> at the same time.

=== Page Markers in Translations ===
* '''Standard Rule:''' Every page segment of the translation must match the original layout by being introduced by a page marker with the same page number as the original.
** If the original text is available in the RBP wiki, use <code><nowiki>{{opage|#}}</nowiki></code>, replacing "#" with the page number.
** If the original text is '''not''' available in the RBP wiki, use <code><nowiki>{{page|#}}</nowiki></code>, replacing "#" with the page number.
* '''Changing Status:''' When the original text is added to the wiki, all <code><nowiki>{{page|#}}</nowiki></code> markers on the translation page must be changed to <code><nowiki>{{opage|#}}</nowiki></code> at the same time.

=== Mid-Sentence Placement ===
* '''Character-Level Splitting:''' In an original text, the page marker must be placed directly between the two characters where the physical page split occurs in the source document. Do not wait for a sentence, clause, or punctuation mark to end.
* '''No Added Marks:''' When a page marker splits an original sentence or word block, do not insert Western-style hyphens, spacing, or editorial punctuation to indicate the break. The text must simply resume naturally after the page marker.

=== Determining Translation Page Breaks ===
Because Asian languages use vastly different syntax and word orders compared to English, finding the precise point to split an English translation to match an original page break is structurally difficult (especially in Japanese, due to trailing verbs and modifying clauses). Translators must navigate this anchoring using the following priority system:
* '''Priority 1 (The Exact Syntactic Split):''' Wherever possible, the translator must place the English page marker at the exact point in the English sentence that corresponds to the semantic transition in the original text. This means a single English sentence will frequently be split across two page markers.
* '''Priority 2 (The Sentence Boundary Exception):''' If an original page break occurs at a point where the Japanese or Chinese syntax is so deeply inverted that splitting the English sentence creates complete gibberish or destroys the meaning of the passage, the translator may place the page marker at the nearest logical grammatical boundary (such as the end of the immediate English clause or sentence).

=== Typography for Split English Sentences ===
* '''No Mechanical Hyphenation:''' If an English sentence or phrase must be split across a page marker, do not use hyphens or ellipses at the end of the line. Capitalize the first word of the text resuming after the page marker only if it marks the start of a completely new sentence. Otherwise, let it resume in lowercase.
** ''Syntax Example (English Split):''
<pre><nowiki>
He argued passionately for the complete overthrow of the imperial
{{opage|2}}
system and the liberation of the agricultural class.
</nowiki></pre>

=== Interface Integration Note ===
Custom MediaWiki interface templates render functional user toggle buttons at the page markers. This allows readers to seamlessly switch views between these precise anchor points and their matching segments in the English translation. This section will be extended once those specific template codes are finalized.

== Style Guide for Original Texts ==
=== Script Authenticity and Integrity ===
* Original texts must preserve the exact script used in the primary historical edition or publication chosen for the archive.
* '''No Forced Simplification:''' Do not convert Traditional Chinese characters to Simplified Chinese for historical texts predating the change or texts sourced from regions like Taiwan.
* '''Modern Japanese Standard:''' Modern editions already using Shinjitai (新字体) characters are accepted as-is; manual retroactive conversion back to Kyūjitai (旧字体) characters is not required.



=== Footnotes ===
Notes in an original text are created with the MediaWiki Cite extension and collected in the Notes section described in [[#7. Notes|the page layout]].

== Style Guide for Translations ==
=== Scope and Translation Register ===
* Applies to the generated English editions corresponding directly to the preserved source texts.
* The register must be rigorously academic. Translations are not strictly literal word-for-word substitutions but must stay as close to the original text as possible.

=== Inline Translation Conventions: Names and Terminology ===
To balance rigorous academic depth with scannability, translators must adhere to strict rules regarding when and how original scripts are embedded directly into the English translation text.

==== Handling Personal and Place Names ====
* '''First Mention Rule:''' The very first time a personal name, organization, or historical location is mentioned within a translated text, it must be written in Latin script followed immediately by its original native script version enclosed in parentheses.
** ''Example:'' "When Uchiyama Gudō (内山愚童) published his critique of the imperial system..."
* '''Subsequent Mention Rule:''' Every subsequent mention of that same name or entity within the text must use the Latin script alone. Do not repeat the original script.
** ''Example:'' "Following his arrest, Gudō was transported to..."

==== Inline Terminology and Source Script Injections ====
* '''Permitted Cases:''' Translators may inject original language terms (in their original script and/or standard romanization) in parentheses immediately following an English translation for:
*# Unusual, highly niche, or idiosyncratic radical terminology.
*# Particularly dense or hard-to-translate passages.
*# Any critical instance where providing the original text is deemed necessary, important, or useful for scholarly analysis.
* '''The Principle of Parsimony (Sparsity):''' Inline script injections disrupt the flow of reading. Therefore, this practice must be used '''as sparingly as possible'''.
* '''Workflow Guidance:''' If a term requires more than a simple parenthetical script reference to be understood, or if a passage is so difficult that it requires a lengthy linguistic explanation, do not cluster the main text body. Move the analysis to a footnote instead. If the discussion is too long even for a footnote, move it to the "Translation Notes" section described in [[#4. Translation Notes (optional; translation pages only)|the page layout]].

=== Footnotes and Technical Commentary ===
Footnotes are an integral part of the translation and should provide readers with the historical, linguistic, and technical background necessary to understand the source text. Their purpose is to make specialized material accessible without interrupting the flow of the translation itself.

Footnotes should be used whenever they significantly improve the reader's understanding of the text, including (but not limited to):
* '''Technical terminology:''' Explain Buddhist, Marxist, political, philosophical, or other specialized terms that may be unfamiliar to a general academic audience.
* '''Historical context:''' Provide concise background on historical events, organizations, institutions, publications, legal systems, or political circumstances mentioned in the text when they cannot reasonably be assumed to be common knowledge.
* '''People and places:''' Briefly identify historical figures, organizations, geographical locations, or other proper nouns whose significance would not be immediately apparent to most readers.
* '''Language and translation:''' Explain idioms, puns, rhetorical devices, unusual grammatical constructions, culturally specific expressions, or difficult terminology where the English translation alone cannot adequately convey the original meaning.
* '''Textual and editorial issues:''' Record significant variant readings, ambiguities, uncertainties, reconstruction decisions, or other editorial observations that are relevant to the translation.

Footnotes should remain concise and directly relevant to the passage they annotate. They should clarify the text rather than distract from it, and should avoid lengthy digressions unless such discussion is essential for understanding the document.

The MediaWiki Cite extension should be used for all annotation. Citations of sources in footnotes follow [[Editorial Guidelines - Citation Format]]. The Notes section is placed as described in [[#7. Notes|the page layout]].

== Damaged and Censored Passages ==
When transcribing or translating suppressed or physically damaged texts, editors must use specialized inline markers and group definitions to maintain academic transparency. These rules apply to original texts and translations alike.

=== Inline Text Typography Rules ===
* '''Unreadable Passages (Physical Damage/Blurs):''' Use ellipsis inside brackets to mark a gap where text is entirely lost due to page degradation, ink bleeds, or physical tearing.
** ''Example:'' "The group met secretly in [...] to draft the manifesto."
* '''Censored Passages (State Suppression):''' Use a Unicode block character or specific formatting to replicate the look of redacted text blocks or character erasure, depending on the source language layout.
** ''Example (Western/English inline):'' "The movement strongly opposed the ███ government policy."
** ''Example (Asian text original inline context):'' "主张✕✕✕✕主义" (Matching the original print layout as much as possible).

=== Footnote Reconstruction Framework ===
When an editor can confidently reconstruct a censored or damaged passage based on contextual, linguistic, or historical evidence, the reconstruction must be placed into a footnote.
* '''Mandatory Annotation Structure:''' The footnote must explicitly list:
*# The exact location or appearance of the original censorship marker.
*# The proposed editorial reconstruction.
*# The historical, contextual, or linguistic justification for that specific reconstruction.

[[category:Project]]
[[category:Editorial Guidelines]]

Editorial Guidelines

2026-11-01T22:04:27Z

Lajos:

This style guide establishes the formal editorial and formatting standards for the encyclopedia and text archive of the Radical Buddhism Project (RBP). The guidelines are designed to ensure structural consistency and clarity across all encyclopedic profiles, original texts, and translations. They are divided over four pages. This page contains the rules that apply to every page on the wiki.

== The Guideline Pages ==
* '''Editorial Guidelines''' (this page): general writing standards, page titling and archival codes, authorship and revision control, and the conventions for citation blocks.
* [[Editorial Guidelines - Encyclopedic Pages]]: biographies, country profiles, and contextual and topical articles, including the curation rules for their bibliographies.
* [[Editorial Guidelines - Texts and Translations]]: the page layout, transcription, and translation rules for original source texts and their English translations.
* [[Editorial Guidelines - Citation Format]]: how to cite sources in bibliographies and footnotes.

== General Writing Standards ==
* '''Tone:''' All contributions must maintain an objective, rigorous academic tone.
* '''Spelling and punctuation:''' Authors and translators must use American English spelling and punctuation conventions throughout their work.
* '''Serial comma:''' The serial (Oxford) comma is mandatory in all lists of three or more items.



== Page Titling and URL Conventions ==
To ensure universal searchability, technical stability, and ease of academic citability across both international databases and the browser interface, all pages across the entire wiki must adhere to a strict ASCII alphanumeric character set.

=== General Naming Restrictions ===
* '''No Percent-Encoding (% Codes):''' Page titles must strictly use characters that are never replaced by percent codes when a user copies a URL from their browser address bar.
* '''Script Constraints:''' Page titles must be written entirely in the basic Latin script without any diacritics, macrons, or special accents (e.g., use ''Uchiyama Gudo'' instead of ''Uchiyama Gudō'' or ''Uchiyama Gudô'' for the literal page title/URL).
* '''Permitted Characters:''' The permitted characters for titles are restricted to uppercase and lowercase English letters (A–Z, a–z), Arabic numerals (0–9), hyphens ( - ), and underscores ( _ ). Spaces are also permitted; MediaWiki converts them to underscores in the URL. Native non-Latin scripts and specialized phonetic symbols are strictly barred from core page titles.
* '''Cosmetic Masking:''' If a page title requires accurate diacritics or native East Asian scripts for correct academic presentation, the page title must still be created using the clean ASCII rule above. The <code><nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE:...}}</nowiki></code> magic word at the very top of the article body can be used to safely change the ''visible'' page heading for the reader without altering the clean underlying URL. (For example, <code><nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Uchiyama Gudō}}</nowiki></code> will show "Uchiyama Gudō" as the page title, without affecting the URL.)
* '''Links:''' The same restrictions apply to the targets of links and templates (e.g., <code><nowiki>[[Uchiyama Gudo]]</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>{{Main|Uchiyama Gudo}}</nowiki></code>). Use the pipe to show diacritics in the visible link text: <code><nowiki>[[Uchiyama Gudo|Uchiyama Gudō]]</nowiki></code>.

=== Encyclopedic Pages ===
* '''Standard Rule:''' Page titles for Biographies, Country Profiles, and Contextual/Topical Articles must be written entirely in the Latin script.
* '''Original Names:''' Native non-Latin scripts (e.g., Japanese, Chinese, Thai) are strictly barred from core page titles and must instead be placed inside the introduction text.

<onlyinclude>
=== Archival Codes for Original Texts and Translations ===
==== Original Source Text Pages ====
* '''Standard Rule:''' The page title must '''never''' be the literal title of the text. Instead, it must utilize a standardized, alphanumeric archival code written entirely in capital letters.
* '''The Archival Code Formula:''' The code must strictly consist of three distinct components packed together without spaces:
# '''Author Initials:''' Exactly two initials derived from the author's romanized name, ordered with the surname first.
# '''Year Digits:''' The last two digits of the year the text was originally published.
# '''Keyword Abbreviations:''' Three letters representing the first letter of the first three primary keywords in the romanized text title.
* ''Example:'' An original source text written by Uchiyama Gudō (UG) published in 1908 (08) titled ''Museifu Kyōsan Kakumei'' (無政府共産革命) (MKK) would be titled: <code><nowiki>UG08MKK</nowiki></code>

{{See Also|List of Author Codes}}

==== Translation Pages ====
* '''Standard Rule:''' The page titles for all translated English texts must identically mirror the exact alphanumeric archival code of their matching original source text page.
* '''The Translation Suffix:''' To differentiate the translation from the source code, the code must be followed immediately by a hyphen and a capital letter T suffix (<code><nowiki>-T</nowiki></code>).
* ''Example:'' The English translation page for the text mentioned above would be titled: <code><nowiki>UG08MKK-T</nowiki></code>
</onlyinclude>

== Editorial Authorship and Revision Control ==
To maintain rigorous academic credit and generate accurate data for the "How to Cite" sections, page authorship is dynamically managed based on text contribution tiers. Individual articles do not follow an anonymous crowd-sourced model. The Managing Editor retains final authority over all page author attribution tracking, placement, and group ordering.

=== Authorship Tiers ===
* '''Main Authors:''' The individual or individuals responsible for creating the initial text or the vast majority of the current page content. If a page has multiple main authors, their names must be listed in strict '''alphabetical order by surname'''.
* '''Other Authors:''' Contributors who have provided significant textual expansion, deep source checking, or substantial structural revisions, but have not overwritten the core baseline argument. These names are appended after the main authors in strict '''alphabetical order by surname'''.
* '''Text pages:''' On pages in the text archive, the visible citation credits the author of the text and, on translation pages, the translator(s) as well (see [[Editorial Guidelines - Texts and Translations]]). Transcribers are not credited in the visible text, but their work is recorded in the hidden authorship change log.

=== Revision and Promotion Thresholds ===
* '''Substantial Expansion:''' Any registered editor who performs a substantial upgrade or expansion to an existing article is entitled to have their name added to the "Other Authors" section.
* '''Major Revision and the "50% Guideline":''' If an editor thoroughly overhauls, expands, or rewrites more than half of the existing article's text, they are traditionally eligible to displace the original creator and be promoted to primary '''Main Author'''.
* '''The Principle of Qualitative Significance:''' The quantitative 50% threshold is strictly a baseline guideline, not an automated rule. If a contributor's revisions fall below the 50% content mark but are deemed highly crucial, foundational, or qualitatively more important than the text left unchanged, the Managing Editor may choose to elevate that contributor to the "Main Authors" tier, or establish them as the sole primary author.

{{See Also|Peer Review and Authorship}}

=== Mandatory Moderation Workflow ===
* '''Prior Forum Discussion:''' Editors are strictly prohibited from executing silent major rewrites or unilaterally altering author lists. Any proposed major rewrite and its subsequent authorship implications must be proposed and discussed within the dedicated '''phpBB community forum''' beforehand.
* '''Managing Editor Review:''' The Managing Editor must review the thread, evaluate both the quantitative scope and qualitative value of the proposed changes, and explicitly authorize the structural overhaul before any text changes go live on the wiki platform.

== Conventions for Citation Blocks ==
Every encyclopedic page ends with a "How to Cite This Article" section, and every page in the text archive contains a "How to Cite This Page" section. The templates for these sections are given on [[Editorial Guidelines - Encyclopedic Pages]] and [[Editorial Guidelines - Texts and Translations]] respectively. The following conventions apply to both.

=== Name Ordering ===
* '''First Name Listed:''' The first name in the author sequence must always be inverted with the surname first to facilitate alphabetical indexing (e.g., ''Doe, John'' or ''Chen Boqiang'').
* '''Subsequent Names:''' All following names must be listed in their natural, preferred order (e.g., ''David Smith'' for a Western name, or ''Tanaka Tarō'' for a Japanese author preferring traditional order).
* '''Implicit Tiers:''' Do not use explicit labels like "(Main Author)" or "(Other Author)" in the visible citation text. The tiering is implicitly understood by the ordering: Main Authors are listed first in alphabetical order, followed immediately by Other Authors in alphabetical order.
* '''Conjunction:''' Separate names with commas, and use an ampersand (''&'') before the final name in the list.

=== Authorship Change Log ===
Every citation block contains a hidden authorship change log, formatted as follows:
<pre><nowiki></nowiki></pre>

The Managing Editor, or an editor explicitly authorized by the Managing Editor, adds a new line to the log whenever the authorship of a page changes.

[[category:Project]]
[[category:Editorial Guidelines]]

Template:Page

2026-11-01T11:45:09Z

Lajos: Protected "Template:Page" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

<includeonly>__NOEDITSECTION__</includeonly>
<div style="display: flex; align-items: flex-end; justify-content: space-between; margin-top: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">
<div style="font-family: 'Linux Libertine', Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1;">🗎 Page {{{1}}}</div></div>
<noinclude>[[Category:Editorial Templates]]</noinclude>

Template:Page

2026-11-01T11:44:36Z

Lajos: Created page with "<includeonly>__NOEDITSECTION__</includeonly> <div style="display: flex; align-items: flex-end; justify-content: space-between; margin-top: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"> <div style="font-family: 'Linux Libertine', Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1;">🗎 Page {{{1}}}</div></div> <noinclude>Category:Editorial Templates</noinclude>"

IH56ZTM-T

2026-11-01T11:31:12Z

Lajos:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Ichikawa Hakugen, “Zen and Marxism” (1956)}}
__NOTOC__

'''Zen and Marxism''' (''Zen to Marukushizumu'' 禅とマルキシズム) is a 1956 essay by Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦. This working English translation follows the text reproduced in volume 2 of ''Ichikawa Hakugen chosakushū'' 市川白弦著作集 (1993), pp. 293–312.

'''Japanese original:''' [[IH56ZTM|禅とマルキシズム]]

== Contents ==
:[[#section1|I. Before Ideology]]
:[[#section2|II. Zen as Ideology (Part One)]]
:[[#section3|III. Zen as Ideology (Part Two)]]
:[[#section4|IV. Human Self-Alienation and Its Recovery]]

== Translation ==

{{opage|293}}

=== I. Before Ideology ===

Feuerbach reduces the essence of religion to the essence of humanity. But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each individual person. (Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach”)

A disciple named Huichao (Echō 慧超) once asked Qingliang Wenyi (Seiryō Bun'eki 清涼文益), a Zen monk of the late Tang and Five Dynasties period: “I, Huichao, ask you: What is Buddha?” The master replied, “You are Huichao.” (''Blue Cliff Record'', ''Hekiganroku'' 碧巌録, Case 7.)

This exchange recalls Feuerbach (1804–1872), who reduced the essence of religion to humanity. Feuerbach believed that, through religion, human beings take a roundabout path back to their own essence. In this instance, however, Huichao had not placed Buddha outside himself in the form of what is commonly called self-alienation. There is a certain confidence in his declaration, “I, Huichao, ask you.” Nor was it upon being told, “You are Huichao,” that he became conscious of a path by which the essence of religion might be reduced to humanity. Such a question had never arisen in the first place. Nor did the master say anything like, “The essence of Buddha is your own essence”—

{{opage|294}}

—there was nothing of that sort in his reply. One can find plenty of such statements in books. Huichao and Qingliang are not inhabiting a world of mere meanings. Hence the expression, “A phrase before words.” There is also the expression “pouring ink into a black lacquer bucket” (Shudenshō 種電鈔). Such a thing cannot be grasped by the tentacles of objectifying logic. Dōgen describes Qingliang’s response as direct and unhesitating. “You are Huichao”: heaven and earth are of a single piece. At the very point where meaning shines forth, this exchange calls for a direct apprehension of the whole activity of selflessness, beyond the foundations of meaning.

There was a monastery administrator named Ze under Qingliang. Since he had never participated in Zen practice with the master, Qingliang asked why. Ze replied that he had previously awakened under Master Qinglin. Invited to explain, he reported asking, “What is Buddha?” and receiving the answer, “The fire-boy comes seeking fire” (''heitei dōji rai guhō'' 丙丁童子来求火). Qingliang told him that he was mistaken and asked him to explain further. Ze reasoned that the cyclical signs ''hei'' and ''tei'' belong to fire: for a child of fire to seek fire means that, though he is originally Buddha, he has been seeking Buddha outside himself. The seeker himself, he concluded, is Buddha. Qingliang again said that he was mistaken. Dissatisfied, Ze packed up and left. Qingliang told the disciples that it was a pity: if Ze returned he might be saved, but otherwise there was little hope. As Ze travelled, he reflected that so esteemed a master would not have deceived him lightly and resolved to return for instruction. Qingliang invited him to ask the question again. “What is Buddha?” Ze asked. Qingliang replied with the very same words: “The fire-boy comes seeking fire!” At those words, Ze attained great enlightenment. This is not merely a hermeneutic exchange in which faith is interpreted as human self-alienation, the love of God as the love of humanity’s own essence, or theology as anthropology.

{{opage|295}}

Ascending the teaching hall, the master said: “Upon this lump of red flesh there is a true person of no rank, who constantly enters and departs through the faces of all of you. Those who have not yet verified this, look! Look!” A monk came forward and asked, “What is this true person of no rank?” The master descended from his meditation seat, seized the monk, and demanded, “Speak! Speak!” The monk hesitated. The master pushed him away, saying, “What a dried stick of shit this true person of no rank is!” He then returned to his quarters. (''Record of Linji'', ''Rinzairoku'' 臨済録.)

This might appear to regard human nature as something “inherent in each individual person,” but that is not actually the case. “Outside the mind there is no dharma, and within, too, nothing can be apprehended.” A humanism that simply affirms the human being as something inherent within the individual is not Zen. When asked about the true person's original face, the Tang monk Xiangyan Zhixian (Kyōgen Chikan 香厳智閑) replied, “The eyes inside a monkey.” This is a creation that takes place where the very ground upon which humanity, a central concept of modern thought, is established has been emptied. “On the peak that penetrates the mystery, there is no human being. Outside the mind there is no dharma; before one's eyes, green mountains fill the view.” If the “true person of no rank” were merely an abstraction inherent in the individual, that vigorous activity and freedom could never have emerged—the freedom that caused even Huangbo, Linji's master, to exclaim, “You madman! Have you come here to stroke the tiger's whiskers?” In the Zen life expressed through such phrases as “Be the master wherever you stand” and “Seek true understanding and go freely throughout the world,” there is little basis for Marx's characterisation of religion as an illusory sun revolving around human beings until they begin to revolve around themselves, as the halo surrounding a vale of tears, or as the sigh of the oppressed creature. Marx continues the statement quoted at the beginning of this essay by writing that, in its reality, the human essence is the ensemble of social relations. Marxism does not recognise, alongside the human essence conceived as an abstraction and the human essence understood in its social reality—or, more precisely, at a level that transcends both—the “person” (''hito'' 人) that constitutes Zen's fundamental experience.

A monk named Ding arrived and asked about the essential meaning of the Buddha-Dharma. The master came down from his seat and struck him; when Ding bowed—

{{opage|296}}

—he suddenly attained great enlightenment. (''Rinzairoku'' 臨済録.)

It is clear that an awakening of this kind is not an “ideology” understood as part of a superstructure conditioned by the material circumstances of social life—that is, by the economic structure of a particular historical period, which constitutes its actual foundation. Around the middle of the Tang dynasty, there lived the Zen master Yaoshan Weiyan (Yakusan Igen 薬山惟儼), near Lake Dongting. Since he rarely gave sermons, the monastery administrator urged him: “Everyone has long been hoping to hear your teaching. Please give a sermon.” The master replied, “In that case, ring the bell to summon everyone.” When the bell sounded and the assembly gathered, Yaoshan ascended the teaching seat. He remained silent for a while, then descended and returned to his quarters. Astonished, the administrator hurried after him. “Master, I thought you had agreed to my request. Why did you say nothing?” Yaoshan replied, “There are masters of the scriptures and masters of the treatises. Why should it be surprising that I have not preached the Dharma?” (''Book of Serenity'', ''Shōyōroku'' 従容録, Case 7.) Dōgen commented, “Before any of you reached the Dharma hall, you had already received thirty blows.”

A monk asked the master in the teaching hall, “What is the essential meaning of the Buddha-Dharma?” The master raised his fly-whisk. The monk shouted; the master struck him. Another monk asked, “What is the essential meaning of the Buddha-Dharma?” Again the master raised his fly-whisk. The monk shouted; the master shouted in return. The monk hesitated; the master struck him. (''Record of Linji'', ''Rinzairoku'' 臨済録.)

In such an encounter, every ideology resembles a snowflake falling into a white-hot furnace. “Recognise the person who plays with light and shadow.” That is to say, grasp the subject who forms ideology. As the ancients said, “The moment you describe it as resembling something, you miss the mark.” Simply look within yourself. What else could there be? Yet there is no end to what may be said. The subject that endlessly rejects ideology is also the subject that endlessly produces ideology.

{{opage|297}}

=== II. Zen as Ideology (Part One) ===

The only way in which human beings can recover their humanity, their essential being, is through “the fundamental overcoming of all religious representations and a resolute, rightful return—not to God, but to humanity themselves.” (Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England)

Zen realises the fundamental overcoming of all religious representations and this resolute, rightful return—not to God but to humanity itself—not in the form of the proletariat struggling to overcome human self-alienation, that is, poverty and enslavement, or in the form of proletarian humanism (although I think it would be one-sided to say that it cannot also take these forms), but in the form of ''kyakka shōko'' 脚下照顧, looking beneath one’s own feet—that is, transcending humanity at its very foundation.

The master instructed the assembly: “I do not delight in hearing even the single word ‘Buddha.’” (Record of Zhaozhou, ''Jōshūroku'' 趙州録)

“If you seek Buddha, you will be seized by the Buddha-demon. […] Look instead to the person who exercises mastery over circumstances; this is the profound meaning of all buddhas.” (Record of Linji, ''Rinzairoku'' 臨済録)

Feuerbach “begins from the fact of religious self-alienation, that is, the duplication of the world into a religious world and a secular world.” (Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach”)

“The human world was made neither by gods nor by demons. It was made by ordinary people living just down the street—”

“Recognise the person who plays with light and shadow. This is the source of all buddhas. Everywhere, practitioners of the Way, is the place to which you return.” (''Rinzairoku'' 臨済録)

For a Zen practitioner, heaven and the world beyond are like leaves used to quiet a crying child, or a mirage (''kagerō'' カゲロウ). Instead, if one apprehends the “person” who chases the mirage, this actual world itself becomes the real world, worthy of living in.

{{opage|298}}

—ordinary people. Even if the world they have made is hard to live in, there is no other country to which we can move. If there were, it would be a country of inhuman beings, and that country would surely be even harder to live in than the human world. (Natsume Sōseki, ''Kusamakura'' 草枕)

“You who come here from every direction are all intent on seeking Buddha, seeking the Dharma, seeking liberation, and seeking to escape the three realms. Fools! If you leave the three realms, where do you propose to go?” (''Rinzairoku'' 臨済録)

Religion has been called an “inverted consciousness of the world” (Marx, “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction”). But where could such an “inversion” be found in the world expressed in Su Dongpo’s lines, “Having arrived and returned, there is nothing extraordinary: Mount Lu is mist and rain; the Zhejiang River is the tide”? Lenin wrote in a letter to Gorky that the helplessness of the exploited in their struggle against the exploiters inevitably leads to belief in a better life in the hereafter. Yet in a society likewise marked by class exploitation, Zen consciously rejected belief in another world. The duplication of the world through a religious reflection of reality, whereby “the real foundation rises above itself and establishes itself in the clouds as an independent realm,” not only failed to occur in this instance within the same medieval status society: it was actively rejected.

“The religious reflection of the real world can disappear only when the practical relations of everyday life present themselves to people as transparent, rational relations with one another and with nature. The form of the social life-process—that is, the process of material production—casts off its mystical veil only when it becomes the product of freely associated human beings, subject to their conscious, planned control.” (Marx, ''Capital'', vol. 1, part 1, chapter 1, section 4)

Yet in a world where the practical relationships of everyday life have not come to disclose to everyone transparent, rational relations among human beings and with nature—in other words, in a medieval society that had not liberated all human beings from self-alienation or brought all the means of production into common ownership and planned use—

{{opage|299}}

—this religious reflection was nevertheless extensively forestalled by Zen practitioners. At least in this respect, one may say that Zen did not possess the character of an opium of the people.

=== III. Zen as Ideology (Part Two) ===

Zen as ideology becomes a social problem not primarily in its metaphysical aspects but in its contact with the actual everyday lives of the people. The question is what attitude Zen practitioners, as embodiments of Zen—or Zen institutions—adopt in their words and actions, grounded in their views of the world and of life, concerning human relationships and the principles governing how one should conduct oneself.

“Distinguish the limits of your station and know your nature. […] The willow is green; the flower is red.” (Suzuki Shōsan, ''Mōanjō'' 盲安杖.)

“The subtlety of morality begins in that which has neither sound nor scent and culminates in the three hundred rules of propriety and the three thousand forms of decorum. At their culmination, these return to what has neither sound nor scent. […] This is called the mutual presence of light and darkness.” (Imakita Kōsen, ''Zenkai ichiran'' 禅海一瀾.)

“Even if you serve a bad master and have nowhere to escape, do not blame the master. Consider it the karmic cause of your own deeds in a previous existence. […] Many suffer morning and evening throughout their lives through illness, blindness, or destitution. Whose fault is such suffering? It is entirely one’s own. […] Let go of everything and enter the path of loyalty and filial piety.” (''Mōanjō'' 盲安杖.)

“The Buddhist Way lies beneath each person’s feet. There is nothing for it but to forget oneself and become wholly one with the thing at hand. ‘In the land of Japan, where the way of lord and subject shines clearly, may it remain unmoved for ten thousand generations’: this is a poem by the Meiji emperor. Take it deeply to heart. There is no Zen apart from loyalty and filial piety.” (Iida Tōin, ''Kaian kokugo teishōroku'' 槐安国語提唱録.)

Insofar as supporting and reinforcing the ethical relationships of feudal status society arose voluntarily from a Zen foundation, Zen practitioners—

{{opage|300}}

—would naturally encourage active conduct along these lines.

Absent-minded Zen is out of the question. One must sit in meditation with complete concentration, feeling as though Mount Fuji were rising straight into the sky above the Eastern Sea—or, to go further, as though the entire earth were one's meditation cushion and one stood alone between heaven and earth. One need only sit in this spirit. What is the purpose of seated meditation? It is to embody the unsurpassed Way, attain great and thorough enlightenment, cultivate the power of concentration, and acquire the freedom to act wherever one finds oneself. The unsurpassed Way is the great Way of Vimalakīrti; great enlightenment means awakening to that Way; and acquiring freedom of action wherever one finds oneself means that Japanese people should abide and act as Japanese people. (Harada Sogaku, ''Nihon seishin to Daijō Zen'' 日本精神と大乗禅.)

If the goal of national education is to die for the sovereign and to devote oneself selflessly to his service, that goal cannot be fully realised unless every imperial subject, through study and training in their respective sphere of work, strives to embody this wondrous activity free from contrivance. (Itō Kōan, ''Takuan oshō to kyōiku'' 沢庵和尚と教育.)

There is a saying that every tree is known by its fruit. The essence of Zen, which transcends conventional society and ideology, has borne precisely this kind of fruit through the ideology of ordinary mind.

Once religion has taken shape, it always contains traditional elements; and tradition, it goes without saying, constitutes a powerful conservative force within the realm of ideology. (Engels, ''Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy''.)

There is a view that whatever is done in the Zen state of no-mind is always fresh and new in substance, even when it appears from the outside to repeat the same action. This is expressed in the saying, “Each time it is raised, it is new.” There is truth in this understanding. Yet herein lies the fundamental possibility that creative Zen may become habitual, conventional, and conservative. Even established customs, when one enters into them and acts accordingly, have their own distinctive appeal; this becomes an attraction in itself. The principle that tradition must be inherited through creativity was forgotten. Rather than carrying forward something living in a living form, people attempted to inherit it in a dead form. Within the realm of ideology, it is only natural that such conservatism should come to serve class domination, uncritically and of its own accord.

{{opage|301}}

The ideas of the ruling class are, in every epoch, the ruling ideas. In other words, the class that constitutes the dominant material power in society is at the same time its dominant intellectual power. The class that controls the means of material production also controls the means of intellectual production; consequently, the ideas of those who lack access to the means of intellectual production are, in general, subordinated to that class. (Marx and Engels, ''The German Ideology''.)

Perhaps it would be reading too much into things to suggest that the imperialist project of world domination, whose supposed “ethical” summit was the ideal of ''hakkō ichiu'' 八紘一宇 (“eight corners of the world under one roof”), found its religious reflection in the determination to sit in meditation with complete concentration, using the entire earth as one's meditation cushion. In a political system that united religious rites and government, national defence and warfare could be clothed in religious forms. Under such circumstances, it was far from uncommon for people to experience religious guilt if they could not completely surrender their private interests and devote their lives to submission before the solemn authority of the state. There were those who devoted considerable thought to the emperor's “character of nothingness,” to the profound significance of the one-emperor-and-all-subjects system as an embodiment of “one is many,” and to the moral spirit of the “holy war.”

It is said that ours is a generation whose feelings were worn away by war until we became incapable of crying. Perhaps that is true. Yet when I think of the emperor and of the many people who died for him, I am ashamed to admit that my voice trembles involuntarily. When I drink with a veteran pilot who barely escaped death and now lives peacefully as a salaried employee, I sometimes find myself unable to sleep that night. The faces of dead comrades appear before my eyes, making sleep even more impossible. (Murakami Hyōe, “Senchūha wa kō kangaeru” 戦中派はこう考える.)

To live is a joy and a hope. It is also suffering and disappointment. There are various ways of responding to suffering and disappointment, but what is sought as a lasting and fundamental response is a way of life that enables one to face even the worst circumstances of human existence with equanimity.

{{opage|302}}

In such circumstances, there is one path that may be followed by those who do not believe in a transcendent absolute or a world beyond this one. It is a way of living in which one abandons the standpoint of clinging firmly to particular desires, hopes, or obligations and striving relentlessly to fulfil them. Instead, one accepts each situation as it presents itself and becomes completely one with it. Like colourless dew that appears green upon a willow and red upon a flower, or a mirror that reflects the morning in the morning and the night at night, one neither rejects what comes nor pursues what departs. Wherever one lives becomes home; in sadness, one makes sadness one's master, and in loneliness, loneliness becomes one's master. It is an attitude of living in a cosmic affirmation—a universal “Yes.”

“When one becomes wholly one with the thing itself and forgets oneself, one understands that everyone is of one piece with heaven and earth. What more could one desire? To desire is always to lack something and to be tormented. The popular verse ‘Looking upward, how many things lie beyond one’s reach’ recognises the error of the desire to look above one’s station. ‘Put on your straw hat and live according to your own heart’ recognises the abundance of one’s own lot and the possibility of dwelling in it peacefully.” (Iida Tōin, previously cited.)

Actual society is a world of distinctions based on status and class. To entangle love and hatred in this world of distinctions, intensifying consciousness of the individual ego, can only increase dissatisfaction and agitation. Hence the proposal to accept distinctions as distinctions, without rejecting them or becoming engulfed in them. In this way, the troubled mind may subside and one may experience a different breeze even amid suffering. [The final figurative expression in the Japanese requires further verification.]

“To ignore distinctions and make mountains and rivers, noble and lowly, all one would amount to a denial of cause and effect; the splendour of the world would disappear and it would become desolate. What is needed is the correct within the partial—that is, equality amid distinctions. If one falls into attachment to any single position, one fails. Originally, these are all waves upon water. […] Keep the mind like water and leave it to circumstances whether it takes a square or round form.” (Iida Tōin, previously cited; a clause in the source quotation remains uncertain.)

In this way there emerged a philosophy of noncontention and accommodation, expressed in such sayings as “Give rise to the mind without abiding anywhere” (''Diamond Sūtra'', ''Kongōkyō'' 金剛経); “When not a single thought arises, the myriad things are without fault” (''Faith in Mind'', ''Shinjinmei'' 信心銘); and “The highest goodness is like water; precisely because it does not contend, it is without fault” (''Daodejing'', ''Rōshi Dōtokukyō'' 老子道徳経).

{{opage|303}}

Zen, having rejected the order of the world beyond, opened a path toward accepting directly the order of this world. Rather than earthly status determining the status of the soul in heaven, the order of nature, viewed from a religious and metaphysical perspective, came to sanctify the order of human society. Or, more precisely, the order of human society discovered its own religious and metaphysical reflection in the order of nature and thereby sanctified itself. In this way, a cosmology emerged that provided the underlying structure for what might be called Asian tolerance—or Asian peace of mind.

“First: Harmony is to be valued, and the absence of contentiousness is to be made fundamental. […] Third: When you receive an imperial command, obey it reverently. The ruler is heaven, and the ministers are earth. Heaven covers and earth supports. Thus the four seasons proceed in proper order, and the myriad energies circulate freely. If earth should attempt to cover heaven, destruction would necessarily follow. Therefore, what the ruler commands, the ministers obey; where those above lead, those below follow. Consequently, when receiving an imperial command, obey it reverently. Failure to do so will bring ruin upon oneself.” (''Seventeen-Article Constitution'', ''Jūshichijō kenpō'' 十七条憲法.)

The direction taken by young men departing for the battlefield, who struggled to resolve the problem of life and death through devotion to the emperor and the willingness to leave their bodies upon the grass or beneath the waters, followed an inclination established in the distant past.

There is another way of approaching life: the life of detached insight. This involves adopting a standpoint concerned with the ultimate meaning or highest value of human existence, comprehensively contemplating and critically assessing the fundamental character and tendencies of historical reality, and living one's life in accordance with that understanding. Those called philosophers and sages are practitioners of such a life. To the extent that people attempt to examine life comprehensively and fundamentally, and to live according to that insight, they must inevitably adopt, to some degree, a position of detachment. Amid the feverish everyday existence driven relentlessly by time, it is the wisdom of the accomplished person that opens a refreshing perspective upon life. The wisdom of great affirmation, which deepens our appreciation of living and purifies suffering, and the wisdom of detached insight are two aspects of the profound worldview developed in the East.

Yet the path of detached insight almost invariably ends in observing the realities of the world from a position above them. Society—

{{opage|304}}

—social and political evils, and the practical effort to correct them and realise a better world, are regarded with the same detachment. The result is a way of protecting one’s own life without dirtying one’s hands. This does not mean simply allowing society’s contradictions and irrationalities to stand as good. Rather, the goals and plans intended to remedy them are deemed inadequate, and even action aimed at change is seen as tainted by worldly attachment and therefore in need of fundamental purification. The masses’ gathering and use of wisdom and energy to build a free and peaceful world is certainly not nonsense, and it undoubtedly has worldly value. Yet such action is held unworthy of anyone genuinely devoted to the Way: it is judged a product of deluded attachment, an activity stained by defilements. What must be upheld is the thoroughness and purity of theory and practice. This immovable conviction is the detached perspective of the accomplished person. By combining a subjective rejection of social evil with an objective acceptance of it, one may serve the exploitative structures of political power while safeguarding the dignity and tranquillity of one’s own existence. Here is what Ichikawa calls ''kanzen shumi'' 完全趣味, invoking Lukács’s description of an abandonment of action that is “lofty in appearance but cowardly in reality.” [The rendering of 完全趣味 and the Lukács reference require source verification.]

We have examined philosophies of both active and passive cooperation with political power. These two positions, however, are not necessarily distinct. Depending on changes in social circumstances, one may readily give rise to the other.

“Religious sentiment is itself a social product.” (Marx, ''Theses on Feuerbach''.)

The worldview derived from the ''Book of Changes'' (''Ekikyō'' 易経), which for so long informed the consciousness and conduct of Zen practitioners, was a broadly moral cosmology that understood the order of nature and the order of human society through common principles. It was probably shaped, to a greater or lesser extent, by the so-called Asiatic stagnation grounded in the Asiatic mode of production. Leaving further consideration of this dimension for another occasion, let us examine the individual social relationships of Zen practitioners.

{{opage|305}}

The position occupied by an individual Zen practitioner within the domestic and international structures of power of their age; their proximity and relationship to the centres of power; and the social circles they inhabit in connection with those circumstances—all these determine the form of their life. That form of life, in turn, constrains their sensibilities, morality, political orientation, and other characteristics. A distinctive feature of ideology is precisely that this structure of relationships, correspondences, and constraints is not fully and transparently recognised. Consequently, judgements and actions that appear entirely autonomous to Zen practitioners themselves are, in reality, generally conditioned by the network of social relationships in which they are situated. Differences of opinion that supposedly ought to be resolved through discussion frequently prove extraordinarily difficult to overcome because the parties involved belong to different networks or systems of social relations. These structural differences often condition the differences in their reasoning. Changing one's way of thinking may therefore require dismantling one's existing social relationships and reorganising them along different lines. Yet doing so may threaten to destroy one's established way of life. A partly unconscious anxiety about this possibility, together with the inertia of everyday existence, determines and hardens people's ways of perceiving, thinking, and acting.

=== IV. Human Self-Alienation and Its Recovery ===

“In its reality, the human essence is the ensemble of social relations.” (Marx, ''Theses on Feuerbach''.)

We live in a society of competitive private ownership which, having freed us as individuals from the restraints of feudal society, has cast us out into a world where we live protected and simultaneously bound by countless restrictions constructed to maintain and strengthen this social system. Under individual “freedom” and responsibility, we are thrown into competition for the limited means of happiness. It is as if, during a five-minute stop, we were trying to board an impossibly overcrowded train together with Rikidōzan’s fellow wrestlers—

{{opage|306}}

—and men with infantile paralysis, all jostling toward the same entrance, the same window. If the proper entrance is blocked, one must slip in through a window, or even climb onto the roof and cling to the doors. Were we to take care of our appearance, respect etiquette, and observe the virtue of modesty, the departure time would come and every train would leave us behind. Such is the transportation hell in which we seem to live. For another person to board is for me to be left behind; for me to board is for another to be left behind. While we consider how this contradiction might rationally be resolved, the departure bell rings; the plans of those waiting for us at our destination collapse. The misfortune does not end with us alone. Nearly everyone crowded here shares these circumstances.

Day after day, from morning until night, there is an endless succession of examinations and tests. It is not merely youth that is excluded; humanity itself may be driven out. For in order to pass these fierce examinations, one cannot afford to concern oneself with friendship. A classmate's failure may become the very source of one's own good fortune. One longs to gain an advantage over the others. Before an examination, students pretend not to know things they actually know and refuse to help their friends. If a classmate misses the train on examination day, or happens to fall ill, that may prove advantageous. One student confessed, “I wished my friends would die.” Is this not literally hell? It is terrifying. What would happen if a young person who had developed such a terrifying disposition entered the University of Tokyo, became an even more frightening demon during company entrance examinations, and then carried these habits into society, eventually coming to wish misfortune upon others? (Honda Akira, ''Gendai no seishun'' 現代の青春.)

I once heard about the difficulties faced by a homeroom teacher responsible for advising students seeking employment. In the classroom, students had learned that the Constitution must be defended without compromise. Yet when taking an employment examination, they were advised not to say so too explicitly. Whatever political party they actually supported, if asked, they would be better off naming the conservative party. The teacher was troubled by having to offer such contradictory advice. The same can be said of my own—

{{opage|307}}

—experience. In a society where a school principal could be dismissed for misreading the Imperial Rescript at a ceremony, and a teacher on night duty could commit suicide after a portrait of the emperor was destroyed in a fire, I did not utter a single word of protest. Not only that: although I knew the war was an unclean war, I cooperated with the so-called “holy war.” Far from observing the precept against false speech, I manipulated the language of distorted scholarship. I could not even dream of possessing the freedom expressed in the ''Record of Linji'': “When you wish to go, go; when you wish to sit, sit” (''Rinzairoku'' 臨済録). Reports indicate, however, that similar forms of falsehood existed in the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe, particularly in connection with the cult of Stalin and the rewriting of history. The American writer Mark Twain remarked, with considerable irony, that God had bestowed upon his countrymen three incomparable gifts: freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and the good sense never to exercise either freedom. But the “God” who bestowed that good sense was presumably the machinery of state power. The police become the limits of what one is permitted to recognise.

Writing about theft, the author Ōta Yōko 大田洋子 recalled the wartime food shortages:

I was not particularly resourceful, and in Tokyo I went hungry every day, sometimes weeping at mealtimes. I would obtain small portions of food that other people had bought on the black market. Sometimes, taking advantage of the rain, I would crouch beside a path through a field, conceal my face behind an umbrella, and steal several bunches of spinach. Even then, it was said that people who stole crops from farmers' fields could be subjected to corporal punishment. But I was living near the daikon fields of Nerima, and on rainy nights I would pull large radishes from the ground. By that time I had ceased to be a respectable human being. I was quite unconcerned at the thought of being detained, since life in a cell would probably be little different from life outside.

A young man suffering from illness gave stark expression to the pain and ugliness of living.

Family — Iwamoto Toshio 岩本敏夫

If only this child were not here—

{{opage|308}}

If only Father and Mother weren't here—

Father as father, Mother as mother, Child as child,

Each thinking this way,

Now

Only suffocating hatred

In this same house

They live together.

Such mutual hostility would probably lose most of the conditions necessary for its emergence if a comprehensive system of social security were established and the necessities of life were as abundant as air. This would be an instance of the Buddhist principle that, when the necessary conditions are absent, a phenomenon cannot arise (''en ketsu fushō'' 縁欠不生). The scarcity of nature—and especially the scarcity produced by society—awakens and intensifies human self-centredness, exclusiveness, distrust, and competition. There is an expression about diverting water toward one's own rice field. In earlier times, farmers living on opposite banks of a river might face one another with suspicion and hostility during a drought. Yet once the rain came, they would abandon their confrontation and depart. Such scenes could formerly be observed in rural Japan. Hobbes, a proponent of the view that human nature is evil, argued that people need only examine themselves to recognise that human beings are not naturally sociable animals. At night, we lock our doors; even when at home, we lock our valuables in safes. Locking the door reveals what we think of our fellow citizens, while locking the safe reveals what we think of our own children and servants. But it is doubtful whether such conditions have existed in every age.

“When the Great Way prevailed, all under heaven was held in common. The worthy and capable were selected, trust was cultivated, and harmonious relations maintained. Thus people did not regard only their own parents as parents, nor only their own children as children. The elderly had support in their final years, adults had useful employment, children had the opportunity to grow, and widowers, widows, orphans, the childless, the disabled, and the sick all received care. […] Thus conspiracies did not arise, nor did theft—

{{opage|309}}

—or disorder arose. People left their outer doors open instead of closing them. This was called the Great Community.” (''Book of Rites'', ''Raiki'' 礼記, “Liyun,” chapter 9.)

Perhaps this represents a recollection of primitive communism. Why does what Feuerbach calls “human self-alienation”—the projection of one's own essence outside oneself—arise in the first place? It seems that competitive society based on private ownership contains within its structure some of the conditions that explain this phenomenon. Human beings under modern capitalism resemble commuters trapped in an endless transportation nightmare, or farmers who have become accustomed to guarding their vegetables at night behind barbed-wire fences against thieves. Certainly, it remains necessary to urge people who have long lived under such conditions to trust one another, refrain from pushing others aside, and abandon attachment to the self. Yet to imagine that such exhortations alone can be effective is utopian.

We have already seen that Zen's fundamental experience transcends ideology, but that when it takes concrete form as ideology, it has tended (a) to affirm the existing circumstances in which individuals find themselves and (b) to encourage service to society's structures of power. Nevertheless, accepting one's present circumstances without resistance is not necessarily blameworthy. Such acceptance can be connected with some of the deepest and most beautiful wisdom of human existence. It is for this reason that Ozaki Hotsumi's Zen-inspired contemplation, expressed in the words “Love is like a falling star,” touches the human heart. “When calamity comes, it is best to encounter calamity. When the time to die arrives, it is best to die. This is the wonderful method of escaping calamity.” (Ryōkan 良寛.) In this spirit of detached acceptance, Ozaki created and experienced the depth and beauty of human life. The assertion that what is needed is not a philosophy of interpretation but a philosophy of transformation seems to me to be the statement of Marx the revolutionary rather than Marx the human being.

Yet human life is not an uninterrupted series of the worst conceivable circumstances, with not even a millimetre of room for change. Finding a way to live peacefully amid what truly cannot be altered remains important for the latitude and well-being of everyday life. But to—

{{opage|310}}

—live solely by this attitude, and recommend it to everyone in every circumstance, even where conditions can be changed, is properly called a deviation. To go further and produce a Zen apologetic that actively serves a mystified system of exploitation is a dreadful deviation. I believe this results from grasping Zen’s fundamental subject, “nothingness,” solely in its passive and accommodating aspect: like air or water, it has no shape but takes every shape, no colour but assumes every colour. Thinking increasingly through such comparisons, one eventually lets the metaphors govern thought, leaving aside the creative and formative power of nothingness to refuse, criticise, and resist. Capitalist society, which takes material profit-seeking as the motive force of social organisation and turns everything—even human beings—into commodities and material or instrumental human resources, is fundamentally incompatible with the radically subjective spirit of Zen. Yet Zen practitioners failed to develop the scientific understanding needed for the fundamental transformation of this system and the construction of society. They consequently confused the distinctions and equalities found in natural phenomena, in the natural sciences, in hierarchical social arrangements, and in different personal circumstances and forms of peace of mind, under the standpoint of “nonduality” between matter and mind, nature and humanity. Falling into false equality and false discrimination, they ultimately produced an unprincipled, benighted Zen that served fascism and cooperated with war. As the ''Inscription on Faith in Mind'' (''Shinjinmei'' 信心銘) says, “If there is the slightest difference, heaven and earth are far apart.”

Zen practice means rejecting every idol, including the cult of individual personality; abandoning regrets about the past and anxieties about the future; and devoting oneself wholeheartedly to shaping life in the present. That life must contribute, directly or indirectly, to the realisation of a genuinely human society in which “each lives for all, and all live for each.” Zen practice consists in penetrating the emptiness of attachment to self through the creation of such a life. In this sense, Zen's fundamental subject constitutes the underlying ground of human living—not only the everyday activities expressed in the saying “When you encounter tea, drink tea; when you encounter rice, eat rice”—

{{opage|311}}

—but also the underlying ground of struggles against war and for independence and liberation. The Zen saying about cultivating one’s own field and preparing and eating one’s rice (''Book of Serenity'', ''Shōyōroku'' 従容録, Case 21) concerns a life directly joined to society’s material foundation. To devote oneself wholly to such productive life is also to form oneself through ideas aimed at transforming the ideological superstructure and the social order.

In Zen monasteries, collective activity directed toward the environment and its transformation is called ''samu'' 作務, or work practice. What overcomes the unhappy combination of pure intentions with impoverished or even contradictory results is the practical attitude expressed in such work. This is not a poetic attitude but a prosaic one: a lucid, constructive spirit that breaks through subjective absorption and intoxication through rational, experimental engagement with its objects. When such a spirit acts upon society and political institutions as historically constituted environments, seeking to cultivate and reconstruct them, the world toward which it ultimately strives is, in accordance with Zen's fundamental qualities of selflessness, nonpossession, and autonomy, a borderless world society organised through free communism.

“Once the truth of the world beyond has vanished, it is history’s task to establish the truth of this world. After the sacred form of human self-alienation has been unmasked, the first task of philosophy in the service of history is to unmask self-alienation in its unholy forms. The criticism of heaven thereby becomes the criticism of earth, the criticism of religion the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology the criticism of politics.” (Marx, “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction.”)

In my view, to establish the truth of this world after the disappearance of the truth of the beyond is to overcome religious faith in another world and to realise a society of free communism, in which all people are emancipated from exploitation and oppression as well as from the ego of exclusive self-attachment. In the direct and indirect activities of everyday life, this requires that one fully participate in sitting when sitting, in walking when walking, and in each task when engaged in it, as Tōrei Enji 東嶺円慈 teaches in ''Shūmon mujintō ron'' 宗門無尽灯論—relinquishing regret and anxious anticipation and emptying attachment to self. The fact that even Stalin—

{{opage|312}}

—could apparently not truly become “his own master” (Engels, ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'') is neither so harmless nor so trivial that it can be dismissed as merely one of the “birthmarks” of the old social order. Put differently, we must find a way for Ozaki Hotsumi’s Zen equanimity to permeate the activity of establishing a Buddha land in the sense just described. What is called “practice amid activity” (''dōchū no kufū'' 動中の工夫), superior to “practice amid stillness” (''jōchū no kufū'' 静中の工夫)—seated meditation in a quiet place—must mean diligence in precisely this kind of life. It entails arousing the aspiration for enlightenment (''bodaishin'' 菩提心) to establish a Buddha land and recognising that one must “shoulder sentient beings as a heavy burden,” while oneself being among those sentient beings. Since Zen has already rejected “the sacred form of human self-alienation,” what remains is to recognise and overcome its profane forms through an investigation of one’s own fundamental concern (''koji kyūmei'' 己事究明) that empties egoism.

“To leave flowers to the wind and birds to their proper time is also the meritorious work of giving. […] To set out boats and provide bridges is likewise the perfection of giving. If one truly studies giving, both accepting the body and relinquishing the body are acts of giving. Cultivating fields and engaging in productive occupations are, from the outset, nothing other than giving.” (Dōgen, “Bodaisatta shishōbō” 菩提薩埵四摂法)

The Zen master Yongming Qian (Eimei Sen 永明潜) addressed the assembly: “The Buddha-Dharma is plainly manifest. Why do you not understand it? If you wish to understand the Buddha-Dharma, ask Zhang San and Li Si. If you wish to understand worldly affairs, inquire in the monasteries of the ancient buddhas.” (*Zenmon kōan taisei* 禅門公案大成)The Zen master Yongming Qian addressed the assembly: “The Buddha-Dharma is plainly manifest. Why do you fail to understand it? If you want to understand the Buddha-Dharma, inquire of Zhang San and Li Si [ordinary people]. If you want to understand worldly affairs, inquire in the monasteries of the ancient buddhas.” (''Zenmon kōan taisei'' 禅門公案大成.)

What unity of practice and theory must we develop in order to establish a modern way of learning Zen from the working masses, and learning the principles of society from Zen communities? I welcome instruction from all quarters.

== Source Note ==
This translation is based on Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦, “Zen to Marukushizumu” 禅とマルキシズム (1956), as reproduced in ''Ichikawa Hakugen chosakushū'' 市川白弦著作集, vol. 2, ''Zen to gendai shisō'' 禅と現代思想 (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1993), 293–312. The original publication venue has not been established in this edition. The Japanese transcription and this translation are working scholarly texts; historical quotations and some character-level readings remain subject to further collation. Original printed paragraph and page divisions have been retained where recoverable.

== How to Cite this Text ==


Ichikawa Hakugen (1956). “Zen and Marxism” (''Zen to Marukushizumu'' 禅とマルキシズム). Translated and annotated by James Mark Shields. ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/IH56ZTM-T</nowiki>.

[[Category:Ichikawa Hakugen]]
[[Category:Translations from Japanese]]

IH61ZKA-T

2026-11-01T11:30:33Z

Lajos:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Ichikawa Hakugen, “Zen, Kegon, and Anarchism”}}
__NOTOC__

'''Zen, Kegon, and Anarchism''' (''Zen, Kegon, anakizumu'' [[IH61ZKA|禅・華厳・アナキズム]]) is a 1961 essay by Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦. This working English translation follows the text reproduced in volume 3 of ''Ichikawa Hakugen chosakushū'' 市川白弦著作集 (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1993), pp. 319–343, with references on pp. 344–345.

'''Japanese original:''' [[IH61ZKA|禅・華厳・アナキズム]]

== Contents ==
:[[#section1|I]]
:[[#section2|II]]
:[[#section3|III]]
:[[#section4|IV]]
:[[#section5|V]]
:[[#section6|VI]]

== Translation ==

{{opage|319}}


=== I ===

What is known as the “Nishida philosophy” of Nishida Kitarō (1870–1945), the foremost representative of modern Japanese philosophy, was established in his 1926 essay “Place.” Although the idea of “place” (''basho'' 場所) emerged through the concept of topos (place) found in Plato’s Timaeus and Aristotle’s De Anima, it was more fundamentally connected with the Mahāyāna Buddhist concepts of emptiness (''kū'' 空; Sanskrit śūnyatā) and the dharma-realm (''hokkai'' 法界; Sanskrit dharmadhātu), especially the realm of the non-obstruction of phenomena (''jiji muge hokkai'' 事々無礙法界), a world of experience in which individual things and events mutually interpenetrate and mutually determine one another. In other words, Nishida’s thought was fundamentally connected with the philosophy of prajñā and Kegon philosophy. His central idea—that the mutual determination of individual things within the place of “absolute nothingness” is simultaneously the self-determination of the universal—expressed, through the mediation of the modern Western logic of the individual ego, the fundamental unity of the logical structures of prajñā emptiness and Kegon’s non-obstruction of phenomena. In essence, this philosophy should have established a metaphysical foundation for thoroughgoing freedom and equality through the Eastern logic of nothingness. It contained the possibility of establishing a philosophy of freedom that rejected all external authority (Autorität) and power (Macht), even casting off the clothing of so-called “religion.”[[#ed-note-a|a]][[#ed-note-b|b]]

{{opage|320}}

Yet as imperial Japan’s wartime system expanded, and as pressure from the political Right and the military against the “liberal” tendencies of Nishida philosophy and the Kyoto School intensified, this philosophy of the place of absolute nothingness—or the philosophy of the “self-determination of facts”—gradually developed a logic that provided an ideological foundation for the Imperial Way and the “holy war.”

Ōya Sōichi went so far as to say that Nishida had “sold his soul to secure the safety of his body.”[[#ichikawa-ref-2|2]] Among Nishida’s writings from this period were “The Principle of the New World Order” (1943) and “On the National Polity” (1944). The latter subsequently appeared as the fourth supplementary essay in his Philosophical Essays, was published in the journal ''Tetsugaku kenkyū'' 哲学研究, and was included in the Complete Works of Nishida Kitarō. The former, however, was not included in the collected works.[[#ichikawa-ref-3|3]]

Nevertheless, the logic of place, or the philosophy of the non-obstruction of phenomena, should not have provided a foundation for the Imperial Way. On the contrary, it should have provided a foundation for anarchism. In my essay “The Stumbling of Absolute Nothingness: The Case of Nishida Kitarō” (published in ''Shisō'' 思想, January 1959, and reprinted in the present volume), I wrote the following in its conclusion:

The place of absolute nothingness, the dialectical universal, forms the principle of world-formation through its self-conscious determination. This principle and the Imperial Way constitute an absolute contradiction that cannot be reconciled. Within the sphere of objectifying logic, the two assert themselves against and mutually exclude one another by their very nature. If the Imperial Way were genuinely to become subjective beyond the domain of objectifying logic, then, in the very process of becoming subjective, it would have no alternative but to dissolve itself by negating those accidental, particular, and irrational elements that constitute its essential nature. In the process of fully realising itself as subject, the Imperial Way must relinquish the ego. It loses itself by returning to the place of absolute nothingness, the true historical world. Conversely, the logic of the place of absolute nothingness—the logic of the predicate—is something that fundamentally negates the Imperial Way conceived as subject. Nishida’s “theology of the logic of place” should not have provided a foundation for Japan’s founding mythology and the politico-religious philosophy of the eternal imperial order. Rather, it should have furnished a logical system that brought these to an end. Likewise—

{{opage|321}}

—and, contrary to what happened in Nishida’s own case, it should have been a philosophical system that regarded even national morality as fundamentally illusory (''koke'' 虚仮). As a philosophy of place, in which absolutely free individuals are mediated by a universal that mediates without any mediating entity, this system should have provided the foundation for a democratic association of free individuals in the deepest sense. It should have demanded that the Imperial Way shed its former character, anticipated the disappearance of the state, and provided the foundation and promise of a community without coercive power. The logic of the predicate began with Nishida the philosopher, only to founder in Nishida the imperial subject.

According to Nishida, the actual world must be a world of individuals—I, you, and others. An individual might initially be understood as a determination of the universal, such as existence or living beings. By adding specific differences to what is universal, proceeding through successive classifications, and finally passing beyond them, one might conceive of the individual as a limiting point. Yet an individual conceived in this manner is not a genuine individual. Such an individual can never escape being merely a part of the universal. The individual must determine itself.[[#ichikawa-ref-4|4]] Only something that determines itself—that is, something that becomes conscious of itself, forms itself, and chooses for itself—can truly be called an independent individual. Yet an individual can determine itself only in relation to other individuals. I exist as myself in relation to you, just as you exist as yourself in relation to me. “An individual must be conceived as standing in relation to another individual. It is only through standing in relation to another individual that an individual can be conceived as such. It is impossible to conceive of a single individual existing alone. For mutually independent things to stand in relation to one another is precisely what it means for things to act upon one another. […] For mutually independent things to enter into relations, some form of mediation must be conceived between them.” (Emphasis added by Ichikawa.)[[#ichikawa-ref-5|5]] If this mediator were some universal that unified the individuals—

{{opage|322}}

—then that universal would itself amount to another individual, and the independence of the original individuals would necessarily be lost. (It would be rather like two people who could meet only in the presence of a guardian.) Behind individual beings there is no overarching universal that encompasses them. What mediates independent individuals cannot be some positive, substantial universal. Rather, it must be a dialectical universal understood as the determination of the place of nothingness. Within the place of absolute nothingness, individuals engage with and cooperate with one another while remaining genuinely independent. I remain entirely myself, and you remain entirely yourself; yet at the same time I am you, and you are me. Each is an autonomous, self-governing existence possessing an irreplaceable individuality, yet each may freely become subject or object in relation to the other, working and cooperating together. This is how the world of historical reality must truly be constituted. Borrowing a term from Kegon philosophy, Nishida calls this world of existential encounter and interconnection the “realm of the non-obstruction of phenomena” (''jiji muge no sekai'' 事々無礙の世界).

The logic of the place of absolute nothingness, which makes possible free and autonomous interaction and cooperation among independent, individual existences—this was, so to speak, the fundamental logic of Nishida’s social philosophy or philosophy of the world.

Consequently, what should follow from this logic is a society of genuinely autonomous and free individuals, liberated from attachment to the ego and its objects. Such a society would not merely be free of domination through force; it would be a freely associated human community in which there was no place even for “authority” understood as power disguised in ethical clothing.

Yet this open conception of the world, grounded in the logic of place and the Zen–Kegon understanding of emptiness and the non-obstruction of phenomena, was constrained and distorted by Nishida’s samurai sensibilities, his position within the academic establishment, and the circumstances of imperialist Japan. Its possibilities were deformed until it descended into the Theory of the National Polity and The Principle of the New World Order. And this was the same course that Japanese Buddhism generally followed at the time.

{{opage|323}}


=== II ===

Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎, one of the leading Buddhist scholars of modern Japan—supervising editor of the ''Taishō'' Revised Tripiṭaka, professor emeritus at Tokyo Imperial University, and recipient of the fourth Order of Culture (Nishida received the second)—argued in “The Principle of Totality in Buddhism” that Mahāyāna Buddhist logic and ethics were, from the beginning, totalitarian. [[#ichikawa-ref-6|6]] According to Takakusu, the logical structure of this totalitarianism is expressed in Kegon thought through the doctrine of the Four Dharma-Realms (''shihokkai'' 四法界), culminating in the fourth, the Realm of the Non-Obstruction of Phenomena (''jiji muge hokkai'' 事々無礙法界). He maintained that, with the World War as its turning point, the world had begun moving toward totalitarianism: “Today even Westerners are beginning to practise totalitarianism, whereas the Japanese have actually practised it since ancient times. Through Japan’s Yamato totalitarianism, we can provide a model for the world. Through Buddhism’s principle of totality, we can guide the world. […] Japan as it actually exists must be governed through the Imperial Way. It is truly gratifying that the Kegon principle of totality should be put into practice. […] However excellent Buddhism may be, there must be no attempt to regard it as a form of government through the Buddhist Way existing alongside Japan’s government through the Imperial Way.” Takakusu concluded: “We now find ourselves in the midst of the National Spiritual Mobilization campaign, at a time when the Japanese spirit must be manifested in its totality. […] We should fully appreciate the true meaning of Kegon and undertake service to the nation without the slightest disorder and without a trace of selfishness. All people should forget themselves, relinquish themselves, and devote themselves to national affairs. We should realise the truth that the sage has no self, yet there is nothing that is not the self.” The Kegon scholar Kamekawa Kyōshin 亀川教信, in his essay “The Structure of Dependent Origination” (''Engi no kōzō'' 縁起の構造), [[#ichikawa-ref-7|7]] and Yamagami Kaizen 山上戒全, in his essay “Kegon” 華厳, [[#ichikawa-ref-8|8]] developed interpretations of Kegon thought along similar lines. The Zen scholar Nakane Kandō 中根環堂, in “Totalitarianism and Zen” (''Zentaishugi to Zen'' 全体主義と禅), [[#ichikawa-ref-9|9]] argued that Japan’s national polity was not the flat, horizontal totalitarianism of the West. Rather, its principle of one emperor and all his subjects constituted a three-dimensional, organic unity, in which affection resembled the relationship between father and child, while duty preserved the proper distinctions between ruler and subject. Underlying this hierarchical unity, he maintained, was the Kegon philosophy of “one is many, and many are one” (''ichi soku ta, ta soku ichi'' 一即多・多即一). The path to fully realising this unity was seated meditation. Through grasping the essence of ''zazen''—“thinking from the standpoint of nonthinking”—one could accomplish the sacred imperial undertaking of bringing the world under one roof (''hakkō ichiu'' 八紘一宇). The lectures on “The Problem of Japanese Culture” given by Nishida at Kyoto Imperial University’s Monday lecture series in 1938—[[#ed-note-c|c]]

{{opage|324}}

—and Kōyama Iwao’s subsequent lectures on “Cultural Typology” likewise sought to contribute to the construction of a “New Order in East Asia” by invoking the Kegon logic of phenomena.

Yet all these attempts were nothing other than distortions of Kegon philosophy and Zen thought. Let us return once more to Takakusu for an example.

In his Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (''Kegongyō tangenki'' 華厳経探玄記), Fazang (Hōzō 法蔵, 643–712), the third patriarch of the Chinese Huayan school, classifies the infinite mutual identity and interpenetration of phenomena within the world of experience into ten categories, known as the “Ten Profound Forms of Dependent Origination” (''jūgen engi'' 十玄縁起). The tenth is called the “Gate of the Complete Illumination and Possession of Virtues by Principal and Companion” (''shuhan enmyō gutokumon'' 主伴円明具徳門). The countless phenomena of the experiential world alternately become principal and companion, forming an endlessly interconnected symbolic world. If one phenomenon is taken as principal, all the others become its companions and are subordinated to it. But if another is selected as principal, all the remaining phenomena—including the one formerly taken as principal—become its companions and are encompassed by it. This is the principle of the complete illumination and possession of virtues by principal and companion. Takakusu paraphrases the doctrine in concrete terms: “Both principal and companion should work together harmoniously and openly, those above and below acting with one heart. Totalitarianism means that parent and child do not oppose one another but join forces and work together. If this cannot be accomplished, it is not totalitarianism. […] When similar things come together, one becomes their centre and principal. We may therefore apply this to the actual relationship of one emperor and all his subjects.” He also declared: “Our country has been totalitarian since the very beginning of its founding. […] Through the Meiji Restoration, it returned to its original totalitarianism.” And further: “We Japanese, who already possess the principle of totality in our actual national existence, are bringing the vision of Kegon’s one true dharma-realm into reality. This is something truly precious.” Takakusu thus maintains that the truths of the non-obstruction of phenomena, the completeness of principal and companion, and the identity of one with all and all with one are already realised within the system of one emperor and all his subjects—a system that regards democracy as contrary to the national polity and rests upon an authoritarian, status-based morality. This is a typical example of philosophy placed at the service of the authorities.[[#ed-note-d|d]]

{{opage|325}}

The condition of Japanese Buddhism described above had already taken root in the period of the Taika reforms. Leaving aside for the moment the earlier circumstances of state Buddhism in China, the new government, established through the reforms of 646, eventually undertook the construction of the Great Buddha Hall at Tōdaiji. It enshrined Vairocana Buddha there and established provincial monasteries and nunneries throughout the country, where scriptures for the protection of the state were to be recited. In this way, temples, monks, and nuns came under the control of state authority.


=== III ===

Immediately after Japan’s defeat, Suzuki Daisetsu, in “The Construction of a Spiritual Japan” (September 1946), argued that a new Japan must be constructed upon the principle of the dependent origination of the dharma-realm (''hokkai engi'' 法界縁起) found in Kegon philosophy.

“To place the emperor above the people is a symbol of the will to power. […] Rather, the emperor should possess a quality of immanence, becoming interconnected with the people in endlessly overlapping relationships. […] Just as the entire world should constitute a dharma-realm mandala of nations, so within Japan itself, the emperor and the people must become a single whole in which phenomena are mutually non-obstructing. Only then will a spiritual Japan become possible.

“If we express this schematically, Japan up to the present has resembled Figure 1. Although there appears to be a connection between those above and those below, it can be severed at any point along the way. Before the wishes of those above reach those below, they must pass through military cliques, bureaucrats, and financial interests. Those below have no clear idea where these directives originate. Moreover, the people themselves have no direct connections with one another. […] They do not know how to think for themselves—”

[[File:IH61ZKA_Figure1.png|thumb|360px|Figure 1. Suzuki Daisetsu’s diagram of hierarchical relations in prewar Japan (reproduced by Ichikawa, p. 325).]]

{{opage|326}}

“—[…] All that was demanded of them was reverent obedience to imperial commands. […] The system of one emperor and all his subjects symbolises the will to power on the one hand and, on the other, extinguishes the autonomy of individual citizens.” (pp. 158–159)

Suzuki goes on to describe the dharma-realm mandala that ought to be constructed by the emperor and the people. Although the passage is lengthy, I shall quote it.

“When the emperor descends from the Plain of High Heaven and joins ordinary human beings upon this earth, the people, for their part, must abandon their servile sense of inferiority. […] They must establish their own autonomy and recognise fully that nothing can replace the value of individual personality.

“They must understand that respecting oneself is also the basis for respecting others. Each individual is complete in themselves, and at the same time all phenomena are mutually non-obstructing. […] Because each is complete, all are non-obstructing; because all are non-obstructing, each is complete.

“The political form of Japan as a dharma-realm mandala may be represented schematically in Figure 2. A, B, C, and so forth represent the people, the countless inhabitants of the nation. Yet each is an individual, a monad capable of autonomous action, thought, and sensation.[[#ed-note-e|e]]

“Each is complete in themselves. Each is an independent and free personality. Precisely for this reason, each enters into inexhaustibly interconnected relationships with others. These monads have thrown their windows wide open, sharing their own light with others while receiving the light of others in return.[[#ed-note-f|f]]

“The chords and straight lines within the circle represent communication, reciprocal interaction, and mutual interpenetration among the monads.”

[[File:IH61ZKA_Figure2.png|thumb|360px|Figure 2. Suzuki’s dharma-realm mandala: A–H represent individuals, while S at the centre represents the emperor (reproduced by Ichikawa, p. 326).]]

{{opage|327}}

“The S at the centre is an inward reflection of that which comprehensively encompasses the surrounding A, B, C, and so forth from without. A, B, C, D, and the others are each independent, yet each possesses totality. Accordingly, A, B, C, and D are joined by curved lines to form a great circle. This great circle, just as it is, represents each individual monad, each individual ‘blade of grass’ among the people. To express this meaning, it is concentrated and reflected in the small circle at the centre.

“The great circle encompasses the people as a whole, but merely saying that it encompasses them does not provide anything concrete that can be pointed to. For this reason I have placed S at the centre. S is none other than the emperor, the centre of the national polity. […]

“It might seem possible to remove S from the great circle surrounding it and place it above. But doing so would introduce a considerable danger that the will to power and a dualistic conception would reappear. The feudal mentality would inevitably be reproduced. Moreover, placing S within the circle should serve to strengthen the unity of the circle itself. […]

“As Japanese and as East Asians, we must establish a new national polity through our own autonomy, freedom, and constructive vision. Needless to say, its establishment must be spiritual through and through; it must be built upon spiritual awakening. Only then can it attain universality. Only then can something emerge from among us that will contribute to the advancement of world spiritual culture and to the various institutions of practical life.” (pp. 160–163)

This work by Suzuki may be regarded as the foremost postwar document in which a Buddhist thinker sought, with enthusiasm and sincerity, to envision a new political order for Japan.

As is already clear, there is a fundamental distance and difference between Takakusu’s wartime interpretation and Suzuki’s postwar interpretation of the Kegon doctrine of the dependent origination of the dharma-realm, understood in relation to the realities of Japan. (We should pay particular attention to Suzuki’s insistence that the new order must be built upon spiritual awakening through and through.)

In Takakusu’s case, we may wonder whether, had he lived into the postwar period, he would have recognised the need to revise his earlier interpretation. In Suzuki’s case, we might ask whether truth acquires its illumination—

{{opage|328}}

—and power precisely when it is spoken at a time when speaking it is both necessary and difficult. Nevertheless, judging from what we have before us, we cannot avoid concluding that Suzuki’s interpretation is the one that truly brings the meaning of Kegon thought to life in contemporary Japan.

In Takakusu’s and Suzuki’s interpretations, the position of the emperor differs in the way represented by the two diagrams discussed above. At the same time, this difference in position may also reflect a difference in the position of Vairocana Buddha, the prototype of the emperor’s position.

In Takakusu’s account, we find the following statement:

“In Kegon terms, the great Vairocana Buddha at the centre is active. All the attendant beings of the outer Vajra circle are active as well. The great mandala of the total mobilisation of principal and companion is manifested. This is the phenomenal manifestation of the dependent origination of the Kegon dharma-realm—the manifestation of the true dharma-realm.” (pp. 251–252)

Suzuki, on the other hand, argues:

“When the original form of Japan’s national polity is understood in this way, the sequence of ideas suggested by expressions such as ‘the benevolence of the sovereign’ and ‘the light of the imperial reign’ acquires a different meaning from that traditionally attached to them. ‘Benevolence’ will no longer be associated with power, but will instead become something characterised by reciprocity. Nor will ‘light’ be something that shines only from above. Rather, it will signify the reciprocal illumination of the original light possessed by each individual.” (p. 164)

Yet neither account clarifies the most fundamental issue: the internal and logical relationship between Vairocana Buddha and the emperor (in Suzuki’s case, the emperor understood as a human being).

Since Takakusu asserts government through the Imperial Way while refusing to recognise government through the Buddhist Way, he must explain what logic he adopts in relation to the doctrine of original ground and manifest traces (''honji suijaku'' 本地垂迹).

Suzuki speaks of the “benevolence of the sovereign,” meaning the emperor’s benevolence. But what, concretely, does that benevolence signify? Similarly, when he says that “light” does not come only from above, what exactly is the “light that comes from above”? Is there still an “above” within Suzuki’s dharma-realm mandala? If so, what does that position represent? Is it a position above others occupied by the emperor as a human being? These questions remain unanswered.

Suzuki maintains that his dharma-realm possesses universality. But can a logic and an ethics that permanently place a single human being belonging to one particular hereditary lineage at the centre of the world genuinely claim universality?

“Blood,” as something irrational and contingent,

{{opage|329}}

—can it be assigned a particular cosmic and ethical significance from the standpoint of the Buddhist Dharma, or indeed from the standpoint of universal ethics?

Suzuki writes: “The unbroken imperial line will become something for which we should stake our lives when it is understood in the following way: the perpetuity of the imperial lineage symbolises the perpetuity of the ideals cherished by the Japanese people.” (p. 165)

The “ideals” mentioned here presumably refer to what Suzuki calls the “construction of a spiritual Japan.”

Leaving aside for the moment the question of who actually risked their lives to reject imperialist Japan and construct a spiritual Japan, why should the perpetuity of these ideals require a particular human being belonging to a particular hereditary lineage? What would happen if that individual, exercising their fundamental human rights, refused to serve as such a symbol? And what should peoples without such a symbol do?

Even if the emperor occupied the position proposed by Suzuki, so long as the unbroken hereditary imperial line is recognised—that is, so long as some form of the emperor system is recognised—and so long as universality is claimed for this system, does its logic not contain the possibility of developing into a new version of the doctrine of “eight corners of the world under one roof” (''hakkō ichiu'' 八紘一宇)?

If the logic of Kegon’s dependent origination of the dharma-realm were pursued consistently, carrying Suzuki’s interpretation to its ultimate conclusion beyond Takakusu’s, would not even a “democratic” emperor system headed by a human emperor lose its logical foundation? And would not the very structure of meaning represented in Suzuki’s second diagram consequently undergo a fundamental transformation?

Nevertheless, despite these questions, Suzuki’s interpretation emphasises “the value of the individual as a morally free person, as a spiritual existence, and as an independently autonomous being who cannot be reduced to an antlike mass under the vague designation of ‘totalitarianism’” (p. 142).

Suzuki also rejects the principle of domination through force:

“There should be no power standing outside the dharma-realm. To suppose that an organisation cannot be sustained without such power is to fail to recognise the irrationality of seeking it outside itself. The dharma-realm is already a complete organisation in itself. The power that organises it is originally inherent within the organisation itself. When this power is sought outside, what exists within becomes distorted and is diverted in an unintended direction. […]”

{{opage|330}}

“—The construction of a spiritual Japanese state must not take power as its fundamental principle. It must be a faithful reflection in our actual lives of the realm in which all phenomena are mutually non-obstructing.” (pp. 153–154)

Let us pay particular attention to Suzuki’s observation that the dharma-realm is already a complete organisation and that the power necessary to organise it is inherent within the organisation itself.

This recalls the anarchist idea of free association. Viewed politically, it may be understood as suggesting anarchism as the form of a new human society embodying the Kegon world of the dependent origination of the dharma-realm.

The Kegon dharma-realm, grounded in the rejection of both the principle of coercive power and the principle of private ownership, may be described as a world of Buddhist Anarchist Communism (B.A.C.)—although Suzuki, it seems to me, has never addressed the question of private ownership.[[#ed-note-g|g]]

Proudhon (1809–1865), who envisaged the perfected form of society as a “unity of order and anarchy,” proposed a conception that, at least in this respect, may be applied directly to Kegon’s Lotus Treasury World (''renge zō sekai'' 蓮華蔵世界).

The traditional position of Japanese Zen was that State Shinto and the Buddha-Dharma were fundamentally one. The Edo-period Zen master Tōrei Enji 東嶺円慈 (1721–1792) explained it as follows:

“Fundamentally, ‘kami’ means mind. When the impurities of the mind have been completely extinguished and it becomes as clear as a mirror, this is called kami. Thus, the Way of the kami takes the mirror as the representation of its essential nature.

“The mirror of the mind is originally pure, eternally abiding, and serenely still: this is called Kuni-no-Tokotachi-no-Mikoto 国常立尊. The mirror of the mind is originally perfectly luminous, and there is nothing that it does not reveal: this is called Amaterasu Ōmikami 天照大神. […]

“One should understand that the Way of the kami and the Buddha-Dharma share the same underlying principle. They are nothing other than the single Dharma of seeing one’s nature.”[[#ichikawa-ref-10|10]]

The same position was held by Tōrei’s teacher, Hakuin Ekaku 白隠慧鶴 (1685–1768). The Meiji-period Zen master Imakita Kōsen 今北洪川 (1816–1892) likewise expressed this understanding:

“In our country there is the Way of imperial sovereignty. This is the great Way of the ancestral deity and the true teaching of rulers. Its transmission has continued from the distant past, with the imperial descendants forming a single unbroken lineage, into which no other family has entered. […]

“This is what makes our imperial Way uniquely distinguished among all the nations of the world.”[[#ichikawa-ref-11|11]]

{{opage|331}}

—A true man of our imperial nation must first establish firmly within himself the pillar of the Japanese spirit, which neither fire can burn nor water drown. Once he has suddenly penetrated through to realisation, there will be nothing deficient in his ability to judge and uphold the Imperial Way.

Tōrei’s interpretation lacks any logic capable of grounding, from the standpoint of the Buddha-Dharma, the unbroken imperial lineage that constitutes the core of State Shinto. It remains entirely unclear how the fundamental Buddhist principle that “all conditioned things are impermanent” (''shogyō mujō'' 諸行無常) could be reconciled with Shinto’s assertion that the imperial throne will endure as long as heaven and earth. The same applies to Imakita Kōsen. Indeed, among Japanese Zen masters from Kokan Shiren (1278–1346), Hakuin, and Tenkei Denson (1648–1735) down to the present, the most fundamental questions have been almost entirely neglected. How can the kami of Shinto be identical with the fundamental subject of human existence? How can a hereditary lineage be identical with a divine lineage? And how can a religious tradition that, through monastic renunciation, takes the discontinuation of hereditary descent as a principle provide a Zen Buddhist justification for the continuity of that very descent? Hakuin, Tōrei, and virtually every other Zen practitioner have revealed a fatal weakness of vision in their understanding of Shinto.[[#ed-note-h|h]]

There is no relationship whatsoever between the eternity of Zen truth and the political and supposedly “ethical” continuity of a particular bloodline. No logic exists by which the unbroken imperial lineage—a survival from the customs of ancient peoples—can be justified from the standpoint of the Buddha-Dharma or Zen. Above all, the Imperial Way Zen that emerged after the Meiji Restoration represents the most extreme decadence of Zen. The only possible support for the forced identification of hereditary continuity with moral continuity seems to lie in the doctrine of karmic causation across the three times, as found in Hakuin’s “Song of Giving” (''Segyōka'' 施行歌). Yet even this doctrine cannot establish such an identification. It can do no more than explain differences of social status and circumstances in the present life. Moreover, the doctrine itself can scarcely withstand modern criticism.

On the dignity of humanity, the poet Walt Whitman (1819–1892) wrote: “There can be no god more sacred than yourself. And this is what the oldest and the newest myths alike ultimately mean.” (“Laws for Creation”)

Proudhon, writing of human sovereignty, declared, “Every citizen is king.”[[#ichikawa-ref-12|12]]

Yet to identify Amaterasu Ōmikami with the fundamental subject of human existence, as Japanese Zen has done, is ultimately to negate State Shinto—

{{opage|332}}

—and to deny any necessary, intrinsic connection between Zen and the Japanese national polity, or between Zen and the emperor system.

Does not the fact that Japanese Zen practitioners have failed to recognise and openly acknowledge this conclusion demonstrate that their Zen thinking has remained insufficiently thoroughgoing, and that they have not genuinely achieved the condition of being “independently liberated, dependent upon nothing” (''dokudatsu mu’e'' 独脱無依; Record of Linji, ''Rinzairoku'' 臨済録)?

The Christian existentialist philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev (1874–1948), who advocated religious libertarian communism, was described by the philosopher Heinemann as a “mystical anarchist.”[[#ichikawa-ref-13|13]] The French philosopher Simone Weil (1909–1943), who took an interest in Eastern thought, especially Zen, and criticised Christian theology, was an anarchist who participated in the Spanish Civil War.

In my view, the social philosophy of Zen may be described as ''Prajñā–Śūnyatā'' Anarchist Communism—an anarchist communism of wisdom (''hannya'' 般若) and emptiness (''kū'' 空). (See my book ''Hannyakyō'' 般若経, published by San’ichi Shobō.)


=== IV ===

Why is it that Western religious anarchists have resisted state power—Berdyaev, for example, became a communist under imperial Russia and was imprisoned—whereas not only do we find almost no comparable examples in Zen or Kegon Buddhism, but examples of precisely the opposite tendency are overwhelmingly numerous? Let us consider two or three circumstances that may help explain this situation.

The first is the obscuring of the difference in level between the world of experiential reality and the world of ordinary empirical experience, between the world of selfless intuitive action and the actual world of the empirical individual ego. This produces a “mixture or confusion of two worlds of reality.” The realm of the non-obstruction of phenomena (''jiji muge no sekai'' 事々無礙の世界) belongs to the reality disclosed in the experience of prajñā. Yet this realm readily overlaps and merges with the ordinary world of empirical facts, so that the tension arising from the discontinuity between the two is never firmly established. We may recall that Nishida, the author of An Inquiry into the Good (''Zen no kenkyū'' 善の研究), acknowledged in replying to Takahashi Satomi’s criticism that he had failed to recognise a qualitative distinction between pure experience and impure experience—

{{opage|333}}

—a point that has important implications for both Zen studies and Buddhist studies. [[#ichikawa-ref-14|14]]

The circumstances described above are connected with the fact that Buddhist practitioners have traditionally placed the emphasis of their religious training upon the attainment of peace of mind. As Nishida wrote in his diary, “Do not run after the peripheral matters of scholarship and forget the foundation of peace of mind.” Consequently, the culmination of their practice tends toward an attitude of being at home wherever one finds oneself—expressed in the saying, “Wherever one lives becomes home.” To that extent, there is a psychological tendency to beautify and rationalise the circumstances of each particular moment. Moreover, the subject of prajñā intuition is characterised as something that reflects and receives, as suggested by expressions such as “ocean-seal samādhi” (''kaiin zanmai'' 海印三昧), “precious-mirror samādhi” (''hōkyō zanmai'' 宝鏡三昧), and the “place of absolute nothingness” (''zettai mu no basho'' 絶対無の場所). This characteristic corresponds to the orientation toward peace of mind described above. Even before a sustained determination to transform the surrounding environment can emerge, the practitioner has already entered the contemplative enjoyment of things. The fact that the East, characterised by what has been called “Asiatic stagnation,” has excelled in the arts of cultivation, and that much of “Zen culture” has taken an artistic form, is connected with this tendency. It is interesting that archery and martial techniques, originally intended for combat against enemies, became in times of peace the disciplines of ''kyūdō'' 弓道 and ''budō'' 武道, directed toward confronting oneself, and were subsequently internalised, intellectualised, systematised, and transformed into forms of contemplation. Everything associated with the “Way” (''dō'' 道) has a contemplative character. In other words, it finds a place of repose within the framework of established social conventions and institutions. Affluent Buddhist practitioners enjoying leisure in periods of social stability could readily immerse themselves in the contemplative world of Kegon. Anxious Buddhists living through periods of crisis likewise entered this world of contemplation in search of peace of mind. In such a world, empirical historical reality becomes veiled by the harmonious non-obstruction of all phenomena. It is beautified and, in proportion to this beautification, accepted and rationalised.

All phenomena in the world are said to appear within ocean-seal samādhi, mutually interpenetrating in infinitely overlapping relationships. In my view, the Lotus Treasury World (''renge zō sekai'' 蓮華蔵世界) described in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (''Kegongyō'' 華厳経) is both a realm of reality disclosed through the active intuition of prajñā and a visionary world constituted through creative imagination around that experience. Here, however, harmonious non-obstruction refers to the actual activities of practitioners living within the rigid framework of caste society, together with the mutually non-obstructing phenomena of their visionary world. It does not mean that the raw, living reality inhabited by the masses is itself a world of harmonious—[[#ed-note-i|i]]

{{opage|334}}

—non-obstruction. Within ocean-seal samādhi, three layers of reality must surely appear: the mutually non-obstructing facts of the practitioner’s immediate activity, the harmonious interpenetration of phenomena within an intuitive vision, and the dark reality of conflict and contradiction. It would be a mistake to paint over this three-dimensional world with a single, flat colour of harmonious non-obstruction.

In contrast, we may recall the following words of Herbert Read (1893–1968): “Religion is closely connected with art (poetry). […] During the Spanish Civil War, observers were struck by the religious fervour of the anarchists. In that country of a latent renaissance, anarchism inspired not only heroes but saints—new kinds of people who devoted their lives, through sensuous imagination and practical action, to creating a new form of human society.”[[#ichikawa-ref-15|15]]

The following criticism may be applied to the misguided realism that results from confusing worlds belonging to different levels of experience:

“It is clear that Fazang’s Kegon philosophy—its doctrine of the harmonious interpenetration of phenomena and of the absoluteness of phenomena mutually non-obstructing—expresses a truth that can be realised only through the fundamental intuition of ocean-seal samādhi, understood through the doctrine of the arising of phenomena from their true nature (''shōki'' 性起). “When this becomes merely an intellectual doctrine, however, it denies the mediation of practice and turns into a facile, absolutist worldview. […] “The doctrine of the harmonious interpenetration of phenomena certainly does not mean simply accepting the ‘things’ of existing reality as they are and asserting their harmony. Genuine non-obstruction among phenomena unfolds upon the foundation of religious intuition. […] “The Kegon system is a religious worldview manifested through ocean-seal samādhi. If this is forgotten, and the ‘things’ of empirical reality are accepted merely as they appear to the discriminating consciousness of ordinary people, and their harmony is then proclaimed, the result is an entirely different philosophy. “Phenomena are absolute because each constitutes part of the Lotus Treasury World. To ignore this and claim that every phenomenon possesses absolute significance amounts to affirming existing reality just as it stands. One misstep, and this becomes an unconditional affirmation of existing structures of domination and social organisation. “A philosophy of absolute affirmation can thereby become a philosophy in the service of rulers who sanction existing reality as it is.” (Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄)[[#ichikawa-ref-16|16]]

{{opage|335}}

This criticism may be said to identify correctly the errors and pathologies into which Kegon thought, and indeed Mahāyāna Buddhism more generally, have been liable to fall, and into which they have frequently fallen in practice—as, for example, in the cases of Sengzhao (384–414) and Dahui (1089–1163).[[#ichikawa-ref-17|17]]

The criticism emphasises the distinction between the realm of religious experience and that of ordinary empirical experience, insisting that the latter must be purified “through the practice of the bodhisattva path and vows grounded in compassion.” In this respect, it overcomes the vulgarism characteristic of Takakusu’s interpretation and, together with Suzuki’s view cited within it, rests upon an orthodox doctrinal foundation. This position might be described as a shift from the contemplative tendency found in Fazang toward the experiential orientation of Chengguan (737–839), accompanied by an emphasis on religious instruction and propagation grounded in that experience.

The Kegon world of the non-obstruction of phenomena is the joint product of experience and vision. It belongs to a dimension altogether different from the sphere of action in which the structural contradictions of actual class society are grasped, analysed, and practically overcome. Indeed, it is a world that can exist only within that particular dimension. It possesses neither the foundation nor the logic necessary to generate objective practice capable of overcoming the fundamental structural contradictions of the world in which we live. In this respect, there is no essential difference between Fazang and Chengguan. Even if this philosophy does not affirm mere facts or empirical reality as they stand, but instead rejects them as false and illusory, such rejection occurs entirely within subjective consciousness. It does not occur within the sphere of objective, transformative practice. Consequently, in actual historical circumstances, it amounts to a “doctrine of double truth”[[#ichikawa-ref-18|18]] that affirms the existing order. There is therefore nothing surprising about Buddhists who consciously distinguish the world of prajñā experience from ordinary empirical reality nevertheless acting, in practice, as defenders of the established social system.


=== V ===

When Kegon thought attempts to formulate a social ethics within the actual world without overcoming the traditional characteristics and limitations examined above—

{{opage|336}}

—that is, when it constructs morality through the logic of mutual identity (''sōsoku'' 相即) and the dependent-origination logic of mutual dependence and interrelationship (''sōi sōkan'' 相依相関), expressed in propositions such as “The principal is principal in relation to the companion, and the companion is companion in relation to the principal,” or “Mind is mind in relation to matter, and matter is matter in relation to mind”—the result will be an ethics of concord, harmony, and paternalistic benevolence.

“Without capital there can be no enterprise, and without enterprise there can be no labour. At the same time, without labour there can be no enterprise, and without enterprise there can be no capital. The joint activity of capital and labour is precisely what constitutes industry. […] If those who provide wages deserve respect, then those who provide labour deserve equal respect. Indeed, neither party is simply giving something to the other; rather, industry consists of capital and labour being brought together.” (Shibusawa Eiichi) [[#ichikawa-ref-19|19]]

The morality of cooperation between capital and labour expressed by this industrial capitalist is presented by a Zen practitioner in the following manner:

“If one understands that self and other are originally nondual, there should be no difficulty whatsoever. Labour is the capitalist’s capital, and capital is the labourer’s labour. How, then, could conflict possibly arise?” (Iida Tōin) [[#ichikawa-ref-20|20]]

The morality of harmony can also become a morality of war. A Kegon scholar writes:

“In times of peace, the understanding of dependent origination provides a foundation for harmonious relations, through the recognition of the profound karmic connections that bind people inseparably together. But in times of emergency, it also manifests itself as a spirit of fearless, unobstructed struggle, enabling Japanese citizens to fulfil their responsibilities in their respective positions.” (Kamekawa Kyōshin) [[#ichikawa-ref-21|21]]

“When every single member of the nation, embraced within the august imperial authority, rises with this sense of the completeness of principal and companion, the hundred million people are no longer limited to merely a hundred million. Rather, the hundred million simultaneously manifest a power multiplied a hundred millionfold.” (Ibid.)

According to this Kegon scholar, it is only through the conception of the state arising from Japanese national consciousness that the relationship between the individual and the whole can truly be perceived in its proper form, through the practical apprehension of inexhaustible dependent origination expressed as “one is all, and all is one.” [[#ichikawa-ref-22|22]] Yet this very logic has found concrete expression in postwar Japan in the workers’ handbook, or “Mirror,” of Ōmi Kenshi, and has continued to produce results as a morality of worker training developed through cooperation between industrial capital and Zen. The Japan Federation of Economic Organizations (''Keidanren'' 経団連)

{{opage|337}}

—supported the establishment of a Zen training centre where a recent roundtable entitled “Zen and Business” discussed the adjustment of human relations through Zen, the rationalisation of business management, and measures concerning labour. Among the statements recorded in that discussion were the following:[[#ed-note-j|j]]

“Our most important policy, as our managing director has just explained, is first of all to bring about a complete change in the attitudes associated with student life. We want participants to examine themselves, their membership in the company, and the relationship between the individual within the company as a whole and the whole constituted through individuals. We want them to analyse themselves and then begin working with a renewed consciousness of themselves as members of the company. This is our most fundamental policy.” [[#ichikawa-ref-23|23]]

“We received some questionnaire responses saying that, although participants had expected the monks’ talks at the Zen temple to be thoroughly religious and solemn, they found them quite approachable—even including discussions of attitudes toward romantic love—and therefore very pleasant to listen to. […] If possible, we would appreciate talks that include a little of this sort of romantic interest, since they seem to be very well received.”

What I wish to address here is Kamekawa’s interpretation of the “completeness of principal and companion” (''shuhan gusoku'' 主伴具足), which is essentially the same as Takakusu’s interpretation. In this case, the relationship running from principal to companion is thoroughly one-directional and extremely concrete in its historical reality, since it provides a foundation for imperial absolutism under the Meiji Constitution. By contrast, the possibility of the companion becoming principal remains merely conceptual. In other words, this suggests that the logic of the completeness of principal and companion should not be applied to class society. In Kamekawa’s interpretation, principal and companion cannot genuinely be said to possess complete and perfect reciprocity. Even Fazang himself, who originally formulated this logic, probably did not entirely escape this danger. Kamata, in the essay discussed earlier, also takes up this problem and warns against confusing the reality of religious experience with empirical reality. Yet, as I have already pointed out, this criticism amounts to a “doctrine of double truth,” in which existing reality is denied at the level of consciousness but accepted in actual practice. An anarchist-communist society would surely provide the best expression of the complete illumination and mutual fulfilment of principal and companion.

{{opage|338}}


=== VI ===

There is a saying, “Kill the Buddha and kill the patriarchs” (''Unmonroku'' 雲門録). Perhaps no tradition is as thoroughgoing as Zen in refusing to recognise externally imposed authority. The Tang-dynasty Zen master Linji Yixuan (''Rinzai Gigen'' 臨済義玄, d. 867) emphasised the freedom of the “true person of no rank,” who “becomes master wherever one stands” and is “independently liberated, dependent on nothing.” It was in the spirit of such freedom that Danxia Tianran (Tanka Tennen 丹霞天然, 739–824) burned a Buddha image and Deshan Xuanjian (Tokusan Senkan 徳山宣鑑, 782–865) burned Buddhist scriptures. Zhaozhou Congshen (''Jōshū Jūshin'' 趙州従諗, 778–897) declared, “I do not delight in hearing even the single word ‘Buddha.’” A king once visited Zhaozhou accompanied by his retainers, but Zhaozhou did not descend from his seat to welcome him. The following day, when the king sent an official to convey his thanks for the previous day’s reception, Zhaozhou descended from his seat and received the visitor’s greeting. When his disciples later asked why he had acted differently, Zhaozhou replied: “You would not understand. When a person of the highest rank comes, I receive him upon my meditation seat. When a person of middling rank comes, I descend from my seat to receive him. When a person of the lowest rank comes, I go outside the monastery gate to receive him. This is the custom of my house.” [[#ichikawa-ref-24|24]]

As suggested by the passage, “In the Western realm there is a land called Peace and Nourishment. […] There is no system of kingship there, nor any hierarchy of official ranks,” [[#ichikawa-ref-25|25]] the future society envisioned by Buddhists may be understood as a world of anarchist communism. Kropotkin (1842–1921)[[#ed-note-k|k]] argued that our cultural achievements and the material necessities of life are the fruits of the labour of countless people extending back into the distant past. Consequently, none of us has grounds for calling them “my own.” [[#ichikawa-ref-26|26]] Buddhists likewise understood these things as products of the endlessly interwoven activities of sentient beings: they are originally “property of the four quarters” (''shihōmotsu'' 四方物), belonging to all sentient beings, and do not admit the possessive designation “mine” (''mama-kāra''). [[#ichikawa-ref-27|27]] (Nevertheless, texts such as the Brahmā’s Net Bodhisattva Precepts Sūtra already contain the notion of “property of the king.”)

The problems Buddhism must confront today in order to develop a social ethics or an ethics for the world are approximately as follows:

{{opage|339}}

First, there is the problem of bringing together the recovery of Buddhism’s supranational character and the recovery of nationalism. In the expression “protection of the nation” (''chingo kokka'' 鎮護国家), “nation” originally referred to the royal household, the territory, and the people, but its principal concern was the emperor. (In China, too, the term “state” (''kokka'' 国家) could signify the Son of Heaven[[#ichikawa-ref-28|28]] or the imperial court[[#ichikawa-ref-29|29]].) Consider, for example, the “Ten Secret Rites for the Protection of the Nation” (Chingo ''kokka'' no jikka hihō 鎮護国家の十箇秘法) in Japanese Tendai Buddhism. The majority concern the emperor personally, including rites for imperial enthronement, prayers concerning the emperor’s life, and precepts conferred for safe childbirth within the imperial household. In any event, because Buddhism was associated with state power from the earliest period of its development, it tended to lack a critical analysis and examination of the essential nature of political power. There was, of course, an intention to educate sovereigns so that they might govern benevolently, and this intention sometimes achieved positive results. Nevertheless, considerable suspicion of kings also existed. We find statements such as, “A monk should approach a king as though approaching a servant-master relationship” (Saddharma-smṛtyupasthāna Sūtra, ''Shōbōnenkyō'' 正法念経), and “Kings constantly increase taxation and arbitrarily punish people who have committed no offence. […] Though they see people suffering poverty and distress, they never give rise to compassion. They indulge in women without fearing the evil destinies” (Tang translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, ''Kegongyō'' 華厳経).

As in early Buddhism, Buddhist scriptures often regarded kings as people who inflicted harm upon the population. Kings were therefore placed alongside thieves and robbers, and among the misfortunes suffered by ordinary people—calamities of flood and fire, robbery, and wicked persons—there was also the “calamity of the king.” [[#ichikawa-ref-30|30]]

We must discover a logic capable of bringing together a recognition of the evils of the state with the recovery of a legitimate nationalism, understood, for example, in terms of national independence and cooperation among peoples. In connection with this problem, we must also investigate how to reconcile the contradiction between spiritual freedom, expressed in the Record of Linji as “remaining unstained by birth and death, free to come and go” (''shōji ni somazu kyojū jiyū'' 生死に染まず去住自由), and political and social freedom. “Without religion, the state could not exist,” declared Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876). [[#ichikawa-ref-31|31]] Yet religion can exist without the state—although whether Zen should properly be called a “religion” is itself open to question. We have already seen how modern Japanese Zen was distorted by the state power of the emperor system.

{{opage|340}}

In considering the relationship between Buddhism and the state, the next question is that of class. Marx wrote: “The ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas in every age. The class that constitutes the dominant material power in society is at the same time its dominant intellectual power. The class that controls the means of material production also controls the means of intellectual production. Consequently, the ideas of those who lack access to the means of intellectual production are, in general, subordinated to that class.” [[#ichikawa-ref-32|32]] It hardly needs explaining that the ideology of modern Japanese Zen was no exception to this general principle. Even in the process of conversion from a Japanese Zen bound by nationality under imperial Japan to a cosmopolitan Zen without national affiliation in a “cultural Japan,” this principle may have been operating to some degree. Dr. Hisamatsu Shin’ichi 久松真一, a Zen thinker internationally renowned alongside Suzuki Daisetsu, has discussed the crisis confronting the present age and the problem of world ethics. In the murderous development of atomic physics, he sees a crisis of humanism itself. He points to the unprecedented disparity between the extraordinary advances of science and the failure of morality to keep pace, insisting upon the need to strengthen our ethical capacities in order to correct this imbalance. Moreover, he maintains that such ethical capacities must not be based upon the egoism of particular nations, blocs of nations, classes, or ideologies. He therefore urges the immediate establishment of a new world ethics. [[#ichikawa-ref-33|33]] This is certainly a valuable suggestion. Yet, when we reconsider the matter, is the disparity between science and ethics really a crisis of humanism or an impasse in human civilisation? The overwhelming majority of the world’s peoples, together with the majority of conscientious scientists, have repeatedly protested and resisted the murderous application of atomic power. They are not in the least guilty of ideological bias. Indeed, it is precisely this vast popular struggle for peace that has prevented a revolutionary rupture between science and morality. Those who are biased, those who expose the crisis of humanism, are none other than the “merchants of death” of monopoly capital.

How, then, does the F.A.S. Zen movement centred on Dr. Hisamatsu deal with the standpoint of class in its vow to “create superhistorical history”? Are the wisdom and power involved in this historical creation like distilled water—[[#ed-note-l|l]]

{{opage|341}}

—colourless and transparent? How would its social ethics differ from the social ethics of Moral Re-Armament (M.R.A.), which grounds itself in an Absolute?[[#ed-note-m|m]] “I can promise to be fair, but I cannot promise to be impartial,” wrote Goethe. (Ichikawa’s note: In this connection, I would draw attention to the system being developed by the materialist Umemoto Katsumi, who, in contrast to Nishida philosophy’s “active intuition” (''kōiteki chokkan'' 行為的直観), is working out a logic of “practical intuition” (''jissenteki chokkan'' 実践的直観) grounded in class consciousness.)

The problem of class is connected with the problem of human self-alienation, particularly alienation in labour. Unless Buddhism confronts this problem directly, it will be unable to develop a contemporary social ethics. This necessarily requires Buddhists to incorporate the standpoint of wage labourers into their own thinking. In other words, they must consciously adopt the standpoint of workers—human beings treated as commodities.

“Alienated labour alienates (1) nature from humanity, and (2) human beings from themselves, from their own active functions and life-activity. In doing so, it alienates humanity from its species-being. […] The immediate consequence of the alienation of human beings from the products of their labour, their life-activity, and their species-being is the alienation of human beings from one another—die Entfremdung des Menschen von dem Menschen.” [[#ichikawa-ref-34|34]]

Under capitalism, even human beings become commodities. The education of young men and women amounts to investing capital in their bodies, while young people must devote themselves to the problem of how to sell themselves in the “personality market.” This is an education and morality grounded in the commodity economy, expressed through the language of adjustment and human relations. Expressions such as “human resources,” “human dock” [medical checkups], and the “Zen boom” are profoundly revealing. Someone remarked: “At the entrance there was a sign saying, ‘Look beneath your feet.’ That is the first priority. I believe this is how sound enterprises will emerge. From the standpoint of the business community, this is a cheap investment. Something like this will come back with a ten-thousandfold return.” [[#ichikawa-ref-35|35]]

{{opage|342}}

“Prostitution is only a particular expression of the general prostitution of the worker—allgemeine Prostitution des Arbeiters. And since prostitution constitutes a relationship that includes not only the prostitute but also the other party, whose baseness is even greater, capitalists too belong to this category.” [[#ichikawa-ref-36|36]]

I distinguish this kind of human self-alienation[[#ed-note-n|n]], which I call horizontal alienation, from existential and religious self-alienation, or vertical estrangement. Horizontal alienation will never be overcome by the class that enjoys it as something comfortable, but only by the class that has no choice but to experience it as suffering. (This follows the same logic and psychology as the Buddhist overcoming of vertical estrangement, which begins with the contemplation of suffering.) To adopt the standpoint of wage labourers treated as commodities, and to resolve to overcome human self-alienation in labour—which is simultaneously self-alienation in capital—is precisely to adopt a standpoint of class consciousness. A merely abstract affirmation of humanity, incapable of understanding class consciousness as anything other than class egoism, misses the fundamental problem. The claim that human self-alienation can genuinely be overcome only from the standpoint of a universal human ethics—without uniting the opposing standpoints of class and humanity—rests upon the illusion that those who comfortably enjoy alienation might suddenly awaken one morning and collectively recognise it as suffering. The genuinely practical path toward overcoming alienation must instead begin by abandoning this facile sentimentalism, adopting the standpoint of those who experience alienation as suffering, and apprehending historical reality as it actually exists. This means grasping historical reality from a standpoint that unites objectivity and partisanship.

“What is at issue here is a confession, and nothing more. For humanity to have its sins forgiven, it need only proclaim those sins publicly, precisely as they actually are.” [[#ichikawa-ref-37|37]]

{{opage|343}}

“To proclaim those sins publicly, precisely as they actually are[[#ed-note-o|o]]”—was this not what Marx accomplished through his analysis of the commodity in Capital? And might this not be the concrete content, within the field of economics, of Dōgen’s expression “to be verified by all things”? Beginning with labour-power as a commodity, one arrives, by abstracting from its capitalist determinations, at the commodity itself (the downward movement). Through scientific investigation of this commodity, one then clarifies how its inherent self-contradiction constitutes the elementary form of the class contradictions of capitalist society (the upward movement). Might not the disclosure of this circular process—understood, moreover, as an “open system” [[#ichikawa-ref-38|38]]—through practical intuition constitute the social-scientific content of Nishida philosophy’s method of “becoming a thing in order to see, and becoming a thing in order to think”?’

Today, we human beings—and Buddhist practitioners themselves—live within and are sustained by a commodity-economic society, a “world of prostitution.” This entire condition is what is meant by the “falsity of the secular world” (''seken koke'' 世間虚仮), a world of falsehood and empty words.

Karl Löwith (1897–1973) gives an illuminating account of how even Kierkegaard, Marx’s philosophical antipode, demonstrated through the circumstances of his own life the validity of Marx’s insight into the relationship between capital and labour. [[#ichikawa-ref-39|39]] On the other hand, when we attempt to realise objectively the mutual non-obstruction of phenomena (''jiji muge'' 事々無礙) within an intersubjective society, we will surely have much to learn from Kropotkin’s persuasive criticisms concerning the limits of the philosophy of dependent origination. [[#ichikawa-ref-40|40]]

What makes us conscious of the falsity of the secular world in this aspect, and inspires us to resolve to overcome it, is historical truth—the Dharma (dharma ダルマ)—proper to this sphere. For the moment, I leave aside the objectifying-logical and metaphysical dimensions of alienation. Nevertheless, we must not neglect a rigorous criticism of attempts to “empty” the objectivity of an object rather than transforming the object itself. Here, it seems to me, lies the starting point for a dialectical relationship between social ethics and social science among Buddhists.

== Explanatory Notes ==
<div id="ed-note-a" style="margin-bottom: 0.8em; line-height: 1.5;">a. Nishida’s philosophy of place. Nishida Kitarō’s 1926 essay “Place” (''Basho'' 場所) develops the notion of a locus in which individual things are constituted through relationships and self-determination. Ichikawa argues that this philosophy’s rejection of a fixed, substantial universal ought to support freely associated individuals, rather than an emperor-centred political order. [[#ed-call-a|↑]]</div>

<div id="ed-note-b" style="margin-bottom: 0.8em; line-height: 1.5;">b. The four dharma-realms. In Huayan/Kegon thought these are the realm of phenomena (事法界), the realm of principle (理法界), the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena (理事無礙法界), and the non-obstruction of phenomena with one another (事事無礙法界). Ichikawa centres his political reading on the final realm, without assuming that interdependence automatically entails political equality. [[#ed-call-b|↑]]</div>

<div id="ed-note-c" style="margin-bottom: 0.8em; line-height: 1.5;">c. Takakusu and wartime Buddhist thought. Takakusu Junjirō (1866–1945) was a prominent Buddhist scholar associated with the ''Taishō'' canon. Ichikawa cites his “Principle of Totality in Buddhism” (「仏教の全体性原理」; Ichikawa’s source reference 6) as evidence of the use of Kegon categories to defend wartime totalitarianism. The passage documents Takakusu’s interpretation, not an uncontested meaning of Kegon doctrine. [[#ed-call-c|↑]]</div>

<div id="ed-note-d" style="margin-bottom: 0.8em; line-height: 1.5;">d. Principal and companion. Fazang’s “principal and companion” (''shuhan'' 主伴) allows different phenomena to become the focus of a relationship, with the others functioning as companions. Ichikawa argues that making one hereditary sovereign permanently principal defeats the reciprocity that the doctrine is meant to express. [[#ed-call-d|↑]]</div>

<div id="ed-note-e" style="margin-bottom: 0.8em; line-height: 1.5;">e. Suzuki’s diagrams. Figures 1 and 2, reproduced from Suzuki Daisetsu’s postwar account, respectively depict an elevated apex with disconnected subjects and a circle of mutually related individuals. In Figure 2, S still represents the emperor. Ichikawa’s question is why even the revised, immanent arrangement requires a fixed hereditary centre. [[#ed-call-e|↑]]</div>

<div id="ed-note-f" style="margin-bottom: 0.8em; line-height: 1.5;">f. Monad with open windows. Suzuki reverses Leibniz’s well-known image of monads as having “no windows.” His metaphor of open windows expresses both distinct individuality and reciprocal exchange, but it does not itself settle the problem of the emperor’s status in the political whole. [[#ed-call-f|↑]]</div>

<div id="ed-note-g" style="margin-bottom: 0.8em; line-height: 1.5;">g. Buddhist Anarchist Communism. Ichikawa proposes Buddhist Anarchist Communism (B.A.C.) as one possible political expression of Kegon interdependence, combining resistance to coercive external authority with opposition to private appropriation. Although Suzuki’s self-organising dharma-realm suggests anarchist free association, Ichikawa explicitly observes that Suzuki does not address private ownership. B.A.C. is therefore Ichikawa’s extension, not Suzuki’s own political programme. [[#ed-call-g|↑]]</div>

<div id="ed-note-h" style="margin-bottom: 0.8em; line-height: 1.5;">h. Zen and the imperial lineage. Ichikawa contrasts impermanence (''shogyō mujō'' 諸行無常) with claims about the eternal imperial lineage. His objection is to making a particular hereditary institution a necessary expression of Zen insight. [[#ed-call-h|↑]]</div>

<div id="ed-note-i" style="margin-bottom: 0.8em; line-height: 1.5;">i. Ocean-seal samādhi. Ocean-seal samādhi (''kaiin zanmai'' 海印三昧) evokes a comprehensive religious vision in Kegon thought. Ichikawa cautions against treating the harmony experienced or imagined in such a state as already realised in historically unequal or conflictual societies. [[#ed-call-i|↑]]</div>

<div id="ed-note-j" style="margin-bottom: 0.8em; line-height: 1.5;">j. Corporate Zen and industrial relations. Ichikawa refers to Zen training supported by business interests and a roundtable on “Zen and Business,” criticising the use of self-cultivation and harmony to promote managerial efficiency while leaving labour–capital inequalities intact. His printed references 23 and 35 both cite issue 70 of the journal Zen 禅 (March 1961). [[#ed-call-j|↑]]</div>

<div id="ed-note-k" style="margin-bottom: 0.8em; line-height: 1.5;">k. Common ownership and Kropotkin. Kropotkin’s account of wealth as the accumulated product of countless people’s labour supports Ichikawa’s criticism of exclusive appropriation. Ichikawa connects this to Buddhist language about goods belonging to the wider community, but also acknowledges traditions recognising royal ownership. Buddhist ownership terminology in the Japanese text requires final source-level verification. [[#ed-call-k|↑]]</div>

<div id="ed-note-l" style="margin-bottom: 0.8em; line-height: 1.5;">l. F.A.S. Zen. Associated with Hisamatsu Shin’ichi, F.A.S. refers to Formless Self, All Humankind, and Suprahistorical History. It seeks to unite awakening with universal ethical action. Ichikawa welcomes its aspirations but questions whether a standpoint claiming to transcend class and national divisions adequately addresses the material interests and historical antagonisms shaping social life. [[#ed-call-l|↑]]</div>

<div id="ed-note-m" style="margin-bottom: 0.8em; line-height: 1.5;">m. Moral Re-Armament. Moral Re-Armament (M.R.A.) was an international moral and spiritual renewal movement. Ichikawa invokes it as a comparison when questioning whether a purportedly class-neutral universal ethics can engage specific structures of economic power. This is a comparative reference, distinct from his criticism of F.A.S. Zen. [[#ed-call-m|↑]]</div>

<div id="ed-note-n" style="margin-bottom: 0.8em; line-height: 1.5;">n. Horizontal and vertical alienation. Ichikawa distinguishes social and economic “horizontal alienation” from existential or religious “vertical estrangement.” Drawing on Marx’s account of alienated labour, he insists that the Buddhist encounter with suffering must also address historically specific exploitation. The two dimensions are related but not reducible to one another. [[#ed-call-n|↑]]</div>

<div id="ed-note-o" style="margin-bottom: 0.8em; line-height: 1.5;">o. Marx’s commodity analysis and practical intuition. Ichikawa compares Marx’s method in Capital with Nishida’s “active intuition” (''kōiteki chokkan'' 行為的直観) and suggests a historically grounded “practical intuition” (''jissenteki chokkan'' 実践的直観). His comparison is methodological, not an equation of Nishida’s philosophy with Marx’s critique of political economy. He insists that changing social relations cannot be replaced by inwardly “emptying” an object. [[#ed-call-o|↑]]</div>

== Original References ==

1. 西田幾多郎の思想は、当初から体制擁護的な契機を含んでいた。拙稿「絶対無のつまづき――西田幾多郎の場合」、『思想』、一九五九年一月、本巻所収「西田幾多郎論」参照。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-2-1|↑]] 2. 大宅壮一「西田幾多郎と敗北」、『文藝春秋』、一九五四年六月。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-3-1|↑]] 3. 政府の「大東亜宣言」の草案として、一部の者の要請によって書かれたものだが、東条首相の拒否によって採択されなかった。その全文は矢吹一夫「昭和人物秘録」の「西田幾多郎博士の大東亜戦争観」にのせられている。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-4-1|↑]] 4. 西田幾多郎『哲学の根本問題・続編』、一〇六―一〇七頁。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-5-1|↑]] 5. 同書、一〇七頁。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-6-1|↑]] 6. 日本諸学振興委員会、哲学講演会での講演（一九三七年）の記録。西田幾多郎「学問的方法」と共に、『文部省教学叢書』第三集（一九三八年）に収録。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-7-1|↑]] 7. 大阪毎日新聞社編『日本仏教概論』、一九四二年。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-8-1|↑]] 8. 東京帝大仏青編『仏教思想講座』巻三、一九三九年。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-9-1|↑]] 9. 高楠順次郎、前掲論文。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-10-1|↑]] 10. 『宗門無尽灯論』、流通第一〇。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-11-1|↑]] 11. 『禅海一瀾』、岩波文庫版、三一、三四頁。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-12-1|↑]] 12. P. J. Proudhon, Proudhon’s Solution of the Social Problem, p. 45.

 [[#ichikawa-cite-13-1|↑]] 13. F. H. Heinemann, Existentialism and the Modern Predicament, p. 154.

 [[#ichikawa-cite-14-1|↑]] 14. 西田幾多郎『思索と体験』、一一八頁。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-15-1|↑]] 15. H. Read, The Philosophy of Anarchism, pp. 24–25.

 [[#ichikawa-cite-16-1|↑]] 16. 鎌田茂雄「華厳哲学の根本的立場」、中村元編『華厳思想』所収。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-17-1|↑]] 17. 拙著『般若経』、三一書房、六九頁、第六巻所収。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-18-1|↑]] 18. 船山信一「明治哲学における護教主義現実主義の三つの論理」、『思想』、一九六一年一月。二重真理説はキリスト教神学の恩寵と理性、仏教の真諦と俗諦の説にみられる。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-19-1|↑]] 19. 渋沢栄一「労働問題解決の根本義」、『社会政策時報』、一九二〇年九月。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-20-1|↑]] 20. 飯田欓隠『無門関鑽燧』、一九二四年十一月、一七九頁。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-21-1|↑]] 21. 亀川教信（龍谷大学教授）『縁起の構造』、一九四四年八月、五八一、五八五頁。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-22-1|↑]] 22. 同書、五九頁。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-23-1|↑]] 23. 「禅と企業」、『禅』七〇集、一九六一年三月。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-24-1|↑]] 24. 『禅苑蒙求』。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-25-1|↑]] 25. 支遁「阿弥陀仏像讃並序」。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-26-1|↑]] 26. P. Kropotkin, Anarchist Communism. Kropotkin’s Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 57f.

 [[#ichikawa-cite-27-1|↑]] 27. 拙著『般若経』第四章、三一書房。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-28-1|↑]] 28. 『晋書』（陶侃伝）。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-29-1|↑]] 29. 『事物起源』、学校学事部、詞賦。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-30-1|↑]] 30. 宮本正尊編『大乗仏教の成立史的研究』、三七六頁。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-31-1|↑]] 31. M. Bakunin, Gott u. d. Staat. (Gesammelte Werke. Bd. I)

 [[#ichikawa-cite-32-1|↑]] 32. K. Marx, Die Deutsche Ideologie, S. 44 (Bücherei des Marxismus-Leninismus. Bd. 29)

 [[#ichikawa-cite-33-1|↑]] 33. 『京都新聞』、一九六一・一・一四および『維摩七則』、一六三頁。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-34-1|↑]] 34. K. Marx, Ökonomisch-philosophische Manuskripte, S. 103, 106 (Bücherei des Marxismus-Leninismus, Bd. 42)

 [[#ichikawa-cite-35-1|↑]] 35. 『禅』七〇集、一九六一年三月。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-36-1|↑]] 36. Marx, ibid. S. 128.

 [[#ichikawa-cite-37-1|↑]] 37. 「ルーゲへの手紙」、一八四三年（『マルクス・エンゲルス選集』補巻四、一三五頁）。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-38-1|↑]] 38. 梯明秀『資本論への私の歩み』、一二七頁以下。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-39-1|↑]] 39. K. Löwith, Von Hegel zu Nietzsche. 邦訳、七〇頁以下。

 [[#ichikawa-cite-40-1|↑]] 40. P. Kropotkin, Anarchist Communism, pp. 48, 56, 59, 64. P. Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, chap. I.

== Source Note ==
Translated from Ichikawa Hakugen, “''Zen, Kegon, anakizumu''” 禅・華厳・アナキズム (1961), reprinted in ''Ichikawa Hakugen chosakushū'' 市川白弦著作集, vol. 3 (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1993), pp. 319–343; original source references occupy pp. 344–345. The original reference numbers are retained as superscript numerals, distinct from the translator’s explanatory notes. Suzuki Daisetsu’s two diagrams are reproduced from the scanned collected edition.

This is a working translation. Several quotations and Japanese readings require final collation; the original reference list is reproduced below as a working transcription with linked numbering. References 23 and 35 both cite issue 70 of Zen (March 1961).

== How to Cite this Text ==

Ichikawa Hakugen (1961). “Zen, Kegon, and Anarchism” (''Zen, Kegon, anakizumu'' [[IH61ZKA|禅・華厳・アナキズム]]). Translated and annotated by James Mark Shields. ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/IH61ZKA-T</nowiki>.

[[Category:Ichikawa Hakugen]]
[[Category:Translations from Japanese]]

How to Support the Radical Buddhism Project

2026-11-01T11:05:04Z

Lajos:

The RBP is completely non-profit, but we don't have an official NPO status, a corporate hierarchy, or a central institutional bank account. To keep going and grow, the project relies entirely on two things: community support and academic collaboration.

=== 1. Contributor Collaboration ===
If you are a scholar, translator, or regional specialist, you can help us directly. Feel free to apply to join our team of verified Wiki Editors, volunteer to translate rare texts, type up physical source materials, or review existing drafts.

Most importantly, you ''don't have to be a professional academic'' to help. If you speak an Asian language fluently and are willing to compare digital text against scans of the originals to catch transcription errors, we would love to have you on board.

=== 2. Direct Funding ===
Most of the writing, digitizing, and basic translation work, and all of the content managment is done by the Managing Editor. Because this is a small project without institutional backing, the biggest limitation is simply time. The Managing Editor supports himself through external freelance translation and proofreading work, which limits how many hours he can give to the site.

To support this work, we have an official [https://patreon.com/radicalbuddhism Patreon Page]. Direct support from the community is our long-term plan for keeping the project alive. Every donation or subscription offsets the Managing Editor's outside freelance work, freeing up his time to focus on writing articles, digitizing texts, and translating for the RBP instead.

We want to be upfront, though: crowdfunding takes years to build, so it won't make the archive grow overnight. Because of this, we are also looking for grants and institutional funding, especially in the early stages. This kind of funding will help us build a solid baseline of content much faster than community support alone could manage. It will give the archive the jump-start it needs so that long-term community support has a strong foundation to build on.

[[category:Project]]

Rahul Sankrityayan

2026-10-27T11:24:19Z

Lajos: /* Writings */

{{Awaiting Review}}
Rahul Sankrityayan (राहुल सांकृत्यायन, born Kedarnath Pandey, 1893–1963) was a Hindi-language polymath, former Buddhist monk, and Marxist activist and historian who became the single most influential figure in linking the twentieth-century [[India]]n revival of Buddhism to the communist movement. Trained as a Tripitakacharya in [[Sri Lanka]] and a repeated, clandestine traveler to [[Tibet]] in search of lost Sanskrit Buddhist manuscripts, he combined rigorous textual scholarship on Buddhism with an explicit commitment to dialectical materialism from the mid-1930s onward. As a peasant organizer, Kisan Sabha president, and long-time Communist Party of India member, he read the sangha's communal economy, its rejection of caste, and its theory of dependent origination as anticipations of, or at least compatible with, Marxist thought, while subjecting Buddhism as a historical institution to a materialist class critique. He never fully resolved the tension between his enduring reverence for the Buddha and his rejection of organized Buddhism. His Hindi writings on Buddhist philosophy, his role in recovering Buddhist manuscripts from Tibet and Nepal, and his synthesis of Buddhist rationalism with revolutionary politics make him a foundational figure for the study of radical Buddhism in South Asia.

== Biography ==
Rahul Sankrityayan was born Kedarnath Pandey on April 9, 1893, at his maternal grandfather's house in Pandaha village, Azamgarh district, in what was then the North-Western Provinces of British India.<ref name="Sarao2017">Sarao, K.T.S. (2017). "Sankrityayan, Rahul". In: Sarao, K.T.S., & Long, J.D. (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Indian Religions: Buddhism and Jainism''. Springer.</ref><ref>The village is reported inconsistently: Chudal and Joshi give Pandaha, near Kanaila, whereas Bhartiya (2025), "Rahul Sankrityayan and His Contribution to Indian Buddhism", describes him as born in the Uttar Pradesh village of Kanaila.</ref> Raised in an orthodox Bhumihar Brahmin household after the early death of his mother, he received only a middle-school education and was thereafter self-taught, eventually mastering some thirty languages.<ref name="Chudal2016">Chudal, Alaka Atreya (2016). ''A Freethinking Cultural Nationalist: A Life History of Rahul Sankrityayan''. Oxford University Press.</ref> He left home repeatedly as a child and, from about 1910, took up a wandering life, moving through a series of religious identities: he was initiated as a Vaishnava sadhu at Chhapra in 1912 under the name Ramodar Das (also recorded as Baba Ram Udar Das), before drifting toward the reformist Arya Samaj around 1914–1917, where he first encountered Buddhist philosophy as a rival doctrine to be refuted.<ref name="Joshi2009">Joshi, Maya (2009). "Rahul Sankrityayan's Journeys of the Self: Nation, Culture, Identity". ''Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences'' 16(1&2): 119–147.</ref> According to Ober, the Arya Samaj's own text, the ''Satyarth Prakash'', obliged members to master a chapter refuting Buddhism, and a document of 1926 records him at the Maha Bodhi temple committee as "Sadhu Ramodar Das".<ref name="Ober2023">Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press.</ref> In 1917, in Lucknow, he encountered the Indian Buddhist Society founded by Bhadant Bodhanand Mahastavir, and Ober dates his lasting Buddhist engagement from this meeting, before his Sri Lankan sojourn or his journeys to Tibet.<ref>Ober, Douglas (2013). "'Like Embers Hidden in Ashes, or Jewels Encrusted In Stone': Rāhul Sāṅkṛtyāyan, Dharmānand Kosambī and Buddhist Activity in Colonial India". ''Contemporary Buddhism'' 14.1: 134–148. The identification of this Bodhanand with other figures of the same name in the literature (see the discussion of the Adi-Hindu movement) is unsettled.</ref>

Sankrityayan's political awakening began during the Non-Cooperation Movement, in which he organized peasants in Chhapra district, Bihar, in 1920–1921, and for which he was jailed in 1922 and again in 1924; it was during this second imprisonment that he wrote his first, unpublished novel, the utopian ''Baisvin Sadi'' ("The Twenty-Second Century"), later published in 1945.<ref name="Joshi2009" /> In 1922, newly active in Congress politics, he also drafted a proposal calling for the Maha Bodhi temple at Bodh Gaya, then in the hands of a Hindu Saiva mahant, to be restored to Buddhist control, forwarded to that year's Congress session at Gaya on behalf of Anagarika Dharmapala's Maha Bodhi Society; this drew him into sustained contact with the Buddhist monastic world even before he had committed himself to Buddhism as a scholarly vocation.<ref name="ChudalNepal">Chudal, Alaka Atreya (2015). "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal". ''European Bulletin of Himalayan Research'' 46: 62–87, pp. 64–65.</ref> His serious study of Buddhism intensified through the late 1920s: he studied Pali and Buddhist texts in Ladakh in 1926, and in 1927 he traveled to Sri Lanka, where he spent nineteen months at the Vidyalankara Pirivena studying under Buddhist monks and eventually earned the titles Tripitakacharya and Mahapandit.<ref name="Joshi2009" /><ref>Chudal (2015), "Buddhism of Nepal," pp. 64–66, n. 6, gives the dates as arrival at the Vidyalankara Pirivena on 16 May 1927 and departure for Tibet via Nepal on 1 December 1928. The sequence of his ordination is reported differently in Ober's own writings: Ober (2013) and an earlier article state that he took full ordination as a bhikkhu at the Vidyalankara Pirivena in 1930, while Ober (2023), pp. 241–243, has him become a bhikkhu only after his first major trip to Tibet in 1929–1930. This page therefore does not date his ordination.</ref> The Vidyalankara Pirivena, which Ober describes as a more radical, anti-imperialist counterpart of the Vidyodaya Pirivena where [[Dharmanand Kosambi]] had studied, formed several of his Indian contemporaries in the same years, among them the poet Kavi Nagarjun (Vaidyanath Mishra), the monk and writer Bhadant Anand Kausalyayan, and Jagdish Kashyap.<ref name="Ober2013">Ober (2013), "Like Embers Hidden in Ashes", pp. 134–148; Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne''. Ober draws on Seneviratne (1999) for the pirivena's milieu of Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism, in which Pali manuscripts circulated alongside the works of Marx and Robert Ingersoll.</ref> Renaming himself Rahul after the Buddha's son and taking the surname Sankrityayan from his family's gotra, he made the first of at least four clandestine journeys to Tibet (1929–30, 1934–35, and 1936, sometimes disguised as a Tibetan lama), from which he recovered and photographed several thousand Buddhist Sanskrit and Tibetan manuscripts lost to India since the destruction of Nalanda and Vikramashila.<ref name="Joshi2009" /><ref>Corroboration from a Hindi source: Narendra Deva, ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'' (1956), p. 169, records that Sankrityayan brought photographs of the original Sanskrit manuscript of Vasubandhu's ''Abhidharmakosha-bhashya'' from Tibet. Ober counts four major manuscript-hunting expeditions between 1929 and 1938.</ref>

[[Nepal]], which he visited repeatedly beginning in 1920 and came to regard as something close to a second home, served as his essential gateway to Tibet. Traveling disguised as a Hindu pilgrim sadhu during the Sivaratri festival, one of the few occasions on which the Rana government allowed Indians into the Kathmandu Valley, he cultivated close relationships with the Newar Buddhist merchant Dharmaman Sahu, whose houses in Kathmandu and Lhasa sheltered him and eased his passage into Tibet, and with the rajguru (royal priest) Hemraj Sharma, a Sanskrit scholar and manuscript collector whose library he drew on in his search for a complete text of Dharmakirti's ''Pramanavarttika''.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Buddhism of Nepal," pp. 66–70, 79–80.</ref> Although he never joined the underground Theravada revival then taking shape among Newar Buddhists, several of its leading figures, including the future monks Dharmalok and Anirudha, counted him among their formative influences.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Buddhism of Nepal," pp. 69–70, 75–77.</ref> The Rana authorities censored his writings, and Chudal reports that his later political books were banned in Nepal while his Buddhist titles remained available.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Buddhism of Nepal," pp. 62–63, 82.</ref> His Buddhist scholarship also took him to Europe as a delegate of the Maha Bodhi Society in 1932–33, where he shared his manuscript discoveries with scholars including Sylvain Lévi, and later to Japan, Korea, China, and Central Asia.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Buddhism of Nepal," pp. 64–66, n. 6; Ober (2013), "Like Embers Hidden in Ashes".</ref>

From the mid-1930s, Sankrityayan's Buddhist and Marxist commitments developed together. It was in Lhasa, on August 28, 1935, that he completed the preface to his first sustained work of political writing, ''Samyavad hi Kyon?'' ("Why Communism?"), a popular Hindi primer on communism dedicated to the memory of the Tibetan king Mune Tsenpo, whom he described, on the basis of Tibetan chronicles, as an early "martyr of communism" for having thrice redistributed wealth in his realm before being poisoned by his mother.<ref name="SHK">Sankrityayan, Rahul (1935). साम्यवाद ही क्यों? [''Why Communism?''] (Kitab Mahal, 3rd ed. 1943), pp. 3–6 and dedication page.</ref> He visited the [[Russia and the Soviet Union|Soviet Union]] for the first time that same year, and in 1937–38 spent an extended period at Leningrad teaching Buddhist philosophy and Indology at the invitation of the Buddhologist Fyodor Stcherbatsky, in the intervals learning Russian and Mongolian; according to Ober, Soviet attitudes toward Buddhism had by then turned to condemnation.<ref name="Joshi2009" /><ref>The dates of his Soviet stays are reported differently. Joshi (2009) gives 1935, 1937, 1944, and 1962 (the last for treatment of his amnesia); Ober (2023), p. 244 and n. 19 (p. 331), gives a first journey in 1935 and a Leningrad stay in 1937–38, and has him leave the Soviet Union in 1939 after marrying Ellena Narvertovna Kozerovskaya and giving up his monastic vows. An earlier version of this page dated further visits to 1947–48; no source in hand confirms this. The statement that he left in 1939 sits uneasily with Narendra Deva's speech of 9 April 1939, which condemns an assault on Sankrityayan in police custody in Saran district, Bihar (Nauriya (2015), p. 34 n. 148), so the 1939 departure should be treated as unsettled.</ref> Back in India, he became a leading figure in the Bihar peasant movement associated with Swami Sahajanand Saraswati's Kisan Sabha, presiding over the fifth annual session of the All India Kisan Sabha at Palasa, Andhra Pradesh, in March 1940.<ref>Chudal (2016), ''A Freethinking Cultural Nationalist''. Sahajanand's ambivalence toward religion (he called it "the illusion of dharma") is reported in Ober (2023), p. 246. Nauriya (2015), pp. 65 nn. 255–256, second-hand, names Sankrityayan among the founders of the Bihar Socialist Party in July 1931.</ref> He was arrested in February 1939 in a peasant campaign and again in 1940 after addressing a peasant meeting at Motihari, part of the colonial government's crackdown on the Communist Party; roughly a year's detention at the Deoli internment camp produced two major works of popular Marxist philosophy, ''Manav Samaj'' (1942) and ''Darshan-Digdarshan'' (1944).<ref name="Joshi2009" /><ref>The crackdown is characterized in Overstreet and Windmiller (1959), pp. 183–184; Chudal (2015), p. 62 n. 3, lists his imprisonments as 1922, 1923–25, 1939, and 1940–42. Across three arrests he spent a total of about twenty-nine months in jail.</ref> He formally joined the Communist Party of India in 1939 and remained a member for nine years, until his membership was revoked in 1948 over his defense of Hindi (as opposed to Sanskritized or Persianized alternatives) as the national language, a position his comrades regarded as majoritarian; he rejoined the party in 1955.<ref name="Joshi2009" /> Alongside this activity, he continued to publish prolifically in Hindi across history, philosophy, fiction, grammar, and travel writing, including the multi-volume autobiography ''Meri Jeevan Yatra'' (1944–1967) and the widely read travel manifesto ''Ghumakkar Shastra'' (1948).

In his later years, Sankrityayan continued to divide his energies between Buddhist scholarship and Marxist commentary, publishing ''Bauddh Darshan'' (1948), a major materialist study of Buddhist philosophy, and receiving the Sahitya Akademi Award in 1958 for his two-volume ''Madhya Asia ka Itihas'' ("History of Central Asia"). In November 1956 he took part in the Fourth General Conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists in Kathmandu, telling delegates in an impromptu speech that Nepal and India shared "one culture" and that neither he nor his hosts should think of themselves as meeting on foreign soil.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Buddhism of Nepal," pp. 81–82. Chudal glosses the speech, delivered at the Tundikhel before King Mahendra, as December 1956 in one place and November–December in another; the conference opened on 14 November 1956.</ref> [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]]'s conversion at Nagpur a month earlier had received his approval: Ober reports that Sankrityayan wrote an approving pamphlet in 1957 comparing it to Kublai Khan's conversion.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', citing Sankrityayan ([1957] 1978), p. 18.</ref> He taught at the University of Ceylon in 1959 and was awarded the Padma Bhushan in 1963. His essay "Buddhist Dialectics", a concise statement of his reading of Buddhist philosophy as proto-dialectical materialism, appeared in the 1970 anthology ''Buddhism: The Marxist Approach'' (a first publication in ''New Age'' in 1956 is reported by Ober).<ref name="OberBD">Ober (2023), n. 22 (p. 332), says the essay "was first published in 1956 in New Age" and was republished under other titles, such as "Buddhism and Marxism"; Ober's bibliography lists it as [1956] 1994, in Chattopadhyaya, Alaka (Ed.), ''Essays on Indology'', pp. 1–9. The anthology is undated internally and its first edition is January 1970; the essay reads as a translation, with no translator named.</ref>

He married three times, his third wife being the writer and scholar Kamala Sankrityayan. Afflicted in his final years by a debilitating amnesia, he died in Darjeeling on April 14, 1963, at seventy; his funeral rites were performed according to both Hindu and Buddhist custom, at the insistence of his youngest brother and of the monk Bhikkhu Mahanam respectively, neither of whom would concede that Sankrityayan had wholly left the other's tradition behind.<ref name="Sarao2017" /><ref>Chudal (2015), "Buddhism of Nepal," pp. 82–83, names the brother as Shyamlal and the Newar monk as Mahanam.</ref>

== Ideas ==

Sankrityayan's engagement with Buddhism was never confined to doctrinal exposition; from his earliest scholarly writing onward, he treated the Buddha's teaching as a historically situated response to social conditions and read Buddhist philosophy through a dialectical-materialist lens without ever fully resolving the tension between the two frameworks. His position is best described as a Marxist-leaning interpretation of Buddhist doctrine and history, combined with an institutional engagement with Buddhism early in his career and a lasting personal reverence for the Buddha, rather than as a settled Buddhist identity: Chudal herself concludes that his aim in Tibet was "not mainly to propagate and practise Buddhism as the religion leading to nirvana", even though he stated that he sought books in order to "propagate Buddhism in India".<ref>Chudal (2015), "Buddhism of Nepal," p. 81 (the conclusion) and p. 68 (his stated aim, citing ''Meri Jeevan Yatra'' vol. 2, p. 32).</ref>

Long before he joined the Communist Party, Sankrityayan had already identified the Buddhist monastic sangha as a historical precedent for communal economics. In ''Samyavad hi Kyon?'' (1935), he argued that the Buddha, seeing the material needs of his monks and nuns, did not merely mandate equal distribution but sharply reduced the sphere of individual property while greatly expanding the property held in common by the community, comparing this arrangement to the Mazdakite movement in fifth-century Iran and to the legendary wealth redistributions of the Tibetan king Mune Tsenpo.<ref name="SHK2">Sankrityayan, ''Why Communism?'' (1935), p. 38.</ref> He returned to this argument more systematically decades later in "Buddhist Dialectics" (1970), describing the Buddha's monastic communism in detail: aside from eight permitted personal items, all property was held by the samgha in common, a system that persisted for several centuries before eroding as monks began accumulating private wealth, as attested by donative inscriptions at Sanchi and Bharhut.<ref name="BD">Sankrityayan, Rahul (1970). "Buddhist Dialectics". In: Sankrityayan, Rahul, Debiprosad Chattopadhyaya, Y. Balaramamoorty, Ram Bilas Sharma, & Mulk Raj Anand, ''Buddhism: The Marxist Approach'': 1–8. People's Publishing House, p. 2.</ref> The same view appears in ''Bauddh Darshan'', where he writes that the Buddha, aware of the evils of individual property, wished within his own monastic sangha to abolish it and establish complete communism in enjoyment.<ref>Sankrityayan, Rahul (1948). बौद्ध दर्शन [''Bauddh Darshan'']. Kitab Mahal, p. 30.</ref> He likewise stressed the Buddha's preference for the republican ''gana'' polities of his day over monarchy, and his theory that kingship itself originated historically from the growth of private property and consequent class division, rather than from divine sanction.<ref name="BD" />

Sankrityayan applied the same class-functional analysis to the religious traditions around the Buddha, and then to Buddhism itself. In ''Bauddh Darshan'' he described Vedic religion as having upheld the existing order and helped the state, established "by crushing the people with bloody hands", to protect the propertied class and to keep slaves and laborers in check.<ref>Sankrityayan (1948), ''Bauddh Darshan'', p. 56.</ref> He credited the Buddha's original philosophy of dependent origination with a profoundly revolutionary character, but argued that the doctrines of karma and rebirth-linking were strengthened within the community because they reassured propertied and ruling classes, and that, "seen from a class perspective", Buddhism acted as an intermediary of the ruling class, presenting itself as on the side of justice without removing that class's basic interests.<ref>Sankrityayan (1948), ''Bauddh Darshan'', pp. 57, 59. The point concerns what happened to the insight once it had to survive among kings, monasteries, and patrons, not the falsity of dependent origination, which he read as an early theory of conditioned, processual causality compatible with materialism.</ref> He also criticized the Buddha for locating both suffering and its remedy in the individual rather than in society, while adding that the conceptual and institutional tools for a social remedy did not yet exist in the Buddha's time.<ref>Sankrityayan (1948), ''Bauddh Darshan'', p. 30.</ref> Yet his own argument reproduces an individual-centered logic: he held that belief in a life-stream extending beyond a single body is necessary for social progress, since only it can produce enough people willing to sacrifice themselves for a high ideal, so that individual self-sacrifice and self-restraint remain "indispensably necessary to make the world better".<ref>Sankrityayan (1948), ''Bauddh Darshan'', p. 17.</ref>

Sankrityayan's most sustained philosophical claim was that Buddhist metaphysics anticipates, in embryonic form, the categories of dialectical materialism. He read the doctrine of impermanence (anicca) as a philosophy of universal process rather than static being, the law of dependent origination (pratityasamutpada) as an early theory of causality that rejects any single, sufficient cause in favor of the "collectivity of causes" (hetu-samagrivada), and the Buddhist "criterion of reality" as capacity for objective, practical action (artha-kriya-samartham) as a proto-materialist, almost verificationist standard of truth close to modern scientific method.<ref name="BD" /><ref>Sankrityayan (1948), ''Bauddh Darshan'', p. 148, on particulars and universals in Dignaga and Dharmakirti: a jar or a cloth is ultimately real because it is capable of purposive action, whereas "jar-ness" is only conventionally real.</ref> At the same time, he insisted that Buddhism, particularly in its idealist Yogacāra form, remained closer to Hegelian idealism than to materialism proper, since it held consciousness (vijnana) rather than matter to be primary; he suggested that "inverting" this formula, treating mind as an evolutionary product of matter rather than matter as a transformation of mind, would spare Buddhist idealism "the trouble of standing on its head," an explicit echo of Marx's own image for his inversion of Hegel.<ref name="BD" /> He also cautioned that it would be erroneous to say Buddhism helped Marx or came near his fundamentals, though students of Buddhist philosophy would find Marxist philosophy easier to grasp.<ref name="BD" /> This ambivalence, Buddhism as dialectical without being straightforwardly materialist, was itself later contested from within the same Marxist milieu: in the same 1970 volume, Ram Bilas Sharma argued that Sankrityayan's own scholarship, particularly his ''Bauddh Darshan'', showed Buddhist philosophy to be fundamentally idealist and metaphysical, and that Buddhism's social radicalism had always been constrained by its dependence on the patronage of merchants and princes, whose underlying economic order it left unchallenged.<ref>Sharma, Ram Bilas (1970). "Some Aspects of the Teaching of Buddha". In: ''Buddhism: The Marxist Approach'': 54–65. People's Publishing House, esp. pp. 64–65. Sharma's citations of ''Bauddh Darshan'' (pp. 16–17, 30–31, 33) are consistent with the scan.</ref> Ramkrishna Bhattacharya likewise later challenged Sankrityayan's characterization of Buddhism as historically status-quoist, counterposing it with Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's and D.D. Kosambi's arguments that early Buddhism represented a form of "primitive communism" with genuine transformative potential.<ref name="Bhatta1994">Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1994). "From Buddha to Marx". In: Chattopadhyaya, Alaka (Ed.), ''Essays in Indology: Birth Centenary Tribute to Mahapandita Rahula Sankrityayana''. Manisha Granthalaya; discussed in Joshi (2009), "Journeys of the Self," p. 138. Note that D.D. Kosambi's own 1965 text rejects the idealized version of primitive communism, so the grouping is Bhattacharya's, not Kosambi's.</ref> He also read Vinaya detail against social background: the rule against ordaining debtors, he argued, closed an escape route from debt-slavery, a reading that Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya cites in ''Lokayata'' from ''Darshan-Digdarshan'' (Hindi), p. 541.<ref>Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad (1959). ''Lokayata: A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism''. People's Publishing House (1992 edition), pp. 465–466 nn. 25, 28.</ref>

Across both his Buddhological and his explicitly Marxist writing, Sankrityayan prized the Buddha's rejection of the authority of scripture, caste, and priestly ritual, his refusal to speculate on unanswerable metaphysical questions (the Buddha's celebrated silence on the ten unanswered, or ''avyakata'', questions concerning the eternity and spatial extent of the world, the identity of the life force with the body, and the post-mortem status of an enlightened being), and his insistence that individuals test truth-claims by reason and experience rather than by appeal to tradition.<ref name="Bhartiya2025">Bhartiya, Poonam (2025). "Rahul Sankrityayan and His Contribution to Indian Buddhism: With Special Reference to the Teaching and Philosophy". ''South India Journal of Social Sciences'' 23(4): 99–102, drawing on Sankrityayan's ''Darshan-Digdarshan'' (1944).</ref> He read the Buddha's four "unstated" positions, no creator god, no eternal soul, no scriptural authority as final proof, and no confinement of the mental life-stream to a single body, as together constituting a coherent, this-worldly philosophy of liberation distinct from both orthodox theism and vulgar materialism.<ref>Bhartiya (2025), "Rahul Sankrityayan and His Contribution to Indian Buddhism," pp. 101–102.</ref> This rationalism extended into a broader, sharper critique of organized religion as such: in ''Samyavad hi Kyon?'' he devoted an entire chapter to arguing that priesthoods across religions manipulate belief in God and the afterlife to secure the loyalty and the surplus labor of the poor, and in ''Tumhari Kshaya'' (1939) he wrote that "the sickness of religions is natural; there is no cure for it short of their death."<ref>Sankrityayan, quoted and translated in Joshi (2009), "Journeys of the Self," p. 138.</ref>

Yet this hostility to religion as an institution coexisted, without full resolution, with a lasting personal reverence for the Buddha himself, whom he described in 1956 as the one fully perfected human being that humanity's entire history had produced, while explicitly declining to call himself a follower of the Buddhist religion, since for him "culture" (sanskriti) and "religion" (dharma) were not the same thing.<ref>Sankrityayan, quoted and translated in Joshi (2009), "Journeys of the Self," pp. 136–138.</ref> In ''Ghumakkar Shastra'' (1948), he singled out Buddhism as "the gem amongst" world religions precisely because its rejection of caste-based purity taboos made it uniquely compatible with his own ideal of unrestricted human wandering and fellowship, a reading of Buddhism as embodied cosmopolitanism that a recent study analyzes as a satirical, quasi-scriptural critique of religion more broadly.<ref name="Upadhyay2025">Upadhyay, Nishant (2025). "The Wanderer as Becoming: A Satirical Critique of Indian Philosophy and Religions and a Wanderer's Religion". ''Religions'' 16(9): 1147.</ref> His disciple Jagdish Kashyap recalled that Sankrityayan dismissed meditation as something best left to old age, preferring missionary and political work in the present.<ref>Kashyap (1961), p. 8.</ref>

Sankrityayan's Buddhism-Marxism synthesis has been read alongside, and against, [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]]'s contemporaneous turn to Buddhism as a vehicle of Dalit emancipation. Where Ambedkar stripped Buddhism of most of its metaphysics to foreground it as a social doctrine of equality, Sankrityayan retained a far more textual and historical engagement with Buddhist metaphysics even as he tried to fuse it with Marxist materialism, and he wrote for a broad Hindi readership across caste and class lines rather than constructing a specifically Dalit religious identity.<ref name="Joshi2019">Joshi, Maya (2019). "Rahul Sankrityayan and Ambedkar as Contrapuntal Contemporaries: Unpacking Their 'Metaphysics and Politics'". In: Lal, Vinay (Ed.), ''India and Civilizational Futures: Backwaters Collective on Metaphysics and Politics II'': 182–214. Oxford University Press.</ref> He nonetheless shared with Ambedkar an emphasis on the Buddha as social reformer, praising the Buddha's grant of formal equality to the lowest castes within the monastic order and his practice, memorialized in Sankrityayan's own retelling of the Buddha's rebuke to a wealthy foster-mother who wished to give him a robe rather than the sangha as a whole, of directing his followers toward "the good of the many" rather than individual salvation alone.<ref>Sankrityayan, "Buddha aur Gandhi," quoted and translated in Joshi (2009), "Journeys of the Self," pp. 139–140.</ref> His interpretation of ''anatta'' (non-self) likewise doubled as social critique: he read the doctrine's dismantling of a permanent, unchanging self as a philosophical rejection of the caste- and class-based hierarchies that, in his view, depended on essentialist claims about fixed human natures and inherited status.<ref>Bhartiya (2025), "Rahul Sankrityayan and His Contribution to Indian Buddhism," p. 100.</ref>

== Writings ==

This list emphasizes works bearing on Buddhism, Marxism, and radical social critique; it omits some of Sankrityayan's numerous purely philological, grammatical, and travelogue writings. Bibliographers credit him with about 148 books and 71 articles in total.<ref>Bhattacharya (2005), pp. 205–215.</ref>

* बुद्धचर्या ''Buddhacharya'' (1931). Kashi Vidyapeeth. {{annotation|An early biographical and doctrinal account of the life of the Buddha, produced around the time of Sankrityayan's ordination in Sri Lanka; later reissued in a third edition by the Bharatiya Bauddha Samiti, Lucknow, in 1995. Ober's bibliography dates the work to 1930 and lists a 2011 reprint.}}

* तिब्बती बाल-शिक्षा ''Tibbati Bal-Shiksha'' [''Tibetan Children's Education''], पाठावली ''Pathavali'' (3 vols.), and तिब्बती व्याकरण ''Tibbati Vyakaran'' [''Tibetan Grammar''] (1933). {{annotation|A set of Tibetan-language primers and a grammar, compiled with his Ladakhi collaborator Tsetan Phuntsog for use in Himalayan Buddhist schools.}}

* तिब्बत में बौद्ध धर्म ''Tibbat Mein Bauddha Dharma'' [''Buddhism in Tibet''] (1934). {{annotation|A study of Tibetan Buddhist doctrine and institutions based on Sankrityayan's first two journeys to Tibet, and on manuscripts, block-prints, and oral instruction he obtained there.}}

* साम्यवाद ही क्यों? ''Samyavad hi Kyon?'' [''Why Communism?''] (1935; 2nd ed. 1938, 3rd ed. 1943). Kitab Mahal. {{annotation|A popular primer on communism, its preface signed in Lhasa on August 28, 1935, and dedicated to the memory of the Tibetan king Mune Tsenpo as an early "martyr of communism"; it argues that the Buddhist sangha's communal property system anticipated modern communism, several years before Sankrityayan formally joined the Communist Party of India.}}

* तुम्हारी क्षय ''Tumhari Kshaya'' [''Your Decay''] (1939). {{annotation|A polemic against religion as such, source of the often-quoted line on the incurable "sickness of religions".}}

* मानव समाज ''Manav Samaj'' [''Human Society''] (1942). {{annotation|The second volume of Sankrityayan's "Vaigyanik Bhautikvad" (scientific materialism) series, tracing the evolution of human society through a dialectical-materialist lens; composed largely during his detention at the Deoli internment camp in 1940–41.}}

* वोल्गा से गंगा ''Volga se Ganga'' [''From Volga to Ganga''] (1942). Kitab Mahal. {{annotation|A collection of twenty historical short stories tracing Indo-European migration from the Volga to the Ganges from 6000 BCE to 1942; its later stories are explicitly shaped by Marxist historiography and stage an encounter between an Indian revolutionary and Marx and Engels. In '''[[SR42VGX-T|one story]]''' the Buddha is shown wanting a "revolution" to make the world better.}}

* दर्शन-दिग्दर्शन ''Darshan-Digdarshan'' [''A Survey of Philosophy''] (1944). Kitab Mahal. {{annotation|A comparative history of world philosophy, composed during Sankrityayan's imprisonment, which frames the central conflict in Indian philosophy as one between Brahmanical and non-Brahmanical (notably Buddhist) systems and argues for the latter, subjected in turn to Marxist critique. The ''Bauddh Darshan'' of 1948 is described in its preface as a part of this work.}}

* जय यौधेय ''Jay Yaudheya'' [''Victory to the Yaudheyas''] (1944). {{annotation|A novel set in an ancient republic imagined as a Buddhist-style communist polity.}}

* मेरी जीवन यात्रा ''Meri Jeevan Yatra'' [''My Life's Journey''] (Vol. I, 1944; Vol. II, 1950; Vols. III–IV, 1967). Radhakrishna Prakashan. {{annotation|A multi-volume autobiography narrating Sankrityayan's successive religious and political identities, from Vaishnava sadhu through Arya Samajist and Buddhist monk to Marxist activist; the final volumes appeared posthumously.}}

* बाईसवीं सदी ''Baisvin Sadi'' [''The Twenty-Second Century''] (written 1924, published 1945). Kitab Mahal. {{annotation|A utopian science-fiction novel written during Sankrityayan's imprisonment for participation in the Non-Cooperation Movement, envisioning a future communist world order; it predates his formal turn to Marxism by more than a decade.}}

* घुमक्कड़ शास्त्र ''Ghumakkar Shastra'' [''The Treatise of the Wanderer''] (1948; 2nd ed. 1957). Kitab Mahal. {{annotation|A programmatic and satirical manifesto for a life of perpetual travel, which frames Buddhism as the most congenial of world religions to the wanderer's ethic because of its rejection of caste-purity taboos.}}

* बौद्ध दर्शन ''Bauddh Darshan'' [''Buddhist Philosophy''] (2nd ed. 1948; 1st ed. 1944). Kitab Mahal. {{annotation|Sankrityayan's major treatise on Buddhist philosophy, offering a systematic materialist and rationalist reading of Buddhist metaphysics, the doctrine of ''anatta'', the theory of dependent origination, and Buddhist ethics; later cited by critics as evidence of the persistence of philosophical idealism within his account of Buddhism. Its first chapter, on the Buddha's original teachings, is reported to be a piece written in 1932 and added to the second edition.}}

* मध्य एशिया का इतिहास ''Madhya Asia ka Itihas'' [''History of Central Asia''] (2 vols., 1950s). Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad. {{annotation|A monumental history of Central Asia that won Sankrityayan the Sahitya Akademi Award in 1958; it reflects his recurring interest in the transience of civilizations and ideas.}}

* कार्ल मार्क्स ''Karl Marx'' (1950s). {{annotation|A biographical study of Marx, part of Sankrityayan's effort to make Marxist intellectual history accessible to Hindi readers.}}

* लेनिन ''Lenin'' (1950s). {{annotation|A biographical study of Vladimir Lenin and the development of revolutionary Marxism.}}

* स्तालिन ''Stalin'' (1950s). {{annotation|A biographical study reflecting Sankrityayan's engagement with Soviet political history.}}

* माओ त्से तुङ ''Mao Tse Tung'' (1950s). {{annotation|A biographical treatment of Mao Zedong and the Chinese revolutionary experience.}}

* महामानव बुद्ध ''Mahamanav Buddh'' [''The Great Human Being Buddha''] (1956). {{annotation|A Hindi biography of the Buddha; Ober cites a 2011 edition.}}

* "Buddhist Dialectics" (1956?; 1970 in the anthology). In: ''Buddhism: The Marxist Approach'': 1–8. New Delhi: People's Publishing House. {{annotation|Sankrityayan's most concise English-language statement of Buddhism as proto-dialectical philosophy, covering the sangha's economic communism, the theory of dependent origination, the "collectivity of causes," and the pragmatic Buddhist criterion of reality; published in a jointly authored anthology alongside essays by Debiprosad Chattopadhyaya, Y. Balaramamoorty, Ram Bilas Sharma, and Mulk Raj Anand. It says nothing about his own religious identity or ordination.}}

* नवदीक्षित बौद्ध ''Navdikshit Bauddh'' [''The Newly Converted Buddhists''] ([1957] 1975). {{annotation|Listed in Ober's bibliography, edited by Pragyananda Mahasthavir; the connection of this title with the 1957 pamphlet on Ambedkar's conversion mentioned above is not established.}}

== Secondary Literature in English ==

* Bhartiya, Poonam (2025). "Rahul Sankrityayan and His Contribution to Indian Buddhism: With Special Reference to the Teaching and Philosophy". ''South India Journal of Social Sciences'' 23(4): 99–102. {{annotation|An open-access survey of Sankrityayan's interpretation of the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, the Three Marks of Existence, and the Buddha's "unstated" (avyakata) positions, drawing extensively on ''Darshan-Digdarshan'' and ''Bauddh Darshan''.}}

* Upadhyay, Nishant (2025). "The Wanderer as Becoming: A Satirical Critique of Indian Philosophy and Religions and a Wanderer's Religion". ''Religions'' 16(9): 1147. {{annotation|An open-access analysis of ''Ghumakkar Shastra'', arguing that Sankrityayan uses the figure of the Wanderer to mount a satirical, quasi-scriptural critique of institutional religion, with Buddhism held up as its most congenial exception.}}

* Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press. {{annotation|The chapter "When the Buddha Met Marx" situates Sankrityayan alongside Dharmanand Kosambi and reconstructs the broader connections between Buddhist revivalism and Marxism in twentieth-century India; it also supplies the account of his 1917 encounter with Bodhanand and of the Vidyalankara cohort.}}

* Basu, Sreyanjana (2019). "Rahul Sankrityayan's (1893–1963) Shift from Buddhism to Marxism: Some Reflections". ''International Journal of Research in Social Sciences'' 9(2): 319–333. {{annotation|A focused examination of the transition from Sankrityayan's Buddhist commitment to Marxism, arguing that his later Marxism did not simply erase his earlier Buddhist thought.}}

* Joshi, Maya (2019). "Rahul Sankrityayan and Ambedkar as Contrapuntal Contemporaries: Unpacking Their 'Metaphysics and Politics'". In: Lal, Vinay (Ed.), ''India and Civilizational Futures: Backwaters Collective on Metaphysics and Politics II'': 182–214. Oxford University Press. {{annotation|A comparative study contrasting Sankrityayan's textually engaged, metaphysically retentive Buddhism with B. R. Ambedkar's socially oriented Navayana Buddhism.}}

* Sarao, K.T.S. (2017). "Sankrityayan, Rahul". In: Sarao, K.T.S., & Long, J.D. (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Indian Religions: Buddhism and Jainism''. Springer. {{annotation|A concise reference entry summarizing Sankrityayan's biography, travels, and scholarly output.}}

* Chudal, Alaka Atreya (2016). ''A Freethinking Cultural Nationalist: A Life History of Rahul Sankrityayan''. Oxford University Press. {{annotation|The first, and most substantial, book-length scholarly biography of Sankrityayan, tracing his successive identities as sadhu, Arya Samajist, Buddhist monk, and communist against the backdrop of Indian and Nepali nationalism.}}

* Chudal, Alaka Atreya (2015). "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal". ''European Bulletin of Himalayan Research'' 46: 62–87. {{annotation|An open-access study of Sankrityayan's relationship with Nepal and Nepalese Buddhists, including his Tibet-bound journeys through Kathmandu, his friendships with Dharmaman Sahu and Hemraj Sharma, and his oblique but sympathetic relationship to Nepal's underground Theravada movement. Its biographical notes (nn. 3, 6) also give the most precise dates for his imprisonments and his stay in Sri Lanka.}}

* Ober, Douglas (2013). "'Like Embers Hidden in Ashes, or Jewels Encrusted In Stone': Rāhul Sāṅkṛtyāyan, Dharmānand Kosambī and Buddhist Activity in Colonial India". ''Contemporary Buddhism'' 14.1: 134–148. {{annotation|An earlier study pairing Sankrityayan with Dharmanand Kosambi as scholar-activists of the Buddhist revival, with a biographical account of the Lucknow encounter with Bodhanand and of the Sri Lankan training.}}

* Joshi, Maya (2009). "Rahul Sankrityayan's Journeys of the Self: Nation, Culture, Identity". ''Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences'' 16(1&2): 119–147. {{annotation|A close reading of Sankrityayan's autobiography ''Meri Jeevan Yatra'' and his travel manifesto ''Ghumakkar Shastra'', tracing his movement from Vaishnavism through Arya Samaj and Buddhism to Marxism and situating this trajectory within debates on Indian nationalism and selfhood.}}

* Dhone, Viplov (n.d.). "Two Marxist Perspectives on the Buddha: Rahul Sankrityayan and Debiprasad Chattopadhyay". ''Sambhāṣaṇ'' 2(1–2). {{annotation|A comparative analysis of two Indian Marxist interpretations of Buddhism, useful for situating Sankrityayan within the wider development of Marxist readings of Indian philosophy.}}

* Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1994). "From Buddha to Marx". In: Chattopadhyaya, Alaka (Ed.), ''Essays in Indology: Birth Centenary Tribute to Mahapandita Rahula Sankrityayana''. Manisha Granthalaya. {{annotation|A critical engagement with Sankrityayan's characterization of Buddhism as historically status-quoist, arguing instead, with Debiprosad Chattopadhyaya and D. D. Kosambi, for reading early Buddhism as a form of primitive communism with genuine transformative potential.}}

== Secondary Literature in Hindi ==

* Budhlakoti, Pushpa (2024). "Sahitya ki Marxvadi Drishti aur Rahul Sankrityayan ke Upanyas" [Marxist Literary Perspective and the Novels of Rahul Sankrityayan]. ''Hindi Journal'' 6(2). {{annotation|A recent study applying a Marxist literary perspective to Sankrityayan's novels and their treatment of social and historical questions.}}

* Sharma, Vishnu Chandra (1995). राहुल का भारत ''Rahula ka Bharat'' [''Rahul's India'']. Allahabad: Sahitya Vani. {{annotation|An assessment of Sankrityayan's vision of India and Indian civilization across his historical, philosophical, and political writing.}}

* Mule, Gunakar (1994). राहुल चिंतन ''Rahul Chintan'' [''Rahul's Thought'']. New Delhi: Rajkamal Prakashan. {{annotation|A study of Sankrityayan's intellectual development across his religious and political phases, by a scholar who knew him personally.}}

* Sharma, Ramsharan 'Munshi', & Pushpamala Jain (Eds.) (1988). राहुल स्मृति ''Rahula Smriti'' [''In Memory of Rahul'']. New Delhi: People's Publishing House. {{annotation|A memorial volume of essays and reminiscences by associates and fellow scholars, including the Buddhist monk Bhikshu Jagdish Kashyap's account of Sankrityayan's role in his own conversion to Buddhism and Bhadant Anand Kausalyayan's analysis of Sankrityayan's three-stage philosophical evolution from theism through idealist atheism to materialism.}}

* Machwe, Prabhakar (1987). ''Rahul Sankrityayan''. New Delhi: Rajpal. {{annotation|A short literary biography and critical study of Sankrityayan, useful as an early source-language treatment of his life and literary career; a related English-language study by the same author appeared in the Sahitya Akademi's "Makers of Indian Literature" series in 1978.}}

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "Rahul Sankrityayan". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Rahul_Sankrityayan</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[category:Rahul Sankrityayan]]
[[category:India]]
[[category:Biographies]]
[[category:Buddhist Marxism in India]]

Template:Listofchangesforfrontpage

2026-10-27T11:22:48Z

Lajos:

'''{{serifsc|Latest Encyclopedia Entries|135%}}''' 
[[India]] (revision) 
[[:Category:India|11 other new India-related pages]] (and 2 revisions) 
[[Nepal]] 
[[Takagi Kenmyo|Takagi Kenmyō 高木顕明]] 
[[The New Buddhist Fellowship]]

'''{{serifsc|Latest Source Texts|135%}}''' 
[[SR42VGX|राहुल सांकृत्यायन, प्रभा (७)]] 
[[IH30MTZ|市川白弦、「マルクス主義と禅―覚え書」]] 
[[IH61ZKA|市川白弦、「禅・華厳・アナキズム」]] 
[[UG11HJK|内山愚童、『平凡の自覚』]] 
[[UG06OBG|内山愚童、『覚書』]]

'''{{serifsc|Latest Translations|135%}}''' 
[[SR42VGX-T|Rahul Sankrityayan, "Prabha" §7]] 
[[IH30MTZ-T|Ichikawa Hakugen, "Marxism and Zen: Notes"]] 
[[IH61ZKA-T|Ichikawa Hakugen, "Zen, Kegon, and Anarchism"]] 
[[UG11HJK-T|Uchiyama Gudō, ''The Self-Awakening of the Ordinary Person'']] 
[[UG08MKK-T|Uchiyama Gudō, ''Anarchist Communism'']]

The New Article and Revision Pipeline

2026-10-27T11:16:41Z

Lajos:

{| style="width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse; border: none;"
|-



| style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; padding-right: 20px; padding-left: 0px; border: none;" |

'''{{serifsc|Biographies|200%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|New|165%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|In Preparation|120%}}'''
* (''none'')

'''{{serifsc|Planned|120%}}'''
* [[Taixu]]
* [[Shifu]]
* [[Neville Wijeyekoon]]
* [[Buddhadasa Bhikkhu]]
* [[Sulak Sivaraksa]]

'''{{serifsc|Under Consideration|120%}}'''
* Yŏ Ikku (See [[Minjung Buddhism]])
* Ko Ŭn (See [[Minjung Buddhism]])
* Tou Samouth and Son Ngoc Minh

'''{{serifsc|Revision|165%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|In Preparation|120%}}'''
* (''none'')

'''{{serifsc|Planned|120%}}'''
* (''none'')



| style="width: 40%; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; padding-left: 12px; padding-right: 0px; border: none;" |

'''{{serifsc|Other Pages|200%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|New|165%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|In Preparation|120%}}'''
* (''none'')

'''{{serifsc|Planned|120%}}'''
* (''none'')

'''{{serifsc|Under Consideration|120%}}'''
* [[Bangladesh]]
* [[Malaysia]]
* [[Singapore]]
* [[Bhutan]]

'''{{serifsc|Revision|165%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|In Preparation|120%}}'''
* (''none'')

'''{{serifsc|Planned|120%}}'''
* [[Thailand]]
* [[Cambodia]]
|}

[[category:Project]]

The New Article and Revision Pipeline

2026-10-27T11:16:27Z

Lajos:

{| style="width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse; border: none;"
|-



| style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; padding-right: 20px; padding-left: 0px; border: none;" |

'''{{serifsc|Biographies|200%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|New|165%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|In Preparation|120%}}'''
* (''none'')

'''{{serifsc|Planned|120%}}'''
* [[Taixu]]
* [[Shifu]]
* [[Neville Wijeyekoon]]
* [[Buddhadasa Bhikkhu]]
* [[Sulak Sivaraksa]]

'''{{serifsc|Under Consideration|120%}}'''
* Yŏ Ikku (See [[Minjung Buddhism]])
* Ko Ŭn (See [[Minjung Buddhism]])
* Tou Samouth and Son Ngoc Minh

'''{{serifsc|Revision|165%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|In Preparation|120%}}'''
* (''none'')

'''{{serifsc|Planned|120%}}'''
* (''none'')



| style="width: 40%; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; padding-left: 12px; padding-right: 0px; border: none;" |

'''{{serifsc|Other Pages|200%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|New|165%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|In Preparation|120%}}'''
* (''none'')

'''{{serifsc|Planned|120%}}'''
* (''none'')

'''{{serifsc|Under Consideration|120%}}'''
* [[Bangladesh]]
* [[Malaysia]]
* [[Singapore]]
* [[Bhutan]]

'''{{serifsc|Revision|165%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|In Preparation|120%}}'''
* [[India]]
* [[Russia and the Soviet Union]]

'''{{serifsc|Planned|120%}}'''
* [[Thailand]]
* [[Cambodia]]
|}

[[category:Project]]

India

2026-10-27T11:15:24Z

Lajos: /* Rahul Sankrityayan */

{{Provisional Entry}}
India was the birthplace of Buddhism, the tradition's home for roughly a millennium before a long decline left it largely absent from the subcontinent's mainstream by the thirteenth century even as it flourished elsewhere in Asia. Douglas Ober argues that it did not simply vanish, since small communities and networks survived at the margins, and that the modern revival grew out of colonial scholarship, new Buddhist associations, and caste politics. The revival's largest outcome was the conversion of about half a million Dalits (former "untouchables") under [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]] at Nagpur in 1956, which produced the movement known as Navayana ("New Vehicle") and the country's largest Buddhist community. Around that event stand other currents that this entry summarizes and that have their own pages: an anti-caste Tamil Buddhism from the 1890s, the Maha Bodhi Society, an Adi-Hindu strand in the north, Marxist readings of Buddhist history, and the militant Dalit Panthers. Scholars disagree about whether Ambedkarite Buddhism is a break from the Buddhist tradition or a continuation of it.<ref name="Gokhale2021">Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.) (2021). ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste''. London: Routledge.</ref>

== Buddhism in India ==

Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha, was born and lived in the Himalayan foothills of a region now shared between India and Nepal. The monastic and lay community that formed around his teaching flourished across the subcontinent for roughly a thousand years, gaining significant royal patronage, most famously under the Mauryan emperor Ashoka in the third century BCE, and producing major centers of learning such as the Nalanda monastic university. From roughly the seventh century CE onward Buddhism entered a prolonged decline on the subcontinent. It had effectively disappeared between the tenth and twelfth centuries, owing mainly to the loss of royal and mercantile patronage to a resurgent Hinduism.

For over six centuries after the decline, Buddhism existed in India mostly as an object of antiquarian interest. Ober qualifies this picture. He marshals evidence of continuous but diminished and marginalized practice into the colonial period: Newar Buddhism in the Kathmandu Valley, Buddhism in Chittagong, the persecutions in sixteenth-century Odisha (which imply a population to persecute), bronzes from Nagapattinam, and a wandering tantric figure named Buddhagupta-natha.<ref name="Ober2023">Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press, pp. 19–64.</ref> His point concerns degree and geography. Survival was marginal, and it was not continuous mainstream practice.

The nineteenth century then rediscovered Buddhism as a subject. Lancelot Wilkinson published the ''Vajrasuchi'', an anti-caste Sanskrit tract attributed to Ashvaghosha, in 1839, with a Brahman pandit's rebuttal appended, and the tract became reading for later anti-caste activists. Raja Sivaprasad's Hindi schoolbook of 1864–74 compared the Buddha's anti-caste message with Lincoln's abolitionism. The Asiatic Society, the short-lived Buddhist Text Society (1892), and the Archaeological Survey, which located Buddhist sites, institutionalized the field.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 38–105 (the ''Vajrasuchi'' at pp. 38–64; Sivaprasad at p. 70).</ref> The first Buddhist voluntary associations followed. According to Ober, the Chittagong Buddhist Association (1887) was the first, and the Bengal Buddhist Association (Calcutta, 1892) was founded by Kripasaran (1865–1926); a Bangladeshi source gives 1897 for the Chittagong body, and the discrepancy is unresolved. The [[Maha Bodhi Society]], founded in 1891 by the Sri Lankan layman Anagarika Dharmapala (see [[Sri Lanka]]), became the leading institution of the revival and the setting for much of what follows.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', chs. 2–3 (Chittagong Buddhist Association: pp. 121–123; Kripasaran: pp. 128–135).</ref>

According to the 2011 census, India's Buddhist population stands at approximately 8.4 million, and the great majority, some three-quarters of the national total, are Marathi Buddhists concentrated in Maharashtra and overwhelmingly converts or descendants of converts from Ambedkar's movement. Significant populations also exist in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, and among the older, ethnically distinct Himalayan Buddhist communities of Ladakh, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, and Darjeeling, whose practice predates and remains largely separate from the Ambedkarite revival. This division, a small continuous Himalayan population beside a much larger recently converted Dalit population, remains a structural feature of Indian Buddhism.

== Radical Buddhism in India ==

This section covers the Indian cases in which Buddhism was joined to anti-caste politics, to socialism or Marxism, or to both, between the 1890s and the 1970s. Its spine is a chronology that runs from the early revival, through the years of nationalism and the Left, to Ambedkar's conversion and its aftermath, and the people and movements that have pages of their own are summarized and linked and not retold. The history of Buddhism among the former untouchable communities over the whole century, from the Tamil societies before 1900 to the Dalit Panthers and the Triratna movement, is treated on the page [[Dalit Buddhism]], which does not fit under one chronological heading. Marxist readings of Buddhist history are covered on [[Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India]]. Research on the decades after about 1960 is an acknowledged gap, and the entry is correspondingly thin there.

=== The Early Revival, c. 1890–1930 ===

{{Main|Tamil Buddhist Movement}}
{{Main|Maha Bodhi Society}}
{{Main|Adi-Hindu Movement}}

The earliest of the anti-caste Buddhist movements arose among [[Tamil Buddhist Movement |Tamil]]-speaking communities classed as untouchable. In 1898 the physician and journalist [[Iyothee Thass]] (1845–1914) founded the Sakya Buddhist Society in Madras, and from 1907 he edited the weekly ''Oru Paisa Tamilan''. From 1917 the movement was organized through the South Indian Buddhist Association, whose first four general conferences were chaired by [[P Lakshmi Narasu|P. Lakshmi Narasu]] (1861–1934), the author of ''The Essence of Buddhism'' (1907). M. Singaravelu (1860–1946), later a founder of the communist movement in Madras, was an early officer and lecturer of the Society's Madras branch, although his family said he was not himself a Buddhist. The movement was loyalist toward the British, and its conference resolutions and Thass's own surviving texts contain no socialist content; its hostility was directed at Brahmanical nationalism. G. Aloysius argues that it was the ideological forerunner of the Dravidian movement and one of the factors that moved Ambedkar to Buddhism, but thesis is contested.

The [[Maha Bodhi Society]] (founded 1891) is the institutional setting of many of these contacts. It was not a radical body. It sheltered the young Marathi scholar [[Dharmanand Kosambi]] (1876–1947), employed [[Rahul Sankrityayan]] (1893–1963) as a missionary, clashed with Thass over caste and with Narasu in a lawsuit that took sixty years to settle, and pressed in the early 1920s for the return of the Mahabodhi temple at Bodh Gaya, which had been in the hands of a Hindu mahant since 1590, to Buddhist control. A resolution to that effect, drafted by Sankrityayan, went to the Gaya session of the Indian National Congress in 1922.

In the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh) a movement of untouchable castes, the [[Adi-Hindu Movement|Adi-Hindu movement]], grew from the late 1910s. Its leaders held that the untouchable castes were the original inhabitants of India, conquered by Aryan invaders. Its religion was bhakti and not Buddhism according to Nandini Gooptu, and Sarah Beth Hunt places the entry of Buddhism into Adi-Hindu thought mainly after 1956. A Buddhist wing existed alongside it: the monk Bodhananda (1874–1952) founded the Bharatiya Bauddha Samiti in Lucknow in 1916, and with Chandrika Prasad Jigyasu wrote Buddhist books for Dalit readers. Ober sees affinities between their thesis of original inhabitants and Ambedkar's ''The Untouchables'' (1948). The identity of Bodhananda is unsettled in the sources, which describe a "Swami Bodhanand" and a "Bhadant Bodhanand Mahastavir" without saying that they are one person.

==== The Kerala and Malabar Movement ====

A less documented movement arose in Kerala among the Izhava (Thiya) community in the 1920s. Ober, on whom the account depends, describes a Calicut Buddhist temple, the first in Kerala, founded in 1927 by C. Krishnan (1867–1938), a former high-court advocate and the editor of the Malayalam newspaper ''Mitavadi'', and a Kerala Buddhist Association that grew out of the All-Kerala Buddhist Conference of 1925, which the Brahmin temple-entry leader Manjeri Ramier (1877–1958) helped to organize. The movement did not last: by 1961 only seventeen people in Calicut district identified as Buddhist. Ober gives four causes: the Temple Entry Proclamation of 1936, the absorption of the cause by Narayana Guru's Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam, Gandhi's campaigning against conversion on his tour of 1927, and funding through the industrialist J.K. Birla and the Hindu Mahasabha, which denied the movement an independent identity.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 196–204.</ref>

=== Nationalism, the Left, and Buddhism, 1920s–1950s ===

Ober documents at length the attempt of the Hindu Mahasabha and of Hindu nationalists to claim Buddhism as part of "Hindu" India. V.D. Savarkar's ''Hindutva'' (1923) declared the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha to be "all ours."<ref name="Ober2023ch4">Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 4: Savarkar at p. 159; Dharmapala's shifting statements on Hindu–Buddhist unity at pp. 151–152; Birla's financing of Buddhist temples, tabulated at pp. 165–167.</ref> The industrialist J.K. Birla (1883–1967) financed Buddhist temples across the country for decades, with the avowed aim of folding Buddhism into an "Arya Dharma," and Syama Prasad Mookerjee was president of the Maha Bodhi Society from 1942 to 1953 while he founded the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, the predecessor of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Birla's money also reached figures who wrote against the Mahasabha, among them Sankrityayan, Jagdish Kashyap, Dharmanand Kosambi, and Anand Kausalyayan, a tension that Ober notes without resolving. Sankrityayan attacked the Birla-funded Dharmashala at Kushinagar (1939) as an attempt to turn anti-caste, atheist Buddhists into Hindus.

==== The Left and Caste ====

Socialism and communism reached India in the early twentieth century and became entangled with the movement for independence. V. Geetha's study of Ambedkar and socialism shows how the early Marxists understood caste. S.A. Dange described it as a feudal survival, M.N. Roy expected it to dissolve into class as capitalism advanced, and Bhupendranath Dutta read ancient religious controversy as coded class struggle; Buddhism enters Geetha's survey only as a field of class struggle in Dutta's reading.<ref name="Geetha2021">Geetha, V. (2021). ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India''. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 117–119, 159–160 (Dutta at p. 118; Roy at p. 75).</ref> Ambedkar worked with the Communist Party of India on specific causes in Bombay in the 1930s, but the communists, Geetha writes, were unwilling to join him in exploring the connected worlds of labor, caste, and class. The [[Dalit Panthers]] later faulted the party for the same failure. Anil Nauriya argues that the history of Indian socialism has neglected a vigorous Marxist tradition outside the Communist parties, represented by the Congress Socialist Party that Narendra Deva helped to found in 1934; that is Nauriya's argument and is not treated here as established.<ref>Nauriya, Anil (2015). ''Non-violent Action and Socialist Radicalism: Narendra Deva in India's Freedom Movement''. NMML Occasional Paper, History and Society, New Series 70. New Delhi: Nehru Memorial Museum and Library.</ref>

==== Marxist Readings of Buddhism ====

{{Main|Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India}}
A separate line of writers read Buddhist doctrine, the sangha, and Indian history in Marxist terms, most of them without becoming Buddhists. The earliest example found is the Marathi Pali scholar and former monk [[Dharmanand Kosambi]] (1876–1947), who in 1910 described the sangha as an instance of collective ownership. [[Narendra Deva]] (1889–1956), a founder of the Congress Socialist Party, wrote ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'' (1956), and others have credited him with a synthesis of Marxism and Buddhism that the sources do not show him arguing himself. The "Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India" page also discusses the later tribal-sangha thesis of D.D. Kosambi and Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya and the anthology ''Buddhism: The Marxist Approach'' (1970).

==== Rahul Sankrityayan ====

{{Main|Rahul Sankrityayan}}
Rahul Sankrityayan (born Kedarnath Pandey, 1893–1963) was a Hindi polymath, Buddhist monk by training in [[Sri Lanka]], and communist who is the best-known figure to join Buddhist scholarship to Marxism in India. A Kisan Sabha organizer and a member of the Communist Party of India from 1939 to 1948 and again from 1955, he argued in ''Samyavad hi Kyon?'' (1935) and ''Bauddh Darshan'' (1948) that the sangha limited private property and anticipated communal ownership, and he read Buddhist metaphysics as proto-materialist. He did not settle into a Buddhist identity: he declined to call himself a follower of the Buddhist religion, even as he revered the Buddha. He recovered Buddhist manuscripts from [[Tibet]] and [[Nepal]], took part in the Kathmandu conference of 1956 (see [[Nepal]]), and, with Kosambi, worked at the Leningrad institute described under [[Russia and the Soviet Union#Soviet Indology and Its Indian Connections|Soviet Indology]].

=== Ambedkar and the Conversion of 1956 ===

{{Main|BR Ambedkar}}
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (1891–1956), jurist, principal architect of the Indian Constitution, and the leader of the untouchable communities, announced at Yeola in 1935 that he would not die a Hindu. Ober argues against the common view that he built his Buddhism from nothing: he met Bodhananda in 1920, studied Pali with Ishwardatt Medharthi, approached Dharmanand Kosambi and the Bombay Buddha Society in 1936, and was helped to attend the World Fellowship of Buddhists in [[Burma]] in 1954 by the monk Dharmarakshita.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 5.</ref> On 14 October 1956 at Nagpur he and his wife took the Three Refuges and Five Precepts from the Arakanese-Burmese monk U Chandramani of Kushinagar, and he then administered twenty-two vows of his own composition to the crowd. Sources give the number converted differently, from 200,000 to 600,000. (See the page on [[Dalit Buddhism]].) Ambedkar spoke on Buddhism and communism at the Fourth General Conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists in Kathmandu on 20 November 1956, and died on 6 December. His late essay "Buddha or Karl Marx" compares Buddhism with Marxism as rival remedies for social suffering; the secondary debate about it is summarized on the Ambedkar page. Geetha reads him as a critic of Indian communism who did not call himself a socialist, for whom socialism was nonetheless a "spectral presence" in his thought.

==== State Buddhism as Foil ====

The Indian state of the same years used Buddhism for its own purposes, and the two projects only partly overlapped. Ober reports that the dharmachakra replaced Gandhi's charkha on the national flag in 1947, the Ashokan lion capital became the state emblem, the government marked the "2,500 Years of Buddhism" in 1956, it toured relics of the Buddha's disciples through India's border regions and abroad as an instrument of diplomacy, and the Panchsheel Agreement of 1954 was named after Buddhist precepts. Ambedkar, the only nationally prominent Indian politician who called himself a Buddhist, was not invited, according to Ober, to Nehru's relic ceremony at Sanchi in 1952, and Nehru rebuffed his request in 1956 for funds to distribute ''The Buddha and His Dhamma''.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 7, pp. 252–283 (citing Ambedkar 1993: 191–192).</ref> The state's Buddhism came under strain from Ambedkar's conversion, from the [[Tenzin Gyatso|Dalai Lama]]'s flight in 1959, and from the Sino-Indian war of 1962.

=== After 1956 ===

{{Main|Dalit Panthers}}
The Dalit Panthers were founded in Bombay in 1972 by the Marathi poet [[Namdeo Dhasal]] (1949–2014) and Raja Dhale (1940–2019), after the Black Panther Party in the United States. Their ''Manifesto'' repudiates the Republican Party, which Ambedkar's followers had formed, criticizes the Communist Party for neglecting untouchability, and sets out a programme of land redistribution and opposition to capital and to institutional religion. It names Neo-Buddhists as one constituency among several in its broad definition of "dalit" and does not frame its programme in Buddhist terms. Dhasal was among the ex-untouchables who followed Ambedkar into Buddhism, but the sources show a personal identity and not a Buddhist political philosophy, and they do not show how he related the two. Gopal Guru credits the manifesto as the first document to bring Ambedkar and Marx together, a characterization that has not been checked independently. Beyond Dhasal, Dhale is a mention only: no source consulted documents his activities.

Beyond these strands later decades have not yet been researched. The Bahujan Samaj Party, founded in 1984 by Kanshi Ram and later led by Mayawati, mobilized Dalit voters on Ambedkarite themes without being a Buddhist organization, although the ''Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'' reports that Mayawati has said she intends to convert when it becomes politically feasible.<ref>Geary, [Given name], & [Given name] Mukherjee (2017). "Buddhism in Contemporary India". In: Jerryson, Michael (Ed.), ''The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'': 36–57. Oxford University Press, pp. 49–50.</ref> The rise of Hindu nationalism since the 1990s, and incidents such as the public flogging of Dalit men at Una in Gujarat in 2016, show that conversion has not ended caste discrimination. The Dalit branch of the Triratna Buddhist Community and the demographic and scholarly questions about the movement are discussed on the page about [[Dalit Buddhism]].

== Literature in English ==

* Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press. {{annotation|A narrative history of the Buddhist revival from the colonial period to the 1950s, built around the Maha Bodhi Society, the Hindu Mahasabha, Ambedkar's conversion, and the encounter of Buddhism with Marxism. Its argument that Ambedkar drew on existing Buddhist networks is the organizing source for much of this entry.}}
* Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.) (2021). ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste''. London: Routledge. {{annotation|Essays from a seminar at Sarnath that debate whether Ambedkar's Buddhism breaks with the tradition and how it relates to Marxism, with a foreword by Gail Omvedt.}}
* Geetha, V. (2021). ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India''. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. {{annotation|The fullest study of Ambedkar's relations with socialism and with the Communist parties, and of how the early Indian Left understood caste.}}
* Omvedt, Gail (2003). ''Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahmanism and Caste''. Sage Publications. {{annotation|A broad history that places Ambedkar's Buddhist turn within the longer history of anti-caste thought in India.}}

== Literature in Hindi ==

* Sankrityayan, Rahul (1944–1967). ''Meri Jeevan Yatra'' [My Life Journey]. {{annotation|Sankrityayan's multi-volume autobiography, a major source for his formation and for the move from Buddhist scholarship to communism.}}
* Bodhananda, Bhadant. ''Mool Bharatvasi aur Arya'' [The Original Inhabitants of India and the Aryans] (1930). {{annotation|The monk Bodhananda's history of the Dalits and Shudras as the original Buddhist inhabitants of India. Ober sees affinities with, and possible influence on, Ambedkar's ''The Untouchables'' (1948).}}

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos & James Mark Shields ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "India". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/India</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:India]]
[[Category:Country Profiles]]

BR Ambedkar

2026-10-27T11:14:58Z

Lajos:

{{Awaiting Review}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:B.R. Ambedkar}}
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (1891–1956), popularly honored as Babasaheb, was an [[India]]n jurist, economist, social reformer, and the principal architect of the Constitution of India who, in October 1956, led a mass conversion of several hundred thousand of his followers, most of them from his own Mahar caste, from Hinduism to a reinterpreted, rationalist form of Buddhism. Trained at Columbia University and the London School of Economics, Ambedkar built his political career on the emancipation of India's "untouchable" (Dalit) communities, arguing that caste was a structural device for the division of laborers rather than merely a division of labor, and that political independence from Britain would be meaningless without the annihilation of caste.<ref>Ambedkar, B.R. (1936). ''Annihilation of Caste''. Self-published.</ref> His turn to Buddhism, culminating in the mass conversion at Nagpur and the posthumous publication of ''The Buddha and His Dhamma'' (1957), reframed Buddhism as a this-worldly, rationalist, and egalitarian social ethic explicitly opposed to caste hierarchy and, in a late essay on Buddhism and Marxism, placed in comparison with Marxism as a rival path to human liberation. That turn drew on existing Buddhist networks in India more than the common picture of a Buddhism built from scratch allows. Though he rejected the label of socialist and was a sharp critic of the Communist Party of India, Ambedkar's demand for the constitutional and economic transformation of a graded, caste-based social order, combined with his conviction that religious reform was a precondition of that transformation, situates him as a central, if idiosyncratic, figure in the history of radical, socially engaged Buddhism in twentieth-century South Asia.

== Biography ==
Ambedkar was born on April 14, 1891, in the military cantonment town of Mhow (present-day Madhya Pradesh), one of the youngest children of Ramji Sakpal, a Subedar in the British Indian Army, and Bhimabai Sakpal.<ref>Geetha, V. (2021). ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India''. Palgrave Macmillan, ch. 2.</ref> The family belonged to the Mahar caste, classified as "untouchable" under the prevailing Hindu social order; despite the relative social mobility that army service offered Mahar families, Ambedkar experienced segregation and humiliation from childhood, including exclusion from classroom seating and public water sources. His family's devotional (bhakti) affiliation with the Kabir Panth, a tradition critical of caste and Brahminical ritual, has been identified as an early influence on his religious sensibility.<ref>Gokhale, Balkrishna Govind (1999). "Theravada Buddhism and Modernization: Anagarika Dhammapala and B.R. Ambedkar". ''Journal of Asian and African Studies'' 34.1: 33–46, p. 41.</ref> According to Ober, he first learned of the Buddha from a Marathi biography presented to him on his high-school graduation.<ref name="Ober2023">Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press, ch. 5, citing Keer (2009), pp. 19–21.</ref>

Ambedkar matriculated from Elphinstone High School in Bombay in 1907 and, with the patronage of the progressive ruler of Baroda State, Sayajirao Gaekwad III, completed a B.A. at Elphinstone College in 1912. A Baroda scholarship then took him to Columbia University in New York (1913–1916), where he studied economics and earned a doctorate. He continued his education in London (1916–1917 and again 1920–1923), qualifying as a barrister and earning a doctorate in economics from the London School of Economics; his years abroad, particularly the relative absence of caste discrimination he experienced in the United States and Britain, sharpened his sense of the specificity of Indian untouchability as a distinct and severe form of social exclusion.<ref>Gokhale (1999), "Theravada Buddhism and Modernization", pp. 40–41.</ref><ref>Accounts of the degrees and their dates differ. The earlier version of this page placed a Columbia M.A. and "shortly after" a Ph.D. in 1913–1916 and a London D.Sc.; Ober (2023), ch. 5, lists a London School of Economics doctorate (1923), a Columbia doctorate (1926), and a Gray's Inn law degree (1923); Geary and Mukherjee, "Buddhism in Contemporary India", in: Jerryson, Michael (Ed.) (2017), ''The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'': 36–57, Oxford University Press, p. 48, gives an M.A. and Ph.D. at Columbia and an M.Sc. and D.Sc. "in constitutional law" in London. The dates and degree names are recorded here as the sources give them and are not reconciled.</ref>

Returning to India, Ambedkar combined a legal and academic career with an increasingly public role as leader of the Depressed Classes. He founded the journal ''Mooknayak'' ("Leader of the Voiceless") in 1920 and, over the following decade, organized landmark public actions against untouchability, including the 1927 Mahad Satyagraha to assert Dalits' right to draw water from a public tank and the 1930 Kalaram Temple entry movement at Nashik. In December 1927 he presided over the ceremonial burning of a copy of the ''Manu Smriti'', the ancient law code he held most responsible for sanctifying caste hierarchy.<ref>Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', ch. 5.</ref> Ambedkar represented the Depressed Classes at the Round Table Conferences in London (1930–1932), where his demand for separate electorates for untouchables was resisted by Mohandas Gandhi; Gandhi's fast unto death against separate electorates forced Ambedkar to accept the compromise Poona Pact of September 1932, which secured reserved seats within the general Hindu electorate rather than a separate electorate. The episode confirmed Ambedkar's view, developed across his career, that Gandhi's paternalistic reformism and the term "Harijan" ("children of God") that he popularized for untouchables addressed the symptoms of untouchability while leaving the underlying caste order intact.<ref>Gokhale (1999), "Theravada Buddhism and Modernization", p. 41.</ref>

At the Yeola Conference in October 1935, Ambedkar publicly announced that although he had been born a Hindu, he would not die a Hindu, inaugurating nearly two decades of comparative study of alternative religious traditions.<ref>Gokhale (1999), "Theravada Buddhism and Modernization", p. 42.</ref> During this period he served as Labour Member on the Governor-General's Executive Council (1942–1946), founded the Independent Labour Party (1936) and later the Scheduled Castes Federation, and after Indian independence became India's first Law Minister and chairman of the Constitution's Drafting Committee, in which capacity he was principally responsible for the Constitution's abolition of untouchability (Article 17) and its provisions for reservation and social justice. His frustration with the limits of constitutional remedy, together with his defeat in the general elections of 1952 and 1954 and his resignation from the cabinet in 1951 over the stalling of the Hindu Code Bill, deepened his conviction that legal equality was insufficient without a parallel transformation of the religious and social order.<ref>Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', ch. 3.</ref>

Ambedkar's turn specifically to Buddhism, rather than to Islam, Christianity, or Sikhism, all of which actively sought his followers' allegiance after 1935, drew on the historical memory of Buddhism as an indigenous Indian tradition that had once directly challenged Brahminical ritualism and caste, and on his reading of the Buddha's teaching as a rational, ethical, and this-worldly doctrine compatible with democracy and social equality.<ref>Gokhale (1999), "Theravada Buddhism and Modernization", pp. 42–44.</ref> That turn was not made in isolation. Ober argues, against the common view that Ambedkar constructed a new Buddhism from scratch, that he had been in contact with existing Buddhist networks for decades: he met the monk Bodhananda at the Kolhapur Non-Brahmin Conference in 1920; in 1936 he approached the Bombay Buddha Society and [[Dharmanand Kosambi]] with a request for a vihara in Bombay, which led to the Bahujan Vihara in Parel, though Ambedkar himself apparently never attended its events, probably because of its Birla financing and Kosambi's Brahmin and Gandhian affiliations; he studied Pali privately with Ishwardatt Medharthi of Kanpur into the mid-1940s; and he met the monk U Chandramani and his pupil Dharmarakshita, who edited the Hindi Buddhist journal ''Dharmadoot'', at Kushinagar. Dharmarakshita arranged his 1954 journey to the World Fellowship of Buddhists meeting in Burma, and Ambedkar had attended its first meeting in Ceylon in 1950. Two colleges, Siddharth College in Bombay (1946) and Milind College in Aurangabad (1950), named for Buddhist figures, were established years before the public conversion.<ref name="Ober2023b">Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 5, pp. 217, 219 and n. 53 (p. 328), citing Vajpeyi (2012), p. 231, for the common view. The Bahujan Vihara is dated 1937 by Ober and as completed in 1936 by Meera Kosambi's edition of Dharmanand Kosambi's writings. Ober's phrase for Ambedkar's absence from the vihara ("apparently") marks an inference.</ref> The widely repeated claim that Ambedkar had hoped Bodhanand, who died in 1952, would officiate at his conversion rests on one second-hand report by Shanti Swarup Bauddh (via Ober, p. 214); it should be read with the caveat that the Bodhanand of Ober's account, Bhadant Bodhanand Mahastavir (1874–1952), may not be the "Swami Bodhanand" of other sources.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 214; Geetha (2021), p. 269, whose account of Bodhanand is drawn from Ober's 2016 dissertation, adds that Ambedkar remained in touch
with him and discussed his decision to convert with him.</ref>

Ambedkar's relations with other Buddhist thinkers also shaped his later writing. He took from Dharmanand Kosambi's Marathi ''Bhagwan Buddha'' and his play ''Bodhisattva'' the account, adopted in ''The Buddha and His Dhamma'', of why Siddhartha left home: not a shock at mortality but a voluntary exile after his dissent in a Sakya–Koliya council dispute over the waters of the river Rohini was voted down.<ref>Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', pp. 290–291 n. 46; Rodrigues, Valerian (2024). ''Ambedkar's Political Philosophy: A Grammar of Public Life from the Social Margins''. Palgrave Macmillan, ch. 5; Ambedkar (1957), ''The Buddha and His Dhamma'', in BAWS 11: 24–32. Kosambi's play is printed in Kosambi, Meera (Ed.) (2010), ''Dharmanand Kosambi: The Essential Writings'', pp. 348–402.</ref> Whether and how far Ambedkar owed this to Kosambi is contested: Meera Kosambi, the editor of Kosambi's writings, holds that the book silently adopts Kosambi's ''Bhagwan Buddha''; Vasant Moon's source list cites Kosambi's ''Bodhisattva'' for the life but not for doctrine; Anand Kausalyayan says the two men covered different ground; and Kasbe suggests that credit was omitted from Ambedkar's lost introduction.<ref>Meera Kosambi's introduction and endnotes 70–72; Anand Kausalyayan (1992), ''An Intelligent Man's Guide to Buddhism'', pp. 23, 110–111; Gokhale (Ed.) (2021), p. 268, which accepts that Ambedkar took Kosambi's account.</ref> [[P Lakshmi Narasu|P. Lakshmi Narasu]], with Dharmanand Kosambi and Haraprasad Shastri, is named by Geetha as one of the writers who appealed most to Ambedkar for treating the Buddha's presence in Indian history as consequential and his teaching as radical.<ref>Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', pp. 273, 284. Ambedkar's reading also included T. W. and Caroline Rhys Davids, Oldenberg, Edward Thomas, Spence Hardy, Burnouf, and the popular writers James Pratt, Henry Olcott, Paul Carus, and Kenneth Saunders (pp. 281–285).</ref> In a preface dated 10 March 1948 to the third edition of Narasu's ''The Essence of Buddhism'' (Thacker, Bombay), which Ambedkar had reprinted, he called it the best book on Buddhism that had appeared so far, and he said that he had never met Narasu.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 141; Aloysius, G. (1998). ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity: A Buddhist Movement among the Tamils under Colonialism''. New Age International, App. 10, pp. 230–232, which reproduces the preface. Ayyathurai's "1943" for the preface is an outlier. Ambedkar's field for Narasu there is physics; other sources say chemistry.</ref> Aloysius goes further and argues that Ambedkar knew of, had links with, and was influenced by the Tamil Buddhist movement, naming R. Srinivasan, N. Sivaraj, and G. Appaduraiyar as associates; this is Aloysius's own argument, resting largely on inference and oral testimony, and Ayyathurai finds no direct archival evidence of an influence of Iyothee Thass on Ambedkar.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 187–189; Ayyathurai, Gajendran (2011). ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness: Pandit Iyothee Thass, Tamil Buddhism, and the Marginalized in South India''. PhD dissertation, Columbia University, p. 136 n. 211.</ref>

On October 14, 1956, at Nagpur, Ambedkar and his wife Savita Ambedkar took the Three Refuges and Five Precepts from the Arakanese-Burmese monk U Chandramani of Kushinagar, a disciple of the monk Mahavir and the senior monk at the ceremony, and Ambedkar then administered a set of twenty-two vows of his own composition, renouncing Hindu deities and ritual practice, to hundreds of thousands of his followers, in what remains among the largest single conversion events in modern religious history.<ref>Rodrigues, Valerian (2024). ''Ambedkar's Political Philosophy''. Palgrave Macmillan, ch. 1; for Chandramani: Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 185–186 (photograph caption) and p. 219; LeVine, Sarah, & David N. Gellner (2005). ''Rebuilding Buddhism: The Theravada Movement in Twentieth-Century Nepal''. Harvard University Press, pp. 44, 60. Estimates of the number converted range from 200,000 to 600,000 in different sources (Geary and Mukherjee in the ''Oxford Handbook'', p. 47: 400,000 "additional"; p. 388: 600,000; LeVine and Gellner p. 9: "half a million"; Meera Kosambi, via Sukhathankar: "two lakh"; Aloysius: "more than 300,000").</ref> Himself a lay follower (upasaka), Ambedkar administered the refuges and precepts to thousands, a departure from the practice that only monks do so.<ref>Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.) (2021). ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste''. Routledge, p. 265 and pp. 270–271 (ch. 13, by Gokhale).</ref> Institutional Buddhist responses were not uniformly hostile: [[Rahul Sankrityayan]] wrote an approving pamphlet in 1957, Anand Kausalyayan translated ''The Buddha and His Dhamma'' into Hindi and called it a new orientation but not a distortion, and the [[Maha Bodhi Society]] petitioned Nehru over the loss of reservation benefits for converts and distributed 50,000 copies of Bodhananda's ritual manual to new converts, while the Birla-funded donor network effectively stopped funding the Ambedkarite movement.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 7, citing Queen (1996), p. 57, for Kausalyayan's phrase.</ref> He completed the manuscript of ''The Buddha and His Dhamma'', his systematic reconstruction of Buddhist doctrine, in the weeks before his death; it was published posthumously in 1957 as the first volume of the Siddharth College Publication series.<ref>Ambedkar, B.R. (1957). ''The Buddha and His Dhamma''. Siddharth College Publication.</ref> A few weeks after Nagpur, on November 20, 1956, he spoke at the Fourth General Conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists in Kathmandu (see the [[#Writings|Writings]] section below). Ambedkar died on December 6, 1956, in Delhi, about seven weeks after the Nagpur conversion. The Republican Party of India, formed from his Scheduled Castes Federation, and the broader Dalit Buddhist movement (sometimes termed ''Navayana'' or Ambedkarite Buddhism) that his conversion inaugurated, continue to organize millions of Buddhists, overwhelmingly of formerly untouchable background, principally in the state of Maharashtra.

== Ideas ==

Ambedkar's engagement with Buddhism cannot be separated from his lifelong analysis of caste as a structural, graded system of inequality rather than a simple division of labor; he held that Hindu society lacked the associated, fraternal life that alone could ground genuine democracy, and that annihilating caste required destroying the religious sanction, rooted in the authority of the Vedas and codified in texts such as the ''Manu Smriti'', that Brahminical Hinduism gave to hierarchy.<ref>Ambedkar (1936), ''Annihilation of Caste''.</ref> Where Gandhi sought to reform Hinduism from within and treat untouchability as a removable excrescence on an otherwise sound social order, Ambedkar argued that caste was constitutive of Hindu religion itself, so that reform without a change of religious foundation could never suffice; this conviction, developed at length in ''Annihilation of Caste'' (1936), supplies the logical basis for his eventual conversion.<ref>Rodrigues (2024), ''Ambedkar's Political Philosophy'', ch. 5.</ref> In ''The Untouchables'' (1948) he argued that untouchables were "broken men", remnants of an indigenous Buddhist population conquered by Aryan Brahmin invaders and punished for their Buddhist identity and their continued beef-eating, a claim very similar to that asserted by [[Iyothee Thass]] before.<ref name="Ober2023c">Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 5.</ref> In an article of 1941 he had already cast the Buddha as the doctor of India's Brahminical disease.<ref name="Ober2023c" />

In choosing Buddhism specifically, Ambedkar drew a sharp distinction between what he called canonical accretion and the Buddha's original teaching. In ''The Buddha and His Dhamma'' he set aside doctrines he regarded as later monkish or metaphysical additions, including rebirth understood as the transmigration of a soul and the Four Noble Truths read as a doctrine of universal, inescapable suffering, and instead presented the Dhamma as a rational, ethical, and fundamentally social teaching centered on the elimination of suffering caused by social and economic injustice.<ref>Ambedkar (1957), ''The Buddha and His Dhamma'', Book II.</ref> His Buddha is a rationalist and empiricist who rejected the authority of the Vedas, denied the existence of a creator god and an eternal soul, and offered a "middle path" grounded in reason, morality (sila), and compassion (karuna) rather than ritual or metaphysical speculation. Scholars have described this reconstruction as a distinctively modernist and "Protestant" Buddhism, in the sense of stressing lay ethical practice, scriptural rationalism, and this-worldly social reform over monastic withdrawal and ritual, a reading Ambedkar shared in emphasis, though not in political direction, with the Sri Lankan reformer Anagarika Dharmapala.<ref>Gokhale (1999), "Theravada Buddhism and Modernization", pp. 39, 43–44.</ref> Geetha adds that he substituted an "acquisitive instinct" for, or alongside, craving (tanha), drawing on Tawney, and that he took the conflict between classes to be the root of the Buddha's sorrow, without identifying this with a Marxist theory of history.<ref>Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', pp. 295–296; the quotations from ''The Buddha and His Dhamma'' (BAWS 11, pp. 57–58, 239) are as given there.</ref>

Central to Ambedkar's social interpretation of Buddhism are the twin values of liberty and fraternity, which he understood as inseparable from equality; he held that a caste society could never achieve genuine fraternity because its very structure required the systematic degradation of some groups by others, whereas the Buddhist sangha, in his reading, offered a historical model of a voluntary, non-hereditary community bound by ethical discipline rather than birth.<ref>Rodrigues (2024), ''Ambedkar's Political Philosophy'', ch. 8.</ref> He also defined four tests that a religion must meet: that society needs a sanction of law or morality to hold together; that religion must accord with reason, which he called another name for science; that its moral code must recognize liberty, equality, and fraternity; and that religion must not sanctify or ennoble poverty.<ref>Keer (1954), p. 421, as reported in Kumar, Narender, "Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar", in: Malik, Suratha Kumar, & Ankit Tomar (Eds.) (2022), ''Revisiting Modern Indian Thought: Themes and Perspectives'': ch. 8, Routledge. The chapter also draws on Ambedkar's distinction between Hindu ''dharma'' and Buddhist ''dhamma'' (BAWS 11: 322).</ref>

=== Buddhism and Marx ===

In a late essay, "Buddha or Karl Marx," Ambedkar directly compared Buddhism with Marxism as rival diagnoses of, and remedies for, social suffering. He credited Marxism with correctly identifying exploitation and the necessity of eliminating private property in the means of production as a route to human welfare, but rejected the Marxist means of violent revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and a purely materialist account of history and morality; he argued that Buddhism achieved a comparable commitment to economic justice and the abolition of exploitation while grounding it in individual moral transformation, non-violence, and democratic, gradualist means.<ref name="BKM">Ambedkar, B.R. (1956). "Buddha or Karl Marx". In: ''Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches'', Vol. 3: 441–462. Dr. Ambedkar Foundation (2019 reprint). The editors' note on p. 439 says that the Committee found three typed copies of an essay on "Buddha and Karl Marx" in loose sheets, two with the author's handwritten corrections, and compiled the text from them; the chapter heading and the first paragraph (p. 441) say "Buddha or Karl Marx". No manuscript date appears in the volume.</ref> The essay's fuller structure is an introduction and eight sub-topics, running from the creed of the Buddha and the original creed of Marx to a comparison of means and the withering away of the state. Ambedkar accepts as surviving from Marx only a "residue of fire" (p. 444) and rejects the "inevitability" of class struggle and the progressive impoverishment of the working class; he allows that a proletarian dictatorship might be a necessity for backward countries but argues that it must give way to a democratic phase.<ref>BAWS 3, pp. 444, 459, 461–462; Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', pp. 310–314. Geetha compares this to Bernstein-style revisionism and thinks it likely that Ambedkar's route to it was Vladimir Simkhovitch's Columbia course on Marxian and post-Marxian socialism (p. 313).</ref> In the last section he says that the Russians pay no attention to Buddhism as an aid in sustaining Communism once force is withdrawn, and that "the wonder of all wonders" is that the Buddha established communism within the Sangha without dictatorship.<ref>BAWS 3, p. 461 (section VIII of the essay).</ref>

The same arguments appear in speeches of 1956. At the Nagpur conversion he contrasted "the school of Karl Marx", which holds that economic change comes first and everything else follows, with his own view that people also need to feel enthusiastic and creative and be gripped by energy to change things, which only religion could supply; and he asked what Marx taught that differed from the Buddha's saying on sorrow.<ref>Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', p. 305; Ambedkar, B.R. (1956). "The Buddha Dhamma Will Be the Saviour of the World". In: BAWS 17, part 3: 537–543 (the Nagpur speech of 15 October 1956; the Marx remarks are at pp. 537 and 543).</ref> At Kathmandu on November 20, 1956, delegates insisted on the subject of "Buddha or Karl Marx"; Ambedkar himself called it "Buddhism and Communism". He argued that the Buddha used ''dukkha'' in the sense of poverty, that the rules of the Sangha were stricter than any Communist rule in Russia, that Buddhism would not stand in the way of abolishing private property because the Sangha had already conceded it, and that a Marxist must say how long a dictatorship lasts and what replaces it; he ended with the injunction not to be allured by Communist successes.<ref>Ambedkar, B.R. (1956). "Buddha or Karl Marx" (Kathmandu speech, 20 November 1956). In: BAWS 17, part 3: 549–558 (source: ''Report of the 4th Conference of the WFB'', p. 558 n. 1). The headnote (p. 549) records that the speech was delivered in the palace of the King of Nepal, that Chandramani gave the Three Refuges and Five Precepts, and that Ambedkar was first asked to speak on non-violence in Buddhism. The volume contains no reference to Periyar and no 1954 visit to Nepal. The phrase "wonder of all wonders" does not occur in the speech.</ref> The speech and the essay overlap on dukkha and poverty, property in the Sangha, and dictatorship.

How far Ambedkar's Buddhism should be read as a form of socialism has been much debated. He explicitly refused the label and criticized the Communist Party of India's disregard for caste as a category of oppression distinct from class; his insistence that the state must play an active role in economic life, expressed programmatically in his 1947 memorandum ''States and Minorities'', which proposed state ownership of key industries and agriculture, and his description of Buddhism's economic content as aiming at the abolition of poverty and exploitation, place him in close, if unresolved, tension with socialist thought.<ref>Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', ch. 8.</ref> Geetha judges that the essay takes an ethical lens to Marxism and a socialist lens to Buddhism, pressing Buddhism into the service of distributive justice more emphatically than ''The Buddha and His Dhamma'', without ever quoting Marx or citing specific Marxist texts.<ref>Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', ch. 8.</ref> Skaria offers a different, avowedly interpretive reading that claims no textual influence: Ambedkar's most sustained engagement with Marx lies on the shared terrain of the "minor", in the way a "religion of the principle" sits between civil religion and Marx's critique of religion and secularism in "On the Jewish Question", and Ambedkar is, for Skaria, more faithful than Marx to the spectrality of that essay's argument. Skaria himself says he has not ascertained that Ambedkar read "On the Jewish Question", and Ambedkar says only that he studied Marx at length and taught economics.<ref>Skaria, Ajay (2015). "Ambedkar, Marx and the Buddhist Question". ''South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies'' 38.3: 450–465, esp. pp. 450–454, 462–464; BAWS 17, part 3, p. 556. Skaria's date for the essay's completion, 2 December 1956 (p. 450), is given without a footnote and is not supported in BAWS 3. Skaria also refers to the essay as published "posthumously".</ref> The secondary debate in a recent anthology gives several positions: Guru holds that Ambedkar's Buddhism can be neither reduced to Marxism nor opposed to it, credits the [[Dalit Panthers]]' manifesto as the first to bring Ambedkar and Marx together, and argues that the annihilation of caste is a precondition for the annihilation of class (and reports, on an inference from the editors' note, that the original title was "Buddha and Karl Marx"); Bagade stresses Ambedkar's rejection of "rigid Marxist economism" and his treatment of a socio-religious revolution as the prerequisite of a socialist one; and Gokhale notes that the essay reduces what survives of Marx's creed to four points all found already in Buddhism, differing on means.<ref>Gokhale (Ed.) (2021), ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste'': Guru, ch. 6, pp. 111–126 (pp. 113–115 on the title and the Panthers; Guru's claim of an "original title" is an inference from BAWS 3, p. 439, and the reference is unverified); Bagade, ch. 9, pp. 161–170; Gokhale, ch. 13, pp. 257–272 (pp. 266–269); see also Kumar, ch. 12, pp. 244, 251, who says Ambedkar "brings Buddhism parallel to Marxism". Endnotes of these chapters are missing from the text consulted. Page numbers are printed pages (PDF minus 20).</ref>

Ambedkar's practical relations with the organized Indian left were uneasy. Ober, citing Anupama Rao, notes his personal distrust, the dominance of Brahmins in the Communist Party, and direct competition over shared Dalit constituencies in Maharashtra, so that his comparison of Buddhism and Marxism as "two universalisms" in his last months does not imply warmth toward the Left in practice.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 7 and endnotes (citing Rao 2009). Ober's phrase that Ambedkar wished "to prevent communism from making any further inroads into Buddhist Asia" (n. 25, p. 332) is Ober's characterization, not a documented statement by Ambedkar.</ref> Nehru's government did not invite him to the 1952 Sanchi relic ceremony and refused his 1956 request for funds to distribute ''The Buddha and His Dhamma''.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 7.</ref> Ambedkar also insisted that his conversion, and the Dhamma he articulated, remained continuous with an "Indic" civilizational identity, distinguishing his choice of Buddhism from Islam or Christianity on the grounds that it did not require his followers to abandon their attachment to the subcontinent's own religious and cultural inheritance, even as it constituted a definitive and public rejection of Hinduism.<ref>Gokhale (1999), "Theravada Buddhism and Modernization", pp. 43–44.</ref> Ambedkar's comparison of Buddhism and Marxism is thus his own interpretation of Buddhist doctrine and history, joined to active religious leadership and a personal conversion; it is not an adoption of Marxism.

== Writings ==

Ambedkar's writings are collected in: 
'''''Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar : Writings and Speeches''''' 
First Edition: Education Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, 1979. Reprinted by the Dr. Ambedkar Foundation in 2014 and 2019. [https://www.mea.gov.in/books-writings-of-ambedkar Freely available online].

The following is a very selective list of some of Ambedkar's key writings. Page references to the ''Writings and Speeches'' follow the 2019 Foundation reprint.
* Ambedkar, B.R. (1936). ''Annihilation of Caste''. In ''Writings and Speeches'', Vol. 1. {{annotation|Originally an undelivered address prepared for the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal in Lahore, this is Ambedkar's most influential political tract, arguing that caste is sanctioned by Hindu scripture itself and cannot be reformed away without rejecting the religious authority of the Vedas and Shastras.}}
* Ambedkar, B.R. (1947). ''States and Minorities: What Are Their Rights and How to Secure Them in the Constitution of Free India''. In ''Writings and Speeches'', Vol. 1. {{annotation|A constitutional memorandum proposing state ownership of key industries and collectivized agriculture alongside political safeguards for minorities, reflecting Ambedkar's statist economic programme.}}
* Ambedkar, B.R. (1948). ''The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why They Became Untouchables''. In ''Writings and Speeches'', Vol. 7. {{annotation|A historical argument that the untouchables were "broken men", the Buddhist remnant of a conquered indigenous population, which sets out the historical premise of his later turn to Buddhism.}}
* Ambedkar, B.R. (1948, March 10). Preface to Narasu, P. Lakshmi, ''The Essence of Buddhism'' (3rd ed.). Thacker. {{annotation|Ambedkar's endorsement of Narasu's book as the best on Buddhism then available; reproduced in Aloysius (1998), Appendix 10.}}
* Ambedkar, B.R. (1950). "The Buddha and the Future of His Religion". In ''Writings and Speeches'', Vol. 17, part II: 97–108. {{annotation|An article of 1950 on the future of Buddhism in the modern world, listed by Geetha among his key Buddhist texts.}}
* Ambedkar, B.R. (composed 1950s, unfinished; published 1987). "Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India". In ''Writings and Speeches'', Vol. 3. {{annotation|An unfinished manuscript arguing that the historical decline of Buddhism in India resulted from a Brahminical "counter-revolution" that reimposed caste hierarchy; includes the chapter "The Decline and Fall of Buddhism."}}
* Ambedkar, B.R. (1956). "Buddha or Karl Marx". In ''Writings and Speeches'', Vol. 3: 441–462. {{annotation|A posthumously published essay, compiled by the editors from typed copies, comparing Buddhism and Marxism as rival routes to the elimination of exploitation and arguing for the superiority of Buddhist ethical and democratic means over Marxist revolutionary violence.}}
* Ambedkar, B.R. (1956, October 14–15). "The Twenty-Two Vows". Delivered at the mass conversion ceremony, Nagpur. In ''Writings and Speeches'', Vol. 17, part III, pp. 530–2. {{annotation|The vows Ambedkar administered to his followers at the Nagpur conversion, renouncing Hindu deities, ritual, and caste practice and affirming Buddhist ethical principles; foundational to the self-understanding of the Ambedkarite Buddhist movement. The Nagpur speech of 15 October 1956 follows at pp. 537–543.}}
* Ambedkar, B.R. (1956, November 20). Speech at the Fourth General Conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists, Kathmandu. In ''Writings and Speeches'', Vol. 17, part III: 549–558. {{annotation|Printed under the title "Buddha or Karl Marx" but described by Ambedkar as "Buddhism and Communism"; his last extended statement on the comparison, delivered in the palace of the King of Nepal.}}
* Ambedkar, B.R. (composed 1956; published 1957). ''The Buddha and His Dhamma''. In ''Writings and Speeches'', Vol. 11. {{annotation|Ambedkar's systematic reconstruction of Buddhist doctrine as a rational, ethical, and socially engaged teaching purged of what he considered later monastic and metaphysical accretions; the foundational scriptural text of the Ambedkarite Buddhist movement.}}

== Secondary Literature in English ==
* Rodrigues, Valerian (2024). ''Ambedkar's Political Philosophy: A Grammar of Public Life from the Social Margins''. Palgrave Macmillan. {{annotation|Argues that Ambedkar developed a distinct and internally consistent conceptual vocabulary for public life, reworking concepts inherited from liberalism, Marxism, and Gandhian thought from the standpoint of the socially marginalized rather than simply borrowing from any one tradition.}}
* Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press. {{annotation|Chapter 5 documents the Buddhist networks, teachers, and institutions that Ambedkar drew on before 1956 and argues against the notion that he built Buddhism from scratch; chapter 7 treats his relations with Nehru's government and the Left.}}
* Geetha, V. (2021). ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India''. Palgrave Macmillan (Marx, Engels, and Marxisms series). {{annotation|A monograph-length study of Ambedkar's ambivalent relationship to socialism, culminating in a close reading of "Buddha or Karl Marx" as an argument for fraternal ethics and economic justice achieved through Buddhist rather than Marxist means; situates his Buddhism within debates on revolution, historical time, and the annihilation of caste.}}
* Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.) (2021). ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste''. Routledge. {{annotation|Proceedings of a seminar at Sarnath containing several chapters on Ambedkar and Marx, including Guru, Bagade, Gokhale, and Kumar, and a foreword by Gail Omvedt; useful for the range of scholarly positions on whether his Buddhism is compatible with Marxism.}}
* Skaria, Ajay (2015). "Ambedkar, Marx and the Buddhist Question". ''South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies'' 38.3: 450–465. {{annotation|An interpretive article asking why a militant secularist converts to Buddhism and reading "Buddha or Karl Marx" and ''The Buddha and His Dhamma'' alongside Marx's "On the Jewish Question"; it claims no textual influence and its thesis is one scholar's reading.}}
* Gokhale, Balkrishna Govind (1999). "Theravada Buddhism and Modernization: Anagarika Dhammapala and B.R. Ambedkar". ''Journal of Asian and African Studies'' 34.1: 33–46. {{annotation|A comparative study contrasting Dharmapala's reaffirmation of Theravada Buddhism as a basis for Sinhalese cultural nationalism with Ambedkar's much later turn to Buddhism as an instrument of social liberation and cultural transcendence for India's untouchables.}}
* Aloysius, G. (1998). ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity: A Buddhist Movement among the Tamils under Colonialism''. New Age International. {{annotation|The standard monograph on the South Indian Buddhist movement, whose eighth chapter argues for Ambedkar's links with Tamil Buddhism and whose Appendix 10 reproduces his 1948 preface to Narasu; the Ambedkar thesis is the author's own and rests largely on inference and oral testimony.}}

== Secondary Literature in Other Languages ==

(''none identified'')

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "B.R. Ambedkar". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/BR_Ambedkar</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[category:BR Ambedkar]]
[[category:India]]
[[category:Biographies]]
[[category:Dalit Buddhism]]

Russia and the Soviet Union

2026-10-27T11:14:31Z

Lajos:

{{Awaiting Review}}
At first glance, "Russia and the Soviet Union" may seem an unlikely entry for a project concerned with Buddhism. In fact, this article concerns two Mongolian Buddhist peoples incorporated into the Russian state: the Buryats of Transbaikalia, around Lake Baikal, and the Kalmyks of the lower Volga steppe, a Western Mongol people whose ancestors migrated there in the seventeenth century. Buddhism had been an officially recognized confession of the Russian Empire since 1741, and by the early twentieth century it remained the central institutional and intellectual framework of Buryat and Kalmyk life, with the two communities together numbering just over half a million believers on the eve of the Revolution.<ref>Tsyrempilov, Nikolay (Цыремпилов Н.) (2019). "Сангха в эпоху упадка. Реакции российских буддистов на Русскую революцию и Гражданскую войну" [The Sangha in the Age of Degradation: Responses of the Russian Buddhists to the Russian Revolution and Civil War]. ''Государство. Религия. Церковь в России и за рубежом'' 37(1/2): 347–370, p. 350.</ref> Radical Buddhism in this setting took the form of the renovationist movement (обновленческое движение), led above all by the Buryat monk [[Agvan Dorzhiev]] (Агван Доржиев), which argued for the compatibility of Buddhist teaching with Soviet power and briefly secured official toleration before being destroyed, along with the rest of Soviet Buddhism, in the Stalinist terror of the late 1930s. A further section treats the Leningrad school of Soviet Indology and its connections with [[India]]n scholars and activists.

== Buddhism in Russia before the October Revolution ==

Buddhism was formally recognized as a legitimate faith of the Russian Empire's eastern subjects by imperial rescript of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna in 1741. By the early twentieth century it was deeply embedded in the social, cultural, and intellectual life of both the Buryats and the Kalmyks, each of whom maintained extensive networks of monasteries, Buryat datsans and Kalmyk khuruls, respectively, a substantial clerical class, and traditions of Buddhist scholarship conducted in Tibetan and Mongolian. By 1917, there were more than 11,000 Buddhist clergy in Buryatia and more than 2,000 in Kalmykia,<ref>Sinitsyn, Fedor L. (Синицын Ф.Л.) (2013). "Советское государство и буддисты (1917–1946 гг.)" [The Soviet State and the Buddhists, 1917–1946]. ''Российская история'' 1: 62–76, p. 63.</ref> although John Snelling's account of the same period gives a somewhat different figure of roughly 16,000 lamas in some 36 Buryat datsans in 1916, a discrepancy that illustrates how unevenly the confession's demographic history has been documented.<ref>Snelling, John (1993). ''Buddhism in Russia: The Story of Agvan Dorzhiev, Lhasa's Emissary to the Tsar''. Shaftesbury: Element Books, p. 204.</ref>

Buddhism's institutional position among the Buryats had been shaped for more than a century and a half by tsarist policies of simultaneous toleration and control. In 1764 Catherine the Great created the elective office of Pandido Khambo Lama as supreme religious authority of the Transbaikal Buddhists, formally severing their subordination to the foreign hierarchs of the Jebtsundamba Khutuktu in Mongolia and the Dalai Lama in Tibet, and, on pain of death, forbidding contact between Buryat monks and their coreligionists abroad. These arrangements were codified in the 1853 "Regulation on the Lamaist Clergy" (Положение о ламайском духовенстве), which additionally imposed strict quotas on the number of monks, monasteries, and temples, and restricted monks' movement, public ritual, and religious publishing.<ref>Tsyrempilov (2019), "Сангха в эпоху упадка", pp. 350–351.</ref> The 1905 Revolution brought a surge of Buryat political activism, both secular and clerical: congresses held that year in Chita and Irkutsk demanded, among other things, that the demeaning term "lamaism" be replaced with "Buddhism" and that the discriminatory 1853 Regulation be repealed. The Tsarist government's Manifesto on Religious Toleration of 1905 granted the first demand, but repeated attempts by a Special Conference on Religious Affairs to revise the 1853 Regulation stalled and never resulted in new legislation.<ref>Tsyrempilov (2019), "Сангха в эпоху упадка", pp. 353–354.</ref> A comparable liberalizing proposal drafted by Buryat lay and clerical activists, including Dorzhiev, immediately after the February Revolution of 1917 met the same fate, overtaken by the October Revolution and the Civil War before it could be enacted.<ref>Tsyrempilov (2019), "Сангха в эпоху упадка", pp. 354–355.</ref>

In the absence of secular scientific, educational, medical, and cultural institutions suited to nomadic pastoral life, the Buddhist clergy functioned as something close to a national intelligentsia for both peoples, and monasteries served as the only permanent centers of intellectual and spiritual life. Soviet diplomats and ethnographers of the 1920s, examining this situation with some bewilderment, described the Buryats' relationship to Buddhism as "not only a national faith, but an attractive calling that elevates a simple person to a height unattainable in other circumstances."<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 62.</ref> Buddhist belief permeated Kalmyk daily life to a comparable degree; a Kalmyk congress in 1917 declared that Buddhist teaching helped ordinary Kalmyks make sense of their lives.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 63.</ref>

Before the October Revolution, no antireligious propaganda had been conducted in the traditionally Buddhist regions of the empire, and no antibuddhist literature existed.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 63.</ref> As in [[Mongolia]], the near-total absence of any rival confession, secular philosophical tradition, or antireligious current meant that Buddhism was not merely the dominant religion among the Buryats and Kalmyks but the entire institutional and intellectual framework of their societies, a fact that would decisively shape both the possibilities and the limits of accommodation with Soviet power after 1917.

== Buddhism in the Soviet Union ==

The October Revolution confronted Buryat and Kalmyk Buddhist leaders with an acute dilemma, since the new Soviet state was formally committed to atheism and to the eventual abolition of organized religion. The secular and religious segments of Buryat society reacted to the fall of the monarchy in strikingly different ways. Buryat national activists, who had organized two pan-Buryat congresses already in 1917, welcomed the collapse of the empire as an opening toward national autonomy and had little sympathy for monarchist restoration.<ref>Tsyrempilov (2019), "Сангха в эпоху упадка", pp. 355–356.</ref> The official Buddhist hierarchy, by contrast, retained a deep attachment to the older model of a sacralizing autocrat who patronized and protected the faith, and consequently gravitated toward the Civil War's counter-revolutionary forces. In July 1919 a congress of Buryat clergy and laity in Chita, convened to select a new Pandido Khambo Lama, sent an effusive telegram of loyalty to Admiral Aleksandr Kolchak as Supreme Ruler; Kolchak, for his part, went so far as to assume the traditionally monarchical prerogative of confirming Khambo Lamas, and in December 1919 created a parallel office for the Buddhists of Uryankhai (Tuva).<ref>Tsyrempilov (2019), "Сангха в эпоху упадка", pp. 356–357.</ref> In eastern Transbaikalia, the warlord Ataman Grigory Semyonov likewise cultivated Buddhist clergy and Buddhist symbolism in support of his pan-Mongolist ambitions, as did his ally Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, who styled himself defender of the "Yellow Faith."<ref>Tsyrempilov (2019), "Сангха в эпоху упадка", p. 348, n. 3; Sablin, Ivan (2016). ''Governing Post-Imperial Siberia and Mongolia, 1911–1924: Buddhism, Socialism, and Nationalism in State and Autonomy Building''. Abingdon: Routledge, p. 5.</ref>

A more radical response to the crisis came from Lubsan-Samdan Tsydenov (Лубсан-Самдан Цыденов), abbot of the Kudun datsan, who in January 1919 proclaimed himself "Dharmaraja of the Three Worlds" and divine theocratic ruler of a short-lived Buddhist state in the Khudun valley of central Transbaikalia, known as the Balagat theocracy. Modeled on a constitutional republic, with an elected president, a legislative assembly (the Bolshoi Suglan), and suffrage from the age of fifteen, the state consciously renounced any standing army as an instrument of violence; it was crushed in turn by Semyonov's forces and then by the Bolsheviks, and Tsydenov himself died in exile in Novonikolaevsk (Novosibirsk) in May 1922.<ref>Tsyrempilov (2019), "Сангха в эпоху упадка", pp. 358–360.</ref> Ivan Sablin's cartographic reconstruction of the period situates the Balagat theocracy among a whole series of competing post-imperial state projects in the Baikal-Mongolian borderlands, of which the Soviet-sponsored Buryat-Mongol Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic (BMASSR), established in 1923, would be the only one to endure.<ref>Sablin (2016), ''Governing Post-Imperial Siberia'', pp. 5–7.</ref>

Most clergy, however, took no side in the war, and among the Kalmyks the head of the Buddhist community, shadjin-lama Ch. Baldanov, supported the White movement outright, prompting Kalmyk émigrés to later found a "Union for the Aid of Buddhists in Russia" in Istanbul.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", pp. 63–64.</ref> It was only once the Bolsheviks had firmly re-established control over Transbaikalia in 1920 that a current within Buddhist leadership, the renovationist movement, chose to declare its support for Soviet power instead, hoping that the Revolution's national-liberation, anti-imperialist character would extend Soviet patronage to the religions of national minorities.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 64; Tsyrempilov (2019), "Сангха в эпоху упадка", p. 360.</ref>

=== Agvan Dorzhiev ===
{{Main|Agvan Dorzhiev}}
The central figure of Russian radical Buddhism was Agvan Lobsan Dorzhiev (Агван Лобсан Доржиев; c. 1853–1938), a Buryat monk who trained at the Gomang datsang of Drepung monastery in Lhasa and rose to become tutor and diplomatic envoy of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, and later the leading figure of the Buddhist renovationist movement after 1917.<ref>Andreyev, Alexandre (2003). ''Soviet Russia and Tibet: The Debacle of Secret Diplomacy, 1918–1930s''. Leiden: Brill, pp. 20–21.</ref> Dorzhiev and his associates argued, in written theses and in oral addresses to Buddhist congregations, that Buddhism was compatible with, and in some formulations equivalent to, the Marxist-Leninist worldview: both rejected a creator God, both preached the liberation of the oppressed, and the saṅgha prefigured the socialist commune.<ref>Snelling (1993), ''Buddhism in Russia'', pp. 205–206.</ref> These arguments secured the movement a real, if temporary, institutional purchase with Soviet authorities during the 1920s, before Dorzhiev was arrested at the Atsagat datsan on 13 November 1937 and died in the prison hospital of Ulan-Ude on 29 January 1938; his case was formally dropped for lack of evidence in 1956.<ref>Snelling (1993), ''Buddhism in Russia'', pp. 249–252.</ref>

=== The Buryats ===

Among the Buryats, the renovationist current had roots predating the Revolution, and had already split the community by the late nineteenth century between reformers seeking a return to what they described as the original moral purity of early Buddhist teaching and conservatives defending existing monastic practice.<ref>Damdinov, A. V. (Дамдинов А.В.) (1997). "Агван Доржиев в обновленческом движении бурятского буддийского духовенства" [Agvan Dorzhiev in the Renovationist Movement of the Buryat Buddhist Clergy]. In: ''Бурятский буддизм: история и идеология'' [Buryat Buddhism: History and Ideology]. Ulan-Ude: (n.p.), p. 81.</ref> Dorzhiev formalized the movement at a Buddhist Council held at the Atsagat datsan in October 1922, where reformers committed themselves to giving up material luxury, tightening monastic discipline, centralizing the administration of monastery funds, and organizing communal agricultural labor so that monks would cease to be a burden on the laboring population; opponents, who called themselves "conservatives," denounced Dorzhiev as the "Red Gushri Khan" for what they saw as his willful distortion of the Dharma.<ref>Andreyev (2003), ''Soviet Russia and Tibet'', pp. 159–160.</ref> The security services took a close interest in this rivalry: internal OGPU reports from Buryat-Mongolia meticulously catalogued the mutual denunciations exchanged by renovationists and conservatives, who accused each other by turns of counter-revolutionary sympathies, illegal emigration agitation, and even sorcery, "hadkha," blamed by conservative lamas for the deaths and illnesses of renovationist opponents; the renovationist leader Sh. Dugarzhapov was murdered by conservative partisans at the Aginsky datsan during this factional strife.<ref>Sipeykin, Alexander V. (Сипейкин А.В.) (2024). "Агван Доржиев и конец «золотого века» буддизма в Советской России" [Agvan Dorzhiev and the End of the "Golden Age" of Buddhism in Soviet Russia]. ''Российская история'' 1: 149–160, pp. 150–152.</ref> Renovationist lamas went so far as to bake ritual gurons in the shape of stars, hammers, and sickles, to mark the anniversary of the October Revolution in their datsans, and, in at least one recorded instance, to redecorate a monastic office with portraits of Bolshevik leaders and antireligious slogans, telling puzzled visitors simply that "such is now required, this is no longer Nicholas's time."<ref>Sipeykin (2024), "Агван Доржиев и конец", p. 152.</ref>

The Buryat Buddhist community proved remarkably resilient in the face of mounting Soviet pressure. Soviet authorities complained by the late 1920s that in some districts of Buryatia the Buddhist clergy was stronger than the local Soviet apparatus "not only quantitatively, but qualitatively," and noted with some alarm that lamas' work among the population was livelier and more engaging than official Soviet cultural events, drawing in communists and Komsomol members themselves.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 68.</ref> Buddhist clergy made up as much as 10 percent of the adult population in some eastern districts of Buryatia, and the republic ranked first in the entire USSR for religiosity.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 68.</ref> Even after antireligious campaigns intensified, officials had to concede that such propaganda had "almost no effect on the lamas," and when Buddhist leaders called on lamas who had left their monasteries under pressure to return, most did so.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", pp. 69–70.</ref> Renovationist and conservative lamas were, moreover, not permanently locked into their factional identities: by 1929, faced with mounting state pressure, the renovationist clergy of the Tsugol datsan abandoned reform altogether and openly re-aligned with their former conservative rivals in common resistance to Soviet power, to the visible dismay of the OGPU officers who had counted on the split to endure.<ref>Sipeykin (2024), "Агван Доржиев и конец", p. 157.</ref>

=== The Kalmyks ===

Not all Kalmyk Buddhist leaders followed the renovationist strategy, but its most prominent Kalmyk exponent, shadjin-lama Sharab Tepkin (Ш. Тепкин), a graduate of Petrograd's Institute of Living Oriental Languages and, from September 1925, elected head of the Kalmyk clergy at the Third Congress of Kalmyk Clergy,<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 65; Andreyev (2003), ''Soviet Russia and Tibet'', p. 159.</ref> pursued accommodation with Soviet power with particular persistence, traveling across Kalmykia during the years of collectivization to urge lamas to return to their monasteries and preserve the community's institutional presence, and championing the consolidation of small khuruls into fewer, better-staffed monasteries: their number fell from 76 to 40 by 1926, before popular protest at the resulting travel distances to the nearest khurul forced a partial reversal, to 47 monasteries by early 1927.<ref>Sipeykin (2024), "Агван Доржиев и конец", p. 155.</ref> Tepkin was arrested in 1931, charged among other things with opposing collectivization, and later died in exile in Kazakhstan, where he continued to perform religious services for deported fellow believers until his death.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", pp. 70, 75.</ref> In 1934, thirty-one Kalmyk clergy and laypeople linked to Dorzhiev's Leningrad circle were arrested in the fabricated "Khambo" case, accused of forming a "counter-revolutionary insurgent group" on his instructions; several of the accused had visited him in Leningrad repeatedly, and one Kalmyk lama, Chagdyr Erdniev, was arrested in Leningrad itself the same year for allegedly maintaining the liaison between Dorzhiev and the group.<ref>Sipeykin (2024), "Агван Доржиев и конец", pp. 157–158.</ref>

The catastrophe that befell the Kalmyks went beyond the destruction of their religious institutions. In 1943, the Soviet state deported the entire Kalmyk people to Siberia and the Urals on the accusation of collaboration with the German occupation, abolishing the Kalmyk Autonomous Republic and dispersing the population across the USSR; most Buddhist cult objects were lost in the process, and the social space in which Buddhist ritual could function contracted to the purely domestic sphere for more than a decade.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 75.</ref>

The 1943 deportation was not the end of the story. Some Kalmyks — many of them already anti-Communist as former White Russian soldiers or their descendants — had volunteered for the German-organized Kalmyk Cavalry Corps after the Wehrmacht reached Kalmykia in 1942, and it was this collaboration that Stalin cited in ordering the deportation.<ref>Lopez, Donald S. (2025). ''Buddhism: A Journey Through History''. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 404–405.</ref> Retreating westward with the German army after Stalingrad, a group of Kalmyks eventually surrendered to American forces in Austria in 1945 and spent six years in a displaced-persons camp in Bavaria; barred from the United States under the 1948 Displaced Persons Act because they were not classified as European, they were admitted only after Alexandra Tolstoy intervened on their behalf, and in 1951 some two hundred Kalmyks settled in Freewood Acres, New Jersey, where they converted a garage into what is considered the first Tibetan Buddhist temple in North America. Four years later the Kalmyk monk Geshe Wangyal (1901–1983) arrived as temple priest; he went on to train Robert Thurman and Jeffrey Hopkins among the first generation of American Buddhist Studies scholars and to arrange the Dalai Lama's first visit to the United States in 1979 — an unlikely legacy of the Soviet destruction of Kalmyk Buddhism.<ref>Lopez (2025), ''Buddhism: A Journey Through History'', pp. 413–414.</ref>

=== Institutional history: congresses, the "golden age," and repression ===

The renovationists' declarations of loyalty produced, through the early 1920s, a genuine institutional settlement, one facilitated by the broader Soviet project of transcultural, post-imperial governance in the Baikal-Mongolian borderlands: Ivan Sablin credits Dorzhiev with playing "an important role in rallying official support for the Buryat-Mongol Republic and securing special status for Buddhism" within the new BMASSR, established in 1923 as a nominally national but in practice religiously and politically negotiated autonomy.<ref>Sablin (2016), ''Governing Post-Imperial Siberia'', p. 4.</ref> The First Spiritual Congress of Buryat Buddhists convened at the Atsagat datsan in October 1922 under renovationist leadership, adopting the "Regulation on the Administration of the Affairs of the Siberian Buddhist Clergy" and the "Statute on the Internal Life of Monastics in the Siberian Buddhist Hides," and a Congress of Kalmyk clergy followed in July 1923, at which reformers unsuccessfully proposed extending decision-making power over monastic finances to an assembly of clergy and laity, a democratizing move that alarmed the security services as a possible parallel to contemporary reforms within the Russian Orthodox Church.<ref>Tsyrempilov (2019), "Сангха в эпоху упадка", p. 362; Sipeykin (2024), "Агван Доржиев и конец", p. 154.</ref> Because Buddhism now carried the enhanced legal status of a "national minority" religion, the 1918 Soviet decree separating church and state was not extended to Buryatia, an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic from 1923, until December 1925.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 65.</ref> This period, up to 1925, has been described as the "golden age of Buddhism in Russia," or a "religious NEP," marked by a genuine flourishing of religious construction and institutional life, and by Moscow's hope of using Buddhist intermediaries to extend Soviet influence across Buddhist Asia.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 65.</ref> The characterization has not gone unchallenged: Sipeykin argues that the relationship of these years is better described not as a "golden age" or honeymoon but as a symbiosis in which each side sought to use the other for its own ends, while Tsyrempilov characterizes the same period as one of "saṅgha in decline," with institutional weakening already under way well before the repression of the late 1920s and 1930s set in.<ref>Sipeykin (2024), "Агван Доржиев и конец", p. 152; Tsyrempilov (2019), "Сангха в эпоху упадка", p. 363.</ref> By 1925, Buryatia counted 7,628 registered clergy and 44 datsans, and Kalmykia 1,904 clergy and 45 khuruls.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 65.</ref>

The All-Union Congress of Buddhists, held in Moscow in January 1927 with 48 delegates and representatives of the Soviet secret police in attendance, confirmed the renovationists' victory on nearly every disputed question, adopted a renovationist-inspired statute, and established an All-Union Spiritual Council as the confession's supreme governing body.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", pp. 67–68.</ref> By 1927–1928, Buryatia had 48 datsans and up to 9,100 lamas, and the number of Kalmyk khuruls had actually risen, from 45 to 61, since 1925.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 68.</ref>

The turn toward repression began in 1925 and accelerated sharply after 1929. Two external factors contributed alongside domestic ones: the failure of the Soviet diplomatic mission to Tibet in 1924–1925, and the redirection of Soviet revolutionary hopes toward China, both of which reduced the strategic value of the "Buddhist factor" that had underwritten the renovationists' leverage with Moscow.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", pp. 65–66; Andreyev (2003), ''Soviet Russia and Tibet'', pp. 162, 293.</ref> Internal OGPU directives from this period instructed Soviet agents to "cautiously induce the renovationists themselves to bring about the separation of laypeople from the clergy," treating the renovationists' own reform program as a tool for splitting and ultimately discrediting the saṅgha as a whole, a strategy that closely paralleled the contemporaneous Soviet management of the Russian Orthodox "Living Church" movement.<ref>Sipeykin (2024), "Агван Доржиев и конец", p. 155.</ref> Stalin himself denounced what he called "the absurd theory of the identity of the Communist and Buddhist doctrines" in the party press in January 1929, closing off the ideological space the renovationists had been trying to hold open; a Society of the Militant Godless established a Buryat-Mongol branch the same year and, together with a wave of new taxes and building-material denials, forced the closure of the first datsan, at Alar, before 1929 was out.<ref>Snelling (1993), ''Buddhism in Russia'', p. 234.</ref> Clergy were stripped of land-use rights, religious communities lost the status of legal persons, and forced collectivization from 1929 brought the confrontation to a head; lamas in some areas participated in armed resistance, and some monasteries were found to be sheltering weapons and maintaining contact with anti-Soviet forces abroad.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", pp. 70–71.</ref>

Economic strangulation proved as effective as outright prohibition. Clergy of every rank were subjected to punitive taxation regardless of actual income, with minimum assessments in Buryatia reaching 100 rubles by 1932 and wealthier lamas taxed at 600–700 rubles, sums that, if unpaid, resulted in the forced sale of a household's entire property "down to the bed and dwelling"; men of religious status were additionally conscripted for unpaid road repair and logging duties into their fifties and sixties, and temple xylograph printing blocks and manuscripts, some containing unique Tibetan and Mongolian texts, were requisitioned by Red Army units billeted on former monastery land and burned for fuel or torn up for cigarette paper.<ref>Sipeykin (2024), "Агван Доржиев и конец", pp. 155–156.</ref> Dorzhiev's own Ацагатская medical school for Tibetan medicine, which he had tried to shield by proposing its transfer to the Institute of Experimental Medicine in Leningrad, was finally shut down in 1932 after the discovery of an alleged "counter-revolutionary group" there; the number of practicing Tibetan-medicine physicians in Buryatia, which Dorzhiev put at some 300 in the mid-1920s, had fallen to roughly 200 by 1931 and to no more than 40 across the entire republic within another year.<ref>Sipeykin (2024), "Агван Доржиев и конец", pp. 156–157.</ref> Dorzhiev repeatedly petitioned the authorities against these measures, addressing memoranda to People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs Georgy Chicherin and to Pyotr Smidovich, chairman of the VTsIK's Special Commission on Cult Affairs, protesting that the destruction of Buddhist libraries and the impoverishment of the clergy amounted to religious persecution in violation of the freedom of conscience the Soviet constitution nominally guaranteed.<ref>Sipeykin (2024), "Агван Доржиев и конец", pp. 156–157.</ref> In 1933, recognizing that the internal split had become a liability rather than an asset, Dorzhiev dispatched couriers from Leningrad to several Transbaikal datsans with a directive calling on renovationists and conservatives alike to set aside their disputes, unite their remaining forces, and abandon any open resistance to Soviet power; OGPU informants also recorded him privately lamenting, in these last years, that the party's youthful new cadres had betrayed Lenin's own more moderate testament and were provoking a popular backlash through their heavy-handed treatment of believers and peasants alike.<ref>Sipeykin (2024), "Агван Доржиев и конец", pp. 157–159.</ref> A returning pilgrim, the lama Gatapov, reported to the OGPU around the same time that the Thirteenth Dalai Lama continued to hold Dorzhiev in the highest esteem for his historical role in preserving Tibetan independence, even as the Soviet "Buddhist factor" that had once made such ties an asset had turned them into a liability in the eyes of his own government.<ref>Sipeykin (2024), "Агван Доржиев и конец", p. 159.</ref>

The heaviest wave of repression followed the December 1934 assassination of Sergei Kirov, after which the destruction of Buddhist institutions in Buryatia and Kalmykia proceeded with little further restraint.<ref>Snelling (1993), ''Buddhism in Russia'', p. 248.</ref> In August and November 1937, NKVD units raided the Leningrad Buddhist temple that Dorzhiev had built, arresting and summarily shooting the handful of lamas still resident there, including Dorzhiev's personal physician, Balzhir Zodboev; the temple itself was confiscated by the state the following year.<ref>Snelling (1993), ''Buddhism in Russia'', pp. 247–249.</ref> By the late 1930s the state had turned to outright terror. In Buryatia, 1,701 Buddhist clergy were repressed between 1917 and 1941, of whom 520 were sentenced to death; more than 1,500 clergy were repressed in Kalmykia, and every Buddhist monastery and temple in the USSR was closed, many of them destroyed outright.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 73.</ref> Soviet Buddhologists, including scholars associated with Fyodor Stcherbatsky, were repressed alongside the clergy they studied, among them Andrey Vostrikov, a specialist in Tibetan literature arrested in April 1937 and shot the same year, and Tsyben Zhamtsarano, who had helped found the Buryat-Mongol autonomy in 1917 and later worked at Leningrad's Institute of Oriental Studies before his own arrest in 1937.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 74; Snelling (1993), ''Buddhism in Russia'', pp. 248–249.</ref> Soviet authorities justified the particular severity of the anti-Buddhist campaign partly on geopolitical grounds, citing the confession's foreign spiritual center in British-influenced Tibet and suspected Japanese exploitation of the "Buddhist factor" in East Asia.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", pp. 74–75.</ref>

=== Wartime revival and partial restoration, 1941–1946 ===

The Great Patriotic War brought an abrupt suspension of antireligious persecution, as the Soviet state chose to mobilize the religious convictions of its citizens in defense of the country. Surviving Buryat Buddhist leaders, including the former dyd-khambo-lama Kh. Galsanov and the young Bidya Dandaron (Бидия Дандарон, 1914–1974), a son of a prominent renovationist lama, became active again, and itinerant lamas traveled the Buddhist regions performing rites for believers.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 75.</ref> In 1944, Galsanov organized a collection among Buryat Buddhists for the Soviet Defense Fund, contributing 34,000 rubles of his own money toward a total Buddhist donation of roughly one million rubles, for which more than ten Buryat lamas received personal thanks from Stalin.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 75.</ref>

In 1945, Galsanov and his associates traveled to Moscow to petition for the reopening of a datsan in the Buryat-Mongolian ASSR; the Ivolginsk Datsan opened that year, followed by the Aginsky Datsan in 1946.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", pp. 75–76.</ref> In May 1946, a state-sanctioned Congress of Buddhist clergy in Ulan-Ude, attended by 43 clergy and lay delegates, elected a Provisional Central Spiritual Administration of Buddhists and adopted a statute modeled directly on the renovationist statutes of the 1920s.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 76.</ref> This restoration was entirely state-controlled, and only two monasteries were reopened out of the dozens that had existed before the purges; nonetheless, popular Buddhist religiosity survived underground, making possible the fuller revival of Buddhist institutional life in Russia that began at the end of the 1980s.<ref>Sinitsyn (2013), "Советское государство и буддисты", p. 76.</ref>

== Soviet Indology and Its Indian Connections ==

Russian engagement with Buddhism was not confined to the Buryats and Kalmyks. Imperial and Soviet scholars also built a school of Buddhist studies that drew visitors from British India, among them two figures treated elsewhere in this project, [[Dharmanand Kosambi]] and [[Rahul Sankrityayan]]. This section describes that school, the Indian connections that the sources document, and a Soviet critique of colonial philology that Craig Brandist has read alongside Indian anti-caste thought. It concerns scholarship and travel more than Buddhist political practice; the renovationist movement described above remains the Russian case of the latter.

=== The Leningrad school ===

Two academicians of the late imperial period, Sergei Ol'denburg (1863–1934) and Fyodor Stcherbatsky (Fedor Shcherbatskoi, 1866–1942), came from the "Rozen School" of Russian Orientalism and pioneered a Soviet school of Buddhology.<ref>Brandist, Craig (2022). "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology: the work of Aleksei Barannikov in the light of Dalit studies". ''Language & History'' 65.3: 201–219, p. 204.</ref> Brandist reports that they regarded Buddhism as "an egalitarian and rigorous philosophy of reason," a view that contrasted with most European opinion of the time, and that they drew on living [[Tibet]]an and [[Mongolia]]n traditions as well as on Sanskrit texts.<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology", p. 204.</ref> They were founding editors of the series ''Bibliotheca Buddhica'' (established 1897) and, together with [[Agvan Dorzhiev]], helped to establish the first Buddhist temple in St. Petersburg, built around 1909. After the Revolution they organized Buddhist exhibitions, including one in Petrograd in 1917, as well as conferences and museums that promoted the compatibility of Buddhism and Bolshevism.<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology", p. 204.</ref> Brandist treats the renovationist current in Siberia, described above, as the immediate attraction that drew [[India]]n visitors to Leningrad.<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology", p. 204.</ref> The center of the school was the Institute for the Study of Buddhist Culture in Leningrad, founded in 1927 under Stcherbatsky.

The favorable climate did not last. Stcherbatsky's work on Buddhist logic was denounced as part of an ideological struggle against Leninism, ''Bibliotheca Buddhica'' was closed as a mouthpiece of the Buddhist-Lamaist religion, and six of his closest colleagues were arrested as counter-revolutionaries, one of whom was executed.<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology".</ref> Stalin's public ridicule of the supposed identity of Communist and Buddhist doctrines, in January 1929, is described above. Among the victims was Mikhail Tubianskii (1895–1937), who had tried to bridge classical Buddhology and modern Marxist thought, moved to Mongolia in 1927, and was executed ten years later.<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology".</ref>

=== Indian visitors ===

[[Dharmanand Kosambi]] worked at the Leningrad institute in 1929–30 and again in 1932 or 1933, and he was among those who studied with Stcherbatsky.<ref>Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press, pp. 235–236 and n. 66 (p. 305).</ref> In the account summarized in Meera Kosambi's introduction to his writings, he returned to India in early 1930 and passed through the Soviet Union again in 1932, partly to see the "new social system," whereas Geetha places his Soviet stay in the 1920s.<ref>Kosambi, Meera (Ed.) (2010). ''Dharmanand Kosambi: The Essential Writings''. Permanent Black, Introduction; Geetha, V. (2021). ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India''. Palgrave Macmillan, n. 46 (pp. 290–291).</ref> [[Rahul Sankrityayan]] made his first journey to the Soviet Union in 1935 and stayed in Leningrad in 1937–38, working with Stcherbatsky. Ober reports that Soviet attitudes toward Buddhism had by then turned to condemnation, and has him leave the country in 1939 after marrying Ellena Narvertovna Kozerovskaya, described as a student of Stcherbatsky.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 244 and n. 19 (p. 331). The dates of Sankrityayan's Soviet stays are reported differently by Joshi, Maya (2009). "Rahul Sankrityayan's Journeys of the Self: Nation, Culture, Identity". ''Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences'' 16(1&2): 119–147, who gives 1935, 1937, 1944, and 1962, and the 1939 departure is treated as unsettled on his own page.</ref> Kosambi thus arrived as Soviet policy toward Buddhism was hardening, and Sankrityayan during the repression of the late 1930s, when scholars of the Leningrad school were being arrested. For their Marxist readings of Buddhism, see [[Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India]].

=== Barannikov and the critique of colonial philology ===

Aleksei Petrovich Barannikov (1890–1952), who had studied Sanskrit in Kiev and moved to Petrograd in 1924, worked at the Institute of Oriental Studies from 1934 and developed a critique of Indo-European philology that Brandist reads alongside Indian anti-caste thought.<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology".</ref> Barannikov argued that Brahman philologists, defending their caste interests, had constructed Sanskrit as the single unitary literary language of India and dismissed the Prakrits and vernaculars as corruptions; that European Indology was indebted to this construction; and that British and German colonial scholars drew racist conclusions from the Indo-European theory in order to present British rule as the restoration of an "Aryan" order. He wrote of the vernacular poets Kabir and Tukaram as persecuted for denouncing Brahman privilege, and he produced critical studies or translations of ''Prem Sagar'' (1937) and the ''Ramcharitmanas'' (1948).<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology".</ref> Brandist sets this critique beside the independent critiques of Phule, [[Iyothee Thass]], and [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]], while regarding any direct influence in either direction as uncertain.

The link with the Indian visitors is one of parallel and shared milieu. Barannikov is not recorded as having met or corresponded with Kosambi or Sankrityayan, and he worked at the Institute of Oriental Studies, which was administratively distinct from Stcherbatsky's institute.<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology".</ref> His work was later eclipsed in Soviet Indology, which in the Cold War favored the view of Sanskrit as the great unifying force of India, and Brandist reports that Dalit thinkers, including those of Navayana Buddhism, became the subject of sustained Russian research only after 1991.<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology".</ref>

=== Periyar's visit of 1932 ===

A different kind of Indian visitor was E.V. Ramasamy (Periyar), the leader of the Self-Respect movement, who toured the Soviet Union in 1932 with S. Ramanathan as a guest of the atheists' association and was registered as an honorary member. On his return he published Lenin's views on religion in translation in his journal ''Kudi Arasu''. Debi Chatterjee writes that his admiration rested less on the economics of the Soviet program than on its experiments in abolishing religion.<ref>Chatterjee, Debi (2022). "Periyar E.V. Ramasamy". In: Malik, Suratha Kumar & Ankit Tomar (Eds.), ''Revisiting Modern Indian Thought: Themes and Perspectives'': [pages]. Routledge; Murugesan, K., & C.S. Subramanyam (1975). ''Singaravelu: First Communist in South India''. People's Publishing House, p. 67.</ref> Periyar was not a Buddhist. He was a guest at the 1928 conference of the South Indian Buddhist Association, and Geetha and Rajadurai describe his relationship with Buddhism as largely symbolic, while Chatterjee's chapter does not mention Buddhism at all; the visit belongs to the history of the Indian anti-caste left and not to that of Buddhism.<ref>See [[Tamil Buddhist Movement]]. Aloysius, G. (1998). ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity: A Buddhist Movement among the Tamils under Colonialism''. New Age International, p. 97; Geetha, V., & S.V. Rajadurai (1998). ''Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium: From Iyothee Thass to Periyar''. Samya.</ref>

== Literature in English ==

* Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press. {{annotation|Chapter 6 (pp. 227–251) narrates the encounter of Indian Buddhists with Marxism and includes the Leningrad stays of Dharmanand Kosambi and Rahul Sankrityayan under the Stalinist turn against Buddhism.}}
* Brandist, Craig (2022). "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology: the work of Aleksei Barannikov in the light of Dalit studies". ''Language & History'' 65.3: 201–219. {{annotation|Describes the Leningrad school of Ol'denburg and Stcherbatsky and reads Barannikov's critique of Sanskrit-centered philology alongside Indian anti-caste thought.}}
* Sablin, Ivan (2016). ''Governing Post-Imperial Siberia and Mongolia, 1911–1924: Buddhism, Socialism, and Nationalism in State and Autonomy Building''. Abingdon: Routledge. {{annotation|A transcultural political history of the Baikal-Mongolian borderlands that situates Dorzhiev and Buryat Buddhist institutions within the wider, contested field of post-imperial state- and autonomy-building projects, including the rival Buddhist theocracy of Lubsan-Samdan Tsydenov and Baron Ungern's pan-Asian schemes.}}
* Andreyev, Alexandre (2003). ''Soviet Russia and Tibet: The Debacle of Secret Diplomacy, 1918–1930s''. Leiden: Brill. {{annotation|A detailed diplomatic history of Soviet-Tibetan relations that situates Dorzhiev's activity within the broader context of Soviet Central Asian strategy; the fullest English-language account of the geopolitical calculations behind Soviet tolerance of the renovationist movement, and of the 1922 Atsagat Council that launched it.}}
* Snelling, John (1993). ''Buddhism in Russia: The Story of Agvan Dorzhiev, Lhasa's Emissary to the Tsar''. Shaftesbury: Element Books. {{annotation|The standard English-language biography of Dorzhiev, reproducing his written theses in translation and offering a detailed narrative of the renovationist movement's rise and destruction, including archival detail on Dorzhiev's 1937 arrest and 1938 death.}}

== Literature in Russian ==

* Sipeykin, Alexander V. (Сипейкин А.В.) (2024). "Агван Доржиев и конец «золотого века» буддизма в Советской России" [Agvan Dorzhiev and the End of the "Golden Age" of Buddhism in Soviet Russia]. ''Российская история'' 1: 149–160. {{annotation|A recent archival study, drawing on OGPU documents, that reassesses the so-called "golden age" of Soviet Buddhism as a mutual instrumentalization rather than genuine tolerance, and traces the security services' management and eventual abandonment of the renovationist movement, along with the movement's economic strangulation and its leaders' private disillusionment.}}
* Sinitsyn, Fedor L. (Синицын Ф.Л.) (2013). "Советское государство и буддисты (1917–1946 гг.)" [The Soviet State and the Buddhists, 1917–1946]. ''Российская история'' 1: 62–76. {{annotation|The principal archival survey of Soviet religious policy toward Buryat and Kalmyk Buddhists across the entire period; the source for much of the institutional and statistical detail in this entry, though its figures should be read alongside Sipeykin (2024) and Tsyrempilov (2019).}}
* Tsyrempilov, Nikolay (Цыремпилов Н.) (2019). "Сангха в эпоху упадка. Реакции российских буддистов на Русскую революцию и Гражданскую войну" [The Sangha in the Age of Degradation: Responses of the Russian Buddhists to the Russian Revolution and Civil War]. ''Государство. Религия. Церковь в России и за рубежом'' 37(1/2): 347–370. {{annotation|Challenges the "golden age" framing of early Soviet Buddhist policy and provides the fullest account of the Civil War-era divergence between secular Buryat nationalists and the official clergy, including the latter's support for Kolchak and Tsydenov's short-lived Balagat theocracy.}}
* Andreyev, A. I. (Андреев А.И.) (2004). ''Храм Будды в Северной столице'' [The Temple of Buddha in the Northern Capital]. St. Petersburg: Nartang. {{annotation|A dedicated history of the St. Petersburg Buddhist temple that Dorzhiev built, tracing its role as an institutional base for the renovationist movement through its 1938 closure.}}
* Damdinov, A. V. (Дамдинов А.В.) (1997). "Агван Доржиев в обновленческом движении бурятского буддийского духовенства" [Agvan Dorzhiev in the Renovationist Movement of the Buryat Buddhist Clergy]. In: ''Бурятский буддизм: история и идеология'' [Buryat Buddhism: History and Ideology]. Ulan-Ude. {{annotation|Traces the pre-revolutionary origins of the Buryat renovationist current and Dorzhiev's role within it before 1917.}}
* Andreyev, A. I. (Андреев А.И.) (1992). "Агван Доржиев и судьбы буддийской религии в СССР" [Agvan Dorzhiev and the Fate of Buddhism in the USSR]. ''Реверс: Философско-религиозный и литературный альманах''. St. Petersburg, pp. 193ff. {{annotation|An early post-Soviet reassessment of Dorzhiev's strategy, drawing on newly accessible archival material.}}

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "Russia and the Soviet Union". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[category:Russia/USSR]]
[[category:Country Profiles]]

Nepal

2026-10-27T11:13:45Z

Lajos: Created page with "{{Awaiting Review}} Nepal is the country of the Buddha's traditional birthplace at Lumbini, and a state in which Buddhism has long coexisted with a dominant Hindu order and was often subordinated to it. Until 1951 hereditary Rana prime ministers ruled in the name of a figurehead monarchy and enforced Hindu orthodoxy by law; the monarchy itself was abolished only in 2008, two years after Nepal declared itself secular. Buddhism in Nepal takes several forms: the Sanskrit Ma..."

{{Awaiting Review}}
Nepal is the country of the Buddha's traditional birthplace at Lumbini, and a state in which Buddhism has long coexisted with a dominant Hindu order and was often subordinated to it. Until 1951 hereditary Rana prime ministers ruled in the name of a figurehead monarchy and enforced Hindu orthodoxy by law; the monarchy itself was abolished only in 2008, two years after Nepal declared itself secular. Buddhism in Nepal takes several forms: the Sanskrit Mahayana and Vajrayana tradition of the Newars of the Kathmandu Valley, the Buddhism of Himalayan and hill peoples such as the Tamang, and a Theravada reform movement that began among Newars in the 1920s.

Nepal is included in the Radical Buddhism Project for three reasons: the conflict between the Theravada revival and the Rana state; Nepal's role as a meeting place for [[India]]n figures such as [[Rahul Sankrityayan]] and, in 1956, [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]]; and the secularism campaign and the encounters between Buddhists and Maoists after 1990.

== Buddhism in Nepal ==

=== Newar Buddhism and the Hindu State ===

Buddhism has a long history in the territory of present-day Nepal, and the Kathmandu Valley is home to a Sanskrit Mahayana and Vajrayana tradition that the Newars have practiced without interruption.<ref name="Ober2023">Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press, pp. 25–26.</ref> The Sanskrit Buddhist manuscripts that the British Resident Brian Hodgson collected in Kathmandu in the nineteenth century became a foundation of European Buddhist scholarship. According to Bechert and Hartmann, probably in the thirteenth or fourteenth century the monastic community of Newar Buddhism was transformed into a caste community: hereditary Vajracharya and Shakya (Shakyabhikshu) households, whose male members are initiated as boys and live as married householders, form the "Sangha," while other Buddhist castes, such as the Tuladhars and Manandhars, are excluded from these monastic communities.<ref name="BH1988">Bechert, Heinz, & Jens-Uwe Hartmann (1988). "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal". ''Journal of the Nepal Research Centre'' 8: 1–30, pp. 2–4.</ref> They describe a "spiritual crisis" of Newar Buddhism, in which there is no living doctrinal tradition, the rituals are expensive, and the caste exclusivity is one that the Vajracharyas cannot justify rationally.<ref>Bechert and Hartmann (1988), "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal", p. 4.</ref> Newar Buddhism is still described as fully embedded in a traditional caste system.<ref name="LeVine2005">LeVine, Sarah, & David N. Gellner (2005). ''Rebuilding Buddhism: The Theravada Movement in Twentieth-Century Nepal''. Harvard University Press, p. 262.</ref>

The Rana prime ministers, who ruled from 1846 to 1951, sided with Hindu orthodoxy. In a dispute among Newar Buddhists over the food offerings of a [[Tibet]]an lama, the Rana state upheld the orthodox Hindu rules and imprisoned two Vajracharyas in 1932, which pushed some Newar Buddhists toward Tibetan and Theravada alternatives.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 39–40, citing Rosser (1966), p. 110 (as reported by LeVine and Gellner).</ref> Buddhism was tolerated as a sub-sect of Hinduism, with the Buddha treated as an avatar of Vishnu.<ref name="Letizia2014">Letizia, Chiara (2014). "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging among Some Tharu and Magar Communities of Southern Nepal". In: Toffin, Gérard, & Joanna Pfaff-Czarnecka (Eds.), ''Facing Globalization in the Himalayas'': 286–322. Sage, pp. 287, 292 and nn. 22–24.</ref> Conversion from Hinduism, including to Buddhism, was banned: Letizia, following Gaborieau, dates the ban to the Rana-era civil code of 1935, and it survived in later law, including the 1990 Constitution and the 2007 Interim Constitution.<ref>Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", p. 292, nn. 22–23, citing Gaborieau (1994), p. 63. For the ban under the Rana regime, see also Bechert and Hartmann (1988), "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 5–6.</ref> Buddhism's cultural presence outside the Kathmandu Valley is carried largely by ethnic identity: Tibetan-influenced groups such as the Hyolmo, Sherpa, and Tamang are Buddhist, and educated Tibetan Buddhists settled in the valley in numbers only after 1959.<ref>Torri, Davide (2019). "Religious Identities and the Struggle for Secularism: The Revival of Buddhism and Religions of Marginalized Groups in Nepal". ''Entangled Religions'' 8. DOI: 10.13154/er.8.2019.8355, para. [4]; Bechert and Hartmann (1988), "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal", p. 5.</ref>

=== The Theravada Revival ===

In the 1920s a reform movement inspired by Theravada Buddhism emerged among the Newars. It began largely outside Nepal: Newar merchants and students in Calcutta met missionaries of the [[Maha Bodhi Society]], and the first Nepalese Theravada monks were ordained in India.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 26–27.</ref> Dharmaditya Dharmacharya (Jagatman Vaidya, 1902–1963) met Anagarika Dharmapala in Calcutta, and after returning to Nepal in 1923 founded the Nepal Buddhopasak Sangha, a lay association, and three weeks later a women's counterpart; Chudal describes the Newari-language translations that he sent to Dharmapala's Calcutta journal as the first periodical in that language.<ref name="Chudal2015">Chudal, Alaka Atreya (2015). "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal". ''European Bulletin of Himalayan Research'' 46: 62–87, pp. 72–73. LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 28, date the journal to 1925.</ref> The movement translated Buddhist texts into Newari and Nepali, gave laypeople access to teaching and meditation, and ordained novices, monks, and, in a development without precedent in the Theravada world, nuns.<ref>Bechert and Hartmann (1988), "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 15–19, 24–26.</ref> Its leading figures included Amritananda (Mahanayaka Thera), who kept a high public profile through his friendship with King Tribhuvan, and U Chandramani, the Arakanese-born monk of Kusinagar (see below).<ref>Kloppenborg, Ria (1977). "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal". ''Kailash'' 5(4): 301–321, pp. 305–306; LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 43–44, 280.</ref> Its central institution, the Dharmodaya Sabha (Council for the Advancement of the Dharma), was founded in Sarnath on 30 November 1944, with Chandramani as president and Amritananda as general secretary.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", p. 306; LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 48.</ref> The Rana state suppressed the movement and expelled its monks, as described [[#Dissent and Reform under the Rana State|below]].

=== Buddhism Since 1951 ===

After the overthrow of the Rana regime in 1950–51, the legal climate changed. King Tribhuvan took part in a Buddha-puja on Vesak in 1951, breaking with a tradition that had forbidden the Gurkha rulers to worship the Buddha, the Dharmodaya Sabha moved to Nepal, and an All-Nepal Bhikshu Mahasangha was formed with Amritananda as president; Buddha Jayanti became a national holiday.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 56, 58.</ref> The Sabha's activity then declined quickly after the mid-1950s, having exhausted its resources, and did not revive until 1984.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 309, 311, 316; Bechert and Hartmann (1988), "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 13–14.</ref> In the mid-1980s Bechert and Hartmann counted about forty-two fully ordained monks and some sixty anagarikas, and they noted a degree of significance for nuns that had no precedent in the Theravada world.<ref>Bechert and Hartmann (1988), "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 24–26.</ref> Nepal remained a Hindu kingdom until the proclamation of a secular state in May 2006, and in the 2021 census about 8.2 percent of the population (some 2.4 million people) was counted as Buddhist, down from 9 percent in 2011. Census figures have been contested: Bechert and Hartmann called the 1981 figure of 5.3 percent very doubtful, and activists campaigned to be counted as Buddhist in 2001 (see below).<ref>Bechert and Hartmann (1988), "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal", p. 1; Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", pp. 297–300 and nn. 37–38.</ref> Questions of ownership and identity also surround Lumbini itself: according to Ober, many Nepalis object to claims that the Buddha was "Indian" rather than Nepali.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 27.</ref>

== Radical Buddhism in Nepal ==

Prior to the 1990s there is little that resembles radical Buddhism in a strict sense in Nepal. Nevertheless, there was a Theravada reform movement that came into conflict with an authoritarian state; Indian radical Buddhists passed through Nepal or corresponded with Nepalese Buddhists; and since1990 there have been campaigns in which Buddhist identity was linked to secularism, ethnic recognition, and, in a few cases, left-wing politics. Even for the Rana period, LeVine and Gellner observe that political reformers were not primarily concerned with religious reform, nor religious reformers with politics.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 100.</ref>

=== Dissent and Reform under the Rana State ===

The Rana regime was a patrimonial state in which the kings lived under what LeVine and Gellner call permanent house arrest, and it kept Indian democratic and nationalist ideas out of Nepal.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 24, 26–27.</ref> Besides banning conversion, it banned the public use of languages other than Nepali and the printing of books in them, which especially affected Newari; writers who used Newari were arrested.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", pp. 74–75.</ref> The Theravada revival was therefore also a language movement, and its translations into Newari and Nepali were themselves a form of dissent. According to Kloppenborg, following Bechert, the Maha Bodhi Society combined the propagation of Buddhism with nationalistic and social-revolutionary ideals, which is why the Rana regime distrusted contacts with it in the 1930s and 1940s.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", p. 302, after Bechert (1966).</ref> The regime's response was not uniformly hostile: Chudal reports that Prime Minister Chandra Shamsher contributed to the renovation of the Kindol Vihara at Swayambhu in 1923.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", pp. 72–73. Chudal reads the other donor as Dharmaman Sahu, the Newar merchant of Lhasa.</ref>

Repression came in several waves, and the sources disagree about the dates. In November 1931 Das Ratna Tuladhar (Dhammalok) and eleven other Newars, among them the poets Jogbir Singh Kansakar and Chittadhar Hridaya, were fined and briefly imprisoned for "unorthodox religion."<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 41; Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 304–305.</ref> Kloppenborg and LeVine and Gellner report that Mahapragya (Mahaprajna) and five others were expelled to India in 1926, while Bechert and Hartmann place the arrest and expulsion of Mahapragya and Amritananda at Bhojpur in 1937, a date that Chudal's notes give as 14 January 1937.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", p. 305; LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 43; Bechert and Hartmann (1988), "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 9, 11–12; Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", n. 18. The discrepancy is unresolved.</ref> In 1940 the government imprisoned Hridaya and Fatte Bahadur Singh over a Newari poetry collection, ''Nepali Vihara''; in prison Hridaya wrote his best-known work, ''Sugata Saurabha'', a verse life of the Buddha.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", p. 75.</ref> On 30 July 1944 Prime Minister Juddha Shamsher ordered the monks to stop preaching, ordaining, and printing in Newari and to return to lay life, and those who refused had to leave; about a dozen monks went into exile in India.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", p. 306; LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 47–48.</ref> Buddhists in several countries protested, the Maha Bodhi Society offered the exiles hospitality in Sarnath, and the [[Sri Lanka]]n monk Bhikshu Sri Nivasa sheltered five of them at his rest house at Nautanva on the Indian side of the border.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", p. 306; Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", n. 8. See [[Maha Bodhi Society]].</ref> The government's reply to the protests defended Hindu ''sanatana dharma'' and treated the conversion of "minors and women" as an offense; LeVine and Gellner add that the vihara of the anagarika Dharmashila at Pokhara became a meeting place for political opponents of the regime.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 48.</ref> The same sources record that in 1941 four men were hanged for organizing the Praja Parishad, a political association; LeVine and Gellner do not present this as a Buddhist event.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 47, 100.</ref>

=== Indian Visitors and Allies ===

Nepal's Buddhist revival also unfolded in contact with [[India]]n scholars, several of whom are covered elsewhere in the project. [[Dharmanand Kosambi]] visited Kathmandu in February 1902, hoping to learn about Buddhism; he found no learned monk or lay Buddhist, was saddened by what he saw at a stupa, and went on to Bodh Gaya. His account is a useful baseline for how little visible Buddhist learning there was before the revival.<ref>Kosambi, Dharmanand (1924). निवेदन ''Nivedan'' [Statement] (Marathi). Manoranjak Granthaprasarak Mandali, pp. 64–82 (eye-read from page images). For the stupa and the disappointment, see pp. 71, 74–75. See [[Dharmanand Kosambi]].</ref> [[Rahul Sankrityayan]] entered Nepal repeatedly between 1920 and 1936, often disguised as a Hindu pilgrim during the Sivaratri festival, because Nepal was his gateway to [[Tibet]]. Dharmaman Sahu, a wealthy Newar merchant of Lhasa, and Hemraj Sharma, the Rana state's ''rajguru'', helped him; Chudal reports that his political books were later banned in Nepal while his Buddhist books were not.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", pp. 62–63, 66–74, 82.</ref> Chudal concludes that Sankrityayan was not actively involved in the Theravada movement and that his support for it was moral rather than organizational.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", pp. 77, 81. This is Chudal's inference.</ref> His books nevertheless reached its members. Hridaya read Sankrityayan's Hindi ''Buddhacharya'' in prison as a devotional text, and Mahapragya's Newari life of the Buddha is described by LeVine and Gellner as following Sankrityayan's Hindi life closely, although Bechert and Hartmann say that it was composed from Pali sources.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", p. 75 and n. 26; LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 258; Bechert and Hartmann (1988), "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 12, 26. The identification of Mahapragya with Prem Bahadur "Nani Kaji" Shrestha (1901–1978) is Chudal's, via Sakya (1993).</ref>

=== The Kathmandu Conference of 1956 ===

In November 1956 Kathmandu hosted the Fourth General Conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists. King Mahendra opened it on 14 November and banned animal sacrifice on Buddha Jayanti; Amritananda was elected a vice-president of the Fellowship; and among the speakers, according to Kloppenborg, were Chandramani and the Sri Lankan scholar G.P. Malalasekera, who called for a "Buddhist welfare state."<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 58; Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 308–309. One source calls the conference the "World Congress of Religions" (Ayyathurai, Gajendran (2020). "Living Buddhism: Migration, memory, and castelessness in South India". ''History and Anthropology'', online 14 December 2020, n. 7); the sources are consistent on the year, and the naming differences appear to be only that.</ref> [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]], who had converted at Nagpur a month earlier, addressed the delegates in the palace on 20 November, on the relation between Buddhism and communism; the speech is treated on his page.<ref>Ambedkar, B.R. (1956). "Buddha or Karl Marx" (Kathmandu speech, 20 November 1956). In: BAWS 17, part 3: 549–558. The headnote (p. 549) places the speech in the palace of the King of Nepal and records that Chandramani gave the Three Refuges and Five Precepts; its dais list names "Amrutanand Mahasthavir," whose identification with Amritananda is not stated by the source.</ref> LeVine and Gellner and Chudal, who relies on Anand Kausalyayan, also place Ambedkar at the conference, and Chudal reports that Sankrityayan, who also attended, said in an impromptu speech that Nepal and India share a single culture.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 60; Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", pp. 77, 81–82. Chudal's gloss that Sankrityayan felt he was never in a "foreign land" in Nepal, expressing "one cultural soul," is her own interpretation. Ayyathurai (2020), "Living Buddhism", n. 7 (p. 18), reports an informant's account that Tamil Buddhists from Hubli met Ambedkar at the conference.</ref>

Three years later Amritananda traveled to [[China]], North [[Vietnam]], [[Mongolia]], and the [[Russia and the Societ Union|Soviet Union]]. According to Kloppenborg, he returned convinced that Buddhism was flourishing under communism, and his praise of the communist countries made a great impression on Buddhists in Nepal, [[Sri Lanka]], and [[Burma]].<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", p. 310, citing Amritananda (1961), Welch (1963), and Bechert (1966) (as reported by Kloppenborg). LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 69, repeat the visit from Kloppenborg and are not independent confirmation.</ref> This is the only pairing of Buddhism and communism that the Theravada sources record before the 1990s, and the sources do not show that Amritananda drew on Marxist ideas.

=== U Chandramani ===

U Chandramani (1876–1972; also Candramani) was an Arakanese-born monk who came to India at Dharmapala's request and was based at Kusinagar, where he opened a school in 1929.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 305–306. Earlier project notes give 1875 as his birth year (via Ober); the year is unresolved (F.97).</ref> He trained the first Nepalese Theravada monks, among them Dharmaloka, who was ordained a novice under him in 1931, and Ober, following LeVine and Gellner, credits him with spearheading the Theravada movement in twentieth-century Nepal by introducing a new lineage of trained monks and nuns among Vajrayana Newar families.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", p. 305; Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 109, n. 8, citing LeVine and Gellner (2005), pp. 41–48.</ref> He was the first president of the Dharmodaya Sabha. He matters for the history of radical Buddhism chiefly because he was the senior monk at Ambedkar's conversion at Nagpur on 14 October 1956, where he administered the Three Refuges and Five Precepts, and, according to the headnote of Ambedkar's Kathmandu speech, he also gave the refuges and precepts at the Kathmandu event a month later.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 185–186 (photograph caption); LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 44, 60 (which say that he "ordained" Ambedkar in 1956 and Sangharakshita in 1949; the Nagpur ceremony is usually described as the administering of the refuges and precepts to a lay convert). See also [[Dalit Buddhism]].</ref>

=== Caste, Women, and Reform within the Sangha ===

Bechert and Hartmann identify modernist features in the Nepalese Theravada movement: translation of texts, lay access, mass meditation, rationalism and demythologization, and a social philosophy that included the emancipation of women and a critical examination of the inherited social and political order.<ref>Bechert and Hartmann (1988), "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 18, 30.</ref> Caste was a practical problem. A monk who accepts food from a lower-caste donor may be refused by higher-caste lay supporters, so that many monasteries replaced alms rounds with invitations to lunch.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", p. 312.</ref> Bechert and Hartmann report that Theravada monks call caste a secular matter, that laypeople threatened to withdraw their support if certain bounds were crossed, and that, although alms from untouchables are accepted and several untouchables have entered the community, the Sangha had not yet conferred full ordination on a monk of untouchable caste, who remained a novice.<ref>Bechert and Hartmann (1988), "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 22–23.</ref> LeVine and Gellner record that the monks Ashwaghosh and Buddhaghosh insisted from the start on taking alms rice from low-caste households, and that Theravada reached middle and lower Newar castes, notably the Maharjans, who became a main source of recruits.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 63, 281.</ref> Vipassana courses opened meditation, formerly restricted to Vajracharyas, Shakyas, and Udays, to a wider public.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 228–229.</ref>

Nepal did not develop a [[Dalit Buddhism|Dalit Buddhist]] movement like the one that followed Ambedkar in India. Letizia, citing Hangen, notes that the Dharmodaya Sabha has not promoted Dalit conversion, that the Newars who control the public representation of Buddhism accept Janajati (ethnic) Buddhists but seem uncomfortable with Dalit Buddhists, and that the Janajati category, which excludes Hindu caste groups, impedes coalitions between Janajatis and Dalits.<ref>Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", n. 34, citing Hangen (2007), pp. 20, 51; LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 262, 266–267. Torri (2019) deliberately excludes Dalits from his study (para. [3]).</ref> The movement was nevertheless linked to the Indian one: according to the ''Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'', the Triratna movement founded by Sangharakshita, which supports Ambedkarite converts, had centers in India and Nepal by the 1970s.<ref>Geary, David, & Sraman Mukherjee (2017). "Buddhism in Contemporary India". In: Jerryson, Michael (Ed.), ''The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'': 36–57. Oxford University Press, pp. 49–50. See [[Dalit Buddhism]].</ref>

=== Bhikshu Ashwaghosh ===

Bhikshu Ashwaghosh (born Buddha Ratna Shakya, b. 1926; also Aswaghosh, Asvagosha) became a novice in 1944 and was fully ordained in 1949 in Sri Lanka; he was later abbot of the Shrigha Vihara in Kathmandu.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 281, 293 (Appendix 1).</ref> LeVine and Gellner report that he was known to many as "the communist monk," that after 1990 he was active in the movement for a secular constitution in alliance with the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), and that he sat in the Upper House on its nomination, either from 1991 to 1993 (p. 281) or from 1993 to 1995 (Appendix 1, p. 293).<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 281, 293. Steinmann (2016), p. 377, repeats the nomination, which she takes from LeVine and Gellner (2005), p. 293; the nomination is therefore reported at second hand twice.</ref> The chapters of LeVine and Gellner on meditation and social activism contain no politics: they show him as a supporter of the meditation movement who hoped it would help with his temper, included selfless social service among its advantages, and, with Sudarshan, advised Magar activists on rites and texts.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 211, 223, 236.</ref> He is the clearest case in the sources of a monk allied with a left-wing party, but the sources do not document his own political statements, and none links him to the monks' secularism campaign discussed below.<ref>Torri (2019), para. [27], attributes that campaign to Theravada monks without naming any; Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", p. 293, names a monk "Asvagosha" at a 1995 camp, but the identification with Ashwaghosh is assumed and not stated.</ref>

=== Secularism, Ethnicity, and Buddhism after 1990 ===

The first ''jana andolan'' (people's movement) of 1990 ended the ''panchayat'' system under King Birendra, the Maoist insurgency lasted from 1996 to 2006, a second ''jana andolan'' in April 2006 led to the proclamation of a secular state on 18 May 2006, and the Constituent Assembly declared a secular republic in May 2008.<ref>Torri (2019), "Religious Identities and the Struggle for Secularism", paras. [1], [26].</ref> Torri reports, at second hand from Letizia, that the campaign for secularism emerged in the 1990s from a movement launched by Theravada monks with the support of Janajati activists; no monk is named, and Torri does not link the campaign to Ashwaghosh.<ref>Torri (2019), "Religious Identities and the Struggle for Secularism", para. [27], citing Letizia (2016), p. 42.</ref> Letizia describes how late in the Panchayat period young Newar activists formed the Yuba Bauddha Samuha, which sought Janajati recruits for a "secular, that is, non-Hindu" constitution and held meetings in Theravada viharas; when the 1990 constitution still called Nepal a Hindu state, the activists judged the campaign a failure.<ref>Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", p. 292 and n. 24; Gellner, David N., Sondra L. Hausner, & Chiara Letizia (Eds.) (2016). ''Religion, Secularism, and Ethnicity in Contemporary Nepal''. Oxford University Press, pp. 42–45.</ref> By "secularism" many groups meant primarily the equal recognition of religions and an end to the primacy of Hinduism, and not the separation of religion from the state.<ref>Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", p. 292 and n. 24; Torri (2019), "Religious Identities and the Struggle for Secularism", para. [26].</ref> The Maoist leadership also envisaged a secular Nepal as part of its program of "new democracy."<ref>Torri (2019), "Religious Identities and the Struggle for Secularism", n. 14.</ref> The 2015 Constitution calls Nepal "secular," but the explanatory note glosses the word as protection of religion and culture practiced from ancient times, which Letizia reads, according to Torri, as evoking ''sanatan dharma''.<ref>Torri (2019), "Religious Identities and the Struggle for Secularism", paras. [33]–[34], citing Letizia (2016), p. 69; Gellner, Hausner, & Letizia (2016), ''Religion, Secularism, and Ethnicity in Contemporary Nepal'', pp. 5–6.</ref>

==== Janajati Buddhism ====

After 1990 ethnic activists campaigned against Brahmin domination, and the federation of indigenous nationalities (founded as NEFEN, renamed NEFIN in 2003) became the main organization of the Janajatis, who make up about a third of the population.<ref>Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", pp. 294–300; Torri (2019), "Religious Identities and the Struggle for Secularism", paras. [6]–[10].</ref> Buddhism supplied some of them with a way of opposing Hindu hegemony. The first international Magar conference in 1998 declared Buddhism the Magars' religion, and after a campaign by activists about a quarter of Magars declared themselves Buddhist in the 2001 census, although, as Letizia notes, the Magars and Tharus had no Buddhist tradition of their own.<ref>Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", pp. 294–300 and nn. 37–38. Rival activists favored a "Religion of Nature" (n. 38).</ref> Buddhist awareness camps, a new class of lay Buddhist ritual specialists (Magar ''uapas'' and Tharu pandits) who replace the Brahmin in life-cycle rituals, and the Himalayan Buddhist Education Foundation (founded 1995 with Taiwanese funds) supported the turn; Letizia argues that by 2008 ethnic activism had given way to moral teaching and personal responsibility.<ref>Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", pp. 289–294, 300–311; LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 234–236.</ref> The Maoist insurgency brought the camps to a halt in 2001, and they have only slowly restarted.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 139, 235; Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", p. 293.</ref>

==== Maoists and Buddhists ====

The only source in hand that pairs Buddhism with Maoist politics in Nepal is Steinmann's ethnography of Buddhist Tamangs in the eastern hills.<ref>Steinmann, Brigitte (2016). "Confrontations between Maoists and Buddhists in Nepal". In: Gellner, David N., Sondra L. Hausner, & Chiara Letizia (Eds.), ''Religion, Secularism, and Ethnicity in Contemporary Nepal'': 353–402. Oxford University Press, pp. 353–354, 357.</ref> She reports that in the 1980s Tamang villagers called themselves communists while revering the Hindu king, that from the 1990s young people read Buddhism as protest against Hindu supremacy, and that a few marginal, self-educated urban Tamang intellectuals aligned Marxism with a modernist Buddhism.<ref>Steinmann (2016), "Confrontations between Maoists and Buddhists in Nepal", pp. 353–354, 357.</ref> According to her, the Maoists did not seek to destroy monasteries, and they aimed to open places of worship to untouchables, although a Tamang lama was tortured by Maoist relatives.<ref>Steinmann (2016), "Confrontations between Maoists and Buddhists in Nepal", pp. 370–371, 376–377.</ref> Steinmann also reports that all parties courted the "Buddhist vote"; that Lharkyal Lama sat in the Constituent Assembly for the CPN-UML after 2008, briefly became a minister, and was elected on the Maoist proportional list in 2013; and that the monk Bhikkhu Ananda, trained in Sri Lanka, became a Maoist member of the Assembly.<ref>Steinmann (2016), "Confrontations between Maoists and Buddhists in Nepal", pp. 377–378 (citing the ''Nepali Times'' for Bhikkhu Ananda).</ref> Her own interpretation, which is contested, is that Nepali Maoism was a Brahmin-led project of modernization and a "third wave" of Hinduization from above.<ref>Steinmann (2016), "Confrontations between Maoists and Buddhists in Nepal", pp. 367–368, 372. This is Steinmann's interpretation, not a settled finding.</ref>

== Literature in English ==

* Torri, Davide (2019). "Religious Identities and the Struggle for Secularism: The Revival of Buddhism and Religions of Marginalized Groups in Nepal". ''Entangled Religions'' 8. {{annotation|An open-access study of Nepal's secularism campaign, Janajati identity politics, and the Buddhist revival after 1990. It deliberately excludes Dalits.}}
* Gellner, David N., Sondra L. Hausner, & Chiara Letizia (Eds.) (2016). ''Religion, Secularism, and Ethnicity in Contemporary Nepal''. Oxford University Press. {{annotation|A collection that includes Letizia's chapter on ideas of secularism and Brigitte Steinmann's study of confrontations between Maoists and Buddhists, the only source consulted that pairs Buddhism with Maoist politics.}}
* Chudal, Alaka Atreya (2015). "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal". ''European Bulletin of Himalayan Research'' 46: 62–87. {{annotation|An open-access account of Sankrityayan's journeys through Nepal and his ties to Newar Buddhists, which also reconstructs the Rana-era suppression of Newari-language Buddhist writing.}}
* Letizia, Chiara (2014). "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging among Some Tharu and Magar Communities of Southern Nepal". In: Toffin, Gérard, & Joanna Pfaff-Czarnecka (Eds.), ''Facing Globalization in the Himalayas'': 286–322. Sage. {{annotation|The fullest account of how Janajati activists adopted Buddhism after 1990, including its legal frame and the campaign for a secular constitution.}}
* LeVine, Sarah, & David N. Gellner (2005). ''Rebuilding Buddhism: The Theravada Movement in Twentieth-Century Nepal''. Harvard University Press. {{annotation|The standard history of the Theravada movement, covering the Rana-era repression, the exiles of 1944, the Dharmodaya Sabha, and the later movement's social activism, with a "Dramatis Personae" appendix; it contains little on Marxism or Dalits.}}
* Bechert, Heinz, & Jens-Uwe Hartmann (1988). "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal". ''Journal of the Nepal Research Centre'' 8: 1–30. {{annotation|A mid-1980s survey of the Newar Buddhist caste structure and of the Theravada movement's modernism and treatment of caste.}}
* Kloppenborg, Ria (1977). "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal". ''Kailash'' 5(4): 301–321. {{annotation|The earliest scholarly account of the Theravada movement's institutions and of the Kathmandu conference of 1956.}}

== Literature in Other Languages ==

(''none identified'')

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "Nepal". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Nepal</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:Nepal]]
[[Category:Country Profiles]]

Narendra Deva

2026-10-27T11:13:02Z

Lajos: Created page with "{{Awaiting Review}} '''Narendra Deva''' (Hindi: नरेन्द्र देव; honorific ''Acharya''; 1889–1956) was an Indian nationalist, socialist leader, educator, and scholar of Buddhism. A founder of the Congress Socialist Party in 1934 and later a leading figure of the Socialist Party and the Praja Socialist Party, he described himself as a Marxist and, according to the sources available, remained one throughout his life. He was also among the most resp..."

{{Awaiting Review}}
'''Narendra Deva''' (Hindi: नरेन्द्र देव; honorific ''Acharya''; 1889–1956) was an [[India]]n nationalist, socialist leader, educator, and scholar of Buddhism. A founder of the Congress Socialist Party in 1934 and later a leading figure of the Socialist Party and the Praja Socialist Party, he described himself as a Marxist and, according to the sources available, remained one throughout his life. He was also among the most respected Indian scholars of Buddhist philosophy of his generation, and his Hindi treatise ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'' (Buddhist Religion and Philosophy; 1956) was published posthumously in the year of the 2,500th Buddha Jayanti. Several associates and later writers have described his outlook as a synthesis of Marxism and Buddhism. This article treats that description as an attributed characterization: the sources consulted show a Marxist-socialist politician and a serious Buddhist scholar, but no sustained argument by Deva himself that derives socialism from Buddhist doctrine. His relevance to radical Buddhism lies in this pairing, in his historiography of a "śramaṇa" culture of dissent, and in his critique of caste in the Buddhist canon.<ref name="ankit">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). Cited from the online-first offprint pagination.</ref>

== Biography ==

Narendra Deva was born in October 1889 into a devout, upper-caste Hindu family; his own account gives Sitapur (in present-day Uttar Pradesh) as his birthplace, while the editor of a 1979 collection of his writings gives Faizabad, where the family lived, and sources differ on the day (30 or 31 October).<ref>Deva, Narendra (1956). ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'' [बौद्ध-धर्म-दर्शन] [Buddhist Religion and Philosophy]. Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad, front matter p. 57 (his memoir, cited below as Deva (1956), ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'', "fm." plus page; the front matter is numbered separately from the text); Ankit (2017), "Marxist Guru", p. 3; Pratyay Dutta gives 31 October; Deva, Narendra (1979). ''Towards Socialist Society''. Ed. Brahmanand. Centre of Applied Politics, p. 481, gives 30 October and Faizabad.</ref> His father was a lawyer with Sanskrit interests. His childhood education was traditional, and he was drawn into nationalist politics in the Swadeshi period through the writings of Tilak, Lajpat Rai, Gokhale, and above all Aurobindo's articles in ''Bande Mataram''. He sympathized with revolutionaries but, by his own account, never belonged to a revolutionary party.<ref>Deva (1956), ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'', fm. 60–64 (memoir; the pages are partly garbled in the copy consulted); Ankit (2017), "Marxist Guru", p. 3.</ref> After studying at Muir Central College in Allahabad (1908–11), he took an M.A. in archaeology at Queen's College, Banaras, in 1913 (Ankit dates the studies 1911–13) and an LL.B. in 1915; he reports that he took up law only in order to take part in politics.<ref>Ankit (2017), "Marxist Guru", p. 3; Deva (1956), ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'', fm. 64. Another source dates a postgraduate degree to 1911 and gives other degree details; the sources are not reconciled here.</ref>

He practiced law in Faizabad, joined the Home Rule League there in 1916 (one source says 1917), and sat on the All-India Congress Committee from 1916.<ref>Nauriya, Anil (2015). ''Non-violent Action and Socialist Radicalism: Narendra Deva in India's Freedom Movement''. NMML Occasional Paper, History and Society, New Series 70. Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, p. 3; Ankit (2017), "Marxist Guru", p. 3.</ref> He abandoned his legal practice after the Nagpur Congress of 1920 and in 1921 joined the newly founded nationalist university Kashi Vidyapith in Banaras at Jawaharlal Nehru's suggestion, where he taught ancient Indian religion and culture, Pali, Prakrit, and Buddhist philosophy; in 1926 he became its head, after Bhagwan Das resigned.<ref>Deva (1956), ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'', fm. 65; Ankit (2017), "Marxist Guru", p. 3; Nauriya (2015), ''Non-violent Action'', p. 5.</ref> He called the Vidyapith years "the best part of my life".<ref>Deva (1956), ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'', fm. 69.</ref> Dharmanand Kosambi also taught there, and Deva's later book lists Kosambi's Devanagari edition of the ''Visuddhimagga'' among its sources.<ref>Deva (1956), ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'', bibliography (parishishta 2).</ref>

In the late 1920s he moved toward socialism. He first met Gandhi in 1929, was jailed in 1930 and again from October 1932 to June 1933, and was among the Congress members who formed the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) at the Patna conference of May 1934, over which he presided.<ref>Nauriya (2015), ''Non-violent Action'', pp. 6–8, 24; Ankit (2017), "Marxist Guru", pp. 4, 6. Another source dates the formal formation of the CSP to Bombay in October 1934.</ref> In his memoir he writes that he at first declined to preside, not for lack of belief in socialism but to avoid a heavy responsibility, and then accepted out of affection for Jayaprakash Narayan.<ref>Deva (1956), ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'', fm. 66.</ref> He also recalls that when the party's constitution was drafted, only Ram Manohar Lohia and he argued that its objective should include complete independence, and that "in the end we won".<ref>Deva (1956), ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'', fm. 66.</ref> At the Bombay Congress of 1934 he also opposed replacing "legitimate and peaceful means" with "truth and non-violence" in the Congress creed.<ref>Nauriya (2015), ''Non-violent Action'', pp. 22, 54.</ref>

During the 1930s he worked with the peasant and labor movements of the United Provinces. He presided over the All-India Kisan Sabha session at Gaya in 1939 and in 1938 presided over a conference of the Market Employees' Federation at Kanpur.<ref>Gooptu, Nandini (2001). ''The Politics of the Urban Poor in Early Twentieth-Century India''. Cambridge University Press, pp. 371–372; Nauriya (2015), ''Non-violent Action'', p. 34 n. 148. The Kisan Sabha presidency is also reported in the 1979 collection, p. 481.</ref> His 1939 Gaya address condemned an assault on [[Rahul Sankrityayan]], with whom he also shared the early socialist milieu of Bihar.<ref>Nauriya (2015), ''Non-violent Action'', pp. 34 n. 148, 65 nn. 255–256.</ref> He was arrested in the Quit India movement on 9 August 1942 and held at Ahmednagar Fort until 1945 with Nehru, Maulana Azad, and Sri Prakasa. There he translated Buddhist texts and, according to Douglas Ober, discussed Buddhist philosophy with Nehru.<ref>Ankit (2017), "Marxist Guru", p. 8; Ober, Douglas F. (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Princeton University Press, p. 244 and n. 20, citing Nehru's ''The Discovery of India''.</ref>

When the Congress barred dual party membership in 1948, Deva and the other socialists left it and formed the Socialist Party; he moved the political resolution at its Nasik session in March 1948 and resigned from the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly, losing the by-election.<ref>Ankit (2017), "Marxist Guru", pp. 10–11; Nauriya (2015), ''Non-violent Action'', pp. 63, 67. Sources differ on whether twelve or thirteen colleagues resigned with him.</ref> He was Vice-Chancellor of Lucknow University (1947–51) and of Banaras Hindu University (1951–54), and visited [[China]] in 1952. After the 1952 merger that formed the Praja Socialist Party he opposed a merger based only on common policy rather than ideology but did not split the party.<ref>Ankit (2017), "Marxist Guru", pp. 3, 12–13.</ref> Chronically ill with asthma, he resigned from the university in 1954 and died on 19 February 1956 during his last illness in the Erode district of Madras State (the Perundurai area); sources differ on the exact place.<ref>Ankit (2017), "Marxist Guru", pp. 4, 14; Deva (1956), ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'', Sri Prakasa's preface, fm. 70–72.</ref> His book on Buddhism was already in press.

== Ideas ==

The sources show that Deva produced his own interpretation of Buddhist doctrine and history, extensively but mostly without political comment. However, no Buddhist vocabulary has been found inside his Marxist or socialist argument in the texts consulted in the research for this article. Furthermore, no institutional Buddhist activism has been found; his role was scholarly and pedagogical. And a personal Buddhist identity or conversion is not established: his memoir does not call him a Buddhist, a biographer reports that he called religion a dangerous social force, and Ankit nevertheless concludes that he was "a Marxist and a Buddhist" to the end.<ref>Ankit (2017), "Marxist Guru", pp. 6, 14. The characterization is the author's own verdict.</ref>

Deva wrote that he would give up his party before giving up Marxism, and he is described as a "self-avowed Hegelian and Marxist".<ref>Nauriya (2015), ''Non-violent Action'', pp. 2, 73, citing a letter of 3 September 1952; Ankit (2017), "Marxist Guru", p. 7.</ref> His Patna address of 1934 is called a foundational document of Indian socialism.<ref>Nauriya (2015), ''Non-violent Action'', pp. 20–23.</ref> In 1947 he described Marx as one of the great humanists, called the Soviet system a distortion, and held that "socialism alone is full democracy".<ref>Ankit (2017), "Marxist Guru", pp. 9–10.</ref> Anil Nauriya argues that he never moved toward anti-Marxism; the same author contends that a Marxist tradition outside the communist parties has been neglected in Indian historiography, which is his argument rather than an established finding.<ref>Nauriya (2015), ''Non-violent Action'', pp. 17–18, 73–74.</ref> Deva's essays in the 1979 collection are conventional Marxist and socialist arguments. The essay "Religion and Socialism" gives a Marxist critique of religion as ideology, with no reference to Buddhism.<ref>Deva (1979), ''Towards Socialist Society'', pp. 283–286, which repeats text from "Human Basis of Socialism", pp. 217–223. The text is from an OCR copy; check the page image before quoting.</ref> His 1955 Gaya statement "The Role of Ethics in Socialism" rests socialist morality on liberty, equality, and the common good (in Hindi, ''swatantra'', ''samata'', ''lokahit''), whose roots it traces to sages, saints, and Sufis without citing Buddhist sources.<ref>Deva (1979), ''Towards Socialist Society'', pp. 302–306. The address is dated 26 December 1955 by Ankit (p. 14 n. 117) and 29 December 1955 in the 1979 volume.</ref>

Deva respected Gandhi but rejected a "synthesis" of Marxism and Gandhism, holding that Marxism would prefer non-violence if it works.<ref>Nauriya (2015), ''Non-violent Action'', pp. 15–16. The statement is traced to the article "Marxvaad Aur Socialist Party" (1950–51).</ref> In June 1945 he told Gandhi that he doubted power could be won from the British without some violence.<ref>Deva (1956), ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'', fm. 68; Nauriya (2015), ''Non-violent Action'', p. 55 n. 220.</ref> His memoir explains Gandhi's mass appeal among orthodox Hindus, who would not follow his conduct in matters of Hindu observance, by the claim that "śramaṇa culture" has influenced the Indian masses far more than the Brahmanical tradition.<ref>Deva (1956), ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'', fm. 67 (paraphrase; the page was read from the image).</ref>

''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'' is a scholarly treatise of five parts and twenty chapters, covering the Buddha's life and teaching, the canon, Mahayana, general doctrines, the four philosophical schools, and Buddhist logic. There is no explicit socialist or Marxist content in the book. The social passages that do occur are brief:
* In chapter 1 he presents Indian culture as two streams, Brahmanical and śramaṇa, and describes the Brahmin priesthood as having made itself "as it were, gods", which provoked ritual critique and revolt (pp. 1–3).
* Writing on the materialist teacher Ajita Kesakambali, he remarks that ancient Indian thought stressed the results of action rather than the existence of God as the basis of social morality (p. 2).
* In chapter 2 he narrates suttas in which the Buddha denies that birth makes a Brahmin or an outcaste, and adds in his own voice that the Buddhist order "had a place for everyone" while Shudras were excluded from austerities and Vedic study (pp. 14–15). In chapter 3 he notes that the ''Ambattha'' and ''Assalayana'' suttas offer a picture of the varna order and its defects (p. 31).
* In chapter 1 he also gives an account of the sangha's governance: authority first rested with the whole community, then passed to councils of elders and later to a single head, which reduced the laity's influence (pp. 12–13).<ref>Deva (1956), ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'', pp. 1–3, 12–15, 31. Read from the page images; the Hindi text of pp. 14–15 is of low resolution, so no wording is quoted here.</ref>

The claim that Deva combined Marxism and Buddhism comes from others. Jagannath Upadhyaya, in a tribute printed in the 1956 book, writes that Buddhism's opposition to caste, scripture-worship, and belief in a god above gods, and its idea of saving society through the individual, shaped Deva before his turn to socialism, and that socialism then "gave it a new lustre"; Upadhyaya describes the result as a necessary synthesis of Marxism with Indian culture and ethics, and mentions Deva's idea of a "Nava-Sanskriti-Sangh" (new culture fellowship), about which nothing more is known from the sources consulted.<ref>Upadhyaya, Jagannath (1956). "आचार्यजी और बौद्धदर्शन" [Acharyaji and Buddhist Philosophy]. In: Deva (1956), ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'', fm. 52–56. Paraphrase; the page was read from the image, and the last sentence on Sarvodaya and Bhoodan is hard to parse at that resolution and is not relied on.</ref> Sri Prakasa's preface to the same book credits Deva with first bringing Buddhism and Buddhist ideas into Indian political discussion, "though he himself may not have felt it".<ref>Deva (1956), ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'', fm. 71 (paraphrase of the preface of 14 March 1956).</ref> The unsigned blurb of the 1979 volume says his source of inspiration was Buddhist philosophy combined with Marxism, "a synthesis between Marxism and Buddhism", while accepting class struggle but stressing morality.<ref>Deva (1979), ''Towards Socialist Society'', foreword and p. 7.</ref> Asoka Mehta is quoted as saying that Deva was profoundly influenced by Marx, "but probably more by Buddha", and Ober writes that the Praja Socialist Party's "social humanism" owed much to Deva's study of Buddhism.<ref>Ankit (2017), "Marxist Guru", p. 1; Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 250.</ref> These are interpretive framings, in part hagiographic in tone. In a report of a 1947 speech, printed in the 1979 volume, Deva is said to have argued that religion misleads people but that some religions had progressive trends, and that the Buddhist school of philosophers belonged to those; this is the nearest the 1979 volume comes to a link, but it is a newspaper report rather than his own prose.<ref>Deva (1979), ''Towards Socialist Society'', pp. 120–121, footnote citing the ''National Herald'', 25 July 1947.</ref> Ankit also reports that Deva's early writings (one dated October 1925) distinguished ''dharma'' from narrow ''sampradaya'' and used Buddhism to argue for people's welfare against individual nirvana; the dating of this material is unclear, and the content of his Buddhist scholarship is not analyzed in any of the secondary sources used here.<ref>Ankit (2017), "Marxist Guru", p. 6 and nn. 37–38.</ref>

== Writings ==

* Deva, Narendra (1934). "Socialism and the Nationalist Movement". Presidential address to the Patna conference, May 1934. {{annotation|The founding statement of the Congress Socialist Party, regarded as a foundational document of Indian socialism; it is reprinted in various collections.}}
* Deva, Narendra (1939). Presidential address to the All-India Kisan Sabha, Gaya, 9 April 1939. {{annotation|His address to the peasant movement, which also condemns the assault on Rahul Sankrityayan at Amwari.}}
* Deva, Narendra (1940). "The Indian Struggle: Next Phase". Congress Socialist Party tract. {{annotation|A statement of the party's position on the national struggle.}}
* Deva, Narendra (1947). "मेरे संस्मरण" [Mere Sansmaran; My Recollections]. ''Janavani'' (May 1947, according to the source note in the 1956 book; two other sources cite September 1948). Reprinted in Deva (1956). {{annotation|A short autobiographical account of his political career; it does not narrate his politics as Buddhist-inspired.}}
* Deva, Narendra (1949). ''राष्ट्रीयता और समाजवाद'' [Rashtriyata aur Samajvad; Nationalism and Socialism]. Gyan Mandal. {{annotation|Collected essays; "Religion and Socialism" and "Human Basis of Socialism" in the 1979 English volume are translated from it.}}
* Deva, Narendra (1956). ''बौद्ध-धर्म-दर्शन'' [Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan; Buddhist Religion and Philosophy]. Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad. {{annotation|A posthumous doctrinal treatise with an introduction by Gopinath Kaviraj, a preface by Sri Prakasa, and tributes by Vasudevasharan Agrawal and Jagannath Upadhyaya; Ober calls it a monumental study. Reprinted as ''Buddha-dharma-darshan'', Motilal Banarsidass, 2011.}}
* Deva, Narendra (1979). ''Towards Socialist Society''. Ed. Brahmanand. Centre of Applied Politics. {{annotation|A posthumous English selection of speeches and essays on socialism, caste, Gandhi, and Congress; the main English source for his political thought.}}

His Hindi translation of Vasubandhu's ''Abhidharmakosha'' (from Louis de La Vallée Poussin's French, with Poussin's notes) was made in detention at Ahmednagar Fort; its publication data are not established from the sources used.<ref>Deva (1956), ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'', author's note, fm. 9–10 (the date of the note is 21 or 31 December 1955, depending on the reading). Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 331 n. 20, describes the translation as four volumes; Upadhyaya (fm. 54–56) gives ten volumes. Upadhyaya also reports an English translation, which is unverified elsewhere.</ref> The collected Hindi and English works are further published in ''Acharya Narendra Deva Vangmaya'' (Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, Khand 1, 2002; Khand 3, 2004) and ''Selected Works of Acharya Narendra Deva'' (ed. Hari Dev Sharma, Radiant, from 1998).

== Secondary Literature in English ==

* Ankit, Rakesh (2017). "Marxist Guru, Socialist Neta, Buddhist Acharya, Gandhi's Shishya: the many Narendra Deva(s) (1889–1956)". ''Global Intellectual History''. {{annotation|The most substantial recent study of Deva's Buddhism and its relation to his politics, based on oral histories and archival papers; it does not analyze the content of his Buddhist scholarship.}}
* Nauriya, Anil (2015). ''Non-violent Action and Socialist Radicalism: Narendra Deva in India's Freedom Movement''. NMML Occasional Paper, History and Society, New Series 70. Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. {{annotation|A well-documented account of his politics, his relations with Gandhi, and his Marxism; it says almost nothing about Buddhism, and its claim that a non-communist Marxist tradition has been neglected is an argumen}}
* Ober, Douglas F. (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Princeton University Press. {{annotation|Mentions Deva as a Buddhist scholar, as Nehru's interlocutor in prison, and as an influence on socialist "social humanism" (pp. 244, 250).}}

== Secondary Literature in Hindi ==

* Upadhyaya, Jagannath (1956). "आचार्यजी और बौद्धदर्शन" [Acharyaji and Buddhist Philosophy]. In: Deva, Narendra, ''बौद्ध-धर्म-दर्शन'' [Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan], pp. 52–56. Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad. {{annotation|The principal source of the claim that Deva synthesized Marxism with Buddhist and Indian ethics; a tribute by a Sanskrit scholar who knew him, to be read as an interpretation.}}

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "Narendra Deva". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Narendra_Deva</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[category:Narendra Deva]]
[[category:India]]
[[category:Biographies]]
[[category:Buddhist Marxism in India]]

Namdeo Dhasal

2026-10-27T11:12:07Z

Lajos: Created page with "{{Provisional Entry}} Namdeo Dhasal (नामदेव ढसाळ, 1949–2014) was a Marathi Dalit poet and political activist who, together with Raja Dhale, founded the Dalit Panthers in Bombay in 1972. Born into a Mahar family in the Bombay slums, he became one of the best-known writers of Marathi Dalit literature after the publication of his first collection, ''Golpitha'', in 1973. The fullest scholarly account of his life available to this project, an article by..."

{{Provisional Entry}}
Namdeo Dhasal (नामदेव ढसाळ, 1949–2014) was a Marathi Dalit poet and political activist who, together with Raja Dhale, founded the Dalit Panthers in Bombay in 1972. Born into a Mahar family in the Bombay slums, he became one of the best-known writers of Marathi Dalit literature after the publication of his first collection, ''Golpitha'', in 1973. The fullest scholarly account of his life available to this project, an article by Laurie Hovell (1991), reports that he was one of the ex-Untouchables who converted to Buddhism following B. R. Ambedkar, and that his political allegiances moved between socialism, communism, Maoism, and, at one point, support for Indira Gandhi and the Congress Party. His Buddhism is thus documented as a personal identity and not as a worked-out Buddhist political philosophy. Dhasal is included in the Radical Buddhism Project because of his part in a militant, post-Ambedkar movement of Dalit emancipation in which Neo-Buddhists formed one named constituency among several. Born in 1949, he falls outside the project's core period of the 1900s to the 1960s, and he is treated here as an accepted exception.

== Biography ==

Namdeo Dhasal was born in 1949 into a Mahar family, a community that Hovell describes as the Untouchable subcaste traditionally responsible for the disposal of dead animals, and he grew up in the slums of Bombay (now Mumbai).<ref name="Hovell1991">Hovell, Laurie (1991). "Namdeo Dhasal: Poet and Panther". ''Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars'' 23(2): 77–83. DOI: 10.1080/14672715.1991.10413153.</ref> He identified himself as a "Dalit," a term that Hovell glosses as "downtrodden, oppressed," in preference to "Untouchable" or "ex-Untouchable." Hovell also states that Dhasal was among the estimated six million ex-Untouchables who converted to Buddhism following Ambedkar's guidance. The sources available for this entry do not say when or in what form he adopted a Buddhist identity.

In 1972 Dhasal and Raja Dhale (1940–2019) founded the Dalit Panthers in Bombay. The organization took its name from the Black Panther Party in the United States, which Hovell reads as a sign of independence and militancy. According to Hovell, the original organization was active for only a few years but retained importance at the local level in Maharashtra at the time she wrote.

Dhasal's first book, ''Golpitha'' (1973), depicted Bombay's brothels and slums in shocking images and, in Hovell's account, made his name on the Marathi literary scene; ''Murkh mhataryane dongar halavila'' (1975) brought further acclaim.<ref>Hovell (1991), "Namdeo Dhasal," pp. 78–79.</ref> His later publications included the poetry collection ''Khel'', the long poem ''Indira priyadarshini'', dedicated to Indira Gandhi, the novel ''Hadki hadwala'', and, in 1982, the collection ''Tuhi iyatta kanchi''.<ref>Hovell (1991), "Namdeo Dhasal," pp. 78–79; the title poem of ''Tuhi iyatta kanchi'' is discussed at p. 79, n. 5.</ref> Hovell regards the last of these as the product of a transitional period, in which Dhasal was reflecting on Ambedkar's legacy some thirty years after Ambedkar's death, on his own marriage, and on the future direction of Dalit politics, although she cautions that a purely autobiographical reading of the poems is limiting.

Hovell stresses that Dhasal was never tied to a single political perspective: over the years he was associated with socialism, communism, and Maoism, and at one time he even wrote poems in praise of Indira Gandhi and her Congress Party.<ref>Hovell (1991), "Namdeo Dhasal," p. 78.</ref> By 1982 the Dalit Panthers had split into two factions. At the time of Hovell's writing, Dhasal headed one of them, the Bharatiya Dalit Panthers. He had also worked with a local group of prostitutes, and he had helped to organize a march of some 500,000 people in Bombay against the proposed government censorship of a book edited by Vasant Moon, in which Ambedkar criticizes Hinduism and which the Shiv Sena wanted banned. The book was published, an outcome that Hovell describes as a victory for Dalit solidarity. She also records, without endorsing it, a view current in 1989 that Dhasal's heyday was over and that he had "sold out."

Dhasal was married to the poet Malika Amar Shekh, whose father, Amar Shekh, was a well-known communist folksinger. Hovell's account effectively ends in 1989. He died in 2014.

== Ideas ==

Dhasal's own statements are known to this entry only through Hovell, and the account of his ideas below is correspondingly limited.

Hovell argues that Dalit literature, of which she calls Dhasal one of the best-known writers, functioned to identify, unite, and direct the Dalit political movement while helping to create a positive and identifiable Dalit culture. Dhasal's political stance, as she presents it, was deliberately open-ended. In a 1982 interview, he described "Ambedkarism" not as a single coherent system but as a label for whatever methods, whether parliamentary, cultural, or other, serve to end untouchability.<ref>Sonalkar, Sudhir (1982). Interview with Namdeo Dhasal. ''The Sunday Observer'', 8 August 1982, p. 20, as reported in Hovell (1991), "Namdeo Dhasal".</ref> Hovell suggests that this open-endedness may help to explain both the movement's tactical flexibility and its tendency to split into factions.<ref>Hovell (1991), "Namdeo Dhasal".</ref> It is consistent with the shifts of allegiance noted above, which cannot be reduced to a single ideological line: the Congress Party that Dhasal at one time praised is the same party that the Dalit Panthers Manifesto attacks as a continuation of "old Hindu feudalism."<ref name="Manifesto">Dalit Panthers (1973). ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto''. Bombay. 8 pp. Publisher not given in the sources. The title page reads Bombay, 1973. The text, however, counts Congress rule "from 1947 to 1974" (p. 2), and Guru (2021), p. 114, cites the document as ''Dalit Panther Movement'', Mumbai, 1974: 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. London: Routledge. The discrepancy is unresolved.</ref>

Hovell's own framework for the changing self-description of the wider community runs from "Untouchable," through "Ex-Untouchable and Scheduled Caste" and "Buddhist" (after the conversions that began in 1956), to "Dalit," which she presents as a contemporary and deliberately caste-transcending label.<ref>Hovell (1991), "Namdeo Dhasal," p. 78.</ref> This scheme is Hovell's analytical scaffolding and not Dhasal's own, but it places his preferred self-description in a later stage than the Buddhist one. Using the distinctions that this project applies, the evidence concerning Dhasal is of a personal Buddhist identity (together with, but separately from, left-wing and Ambedkarite activism).

The Dalit Panthers Manifesto is a collectively authored document that names neither Dhasal nor Dhale, so it cannot be assumed to state Dhasal's own views, but it shows the political setting in which his Buddhist identity is reported. It defines a "dalit" broadly, to include members of scheduled castes and tribes, "Neo-Buddhists," the working people, the landless and poor peasants, women, and all others exploited politically, economically, and in the name of religion; Neo-Buddhists are thus one named constituency among several.<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', p. 6.</ref> It repudiates the Republican Party, Ambedkar's former political vehicle,<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', p. 5.</ref> criticizes the Communist Party of India for failing to combine class struggle with the struggle against untouchability,<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', p. 4.</ref> and names as friends "Left parties that are left in a true sense."<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', p. 6.</ref> It presents Ambedkar's later turn to "a completely atheistic approach" as the necessary basis of effective politics,<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', p. 5.</ref> and its eighteen-point programme, which calls for land redistribution, the end of caste bars on employment, wells, and village residence, the abolition of exploitation by private capital, and free education, medical care, and housing, is not framed in Buddhist terms. It also calls for an end to government grants to religious institutions and for a ban on religious and casteist literature.<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', pp. 7–8; the points on religious institutions and literature are at p. 8.</ref> A personal Buddhist identity on the part of one of the movement's founders is compatible with co-founding an organization that adopted such a manifesto, but the sources available do not show how Dhasal himself related the two. For the movement as a whole, see [[Dalit Panthers]].

== Writings ==

This list is limited to the works that Hovell (1991) mentions and is not a complete bibliography. Publishers are not given in the sources, and no poem is reproduced or quoted in this entry. Titles are given in the transliteration used by Hovell, followed by her English translation where she provides one.

* गोलपिठा ''Golpitha'' (1973). {{annotation|Dhasal's first book of poems, which Hovell says portrayed Bombay's brothels and slums in shocking images and established his reputation in Marathi literature.}}

* मूर्ख म्हाताऱ्याने डोंगर हलविला ''Murkh mhataryane dongar halavila'' [''The Crazy Old Man Who Moved the Mountain''] (1975).{{annotation|A further collection of poetry, which Hovell reports brought Dhasal additional acclaim.}}

* तुही इयत्ता कंची ''Tuhi iyatta kanchi'' [''What Grade Are You In?''] (1982). {{annotation|The collection from which Hovell translates five poems, beginning with the title poem. She situates it in a transitional period in Dhasal's life and in Dalit politics.}}

* खेळ ''Khel'' [''Game''] (date not given by Hovell). {{annotation|A collection of poetry mentioned by Hovell without further comment.}}

* इंदिरा प्रियदर्शनी ''Indira priyadarshini'' [''Beloved Indira''] (date not given by Hovell). {{annotation|A long poem dedicated to Indira Gandhi.}}

* हाडकी हाडवळा ''Hadki hadwala'' [''The Keeper of the Boneyard''] (date not given by Hovell). {{annotation|A novel, listed by Hovell among his other works.}}

== Secondary Literature in English ==

* Hovell, Laurie (1991). "Namdeo Dhasal: Poet and Panther". ''Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars'' 23(2): 77–83. {{annotation|A seven-page article that combines a biographical sketch with a discussion of Dhasal's place in Dalit literature and politics up to about 1989, and that includes her translations of five of his poems. It is the only scholarly account of his life consulted for this entry.}}

== Secondary Literature in Other Languages ==

(''none identified'')

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "Namdeo Dhasal". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Namdeo_Dhasal</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[category:Namdeo Dhasal]]
[[category:Dalit Panthers]]
[[category:India]]
[[category:Biographies]]

Dalit Panthers

2026-10-27T11:10:44Z

Lajos: Created page with "{{Provisional Entry}} The '''Dalit Panthers''' were a militant Dalit organization founded in Bombay (now Mumbai) in 1972 by the Marathi poet Namdeo Dhasal and Raja Dhale (1940–2019), and named after the Black Panther Party in the United States. The movement was a successor to Ambedkar's political legacy and, at the same time, a repudiation of the party that had inherited it. Its foundational document, the ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', defines "dalit" broadly, to in..."

{{Provisional Entry}}
The '''Dalit Panthers''' were a militant Dalit organization founded in Bombay (now Mumbai) in 1972 by the Marathi poet [[Namdeo Dhasal]] and Raja Dhale (1940–2019), and named after the Black Panther Party in the United States. The movement was a successor to Ambedkar's political legacy and, at the same time, a repudiation of the party that had inherited it. Its foundational document, the ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', defines "dalit" broadly, to include Neo-Buddhists as one named constituency among several, and presents a programme of land redistribution, anti-capitalism, and opposition to caste and to institutional religion that is not framed in Buddhist terms. The Dalit Panthers are included in the Radical Buddhism Project because of this combination: a militant, left-leaning movement of Dalit emancipation, founded two decades after [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]]'s death and sixteen years after his conversion, in which Buddhist identity was present but was neither the organizing principle nor, so far as the sources show, a subject of doctrinal argument.

== Founding and Name ==

The Dalit Panthers were founded in Bombay in 1972 by Dhasal and Dhale.<ref name="Hovell1991">Hovell, Laurie (1991). "Namdeo Dhasal: Poet and Panther". ''Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars'' 23(2): 77–83. DOI: 10.1080/14672715.1991.10413153.</ref> According to Hovell, the name was taken from the Black Panthers of the United States "to indicate independence and militancy," and the original organization was active for only a few years, although it retained importance at the local level in Maharashtra at the time she wrote. The manifesto confirms the identification in the organization's own words: it claims a close relationship with the struggle of the Black Panthers and names Vietnam, Cambodia, and Africa as further reference points.<ref name="Manifesto">Dalit Panthers (1973). ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto''. Bombay. 8 pp.</ref> In her study of Hindi Dalit literature, Sarah Beth Hunt adds that the Panthers took the American movement as a model and were influenced by the trade-union protests that shook Bombay in the late 1960s.<ref name="Hunt2014">Hunt, Sarah Beth (2014). ''Hindi Dalit Literature and the Politics of Representation''.</ref>

== The Manifesto ==

=== Date and Authorship ===

The ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'' is an eight-page document written in the collective voice of the organization.<ref name="Manifesto" /> It opens by marking one year since the founding, which is consistent with 1973, and its title page reads Bombay, 1973. Yet on its second page it describes Congress rule as lasting "from 1947 to 1974," a span that is exact only if the text was finalized in 1974, and it discusses the 1972 general election and its aftermath as settled history.<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', pp. 1, 2, 4.</ref> Gopal Guru cites the document as a Mumbai publication of 1974.<ref name="Guru2021">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. London: Routledge.</ref> Two explanations are possible: that the text was drafted in 1973 and finalized in early 1974, or that the title page and the arithmetic simply disagree for an unknown reason. The question is unresolved, and this page cites the manifesto as 1973 by its title page. The manifesto names neither Dhasal nor Dhale, so statements in it cannot be assumed to be the personal views of either.

=== Who Is a Dalit? Friends and Enemies ===

The manifesto defines a "dalit" broadly, as members of the scheduled castes and tribes, Neo-Buddhists, the working people, the landless and poor peasants, women, and all others exploited politically, economically, and in the name of religion.<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', p. 6.</ref> Neo-Buddhists are thus one constituency among several, and not the movement's defining identity. Its friends are revolutionary parties committed to ending caste and class rule, described as "Left parties that are left in a true sense"; its enemies are landlords, capitalists, and moneylenders and their allies, together with parties that engage in religious or casteist politics and the government that depends on them.<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', p. 6.</ref>

=== Ambedkar, the Republican Party, and the Left ===

The manifesto names Jotiba Phule and Ambedkar as the movement's two great leaders,<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', p. 2.</ref> yet it repudiates the Republican Party, Ambedkar's former political vehicle: the Panthers declare themselves "no blood relatives" of that party and accuse its leaders of trading on Ambedkar's name for personal gain. The manifesto also states that 1,117 Dalits were murdered over a period of one and a half years, a figure that it gives without corroboration.<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', p. 5.</ref> The only programme of substance that it credits from the Republican Party era is the satyagraha of the landless led by Dadasaheb Gaekwad.<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', p. 5.</ref> The document is severe on Gandhi, in judgments that it largely presents as Ambedkar's, and on the Congress Party, which it treats as a continuation of "old Hindu feudalism."<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', p. 3 (Gandhi).</ref> It also criticizes the Communist Party of India for opportunism in the united-front politics of 1967 and for failing to combine class struggle with the struggle against untouchability.<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', p. 4.</ref>

=== Religion and the Eighteen-Point Programme ===

The manifesto presents Ambedkar's later turn to a scientific outlook, class consciousness, and "a completely atheistic approach" as the necessary basis of effective politics.<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', p. 5.</ref> Its eighteen-point programme, set out on pages 7 and 8, calls for land redistribution under the Land Ceiling Act, the end of caste bars on employment, wells, and village residence, the abolition of exploitation by private capital, the building of socialism in India, and free education, medical care, and housing.<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', pp. 7–8.</ref> It also calls for an end to government grants to religious institutions, for the use of the wealth of religious places for the benefit of Dalits, and for a ban on religious and casteist literature.<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973), ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto'', p. 8.</ref> Nothing in the programme is framed in Buddhist doctrinal terms.

== Buddhism in the Dalit Panthers ==

The evidence for a Buddhist dimension of the Dalit Panthers is limited, and it is of different kinds, which should be kept apart. At the level of the organization, Buddhism appears as a social category: Neo-Buddhists are named once, in the manifesto's definition of "dalit" (p. 6). Its stance toward religion as an institution is hostile. At the level of persons, Hovell reports that Dhasal was among the ex-Untouchables who converted to Buddhism following Ambedkar, which is evidence of a personal Buddhist identity and not of Buddhist political thought.<ref>Hovell (1991), "Namdeo Dhasal".</ref> A personal Buddhist identity on the part of a founder is compatible with co-founding an organization that adopted such a manifesto, but the sources do not show how Dhasal related the two (see [[Namdeo Dhasal]]). For the wider history of Buddhist conversion among Dalits after 1956, and for the other strands that fed into it, see [[Dalit Buddhism]].

== The Manifesto and the Ambedkar–Marx Debate ==

Guru credits the Dalit Panthers' manifesto as the first document to bring Ambedkar and Marx together, and he refers in this connection to Raosaheb Kasbe's Marathi work ''Marx ani Ambedkar'' (1986).<ref>Guru (2021), "New-Buddhism, Marxism and the Caste Question in India," p. 114; Kasbe is cited there at pp. 112 and 126.</ref> That is Guru's characterization and is reported here as such. The manifesto combines praise for Ambedkar with a class-based programme and a call for alliance with a genuinely left politics, while faulting the Communist Party for neglecting untouchability; it does not, on the pages read, discuss Buddhism and Marxism as doctrines. For the scholarly debate on Ambedkar's relation to Marx, see [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]], and for Marxist readings of Buddhism and their relation to the Ambedkarite movement, see [[Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India]].

== Namdeo Dhasal ==

{{Main|Namdeo Dhasal}}

Namdeo Dhasal (1949–2014), born into a Mahar family in the Bombay slums, was a Marathi poet whose first collection, ''Golpitha'' (1973), made his name. Hovell's article, the fullest scholarly account available, shows him moving between socialism, communism, Maoism, and, for a time, support for Indira Gandhi and the Congress Party. By 1982 the Dalit Panthers had split into two factions, and at the time of Hovell's writing he headed one of them, the Bharatiya Dalit Panthers. She also reports that he helped to organize a march of some 500,000 people in Bombay against the proposed government censorship of a book edited by Vasant Moon, in which Ambedkar criticizes Hinduism; the book was published.<ref>Hovell (1991), "Namdeo Dhasal".</ref> In a 1982 interview, as reported by Hovell, Dhasal described "Ambedkarism" not as a single system but as a label for whatever methods end untouchability.

== Raja Dhale ==

Raja Dhale (1940–2019) is named in the sources consulted only as Dhasal's co-founder: Hovell mentions him once, in passing, and the manifesto does not name him.<ref>Hovell (1991), "Namdeo Dhasal".</ref> No source consulted documents his activities, his beliefs, or any Buddhist role.

== Later History and Reception ==

The sources consulted for this entry say little about the Dalit Panthers after the early 1970s. Hovell reports that the original organization was short-lived, that it had split into two factions by 1982, and that Dhasal's fortunes were contested: she records, without endorsing it, a view current in 1989 that his heyday was over. Hunt finds a legacy in literature: the autobiographical writing of the Hindi Dalit field, she argues, took inspiration from the Marathi literature associated with the Panthers.<ref name="Hunt2014" /> In a volume on Neo-Buddhism and caste, Pardeshi observes that neither the Republican Party of India nor the Panthers developed a perspective on women's liberation.<ref>[Given name] Pardeshi, in: Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.) (2021), ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste'', ch. 7, p. 145. London: Routledge.</ref> A fuller history of the Panthers, including their later factions, is a gap in the research behind this entry.

== Literature in English ==

* Dalit Panthers (1973). ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto''. Bombay. {{annotation|The primary source: an eight-page, collectively authored document stating the movement's definition of "dalit," its friends and enemies, and its eighteen-point programme. Its year of publication is uncertain (see above).}}

* 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. London: Routledge. {{annotation|A chapter on the relation of Ambedkar's Buddhism to Marxism that credits the Panthers' manifesto as the first to join the two (p. 114).}}

* Hovell, Laurie (1991). "Namdeo Dhasal: Poet and Panther". ''Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars'' 23(2): 77–83. {{annotation|A biographical and literary article on Dhasal that is also the best scholarly source on the Panthers' founding and early splits. Its account ends about 1989.}}

* Hunt, Sarah Beth (2014). ''Hindi Dalit Literature and the Politics of Representation''. [publisher]. {{annotation|A study of Hindi Dalit pamphlet and autobiographical literature that places the Marathi Panthers literature among its influences and notes the American Black Panthers as the movement's model.}}

== Literature in Other Languages ==

(''none identified'')

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "Dalit Panthers". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Dalit_Panthers</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[category:India]]
[[category:Dalit Panthers]]
[[category:Topical Pages]]
[[category:Organizations]]
[[category:Dalit Buddhism]]

Rahul Sankrityayan

2026-10-27T11:09:36Z

Lajos:

{{Awaiting Review}}
Rahul Sankrityayan (राहुल सांकृत्यायन, born Kedarnath Pandey, 1893–1963) was a Hindi-language polymath, former Buddhist monk, and Marxist activist and historian who became the single most influential figure in linking the twentieth-century [[India]]n revival of Buddhism to the communist movement. Trained as a Tripitakacharya in [[Sri Lanka]] and a repeated, clandestine traveler to [[Tibet]] in search of lost Sanskrit Buddhist manuscripts, he combined rigorous textual scholarship on Buddhism with an explicit commitment to dialectical materialism from the mid-1930s onward. As a peasant organizer, Kisan Sabha president, and long-time Communist Party of India member, he read the sangha's communal economy, its rejection of caste, and its theory of dependent origination as anticipations of, or at least compatible with, Marxist thought, while subjecting Buddhism as a historical institution to a materialist class critique. He never fully resolved the tension between his enduring reverence for the Buddha and his rejection of organized Buddhism. His Hindi writings on Buddhist philosophy, his role in recovering Buddhist manuscripts from Tibet and Nepal, and his synthesis of Buddhist rationalism with revolutionary politics make him a foundational figure for the study of radical Buddhism in South Asia.

== Biography ==
Rahul Sankrityayan was born Kedarnath Pandey on April 9, 1893, at his maternal grandfather's house in Pandaha village, Azamgarh district, in what was then the North-Western Provinces of British India.<ref name="Sarao2017">Sarao, K.T.S. (2017). "Sankrityayan, Rahul". In: Sarao, K.T.S., & Long, J.D. (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Indian Religions: Buddhism and Jainism''. Springer.</ref><ref>The village is reported inconsistently: Chudal and Joshi give Pandaha, near Kanaila, whereas Bhartiya (2025), "Rahul Sankrityayan and His Contribution to Indian Buddhism", describes him as born in the Uttar Pradesh village of Kanaila.</ref> Raised in an orthodox Bhumihar Brahmin household after the early death of his mother, he received only a middle-school education and was thereafter self-taught, eventually mastering some thirty languages.<ref name="Chudal2016">Chudal, Alaka Atreya (2016). ''A Freethinking Cultural Nationalist: A Life History of Rahul Sankrityayan''. Oxford University Press.</ref> He left home repeatedly as a child and, from about 1910, took up a wandering life, moving through a series of religious identities: he was initiated as a Vaishnava sadhu at Chhapra in 1912 under the name Ramodar Das (also recorded as Baba Ram Udar Das), before drifting toward the reformist Arya Samaj around 1914–1917, where he first encountered Buddhist philosophy as a rival doctrine to be refuted.<ref name="Joshi2009">Joshi, Maya (2009). "Rahul Sankrityayan's Journeys of the Self: Nation, Culture, Identity". ''Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences'' 16(1&2): 119–147.</ref> According to Ober, the Arya Samaj's own text, the ''Satyarth Prakash'', obliged members to master a chapter refuting Buddhism, and a document of 1926 records him at the Maha Bodhi temple committee as "Sadhu Ramodar Das".<ref name="Ober2023">Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press.</ref> In 1917, in Lucknow, he encountered the Indian Buddhist Society founded by Bhadant Bodhanand Mahastavir, and Ober dates his lasting Buddhist engagement from this meeting, before his Sri Lankan sojourn or his journeys to Tibet.<ref>Ober, Douglas (2013). "'Like Embers Hidden in Ashes, or Jewels Encrusted In Stone': Rāhul Sāṅkṛtyāyan, Dharmānand Kosambī and Buddhist Activity in Colonial India". ''Contemporary Buddhism'' 14.1: 134–148. The identification of this Bodhanand with other figures of the same name in the literature (see the discussion of the Adi-Hindu movement) is unsettled.</ref>

Sankrityayan's political awakening began during the Non-Cooperation Movement, in which he organized peasants in Chhapra district, Bihar, in 1920–1921, and for which he was jailed in 1922 and again in 1924; it was during this second imprisonment that he wrote his first, unpublished novel, the utopian ''Baisvin Sadi'' ("The Twenty-Second Century"), later published in 1945.<ref name="Joshi2009" /> In 1922, newly active in Congress politics, he also drafted a proposal calling for the Maha Bodhi temple at Bodh Gaya, then in the hands of a Hindu Saiva mahant, to be restored to Buddhist control, forwarded to that year's Congress session at Gaya on behalf of Anagarika Dharmapala's Maha Bodhi Society; this drew him into sustained contact with the Buddhist monastic world even before he had committed himself to Buddhism as a scholarly vocation.<ref name="ChudalNepal">Chudal, Alaka Atreya (2015). "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal". ''European Bulletin of Himalayan Research'' 46: 62–87, pp. 64–65.</ref> His serious study of Buddhism intensified through the late 1920s: he studied Pali and Buddhist texts in Ladakh in 1926, and in 1927 he traveled to Sri Lanka, where he spent nineteen months at the Vidyalankara Pirivena studying under Buddhist monks and eventually earned the titles Tripitakacharya and Mahapandit.<ref name="Joshi2009" /><ref>Chudal (2015), "Buddhism of Nepal," pp. 64–66, n. 6, gives the dates as arrival at the Vidyalankara Pirivena on 16 May 1927 and departure for Tibet via Nepal on 1 December 1928. The sequence of his ordination is reported differently in Ober's own writings: Ober (2013) and an earlier article state that he took full ordination as a bhikkhu at the Vidyalankara Pirivena in 1930, while Ober (2023), pp. 241–243, has him become a bhikkhu only after his first major trip to Tibet in 1929–1930. This page therefore does not date his ordination.</ref> The Vidyalankara Pirivena, which Ober describes as a more radical, anti-imperialist counterpart of the Vidyodaya Pirivena where [[Dharmanand Kosambi]] had studied, formed several of his Indian contemporaries in the same years, among them the poet Kavi Nagarjun (Vaidyanath Mishra), the monk and writer Bhadant Anand Kausalyayan, and Jagdish Kashyap.<ref name="Ober2013">Ober (2013), "Like Embers Hidden in Ashes", pp. 134–148; Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne''. Ober draws on Seneviratne (1999) for the pirivena's milieu of Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism, in which Pali manuscripts circulated alongside the works of Marx and Robert Ingersoll.</ref> Renaming himself Rahul after the Buddha's son and taking the surname Sankrityayan from his family's gotra, he made the first of at least four clandestine journeys to Tibet (1929–30, 1934–35, and 1936, sometimes disguised as a Tibetan lama), from which he recovered and photographed several thousand Buddhist Sanskrit and Tibetan manuscripts lost to India since the destruction of Nalanda and Vikramashila.<ref name="Joshi2009" /><ref>Corroboration from a Hindi source: Narendra Deva, ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'' (1956), p. 169, records that Sankrityayan brought photographs of the original Sanskrit manuscript of Vasubandhu's ''Abhidharmakosha-bhashya'' from Tibet. Ober counts four major manuscript-hunting expeditions between 1929 and 1938.</ref>

[[Nepal]], which he visited repeatedly beginning in 1920 and came to regard as something close to a second home, served as his essential gateway to Tibet. Traveling disguised as a Hindu pilgrim sadhu during the Sivaratri festival, one of the few occasions on which the Rana government allowed Indians into the Kathmandu Valley, he cultivated close relationships with the Newar Buddhist merchant Dharmaman Sahu, whose houses in Kathmandu and Lhasa sheltered him and eased his passage into Tibet, and with the rajguru (royal priest) Hemraj Sharma, a Sanskrit scholar and manuscript collector whose library he drew on in his search for a complete text of Dharmakirti's ''Pramanavarttika''.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Buddhism of Nepal," pp. 66–70, 79–80.</ref> Although he never joined the underground Theravada revival then taking shape among Newar Buddhists, several of its leading figures, including the future monks Dharmalok and Anirudha, counted him among their formative influences.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Buddhism of Nepal," pp. 69–70, 75–77.</ref> The Rana authorities censored his writings, and Chudal reports that his later political books were banned in Nepal while his Buddhist titles remained available.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Buddhism of Nepal," pp. 62–63, 82.</ref> His Buddhist scholarship also took him to Europe as a delegate of the Maha Bodhi Society in 1932–33, where he shared his manuscript discoveries with scholars including Sylvain Lévi, and later to Japan, Korea, China, and Central Asia.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Buddhism of Nepal," pp. 64–66, n. 6; Ober (2013), "Like Embers Hidden in Ashes".</ref>

From the mid-1930s, Sankrityayan's Buddhist and Marxist commitments developed together. It was in Lhasa, on August 28, 1935, that he completed the preface to his first sustained work of political writing, ''Samyavad hi Kyon?'' ("Why Communism?"), a popular Hindi primer on communism dedicated to the memory of the Tibetan king Mune Tsenpo, whom he described, on the basis of Tibetan chronicles, as an early "martyr of communism" for having thrice redistributed wealth in his realm before being poisoned by his mother.<ref name="SHK">Sankrityayan, Rahul (1935). साम्यवाद ही क्यों? [''Why Communism?''] (Kitab Mahal, 3rd ed. 1943), pp. 3–6 and dedication page.</ref> He visited the [[Russia and the Soviet Union|Soviet Union]] for the first time that same year, and in 1937–38 spent an extended period at Leningrad teaching Buddhist philosophy and Indology at the invitation of the Buddhologist Fyodor Stcherbatsky, in the intervals learning Russian and Mongolian; according to Ober, Soviet attitudes toward Buddhism had by then turned to condemnation.<ref name="Joshi2009" /><ref>The dates of his Soviet stays are reported differently. Joshi (2009) gives 1935, 1937, 1944, and 1962 (the last for treatment of his amnesia); Ober (2023), p. 244 and n. 19 (p. 331), gives a first journey in 1935 and a Leningrad stay in 1937–38, and has him leave the Soviet Union in 1939 after marrying Ellena Narvertovna Kozerovskaya and giving up his monastic vows. An earlier version of this page dated further visits to 1947–48; no source in hand confirms this. The statement that he left in 1939 sits uneasily with Narendra Deva's speech of 9 April 1939, which condemns an assault on Sankrityayan in police custody in Saran district, Bihar (Nauriya (2015), p. 34 n. 148), so the 1939 departure should be treated as unsettled.</ref> Back in India, he became a leading figure in the Bihar peasant movement associated with Swami Sahajanand Saraswati's Kisan Sabha, presiding over the fifth annual session of the All India Kisan Sabha at Palasa, Andhra Pradesh, in March 1940.<ref>Chudal (2016), ''A Freethinking Cultural Nationalist''. Sahajanand's ambivalence toward religion (he called it "the illusion of dharma") is reported in Ober (2023), p. 246. Nauriya (2015), pp. 65 nn. 255–256, second-hand, names Sankrityayan among the founders of the Bihar Socialist Party in July 1931.</ref> He was arrested in February 1939 in a peasant campaign and again in 1940 after addressing a peasant meeting at Motihari, part of the colonial government's crackdown on the Communist Party; roughly a year's detention at the Deoli internment camp produced two major works of popular Marxist philosophy, ''Manav Samaj'' (1942) and ''Darshan-Digdarshan'' (1944).<ref name="Joshi2009" /><ref>The crackdown is characterized in Overstreet and Windmiller (1959), pp. 183–184; Chudal (2015), p. 62 n. 3, lists his imprisonments as 1922, 1923–25, 1939, and 1940–42. Across three arrests he spent a total of about twenty-nine months in jail.</ref> He formally joined the Communist Party of India in 1939 and remained a member for nine years, until his membership was revoked in 1948 over his defense of Hindi (as opposed to Sanskritized or Persianized alternatives) as the national language, a position his comrades regarded as majoritarian; he rejoined the party in 1955.<ref name="Joshi2009" /> Alongside this activity, he continued to publish prolifically in Hindi across history, philosophy, fiction, grammar, and travel writing, including the multi-volume autobiography ''Meri Jeevan Yatra'' (1944–1967) and the widely read travel manifesto ''Ghumakkar Shastra'' (1948).

In his later years, Sankrityayan continued to divide his energies between Buddhist scholarship and Marxist commentary, publishing ''Bauddh Darshan'' (1948), a major materialist study of Buddhist philosophy, and receiving the Sahitya Akademi Award in 1958 for his two-volume ''Madhya Asia ka Itihas'' ("History of Central Asia"). In November 1956 he took part in the Fourth General Conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists in Kathmandu, telling delegates in an impromptu speech that Nepal and India shared "one culture" and that neither he nor his hosts should think of themselves as meeting on foreign soil.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Buddhism of Nepal," pp. 81–82. Chudal glosses the speech, delivered at the Tundikhel before King Mahendra, as December 1956 in one place and November–December in another; the conference opened on 14 November 1956.</ref> [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]]'s conversion at Nagpur a month earlier had received his approval: Ober reports that Sankrityayan wrote an approving pamphlet in 1957 comparing it to Kublai Khan's conversion.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', citing Sankrityayan ([1957] 1978), p. 18.</ref> He taught at the University of Ceylon in 1959 and was awarded the Padma Bhushan in 1963. His essay "Buddhist Dialectics", a concise statement of his reading of Buddhist philosophy as proto-dialectical materialism, appeared in the 1970 anthology ''Buddhism: The Marxist Approach'' (a first publication in ''New Age'' in 1956 is reported by Ober).<ref name="OberBD">Ober (2023), n. 22 (p. 332), says the essay "was first published in 1956 in New Age" and was republished under other titles, such as "Buddhism and Marxism"; Ober's bibliography lists it as [1956] 1994, in Chattopadhyaya, Alaka (Ed.), ''Essays on Indology'', pp. 1–9. The anthology is undated internally and its first edition is January 1970; the essay reads as a translation, with no translator named.</ref>

He married three times, his third wife being the writer and scholar Kamala Sankrityayan. Afflicted in his final years by a debilitating amnesia, he died in Darjeeling on April 14, 1963, at seventy; his funeral rites were performed according to both Hindu and Buddhist custom, at the insistence of his youngest brother and of the monk Bhikkhu Mahanam respectively, neither of whom would concede that Sankrityayan had wholly left the other's tradition behind.<ref name="Sarao2017" /><ref>Chudal (2015), "Buddhism of Nepal," pp. 82–83, names the brother as Shyamlal and the Newar monk as Mahanam.</ref>

== Ideas ==

Sankrityayan's engagement with Buddhism was never confined to doctrinal exposition; from his earliest scholarly writing onward, he treated the Buddha's teaching as a historically situated response to social conditions and read Buddhist philosophy through a dialectical-materialist lens without ever fully resolving the tension between the two frameworks. His position is best described as a Marxist-leaning interpretation of Buddhist doctrine and history, combined with an institutional engagement with Buddhism early in his career and a lasting personal reverence for the Buddha, rather than as a settled Buddhist identity: Chudal herself concludes that his aim in Tibet was "not mainly to propagate and practise Buddhism as the religion leading to nirvana", even though he stated that he sought books in order to "propagate Buddhism in India".<ref>Chudal (2015), "Buddhism of Nepal," p. 81 (the conclusion) and p. 68 (his stated aim, citing ''Meri Jeevan Yatra'' vol. 2, p. 32).</ref>

Long before he joined the Communist Party, Sankrityayan had already identified the Buddhist monastic sangha as a historical precedent for communal economics. In ''Samyavad hi Kyon?'' (1935), he argued that the Buddha, seeing the material needs of his monks and nuns, did not merely mandate equal distribution but sharply reduced the sphere of individual property while greatly expanding the property held in common by the community, comparing this arrangement to the Mazdakite movement in fifth-century Iran and to the legendary wealth redistributions of the Tibetan king Mune Tsenpo.<ref name="SHK2">Sankrityayan, ''Why Communism?'' (1935), p. 38.</ref> He returned to this argument more systematically decades later in "Buddhist Dialectics" (1970), describing the Buddha's monastic communism in detail: aside from eight permitted personal items, all property was held by the samgha in common, a system that persisted for several centuries before eroding as monks began accumulating private wealth, as attested by donative inscriptions at Sanchi and Bharhut.<ref name="BD">Sankrityayan, Rahul (1970). "Buddhist Dialectics". In: Sankrityayan, Rahul, Debiprosad Chattopadhyaya, Y. Balaramamoorty, Ram Bilas Sharma, & Mulk Raj Anand, ''Buddhism: The Marxist Approach'': 1–8. People's Publishing House, p. 2.</ref> The same view appears in ''Bauddh Darshan'', where he writes that the Buddha, aware of the evils of individual property, wished within his own monastic sangha to abolish it and establish complete communism in enjoyment.<ref>Sankrityayan, Rahul (1948). बौद्ध दर्शन [''Bauddh Darshan'']. Kitab Mahal, p. 30.</ref> He likewise stressed the Buddha's preference for the republican ''gana'' polities of his day over monarchy, and his theory that kingship itself originated historically from the growth of private property and consequent class division, rather than from divine sanction.<ref name="BD" />

Sankrityayan applied the same class-functional analysis to the religious traditions around the Buddha, and then to Buddhism itself. In ''Bauddh Darshan'' he described Vedic religion as having upheld the existing order and helped the state, established "by crushing the people with bloody hands", to protect the propertied class and to keep slaves and laborers in check.<ref>Sankrityayan (1948), ''Bauddh Darshan'', p. 56.</ref> He credited the Buddha's original philosophy of dependent origination with a profoundly revolutionary character, but argued that the doctrines of karma and rebirth-linking were strengthened within the community because they reassured propertied and ruling classes, and that, "seen from a class perspective", Buddhism acted as an intermediary of the ruling class, presenting itself as on the side of justice without removing that class's basic interests.<ref>Sankrityayan (1948), ''Bauddh Darshan'', pp. 57, 59. The point concerns what happened to the insight once it had to survive among kings, monasteries, and patrons, not the falsity of dependent origination, which he read as an early theory of conditioned, processual causality compatible with materialism.</ref> He also criticized the Buddha for locating both suffering and its remedy in the individual rather than in society, while adding that the conceptual and institutional tools for a social remedy did not yet exist in the Buddha's time.<ref>Sankrityayan (1948), ''Bauddh Darshan'', p. 30.</ref> Yet his own argument reproduces an individual-centered logic: he held that belief in a life-stream extending beyond a single body is necessary for social progress, since only it can produce enough people willing to sacrifice themselves for a high ideal, so that individual self-sacrifice and self-restraint remain "indispensably necessary to make the world better".<ref>Sankrityayan (1948), ''Bauddh Darshan'', p. 17.</ref>

Sankrityayan's most sustained philosophical claim was that Buddhist metaphysics anticipates, in embryonic form, the categories of dialectical materialism. He read the doctrine of impermanence (anicca) as a philosophy of universal process rather than static being, the law of dependent origination (pratityasamutpada) as an early theory of causality that rejects any single, sufficient cause in favor of the "collectivity of causes" (hetu-samagrivada), and the Buddhist "criterion of reality" as capacity for objective, practical action (artha-kriya-samartham) as a proto-materialist, almost verificationist standard of truth close to modern scientific method.<ref name="BD" /><ref>Sankrityayan (1948), ''Bauddh Darshan'', p. 148, on particulars and universals in Dignaga and Dharmakirti: a jar or a cloth is ultimately real because it is capable of purposive action, whereas "jar-ness" is only conventionally real.</ref> At the same time, he insisted that Buddhism, particularly in its idealist Yogacāra form, remained closer to Hegelian idealism than to materialism proper, since it held consciousness (vijnana) rather than matter to be primary; he suggested that "inverting" this formula, treating mind as an evolutionary product of matter rather than matter as a transformation of mind, would spare Buddhist idealism "the trouble of standing on its head," an explicit echo of Marx's own image for his inversion of Hegel.<ref name="BD" /> He also cautioned that it would be erroneous to say Buddhism helped Marx or came near his fundamentals, though students of Buddhist philosophy would find Marxist philosophy easier to grasp.<ref name="BD" /> This ambivalence, Buddhism as dialectical without being straightforwardly materialist, was itself later contested from within the same Marxist milieu: in the same 1970 volume, Ram Bilas Sharma argued that Sankrityayan's own scholarship, particularly his ''Bauddh Darshan'', showed Buddhist philosophy to be fundamentally idealist and metaphysical, and that Buddhism's social radicalism had always been constrained by its dependence on the patronage of merchants and princes, whose underlying economic order it left unchallenged.<ref>Sharma, Ram Bilas (1970). "Some Aspects of the Teaching of Buddha". In: ''Buddhism: The Marxist Approach'': 54–65. People's Publishing House, esp. pp. 64–65. Sharma's citations of ''Bauddh Darshan'' (pp. 16–17, 30–31, 33) are consistent with the scan.</ref> Ramkrishna Bhattacharya likewise later challenged Sankrityayan's characterization of Buddhism as historically status-quoist, counterposing it with Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's and D.D. Kosambi's arguments that early Buddhism represented a form of "primitive communism" with genuine transformative potential.<ref name="Bhatta1994">Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1994). "From Buddha to Marx". In: Chattopadhyaya, Alaka (Ed.), ''Essays in Indology: Birth Centenary Tribute to Mahapandita Rahula Sankrityayana''. Manisha Granthalaya; discussed in Joshi (2009), "Journeys of the Self," p. 138. Note that D.D. Kosambi's own 1965 text rejects the idealized version of primitive communism, so the grouping is Bhattacharya's, not Kosambi's.</ref> He also read Vinaya detail against social background: the rule against ordaining debtors, he argued, closed an escape route from debt-slavery, a reading that Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya cites in ''Lokayata'' from ''Darshan-Digdarshan'' (Hindi), p. 541.<ref>Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad (1959). ''Lokayata: A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism''. People's Publishing House (1992 edition), pp. 465–466 nn. 25, 28.</ref>

Across both his Buddhological and his explicitly Marxist writing, Sankrityayan prized the Buddha's rejection of the authority of scripture, caste, and priestly ritual, his refusal to speculate on unanswerable metaphysical questions (the Buddha's celebrated silence on the ten unanswered, or ''avyakata'', questions concerning the eternity and spatial extent of the world, the identity of the life force with the body, and the post-mortem status of an enlightened being), and his insistence that individuals test truth-claims by reason and experience rather than by appeal to tradition.<ref name="Bhartiya2025">Bhartiya, Poonam (2025). "Rahul Sankrityayan and His Contribution to Indian Buddhism: With Special Reference to the Teaching and Philosophy". ''South India Journal of Social Sciences'' 23(4): 99–102, drawing on Sankrityayan's ''Darshan-Digdarshan'' (1944).</ref> He read the Buddha's four "unstated" positions, no creator god, no eternal soul, no scriptural authority as final proof, and no confinement of the mental life-stream to a single body, as together constituting a coherent, this-worldly philosophy of liberation distinct from both orthodox theism and vulgar materialism.<ref>Bhartiya (2025), "Rahul Sankrityayan and His Contribution to Indian Buddhism," pp. 101–102.</ref> This rationalism extended into a broader, sharper critique of organized religion as such: in ''Samyavad hi Kyon?'' he devoted an entire chapter to arguing that priesthoods across religions manipulate belief in God and the afterlife to secure the loyalty and the surplus labor of the poor, and in ''Tumhari Kshaya'' (1939) he wrote that "the sickness of religions is natural; there is no cure for it short of their death."<ref>Sankrityayan, quoted and translated in Joshi (2009), "Journeys of the Self," p. 138.</ref>

Yet this hostility to religion as an institution coexisted, without full resolution, with a lasting personal reverence for the Buddha himself, whom he described in 1956 as the one fully perfected human being that humanity's entire history had produced, while explicitly declining to call himself a follower of the Buddhist religion, since for him "culture" (sanskriti) and "religion" (dharma) were not the same thing.<ref>Sankrityayan, quoted and translated in Joshi (2009), "Journeys of the Self," pp. 136–138.</ref> In ''Ghumakkar Shastra'' (1948), he singled out Buddhism as "the gem amongst" world religions precisely because its rejection of caste-based purity taboos made it uniquely compatible with his own ideal of unrestricted human wandering and fellowship, a reading of Buddhism as embodied cosmopolitanism that a recent study analyzes as a satirical, quasi-scriptural critique of religion more broadly.<ref name="Upadhyay2025">Upadhyay, Nishant (2025). "The Wanderer as Becoming: A Satirical Critique of Indian Philosophy and Religions and a Wanderer's Religion". ''Religions'' 16(9): 1147.</ref> His disciple Jagdish Kashyap recalled that Sankrityayan dismissed meditation as something best left to old age, preferring missionary and political work in the present.<ref>Kashyap (1961), p. 8.</ref>

Sankrityayan's Buddhism-Marxism synthesis has been read alongside, and against, [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]]'s contemporaneous turn to Buddhism as a vehicle of Dalit emancipation. Where Ambedkar stripped Buddhism of most of its metaphysics to foreground it as a social doctrine of equality, Sankrityayan retained a far more textual and historical engagement with Buddhist metaphysics even as he tried to fuse it with Marxist materialism, and he wrote for a broad Hindi readership across caste and class lines rather than constructing a specifically Dalit religious identity.<ref name="Joshi2019">Joshi, Maya (2019). "Rahul Sankrityayan and Ambedkar as Contrapuntal Contemporaries: Unpacking Their 'Metaphysics and Politics'". In: Lal, Vinay (Ed.), ''India and Civilizational Futures: Backwaters Collective on Metaphysics and Politics II'': 182–214. Oxford University Press.</ref> He nonetheless shared with Ambedkar an emphasis on the Buddha as social reformer, praising the Buddha's grant of formal equality to the lowest castes within the monastic order and his practice, memorialized in Sankrityayan's own retelling of the Buddha's rebuke to a wealthy foster-mother who wished to give him a robe rather than the sangha as a whole, of directing his followers toward "the good of the many" rather than individual salvation alone.<ref>Sankrityayan, "Buddha aur Gandhi," quoted and translated in Joshi (2009), "Journeys of the Self," pp. 139–140.</ref> His interpretation of ''anatta'' (non-self) likewise doubled as social critique: he read the doctrine's dismantling of a permanent, unchanging self as a philosophical rejection of the caste- and class-based hierarchies that, in his view, depended on essentialist claims about fixed human natures and inherited status.<ref>Bhartiya (2025), "Rahul Sankrityayan and His Contribution to Indian Buddhism," p. 100.</ref>

== Writings ==

This list emphasizes works bearing on Buddhism, Marxism, and radical social critique; it omits some of Sankrityayan's numerous purely philological, grammatical, and travelogue writings. Bibliographers credit him with about 148 books and 71 articles in total.<ref>Bhattacharya (2005), pp. 205–215.</ref>

* बुद्धचर्या ''Buddhacharya'' (1931). Kashi Vidyapeeth. {{annotation|An early biographical and doctrinal account of the life of the Buddha, produced around the time of Sankrityayan's ordination in Sri Lanka; later reissued in a third edition by the Bharatiya Bauddha Samiti, Lucknow, in 1995. Ober's bibliography dates the work to 1930 and lists a 2011 reprint.}}

* तिब्बती बाल-शिक्षा ''Tibbati Bal-Shiksha'' [''Tibetan Children's Education''], पाठावली ''Pathavali'' (3 vols.), and तिब्बती व्याकरण ''Tibbati Vyakaran'' [''Tibetan Grammar''] (1933). {{annotation|A set of Tibetan-language primers and a grammar, compiled with his Ladakhi collaborator Tsetan Phuntsog for use in Himalayan Buddhist schools.}}

* तिब्बत में बौद्ध धर्म ''Tibbat Mein Bauddha Dharma'' [''Buddhism in Tibet''] (1934). {{annotation|A study of Tibetan Buddhist doctrine and institutions based on Sankrityayan's first two journeys to Tibet, and on manuscripts, block-prints, and oral instruction he obtained there.}}

* साम्यवाद ही क्यों? ''Samyavad hi Kyon?'' [''Why Communism?''] (1935; 2nd ed. 1938, 3rd ed. 1943). Kitab Mahal. {{annotation|A popular primer on communism, its preface signed in Lhasa on August 28, 1935, and dedicated to the memory of the Tibetan king Mune Tsenpo as an early "martyr of communism"; it argues that the Buddhist sangha's communal property system anticipated modern communism, several years before Sankrityayan formally joined the Communist Party of India.}}

* तुम्हारी क्षय ''Tumhari Kshaya'' [''Your Decay''] (1939). {{annotation|A polemic against religion as such, source of the often-quoted line on the incurable "sickness of religions".}}

* मानव समाज ''Manav Samaj'' [''Human Society''] (1942). {{annotation|The second volume of Sankrityayan's "Vaigyanik Bhautikvad" (scientific materialism) series, tracing the evolution of human society through a dialectical-materialist lens; composed largely during his detention at the Deoli internment camp in 1940–41.}}

* वोल्गा से गंगा ''Volga se Ganga'' [''From Volga to Ganga''] (1942). Kitab Mahal. {{annotation|A collection of twenty historical short stories tracing Indo-European migration from the Volga to the Ganges from 6000 BCE to 1942; its later stories are explicitly shaped by Marxist historiography and stage an encounter between an Indian revolutionary and Marx and Engels. In [[SR42VGX-T|one story]] the Buddha is shown wanting a "revolution" to make the world better.}}

* दर्शन-दिग्दर्शन ''Darshan-Digdarshan'' [''A Survey of Philosophy''] (1944). Kitab Mahal. {{annotation|A comparative history of world philosophy, composed during Sankrityayan's imprisonment, which frames the central conflict in Indian philosophy as one between Brahmanical and non-Brahmanical (notably Buddhist) systems and argues for the latter, subjected in turn to Marxist critique. The ''Bauddh Darshan'' of 1948 is described in its preface as a part of this work.}}

* जय यौधेय ''Jay Yaudheya'' [''Victory to the Yaudheyas''] (1944). {{annotation|A novel set in an ancient republic imagined as a Buddhist-style communist polity.}}

* मेरी जीवन यात्रा ''Meri Jeevan Yatra'' [''My Life's Journey''] (Vol. I, 1944; Vol. II, 1950; Vols. III–IV, 1967). Radhakrishna Prakashan. {{annotation|A multi-volume autobiography narrating Sankrityayan's successive religious and political identities, from Vaishnava sadhu through Arya Samajist and Buddhist monk to Marxist activist; the final volumes appeared posthumously.}}

* बाईसवीं सदी ''Baisvin Sadi'' [''The Twenty-Second Century''] (written 1924, published 1945). Kitab Mahal. {{annotation|A utopian science-fiction novel written during Sankrityayan's imprisonment for participation in the Non-Cooperation Movement, envisioning a future communist world order; it predates his formal turn to Marxism by more than a decade.}}

* घुमक्कड़ शास्त्र ''Ghumakkar Shastra'' [''The Treatise of the Wanderer''] (1948; 2nd ed. 1957). Kitab Mahal. {{annotation|A programmatic and satirical manifesto for a life of perpetual travel, which frames Buddhism as the most congenial of world religions to the wanderer's ethic because of its rejection of caste-purity taboos.}}

* बौद्ध दर्शन ''Bauddh Darshan'' [''Buddhist Philosophy''] (2nd ed. 1948; 1st ed. 1944). Kitab Mahal. {{annotation|Sankrityayan's major treatise on Buddhist philosophy, offering a systematic materialist and rationalist reading of Buddhist metaphysics, the doctrine of ''anatta'', the theory of dependent origination, and Buddhist ethics; later cited by critics as evidence of the persistence of philosophical idealism within his account of Buddhism. Its first chapter, on the Buddha's original teachings, is reported to be a piece written in 1932 and added to the second edition.}}

* मध्य एशिया का इतिहास ''Madhya Asia ka Itihas'' [''History of Central Asia''] (2 vols., 1950s). Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad. {{annotation|A monumental history of Central Asia that won Sankrityayan the Sahitya Akademi Award in 1958; it reflects his recurring interest in the transience of civilizations and ideas.}}

* कार्ल मार्क्स ''Karl Marx'' (1950s). {{annotation|A biographical study of Marx, part of Sankrityayan's effort to make Marxist intellectual history accessible to Hindi readers.}}

* लेनिन ''Lenin'' (1950s). {{annotation|A biographical study of Vladimir Lenin and the development of revolutionary Marxism.}}

* स्तालिन ''Stalin'' (1950s). {{annotation|A biographical study reflecting Sankrityayan's engagement with Soviet political history.}}

* माओ त्से तुङ ''Mao Tse Tung'' (1950s). {{annotation|A biographical treatment of Mao Zedong and the Chinese revolutionary experience.}}

* महामानव बुद्ध ''Mahamanav Buddh'' [''The Great Human Being Buddha''] (1956). {{annotation|A Hindi biography of the Buddha; Ober cites a 2011 edition.}}

* "Buddhist Dialectics" (1956?; 1970 in the anthology). In: ''Buddhism: The Marxist Approach'': 1–8. New Delhi: People's Publishing House. {{annotation|Sankrityayan's most concise English-language statement of Buddhism as proto-dialectical philosophy, covering the sangha's economic communism, the theory of dependent origination, the "collectivity of causes," and the pragmatic Buddhist criterion of reality; published in a jointly authored anthology alongside essays by Debiprosad Chattopadhyaya, Y. Balaramamoorty, Ram Bilas Sharma, and Mulk Raj Anand. It says nothing about his own religious identity or ordination.}}

* नवदीक्षित बौद्ध ''Navdikshit Bauddh'' [''The Newly Converted Buddhists''] ([1957] 1975). {{annotation|Listed in Ober's bibliography, edited by Pragyananda Mahasthavir; the connection of this title with the 1957 pamphlet on Ambedkar's conversion mentioned above is not established.}}

== Secondary Literature in English ==

* Bhartiya, Poonam (2025). "Rahul Sankrityayan and His Contribution to Indian Buddhism: With Special Reference to the Teaching and Philosophy". ''South India Journal of Social Sciences'' 23(4): 99–102. {{annotation|An open-access survey of Sankrityayan's interpretation of the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, the Three Marks of Existence, and the Buddha's "unstated" (avyakata) positions, drawing extensively on ''Darshan-Digdarshan'' and ''Bauddh Darshan''.}}

* Upadhyay, Nishant (2025). "The Wanderer as Becoming: A Satirical Critique of Indian Philosophy and Religions and a Wanderer's Religion". ''Religions'' 16(9): 1147. {{annotation|An open-access analysis of ''Ghumakkar Shastra'', arguing that Sankrityayan uses the figure of the Wanderer to mount a satirical, quasi-scriptural critique of institutional religion, with Buddhism held up as its most congenial exception.}}

* Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press. {{annotation|The chapter "When the Buddha Met Marx" situates Sankrityayan alongside Dharmanand Kosambi and reconstructs the broader connections between Buddhist revivalism and Marxism in twentieth-century India; it also supplies the account of his 1917 encounter with Bodhanand and of the Vidyalankara cohort.}}

* Basu, Sreyanjana (2019). "Rahul Sankrityayan's (1893–1963) Shift from Buddhism to Marxism: Some Reflections". ''International Journal of Research in Social Sciences'' 9(2): 319–333. {{annotation|A focused examination of the transition from Sankrityayan's Buddhist commitment to Marxism, arguing that his later Marxism did not simply erase his earlier Buddhist thought.}}

* Joshi, Maya (2019). "Rahul Sankrityayan and Ambedkar as Contrapuntal Contemporaries: Unpacking Their 'Metaphysics and Politics'". In: Lal, Vinay (Ed.), ''India and Civilizational Futures: Backwaters Collective on Metaphysics and Politics II'': 182–214. Oxford University Press. {{annotation|A comparative study contrasting Sankrityayan's textually engaged, metaphysically retentive Buddhism with B. R. Ambedkar's socially oriented Navayana Buddhism.}}

* Sarao, K.T.S. (2017). "Sankrityayan, Rahul". In: Sarao, K.T.S., & Long, J.D. (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Indian Religions: Buddhism and Jainism''. Springer. {{annotation|A concise reference entry summarizing Sankrityayan's biography, travels, and scholarly output.}}

* Chudal, Alaka Atreya (2016). ''A Freethinking Cultural Nationalist: A Life History of Rahul Sankrityayan''. Oxford University Press. {{annotation|The first, and most substantial, book-length scholarly biography of Sankrityayan, tracing his successive identities as sadhu, Arya Samajist, Buddhist monk, and communist against the backdrop of Indian and Nepali nationalism.}}

* Chudal, Alaka Atreya (2015). "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal". ''European Bulletin of Himalayan Research'' 46: 62–87. {{annotation|An open-access study of Sankrityayan's relationship with Nepal and Nepalese Buddhists, including his Tibet-bound journeys through Kathmandu, his friendships with Dharmaman Sahu and Hemraj Sharma, and his oblique but sympathetic relationship to Nepal's underground Theravada movement. Its biographical notes (nn. 3, 6) also give the most precise dates for his imprisonments and his stay in Sri Lanka.}}

* Ober, Douglas (2013). "'Like Embers Hidden in Ashes, or Jewels Encrusted In Stone': Rāhul Sāṅkṛtyāyan, Dharmānand Kosambī and Buddhist Activity in Colonial India". ''Contemporary Buddhism'' 14.1: 134–148. {{annotation|An earlier study pairing Sankrityayan with Dharmanand Kosambi as scholar-activists of the Buddhist revival, with a biographical account of the Lucknow encounter with Bodhanand and of the Sri Lankan training.}}

* Joshi, Maya (2009). "Rahul Sankrityayan's Journeys of the Self: Nation, Culture, Identity". ''Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences'' 16(1&2): 119–147. {{annotation|A close reading of Sankrityayan's autobiography ''Meri Jeevan Yatra'' and his travel manifesto ''Ghumakkar Shastra'', tracing his movement from Vaishnavism through Arya Samaj and Buddhism to Marxism and situating this trajectory within debates on Indian nationalism and selfhood.}}

* Dhone, Viplov (n.d.). "Two Marxist Perspectives on the Buddha: Rahul Sankrityayan and Debiprasad Chattopadhyay". ''Sambhāṣaṇ'' 2(1–2). {{annotation|A comparative analysis of two Indian Marxist interpretations of Buddhism, useful for situating Sankrityayan within the wider development of Marxist readings of Indian philosophy.}}

* Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1994). "From Buddha to Marx". In: Chattopadhyaya, Alaka (Ed.), ''Essays in Indology: Birth Centenary Tribute to Mahapandita Rahula Sankrityayana''. Manisha Granthalaya. {{annotation|A critical engagement with Sankrityayan's characterization of Buddhism as historically status-quoist, arguing instead, with Debiprosad Chattopadhyaya and D. D. Kosambi, for reading early Buddhism as a form of primitive communism with genuine transformative potential.}}

== Secondary Literature in Hindi ==

* Budhlakoti, Pushpa (2024). "Sahitya ki Marxvadi Drishti aur Rahul Sankrityayan ke Upanyas" [Marxist Literary Perspective and the Novels of Rahul Sankrityayan]. ''Hindi Journal'' 6(2). {{annotation|A recent study applying a Marxist literary perspective to Sankrityayan's novels and their treatment of social and historical questions.}}

* Sharma, Vishnu Chandra (1995). राहुल का भारत ''Rahula ka Bharat'' [''Rahul's India'']. Allahabad: Sahitya Vani. {{annotation|An assessment of Sankrityayan's vision of India and Indian civilization across his historical, philosophical, and political writing.}}

* Mule, Gunakar (1994). राहुल चिंतन ''Rahul Chintan'' [''Rahul's Thought'']. New Delhi: Rajkamal Prakashan. {{annotation|A study of Sankrityayan's intellectual development across his religious and political phases, by a scholar who knew him personally.}}

* Sharma, Ramsharan 'Munshi', & Pushpamala Jain (Eds.) (1988). राहुल स्मृति ''Rahula Smriti'' [''In Memory of Rahul'']. New Delhi: People's Publishing House. {{annotation|A memorial volume of essays and reminiscences by associates and fellow scholars, including the Buddhist monk Bhikshu Jagdish Kashyap's account of Sankrityayan's role in his own conversion to Buddhism and Bhadant Anand Kausalyayan's analysis of Sankrityayan's three-stage philosophical evolution from theism through idealist atheism to materialism.}}

* Machwe, Prabhakar (1987). ''Rahul Sankrityayan''. New Delhi: Rajpal. {{annotation|A short literary biography and critical study of Sankrityayan, useful as an early source-language treatment of his life and literary career; a related English-language study by the same author appeared in the Sahitya Akademi's "Makers of Indian Literature" series in 1978.}}

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "Rahul Sankrityayan". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Rahul_Sankrityayan</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[category:Rahul Sankrityayan]]
[[category:India]]
[[category:Biographies]]
[[category:Buddhist Marxism in India]]

Dharmanand Kosambi

2026-10-27T11:08:48Z

Lajos: Created page with "{{Awaiting Review}} Dharmanand Kosambi (धर्मानंद कोसंबी, ''Dharmānand Kosambī''; 1876–1947) was a Marathi Pali scholar, former Buddhist monk, and Gandhian nationalist from Portuguese Goa. He studied Pali in Sri Lanka, was ordained there as a novice and in Burma as a full monk, and later taught at Calcutta, Pune, Harvard, Ahmedabad, Leningrad, and Kashi. Writing almost entirely in Marathi, he argued from 1910 that the early Bu..."

{{Awaiting Review}}
Dharmanand Kosambi (धर्मानंद कोसंबी, ''Dharmānand Kosambī''; 1876–1947) was a Marathi Pali scholar, former Buddhist monk, and Gandhian nationalist from Portuguese [[India|Goa]]. He studied Pali in [[Sri Lanka]], was ordained there as a novice and in Burma as a full monk, and later taught at Calcutta, Pune, Harvard, Ahmedabad, Leningrad, and Kashi. Writing almost entirely in Marathi, he argued from 1910 that the early Buddhist sangha rested on collective ownership and collective decision making, a thesis that Douglas Ober counts among the most enduring arguments of modern [[India]]n Buddhism, and in 1935 he wrote that Marx's analysis of capitalism was right as far as it went but had to be joined to non-violence. He helped to found the Bauddhashram in Madras (1903) and directed the Bahujan Vihara in Bombay (1937–39). His rationalist life of the Buddha and his play on the Buddha's renunciation are among the sources of [[BR Ambedkar|Ambedkar]]'s account, although the size of the debt is contested. Kosambi combined personal Buddhist commitment and institutional activity with a socialist strand in his reading of Buddhism; he was a Gandhian and not a Marxist, and he remained within the Congress.

== Biography ==
Kosambi was born on 9 October 1876 at Sankhwal (Sancoale) in Salcete, Goa, the youngest of seven children in a Gaud Saraswat Brahmin family, and he was married at fourteen.<ref>Kosambi, Dharmanand (1924). निवेदन ''Nivedan'' [Statement] (Marathi). Manoranjak Granthaprasarak Mandali, p. 9. The memoir was serialized in the Goa weekly ''Bharat'' from November 1912 to 9 February 1916, its last chapters were written in 1916 or 1917, and the book edition carries a preface dated 5 July 1924. See also Kosambi, Meera (Ed.) (2010). ''Dharmanand Kosambi: The Essential Writings''. Permanent Black, Introduction and endnote 2. The e-edition of 2012 consulted has no printed page numbers, so notes to it cite selections and endnotes, and printed pages are given only where Ober supplies them. Selection 1 is ''Nivedan''; Selection 2, the ''Khulasa'' (1937–38); Selection 4, the lectures of 1910; Selection 5, the ''Kesari'' letter of 1910; Selection 6, the article on workers of 1910; Selection 7, Part V of ''Hindi Sanskriti ani Ahimsa''; Selection 8, the play ''Bodhisattva''. Spellings: "Dharmanand" (Ober; M. Kosambi; used here), "Dharmananda" (Geary and Mukherjee in Jerryson (Ed.) (2017), ''The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'', Oxford University Press, pp. 42, 50; Gokhale), and "Dhammanand" (Kausalyayan). The family name was originally Shenai Lotlikar, then Kosambe, and Kosambi himself changed it to Kosambi. Brandist, Craig (2022). "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology: the work of Aleksei Barannikov in the light of Dalit studies". ''Language & History'' 65.3: 201–219, prints 1878 as his year of birth; every source on Kosambi himself gives 1876, and the 1878 is probably a slip.</ref> According to Ober, a Marathi children's magazine and a Marathi adaptation of Edwin Arnold's ''The Light of Asia'' awakened his interest in the Buddha, and at twenty-three he left his wife and child to look for knowledge of Buddhism, studying Sanskrit with pandits in Pune, Gwalior, and Benares.<ref>Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press, p. 231; M. Kosambi (2010), ''Essential Writings'', Introduction. Kosambi left Goa at the end of 1899.</ref> In February 1902 he travelled to [[Nepal|Kathmandu]], where he found no learned Buddhist and was saddened to see Tibetan fortune-tellers and a goat carcass at a stupa, and then to Bodh Gaya, where an unnamed monk told him to learn Pali in Ceylon and to apply to the [[Maha Bodhi Society]] in Calcutta.<ref>Kosambi (1924), निवेदन ''Nivedan'', pp. 74–75, 83–85.</ref> The Society sheltered him in Calcutta and gave him letters of introduction, one of them to M. Singaravelu (1860–1946) of Madras, who hosted him for a day on 16 March 1902.<ref>Kosambi (1924), निवेदन ''Nivedan'', pp. 95–97, 103. Singaravelu appears in these pages without office; the memoir predates any communist role, and the identification of this Singaravelu with the later communist rests on a gloss by Aloysius, G. (1998). ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity: A Buddhist Movement among the Tamils under Colonialism''. New Age International, p. 58.</ref> At the Vidyodaya Pirivena in Colombo he studied Pali under Hikkaduve Sumangala, the monk who had given [[Iyothee Thass]] the Five Precepts in 1898, and he was ordained as a novice; his full ordination followed in Burma in 1903 or 1904.<ref>Kosambi (1924), निवेदन ''Nivedan'', pp. 108–110, 119; Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 231 and n. 16 (p. 331), which notes that his vows in Ceylon were those of a novice and that the full ordination was in Burma. The memoir does not date the novice ordination; it falls between Vesak of 22 May 1902 and his departure from Colombo on 26 March 1903. M. Kosambi (Introduction) dates the full ordination to 1903–04.</ref>

Between late March and mid-October 1903 he spent about six and a half months in Madras. His memoir describes a Maha Bodhi Sabha, with a Professor Lakshminarasu Naidu (possibly [[P Lakshmi Narasu|P. Lakshmi Narasu]]) as president and Singaravelu as secretary, and a separate group of recent Paraiyar converts led by a Pandit Ayodhidas (possibly [[Iyothee Thass]]), and says that the two groups did not get on. Kosambi brought them together in a rented house at Royapettah, the Bauddhashram, where he read a Pali sutta every Sunday evening, Singaravelu lectured in Tamil, and Narasu came on Fridays to teach him comparative study.<ref>Kosambi (1924), निवेदन ''Nivedan'', pp. 114–117. The identifications of Lakshminarasu Naidu with P. Lakshmi Narasu and of Ayodhidas with Thass are inferences; the pages name neither Narasu nor Thass in full. Ober (2023), p. 232, has him living at the Shakya Buddhist Society's rest houses from 1902 to 1904 and calls him an early colleague of Thass, Narasu, and Singaravelu; the memoir gives one day in 1902 and six and a half months in 1903. See also the [[Tamil Buddhist Movement]].</ref> He quarreled with Singaravelu and left by steamer for Burma. He gave up the monastic life in 1906, taught Pali at the National College and the University of Calcutta until 1908, and then accepted a monthly stipend from Sayajirao Gaekwad of Baroda.<ref>M. Kosambi (2010), Introduction; Kosambi (1924), निवेदन ''Nivedan'', pp. 185–187. The memoir gives the stipend as Rs 50.</ref> In 1910 the Harvard Sanskritist James H. Woods invited him to help edit Buddhaghosa's ''Visuddhimagga'', and he stayed at Harvard until January 1912.<ref>M. Kosambi (2010), Introduction; Kosambi (1924), निवेदन ''Nivedan'', pp. 185–187. M. Kosambi dates four Harvard stays to 1910–January 1912, October 1918–August 1922, 1926 (completing the ''Visuddhimagga'' work, published in 1950), and 1931–32. Ober (2023), n. 7 (p. 330), gives 1910–12, 1919–22, 1926–29, and 1933–34. The dates differ and are not adjudicated here.</ref> He then taught Pali at Fergusson College in Pune, and Ober reports that R.G. Bhandarkar asked him in 1912 to set up a Pali curriculum at Bombay University.<ref>M. Kosambi (2010), Introduction (six years at Fergusson College); Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 101.</ref> Whether he ever received a Harvard doctorate is contested. Ober (2013) followed Eleanor Zelliot in giving a doctorate of 1929, but Ober (2023) reports that Kosambi's great-grandson denies that the degree was ever awarded.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', n. 7 (p. 330), citing Zelliot (1979), p. 392; Ober, Douglas (2013). "'Like Embers Hidden in Ashes, or Jewels Encrusted in Stone': Rāhul Sāṅkṛtyāyan, Dharmānand Kosambī and Buddhist Activity in Colonial India". ''Contemporary Buddhism'' 14.1: 134–148. M. Kosambi's volume contains no statement that he held a Harvard degree and quotes his remark of 1912 that he had no BA or MA; it records that his son Damodar Dharmanand (D.D.) Kosambi (1907–1966) took a Harvard BA with distinction in 1929, which suggests but does not prove that the "1929" doctorate arose from a confusion of father and son. A Harvard Asia Center seminar abstract by R. Ramaswamy ("Early South Asians at Harvard: Dharmanand, Manik, and Damodar Kosambi, 1910-1932") lists him as Assistant in Indic Philology 1910-12 and 1918-22 and mentions no degree. --></ref>

After a second Harvard stay (1918–22) he joined Gandhi's Gujarat Vidyapith at Ahmedabad in 1922.<ref>M. Kosambi (2010), Introduction (Gandhi's invitation of November 1922; three years at the Vidyapith); Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 234.</ref> Stcherbatski invited him to the new Institute for the Study of Buddhist Culture in Leningrad, where he worked in 1929–30 and again in 1932 or 1933.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 235–236; M. Kosambi (Introduction) says that he returned to India in early 1930 and passed through the Soviet Union again in 1932. Geetha dates his Soviet stay to the 1920s (Geetha, V. (2021). ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India''. Palgrave Macmillan, n. 46 on pp. 290–291; one source consulted gives p. 290 and another p. 291).</ref> Back in India he joined the salt satyagraha, was arrested in October 1930, and served about five months of a year's hard labor.<ref>M. Kosambi (2010), Selection 2 (§§4–5) and Introduction: he led the satyagraha camp at Shirode in May 1930 and was released in March 1931. Ober (2023), p. 236, says that he was arrested twice, first at the Shiroda satyagraha and again in October; p. 237 reports that police intelligence reports name him more than fifty times between April and October 1930.</ref> While teaching at Kashi Vidyapith under [[Narendra Deva]] he wrote ''Hindi Sanskriti ani Ahimsa'' (1935).<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 237.</ref> In 1936 Ambedkar approached the Bombay Buddha Society, of which Kosambi was honorary president, and said that Bombay needed a vihara; Kosambi asked Gandhi and the industrialist J.K. Birla for funds and on 26 January 1937 inaugurated the Bahujan Vihara in the mill-workers' district of Parel.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 215–216 and n. 47 (p. 327); M. Kosambi (2010), Introduction. The vihara was named "Bahujan" and not "Buddha" Vihara because of its focus on mill workers and its attempt to end caste discrimination among them.</ref> He directed it until the end of 1939, when he withdrew after Birla objected to opinions in ''Hindi Sanskriti ani Ahimsa''; the [[Maha Bodhi Society]] then took over the vihara.<ref>M. Kosambi (2010), Introduction (Birla's and Gandhi's requests that he stay; the plaque names Birla and not Kosambi); Ober (2023), n. 48 (p. 327), which attributes the quarrel to a disagreement over the role of violence in Hindu scriptures and culture and cites Ober (2013), pp. 139–140; Zelliot (1979), p. 393, reported at second hand for the Society's takeover. Ambedkar never took part in the vihara's events (Ober (2023), p. 216).</ref> Kosambi did not break with Gandhi personally. He returned to teaching at Sarnath and died on 4 June 1947 at Gandhi's ashram at Sevagram, after a fast that he had begun on 4 May.<ref>M. Kosambi (2010), Introduction. The Handbook gives 1876–1941 at p. 42 and 1876–1947 at p. 50 (Geary and Mukherjee in Jerryson (Ed.) (2017)); M. Kosambi's date of 4 June 1947 settles the question.</ref>

== Ideas ==
Kosambi's socialism had its start in America, and he said so himself: in a clarification of 1937–38 he wrote that until May 1910 he had no idea what socialism was.<ref>M. Kosambi (2010), Selection 2 (''Khulasa'', 1937–38), §2. He recalled that he first heard of it from a Dutch businessman on the voyage, read about it at Boston socialist societies, and bought books at the Socialist Book Depot; he could not follow ''Capital'' but understood its outline from other authors, and he sent basic books on socialism to N.C. Kelkar of the ''Kesari''. Socialism explained to him why Indian princes had failed against the British, and he concluded that real political strength lies in the union of workers.</ref> The first result was a letter to the nationalist ''Kesari'' of 1910, written at Cambridge, Massachusetts, in answer to an editorial that found no representative system in Buddhism. Kosambi argued that the Buddhist sangha rested on "collective ownership which is the highest stage of democracy": monks owned only eight requisites, the viharas belonged to the whole sangha, offences were tried by the whole sangha, and the Buddha, who "never showed respect for monarchy" (in the translator's words), could not have built such a body had he not been born in a republic.<ref>M. Kosambi (2010), Selection 5 (letter of 19 September 1910, published 25 October 1910); the passage is quoted in Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 232–233, who cites Kosambi (2010), pp. 313–15 for it. The letter relies on Rhys Davids for the republics and on the seven conditions of Vajji prosperity, and it defines socialism as establishing national ownership over privately owned property.</ref> Ober reads the thesis as one of the most persuasive and enduring arguments about modern Indian Buddhism, but also as a modernist claim comparable to Dayananda Sarasvati's claim that the Vedas contained modern science; he adds that Kosambi, unlike some contemporaries, never held that Buddhism was identical to Marxism or superseded it.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 233–234.</ref> In a four-part article of the same year Kosambi advocated reform and not revolution: compulsory free primary education, municipal housing and meals, and appeals to the capitalists who gave to temples while workers lived in chawls.<ref>M. Kosambi (2010), Selection 6 (''Subodha Patrika'', 23 October–4 December 1910). The article also cites a 1910 resolution of the American Federation of Labor against Asian immigration and blames Indian workers' ignorance and disunity for their position, a view that a modern reader may question.</ref> His editor argues that his writings of 1910–16, including a lecture on Karl Marx in Pune in May 1912, make him the first to explain Marx and socialism to Maharashtra in Marathi, ahead of Tilak's reproductions of 1881 and the communists of the 1920s; this priority claim is the editor's own argument and was not checked.<ref>M. Kosambi (2010), Introduction, endnotes 24–34. The lecture of 1916 on socialism and the war was chaired by Kelkar.</ref>

The fullest statement is Part V of ''Hindi Sanskriti ani Ahimsa'' (1935), translated by Meera Kosambi as "Civilization and Non-violence". Ober describes the book as following a Marxist scheme of primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, and capitalism, within which Buddhist and Jain non-violence is the thread of progress.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 237; M. Kosambi (2010), Selection 7 (printed pp. 327–357 according to Ober (2023), n. 12, p. 331). Ober worked from the Hindi translation of the whole book for the earlier parts and cites it by that edition's pages.</ref> In the last chapter Kosambi asks why India could not follow the Bolsheviks, who had freed Russia's workers by destroying aristocrats and landowners, and he takes Marx's economic analysis to be right as far as it goes; he congratulates the followers of Marx on their treatment of women, defends the Soviet maternity provisions, calls the collective ownership of land, factories, banks, and railways the only thesis that benefits mankind, and rejects Gandhi's trusteeship as handing the keys of the safe to a thief.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 238, citing Kosambi (1935) 2010, p. 168 in the Hindi translation; M. Kosambi (2010), Selection 7 (the passages on women and on the Communist Manifesto, on collective ownership, and on trusteeship).</ref> He also criticized Marx. Marx, he wrote, never considered the usefulness of non-violence and was limited by a European culture that demands an adversary, and the class struggle merely replaces hostility between nations with hostility between bourgeoisie and workers, "removing a thorn with another thorn".<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 240–241, citing Kosambi (1909–49) 2010, pp. 355–357; M. Kosambi (2010), Selection 7.</ref> Only a non-violence accompanied by the wisdom of the socialists, he concluded, would lead to the welfare of mankind. He also read the Marxist account of exploitation through the Buddhist teaching on craving, explained the decline of the sangha in India by its accumulation of land, women, and slaves, and wrote that if religion is an opiate, "nationalism is liquor".<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 238–239, citing Kosambi (1935) 2010, pp. 176, 182–183 (Hindi translation) and Kosambi (1909–49) 2010, p. 354.</ref> Ober concludes that the loom of Kosambi's thought is Marxist but the final weave a "democratic Buddhist socialism", in which Buddhist non-violence takes precedence over the Marxist emphasis on exploitation, whereas the editor of his collected writings calls his position a new and eclectic doctrine of Buddha, satyagraha, and Marx that changed gradually in view of the violence of the Russian Revolution and of Marxist thinking.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 241; M. Kosambi (2010), Introduction (the editor credits Sadanand More for the point about the gradual change). Ober (p. 236) adds that Kosambi's Soviet visits overlapped with Stalin's turn against religion, which disillusioned him.</ref>

Kosambi's caste-related writing is less developed. In his lectures of 1910 he held that the Buddha made no caste distinction, that the sangha had Brahmins like Sariputta and a Chandala like Sopaka, and that nobody is a Chandala or Brahmin by birth.<ref>M. Kosambi (2010), Selection 4 (lectures of 1909, published in 1910 as ''Buddha, Dharma ani Sangha'').</ref> After hearing that Singaravelu, then secretary of the Madras Maha Bodhi Sabha, had warned Sinhalese laymen that Brahmans of Hindustan were cunning and that Kosambi, however simple he looked, was a Brahmin, Kosambi wrote that this showed how caste distinction (जातिभेद) obstructs the love of country (देशप्रीति) of educated Indians.<ref>Kosambi (1924), निवेदन ''Nivedan'', pp. 110–111.</ref> He defended the Buddhist past against the claim of S.V. Ketkar, in a series in the ''Kesari'' of 1913, that the Buddha reinforced caste, and in 1937 against Rajendra Prasad's view that Buddhism was a Hindu sect.<ref>M. Kosambi (2010), Introduction (Ketkar's series of August–November 1913 and Kosambi's rejoinders of 26 August and 18 October 1913; the reply to Prasad of 1937). Bagade, in Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.) (2021). ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste''. Routledge, ch. 9, p. 162, also describes his defense against attacks of Ketkar's kind.</ref> He wrote almost entirely in Marathi and Gujarati, which Ober connects with a commitment to "democratizing" and "vernacularizing" Buddhist knowledge.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 102, citing M. Kosambi (2010), pp. 415–417 for a list of his publications.</ref>

His life of the Buddha is a rationalist and this-worldly retelling. ''Bhagavan Buddha'' (1940) holds that the Buddha's name was Gautama and never Siddhartha, that he was a landowner's son and not a king, that the story of the palaces is a myth, and that he left home out of distaste for violent quarrels like the dispute of the Sakyas and Koliyas over the river Rohini; in the lectures of 1910 Kosambi had still accepted the three palaces but denied that they were a prison.<ref>M. Kosambi (2010), Introduction and Selection 4. The editor dates the change of view to the later works.</ref> His play ''Bodhisattva'' (published in 1949) invents a Koliya character, Subhadra, to dramatize the Rohini dispute, and Ober remarks that it shows the renunciation as caused by imminent war and not by the sights of sickness, old age, and death.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 241 and n. 13 (p. 331), where the translation of the play is placed at Kosambi (1909–49) 2010, pp. 358–408; Geetha (2021), n. 46, gives pp. 348–402. The preface of the play says that scenes 4 and 5 have no basis in the Tripitaka (M. Kosambi (2010), Selection 8).</ref> Ober also reports that Kosambi supported the Gandhian thesis that India fell because it failed to live up to the Buddha's message of non-violence, not because it accepted it.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 172.</ref>

Kosambi's Bahujan Vihara shows how Hindu leaders absorbed Buddhist revival into the Hindu fold. When Gandhi asked B.G. Kher to oversee Birla's donations, Kher replied that he could not serve on a Buddhist vihara committee and asked whether all the participants were going to become Buddhists, and Gandhi answered that the vihara was no different from a temple of Rama or Krishna and part of the Hindu revival.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 182–183 (Kher's letter of 24 August 1936 and Gandhi's reply, both citing the ''Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi'' 69: 318–319); Ober (p. 183) adds that Birla also supported the Buddhist activism of [[Rahul Sankrityayan]], Jagdish Kashyap, Anand Kausalyayan, and Kosambi, who were then writing sharp criticisms of Hindu scriptures and of the Hindu Maha Sabha.</ref> Ober suggests that Ambedkar's distance from the vihara may have stemmed from his reluctance to accept anything financed by the Birlas and from Kosambi's being a Brahmin and a committed Gandhian.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 216; the reasons are described as unclear.</ref>

The question of Kosambi's place in [[BR Ambedkar|Ambedkar]]'s Buddhism is contested. Geetha describes him as being as resolute as Ambedkar in humanizing the Buddha, and Gokhale reports that Ambedkar accepted the account of the renunciation that Kosambi constructed from the Pali canon; the Samata Sainik Dal staged plays based on Kosambi's ''Buddhalila'' in the 1940s.<ref>Geetha (2021), n. 46 (pp. 290–291); Gokhale (Ed.) (2021), ''Classical Buddhism'', ch. 13 (P. Gokhale), p. 268; Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 218, citing Moon (2001), pp. 127–133.</ref> The editor of his writings states that Ambedkar's ''The Buddha and His Dhamma'' (1957) accepts Kosambi's reading of the renunciation without naming him or any other source, and that Ambedkar's lost Introduction may have contained a reference, as Kasbe suggests. Moon's list of sources (1995), as reported by the editor, cites Kosambi's ''Bodhisattva'' for the life of Gautama only, and Anand Kausalyayan says that the two men covered different ground.<ref>M. Kosambi (2010), Introduction, endnotes 70–72 (the editor's assertions); Kausalyayan, Bhadant Anand (1980). ''An Intelligent Man's Guide to Buddhism''. Buddha Bhoomi Prakashan (2nd ed., 1992), pp. 23, 110–111 (Questions 34–35 and 165). The renunciation account in Ambedkar's book is at ''Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches'' 11: 24–32.</ref> The sources do not settle how much Ambedkar owed to Kosambi.

== Writings ==
Kosambi wrote almost entirely in Marathi and Gujarati, and Meera Kosambi's volume of translations is the most accessible collection; its chronological bibliography lists his Marathi and Gujarati publications. Selections are listed below by the date of first publication.
* Kosambi, Dharmanand (1910). बुद्ध, धर्म आणि संघ ''Buddha, Dharma ani Sangha'' [The Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha]. {{annotation|Three of five lectures given at Baroda in 1909, printed with a grant of Rs 500 from the Gaekwad. The lectures treat the sangha, caste, and the councils, and an English translation of part of the text is in Selection 4 of Meera Kosambi's volume.}}
* Kosambi, Dharmanand (1910). ''Vajjinche Mahajanasattaak Rajya'' [The Republican State of the Vajjis]. ''Kesari'', 25 October 1910. {{annotation|A letter from Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the republican and collective structure of the early sangha. It is translated in Selection 5 as "Ancient Indian republics, the Buddhist sangha and socialism".}}
* Kosambi, Dharmanand (1910). ''Hindi Kamagaranchi Sthiti Sudharanyas Upaya'' [Measures for Improving the Condition of Indian Workers]. ''Subodha Patrika'', 23 October–4 December 1910. {{annotation|A four-part article on education, housing, and the duties of employers. It is translated in Selection 6.}}
* Kosambi, Dharmanand (1914). ''Buddhalila'' [The Buddha's Life]. {{annotation|A work on the Buddha's life named by Ober as the basis of the Samata Sainik Dal's plays; it is probably the work that the memoir cites as ''Buddhalilasarsangraha'', but this was not established.}}
* Kosambi, Dharmanand (1924). निवेदन ''Nivedan'' [Statement]. Manoranjak Granthaprasarak Mandali. {{annotation|His autobiography, which covers his life up to his stay in America and was serialized in ''Bharat'' from 1912. Selection 1 of Meera Kosambi's volume translates it, and it is the only first-hand account of the Madras Buddhist circle of 1903.}}
* Kosambi, Dharmanand (1926). बौद्ध संघाचा परिचय ''Bauddha Sanghacha Parichay'' [An Introduction to the Buddhist Sangha]. {{annotation|According to the editor of his writings, Part III gives life sketches of two monks from the oppressed castes.}}
* Kosambi, Dharmanand (1935). हिंदी संस्कृति आणि अहिंसा ''Hindi Sanskriti ani Ahimsa'' [Indian Civilization and Non-violence]. {{annotation|His fullest work of political theory, in which a Marxist scheme of history is tempered by Buddhist and Jain non-violence. Its last chapter is translated in Selection 7, and a Hindi translation of the whole book is cited by Ober.}}
* Kosambi, Dharmanand (1937–38). ''Khulasa'' [A Clarification]. {{annotation|Excerpts, translated in Selection 2, in which he recalls his work at Harvard, his first encounter with socialism, his conversations with Gandhi, and the satyagraha and imprisonment of 1930.}}
* Kosambi, Dharmanand (1940). भगवान बुद्ध ''Bhagavan Buddha'' [The Blessed Buddha]. Suvichar Prakashan Mandal (4th reprint 1989). {{annotation|A rationalist life of the Buddha based on the primary sources. It was issued in a thirteen-language edition by the Sahitya Akademi in 1956 and was, according to Sukhathankar as reported by the editor of Kosambi's writings, regarded by Ambedkar as the standard book.}}
* Kosambi, Dharmanand (1949). बोधिसत्त्व ''Bodhisattva'' [The Bodhisattva] (play). {{annotation|A play on the Buddha's renunciation, with a preface of 1945 and a foreword by Kalelkar; it is translated in Selection 8.}}
* Buddhaghosa (1950). ''Visuddhimagga''. Edited by Henry Clarke Warren; revised by Dharmananda Kosambi. Harvard Oriental Series 41. {{annotation|The critical edition on which Kosambi worked during his Harvard stays and completed in 1926. He also prepared a Devanagari edition.}}
* Kosambi, Meera (Ed.) (2010). ''Dharmanand Kosambi: The Essential Writings''. Permanent Black. {{annotation|English translations of his autobiography, essays, lectures, and the play, with the editor's Introduction (see below).}}

== Secondary Literature in English ==
* Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press. {{annotation|Chapter 6 ("When the Buddha Met Marx", pp. 230–241 on Kosambi) is the fullest recent account of his socialism and of ''Hindi Sanskriti ani Ahimsa''; pp. 215–216 and 182–183 treat the Bahujan Vihara, and n. 7 (p. 330) reports the dispute over the Harvard degree. Ober is the only author who takes up the question of how Kosambi's Buddhism and his Gandhism relate to Marxism at length.}}
* Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.) (2021). ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste''. Routledge. {{annotation|Gokhale's chapter 13 (p. 268) reports that Ambedkar accepted Kosambi's account of the renunciation, and Bagade's chapter 9 (p. 162) describes Kosambi's defense of the Buddhist past against Hindu attacks.}}
* Geetha, V. (2021). ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India''. Palgrave Macmillan. {{annotation|Note 46 places Kosambi and his play among Ambedkar's sources and says that Kosambi was drawn to socialism and spent time in the Soviet Union. The remark belongs to a larger argument about Ambedkar's socialism.}}
* Kosambi, Meera (Ed.) (2010). ''Dharmanand Kosambi: The Essential Writings''. Permanent Black. {{annotation|The editor's Introduction is the fullest biography in English and the source of the dates of his Harvard stays, the evidence on the doctorate, the account of the Bahujan Vihara, and the argument on Kosambi's priority in explaining Marx in Marathi. The Introduction's priority claim and its account of Ambedkar's debt are the editor's arguments.}}
* Ober, Douglas (2013). "'Like Embers Hidden in Ashes, or Jewels Encrusted in Stone': Rāhul Sāṅkṛtyāyan, Dharmānand Kosambī and Buddhist Activity in Colonial India". ''Contemporary Buddhism'' 14.1: 134–148. {{annotation|An earlier account that pairs Kosambi with [[Rahul Sankrityayan]]. It gives the Harvard doctorate as fact, which Ober (2023) withdraws.}}

== Secondary Literature in Other Languages ==

(''none identified'')

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "Dharmanand Kosambi". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Dharmanand_Kosambi</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[category:Dharmanand Kosambi]]
[[category:India]]
[[category:Biographies]]
[[category:Buddhist Marxism in India]]
[[Category: Tamil Buddhist movement]]
[[category:Dalit Buddhism]]

P Lakshmi Narasu

2026-10-27T11:08:12Z

Lajos: Created page with "{{Awaiting Review}} {{DISPLAYTITLE:P. Lakshmi Narasu}} P. Lakshmi Narasu (పోకాల లక్ష్మీ నరసు, ''Pōkāla Lakṣmī Narasu''; 1861–1934) was a Madras science professor, Buddhist rationalist, and leader of the Tamil Buddhist movement. The son of a Madras advocate, he taught at Madras Christian College and Pachaiyappa's College. After the death of Iyothee Thass in 1914 he became the leading figure of the Shakya Buddhist Society, and fro..."

{{Awaiting Review}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:P. Lakshmi Narasu}}
P. Lakshmi Narasu (పోకాల లక్ష్మీ నరసు, ''Pōkāla Lakṣmī Narasu''; 1861–1934) was a Madras science professor, Buddhist rationalist, and leader of the Tamil Buddhist movement. The son of a Madras advocate, he taught at Madras Christian College and Pachaiyappa's College. After the death of [[Iyothee Thass]] in 1914 he became the leading figure of the Shakya Buddhist Society, and from 1917 to 1932 he presided over the general conferences of its successor, the South Indian Buddhist Association. His books ''The Essence of Buddhism'' (1907), ''What is Buddhism?'' (1916), and ''A Study of Caste'' (1922) present Buddhism as a rational and this-worldly teaching, attack caste and the religion built on it, and describe the spirit of Buddhism as "essentially socialistic" in an ethical and cooperative sense.<ref name="ess45">Narasu, P. Lakshmi (1907). ''The Essence of Buddhism'' (Asian Educational Services, 1993), p. 45. Page numbers for this book refer to the Asian Educational Services reprint of the 1907 text.</ref> [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]] republished ''The Essence of Buddhism'' in 1948 with a preface that calls it the best book on Buddhism to that date.<ref name="al98">Aloysius, G. (1998). ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity: A Buddhist Movement among the Tamils under Colonialism''. New Age International, App. 10, pp. 230–232 (Ambedkar's preface to the third edition, dated 10 March 1948).</ref>

== Biography ==
Narasu was born in 1861 and died on 14 July 1934.<ref name="dates">Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press, p. 140 (1861–1934); Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 65 (born 1860) and 99 (died 14 July 1934). Sources print his name in several ways: "P. Lakshmi Narasu" (used here), "Laxmi Narasu" (Ayyathurai, Gajendran (2011). ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness: Pandit Iyothee Thass, Tamil Buddhism, and the Marginalized in South India''. PhD dissertation, Columbia University, pp. 136, 214), "Lakshminarasu" (Geetha, V., & S.V. Rajadurai (1998). ''Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium: From Iyothee Thass to Periyar''. Samya), "Lakshminarasu Naidu" (Kosambi, Dharmanand (1924). निवेदन ''Nivedan'' [Statement] (Marathi). Manoranjak Granthaprasarak Mandali, p. 115), and "Laximnarasu Naidu" (Murugesan, K., & C.S. Subramanyam (1975). ''Singaravelu: First Communist in South India''. People's Publishing House, p. 8). Geetha and Rajadurai, Kosambi, and Murugesan and Subramanyam do not state that their man is the author of ''The Essence of Buddhism''; the identification, which is very probable, is assumed in this article wherever one of these sources is cited. The college is spelled "Pachaiyappa College" by Ober and "Pachiappa's College" by Aloysius.</ref> According to Douglas Ober, he was the son of a prominent advocate in the Madras courts and a product of colonial schools; he studied the physical sciences at Madras University, was appointed assistant professor at Madras Christian College, moved in 1908 to Pachaiyappa's College, and taught there until his retirement in 1924.<ref name="ober23">Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 140. Ober calls his field chemistry. Ambedkar's preface of 1948 (Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', p. 231) and Aloysius (1998, p. 65) say physics; Ayyathurai (2011, p. 214 n. 307) says physics; Bahulkar says physics and chemistry (in: Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.) (2021). ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste''. Routledge, ch. 8, p. 152); and Anagarika Dharmapala's introduction of 1907 says only "professor of science". Ambedkar's preface calls him principal of Pachaiyappa's College, which no other source consulted states.</ref> Aloysius, whose introduction to Narasu's posthumous collection is Ober's main biographical source, writes that Narasu came from a "backward" community but that his family had risen to respectable positions under colonial rule; he also reports a Telugu background and only a rudimentary command of Tamil.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 140 (summarizing Aloysius's introduction to Narasu, P. Lakshmi (2002). ''Religion of the Modern Buddhist''. Edited and introduced by G. Aloysius. Samyak Prakashan, p. xv); Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', p. 82.</ref>

Narasu took part in the Buddhist societies of Madras from about the turn of the century. Aloysius lists him with M. Singaravelu among the lecturers of the Madras Buddhist programme from about 1898 to 1900 and calls him an early companion of Thass.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 58, 65.</ref> In 1903 the Marathi Buddhist [[Dharmanand Kosambi]] found in Madras a Maha Bodhi Sabha whose president, a Professor Lakshminarasu Naidu, was probably Narasu; he was Kosambi's teacher in comparative religion and sometimes lectured at the Sunday gatherings of the Bauddhashram in Royapettah.<ref>Kosambi (1924), निवेदन ''Nivedan'', pp. 115–116. The pages do not name Thass, and the identification of the "Lakshminarasu Naidu" named there with Narasu is an inference.</ref> Murugesan and Subramanyam name Narasu and Singaravelu as the principal speakers at the meetings of the Madras [[Maha Bodhi Society]].<ref>Murugesan & Subramanyam (1975), ''Singaravelu'', pp. 8, 146.</ref> Accounts of his relationship with Thass differ. Ayyathurai calls Narasu an associate of Thass; V. Geetha writes that the two worked together briefly and then "parted ways", Narasu being the more rationalist and Thass the more esoteric; and Kosambi's account of 1903 shows the Maha Bodhi circle and Thass's followers as separate groups that did not get on.<ref>Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'', pp. 136, 214 n. 307; Geetha, V. (2021). ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India''. Palgrave Macmillan, p. 266; Kosambi (1924), निवेदन ''Nivedan'', p. 115. Thass's own writings examined for the entry on [[Iyothee Thass]] do not name Narasu. Ober (2023, p. 228) writes that the relations of Singaravelu with both Thass and Narasu appear to have been strained.</ref>

Narasu's first book, ''The Essence of Buddhism'', grew out of essays that he had contributed to South Indian magazines, and it appeared in 1907 with an introduction by Dharmapala.<ref>Narasu (1907), ''Essence of Buddhism'', Preface, p. vii; Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', p. 65. Ober (2023, p. 141 and bibliography) dates Dharmapala's foreword to a 1912 edition; Ayyathurai's bibliography records a Madras edition of 1912 published by S. Varadachari; the third edition, with Ambedkar's preface, was published at Bombay by Thacker & Co. in 1948 (Aloysius 1998, App. 10, p. 232).</ref> After Thass's death in 1914, Ober writes, the leadership of the Shakya Buddhist Society turned to Narasu, who became its president and, according to Ober, opened new branches, lectured at national conferences, and presided over conversions and over reformed marriage ceremonies that did without brahmin priests.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 140.</ref> Aloysius adds that the movement regarded him as Thass's successor, although members from the Kolar Gold Fields elected M.Y. Murugesam general president.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', p. 83 n. 16.</ref> Narasu presided over the first four General Conferences of the (South Indian) Buddhist Association, held at Madras on 4 November 1917, at Bangalore on 21 November 1920, at Madras on 6–8 April 1928, and on 21 May 1932.<ref name="conf">Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 89, 97–98 and App. 5–9, pp. 209–229 (the resolutions, in Aloysius's translation). The conferences are numbered inconsistently in the source.</ref> The resolutions passed at them included, in 1928, a membership test that rejected idol worship, ritual customs, and caste discrimination; marriage reform, including a wedding badge (''thali'') bearing the Bodhi tree and the wheel of the Dharma, and equal inheritance for men and women on the Burmese model, on motions of Narasu; requests for a separate Buddhist column in the census and separate seats in the legislatures; and, in 1917 and 1920, expressions of loyalty to the British government.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', App. 5–9, pp. 209–229 (1928 res. 3; 1920 res. 1 and 7; 1928 res. 16). The 1920 address was to George V and "the benign British Government of India"; the 1917 resolution presented the abolition of caste as beneficial to the government. The sources used do not say at which conference each of Narasu's motions was moved.</ref> The 1928 conference authorized him to present its resolutions to the government and to brief the Simon Commission; its guests included E.V. Ramasamy Naicker (Periyar) and M. Singaravelu, but the source does not record what they said.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 97, 209–229 (1928 res. 15 and 21). In 1930 the Narasingapuram branch was revived through the efforts of Narasu, Singaravelu, and others (p. 95).</ref>

Narasu's relations with the Maha Bodhi Society worsened as his materialist reading of karma and rebirth and his criticism of the sangha became known. The Society had helped to fund the Perambur vihara of the Shakya Buddhist Society, completed according to Ober in 1920, and it published a report of a South Indian Buddhist conference at Bangalore that omitted key sentences of Narasu's presidential message.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 142. Ober's text places the censored message at the second conference, held at Bangalore, but his n. 80 (p. 314) compares two printings of the transcript of the third conference of 1928 (the Maha Bodhi Society's journal, vol. 36/7, 1928, pp. 329–32, and the ''Indian Social Reformer'', vol. 38, 1927–28, pp. 584–86). Aloysius's chronology records the opening of the Perambur vihara in May 1922; the difference is not explained.</ref> In the four years before his death the rift became open, and the Maha Bodhi Society sued Narasu in a civil court, claiming that he had illegally occupied the vihara premises; Ober reports that the case was resolved only sixty years later in the Madras High Court.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 143 and n. 83 (p. 314), which gives the case numbers as OS 2736 of 1981 and CS 274 of 1980 and refers to articles in the Maha Bodhi Society's journal of 1932–34 for the Society's side of the dispute. Thass had criticized the Madras members of the Society in 1911 (see [[Iyothee Thass]]).</ref>

Narasu appeared in public life outside the Association as well. A "Lakshminarasu" described as a Buddhist scholar and friend of the Adi Dravidas criticized Annie Besant in ''New India'' on 17 November 1916 for saying that a Paraiyar must work out his karma, and in an address to the South Indian Buddhist Association reported in ''Kudi Arasu'' of 29 March 1931 he is reported to have called the Buddha's creed the oldest samadharmic creed in existence.<ref>Geetha & Rajadurai (1998), ''Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium'', ch. 1, p. 20, and ch. 11, p. 2 (the page numbers restart in each chapter of the electronic copy used). The gloss "in this instance socialism" is the authors', not Narasu's, and whether the word "samadharmic" renders Narasu's own words was not checked; the reports of both items are second-hand.</ref> The Association's conference of 1932 recommended his ''Essence of Buddhism'' in Tamil as its authoritative book.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', App. 5–9, pp. 225, 228 (the 1945 conference approved a Tamil explanation of Buddhism based on the book as the common text).</ref> In 1934, according to Aloysius, Narasu rejected the argument of C.K. Kuppusamy that Buddhism and world communism do not differ.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', p. 106 n. 4, which cites an issue of a 1934 periodical given as "TMLN" 8:38; the periodical was not seen.</ref> A sympathetic Bombay journalist who visited several branches of the Society in 1936 regretted that its leadership had not followed either Thass or Narasu.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 197.</ref>

== Ideas ==
Narasu presented Buddhism as a religion of reason and experience that does not rest on authority. He described ''The Essence of Buddhism'' as the humble offering of a disciple, laying no claim to originality, and accepted nothing as the Master's teaching that is not in strict accord with reason.<ref>Narasu (1907), ''Essence of Buddhism'', Preface, p. vii.</ref> Ober connects this rationalism with the Kalama Sutta, which Narasu took to set aside "all recourse to authority or revelation", and reports that in a presidential message he declared that even the words of a Buddha must be rejected if they do not accord with reason.<ref>Narasu, P. Lakshmi (1916). ''What is Buddhism?'' (Samyak Prakashan, 2009), p. 21, as quoted in Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 142; the presidential message is described on the same page.</ref> His reading was also materialist. He denied the soul and held, on the basis of the doctrines of non-self and impermanence, that the karma of a sentient being passes to others in this life only; he called karma a fatalism that blinds believers to the injustice of social conditions and has consecrated the division of society into castes, and he added that those forms of Buddhism that accommodated themselves to transmigration eventually succumbed to the caste regime.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 142; Narasu, P. Lakshmi (1922). ''A Study of Caste''. K.V. Raghavulu, pp. 134–135, 135–143. Page numbers for ''A Study of Caste'' refer to the 1922 text; the reprints of 1988 and 2003 were not compared.</ref> He did not reject religion as such: the Foreword of ''A Study of Caste'' aims at religion "whose life-blood is caste", and a chapter of the same book argues that the denial of soul and God does not imply the denial of all religion, defining religion as a plan of action for realizing the human hope of a life free from suffering.<ref>Narasu (1922), ''Study of Caste'', Foreword and pp. 153–155.</ref> His criticism extended to the sangha, in which Ober says he saw the same obscurantism and dogma that he despised in other religions, and which he thought had to change and become more socially engaged.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 142, 148.</ref>

Caste was Narasu's central target, and he treated it as inseparable from Hinduism. He presented the Buddha as a Kshatriya who rejected caste and the sacrificial system, and he argued, with a long passage attributed to the Buddha and with a summary of Asvaghosha's ''Vajrasuchi'', that Brahmin and Chandala do not differ by birth.<ref>Narasu (1922), ''Study of Caste'', pp. 27–30, 44–45; Narasu (1907), ''Essence of Buddhism'', pp. 70–71, 79–82. Narasu does not separate the words of the Buddha from those of the ''Vajrasuchi''.</ref> Among the Buddha's lay followers, he wrote, caste distinctions had no religious significance, and perhaps social conditions prevented the Buddha from preaching a general crusade against caste.<ref>Narasu (1922), ''Study of Caste'', p. 31.</ref> He held that Brahminical civilization had barely penetrated South India by about 700 CE, so that the South Indian Brahmin was a newcomer and hence more exclusive.<ref>Narasu (1922), ''Study of Caste'', p. 72.</ref> He was also critical of non-Brahmin Hindus: the non-Brahmin, he wrote, had not budged an inch to throw off caste, and even the despised classes were prepared to enter the caste system if its doors were opened to them.<ref>Narasu (1922), ''Study of Caste'', p. 107.</ref> Caste, in his account, had made India a pleasant place for the Brahmin at the cost of suffering and destitution for the depressed classes.<ref>Narasu (1922), ''Study of Caste'', p. 125.</ref>

Narasu's economic critique is the strand in his work that is closest to the left, and it is ethical and cooperative, not Marxist. In the chapter on the morality of Buddhism he wrote that the spirit of Buddhism is "essentially socialistic", meaning that it teaches concerted action (''samanartha'') for social ends, and that it is opposed to an industrialism driven by the struggle for wealth.<ref>Narasu (1907), ''Essence of Buddhism'', p. 45.</ref> He then argued that the accumulation of capital in a few hands has no ethical justification, that capital is not the product of individual saving but surplus seized from producers, and that this differs little from theft; he drew on Herbert Spencer's ''Social Statics'' for the origin of landed property in violence and fraud, called modern imperialism a manifestation of a robbing propensity, and still held that even extreme need cannot justify seizing the goods of others.<ref>Narasu (1907), ''Essence of Buddhism'', p. 46. The surplus-from-producers formulation is not attributed to any author in the passage.</ref> In ''A Study of Caste'' he wanted labor to have a share in the management of industry, with joint responsibility of laborer and capitalist, and he noted that seven tenths of the world's wealth and the control of the means of production were in the hands of a few; among the measures that create real opportunity he listed the abolition of special privilege and a wider and more equal distribution of wealth.<ref>Narasu (1922), ''Study of Caste'', pp. 121, 125–127. The Foreword states that the book gives no references, and some of its passages are borrowed from other authors without attribution.</ref> These passages contain no class-struggle language and no program. Ober groups Narasu with Thass and Singaravelu as anti-caste writers who portrayed early Buddhism as a religion of the oppressed, and adds that these portrayals made no explicit reference to Marxist doctrine.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 230.</ref>

Narasu's politics combined hostility to Hindu nationalism, a limited criticism of colonial rule, and a faith in education. He attacked the nationalists who boasted that India's social system had been perfected in antiquity, and he held that foreign conquest had been possible only because of the country's spiritual and social slavery.<ref>Narasu (1922), ''Study of Caste'', pp. 111, 113.</ref> He also criticized the colonial government for ruling India for its own prestige and for spending more on the police, the magistracy, the secret service, and the military than on education.<ref>Narasu (1922), ''Study of Caste'', pp. 107–108.</ref> The remedy that he proposed was mass education and not electoral reform, though he also wrote that revolutions had historically given the masses their chances of cultural progress and praised Japan's abolition of caste.<ref>Narasu (1922), ''Study of Caste'', pp. 109, 111, 157–158.</ref> The record of the Buddhist Association under his presidency was loyalist and constitutional, and its resolutions did not go beyond demands for caste-based social justice, women's property rights, and rural housing and land.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', App. 5–9, pp. 209–229. The request for land at Vallathur in North Arcot dates from the conference of 1945, which G. Appaduraiyar chaired, after Narasu's death.</ref> His treatment of women was reformist in the same way: he wrote that the Buddha placed man and woman on an equal footing in theory but that in practice woman "stands much lower", he blamed this on later brahmanical influence, and he cited Burma as showing what equality could achieve.<ref>Narasu (1907), ''Essence of Buddhism'', pp. 89–96 (the quoted words at p. 92, which Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 149, cites to a different edition with the same page number); Narasu (1916), ''What is Buddhism?'', p. 82, as quoted in Ober (2023), p. 150.</ref>

The sources diverge on Narasu's place between Thass and Ambedkar. Ober, drawing on Aloysius, stresses that Narasu's family had risen in colonial society, that he knew English and French well, and that his scientific training gave him access to the circle of men of consequence in Madras; Ober adds that some of the Society's members found his Buddhism too "strange" and "scientific", while Kesava Kumar, following Aloysius, attributes that judgment to Thass, who is said to have rejected a Buddhism that did not make anti-casteism central.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 140–142; Gokhale (Ed.) (2021), ''Classical Buddhism'', ch. 12 (P. Kesava Kumar), p. 241, citing Aloysius, G. (2004). ''Dalit-Subaltern Emergence in Religio-Cultural Subjectivity: Iyothee Thassar & Emancipatory Buddhism''. Critical Quest, p. xvi. That page does not exist in the 48-page edition of Aloysius (2004) examined for this entry, and the judgment was not found in Thass's own texts. Ober (p. 142) attributes the judgment to the Society's members, without naming Thass.</ref> Ambedkar's preface of 1948 says that he never met Narasu and took his biographical details from Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya; it describes him as an iconoclast and social reformer who fought caste in the 1890s and calls ''The Essence of Buddhism'' "the best book on Buddhism that has appeared so far".<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', App. 10, pp. 230–232. Aloysius (p. 187) says that Ambedkar read the book in the early 1940s; Ayyathurai (2011, p. 214 n. 307) dates the preface to 1943, and Ober (2023, p. 314 n. 77), Geetha (2021, pp. 269–270), and Ambedkar's own preface give 1948. Ober (p. 327 n. 43) reports, from a collection edited by Singh, that during a visit to the Lucknow vihara in the 1940s Ambedkar could not obtain a copy of the book, which was out of print, and that Bhikkhu Bodhananda supplied one; the identity of this Bodhananda with other persons of the name is unsettled.</ref> Geetha lists Narasu with Dharmanand Kosambi and Haraprasad Shastri among the writers who appealed to Ambedkar because they treated the Buddha's presence in Indian history as consequential and his teaching as radical, and she writes that Ambedkar learned of the South Indian movement chiefly through Narasu's writings and the contacts of the Scheduled Castes Federation at Madras, but she also doubts that he knew Narasu's work on caste.<ref>Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', pp. 157, 269–270, 273.</ref> Ayyathurai finds no direct archival evidence for a link between Thass and Ambedkar and treats Narasu as the main indirect bridge.<ref>Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'', pp. 136, 214 n. 307.</ref> Contemporary reception was mixed. Devapriya Valisinha, writing in 1946, called Narasu's interpretations of karma and rebirth "alarmingly materialistic", and Ober cites a critical review of ''The Essence of Buddhism'' by Louis de la Vallée Poussin (1913).<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 142 (Valisinha's introduction to Narasu (1916), ''What is Buddhism?'', p. 14) and p. 314 n. 79 (La Vallée Poussin's review, ''Anthropos'' 8.2–3: 579–580).</ref>

== Writings ==
* Narasu, P. Lakshmi (1907). ''The Essence of Buddhism'' (Asian Educational Services, 1993). {{annotation|Based on essays first contributed to South Indian magazines, with an introduction by Anagarika Dharmapala, and containing chapters on the morality of Buddhism, on caste, and on the position of women. Later editions appeared at Madras in 1912 and at Bombay in 1948 with Ambedkar's preface.}}
* Narasu, P. Lakshmi (1916). ''What is Buddhism?'' (Samyak Prakashan, 2009). {{annotation|A shorter statement of Narasu's rationalist presentation of the doctrine, which Ober says went through more than fourteen editions and was translated into German, Japanese, and Slovak. The 2009 edition reprints an introduction by Devapriya Valisinha of 1946; an edition of 1964 was published by the Maha Bodhi Society of India at Calcutta.}}
* Narasu, P. Lakshmi (1922). ''A Study of Caste''. K.V. Raghavulu. {{annotation|His fullest argument against caste, based on articles that appeared in an unnamed Madras social-reform weekly. The Foreword is dated 2 January 1922, the book gives no references, and its chapters deal with the Buddhist critique of caste, Hindu reform movements, race and heredity, economics, and the doctrines of karma, soul, and God.}}
* Narasu, P. Lakshmi, & C. Manickkam (1924). பௌத்த தர்மமும் இந்து மதமும் ''Pauththa Tharmamum Indu Mathamum'' [The Buddhist Dharma and the Hindu Religion]. {{annotation|A Tamil work listed in the Tamil bibliography of Aloysius (1998, p. 236).}} 
* Narasu, P. Lakshmi (2002). ''Religion of the Modern Buddhist''. Edited and introduced by G. Aloysius. Samyak Prakashan. {{annotation|A posthumous collection that Aloysius connects with a manuscript that Ambedkar collected from Narasu's family and promised to publish. Ober cites it for Narasu's account of karma and for his reformed marriage ceremonies.}}

== Secondary Literature in English ==
* Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press. {{annotation|Chapter 3 gives the fullest recent account of Narasu's career, his presidency of the Shakya Buddhist Society, and his conflict with the Maha Bodhi Society, with notes on the sources. It treats him as a rationalist among several rival Buddhist revivals.}}
* Geetha, V. (2021). ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India''. Palgrave Macmillan. {{annotation|Places Narasu among the writers who shaped Ambedkar's Buddhism and discusses the preface of 1948. Its remarks on Narasu are brief and belong to a larger argument about Ambedkar's socialism.}}
* Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.) (2021). ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste''. Routledge. {{annotation|Several chapters name Narasu as a predecessor of Ambedkar. The chapter by Bimalendra Kumar quotes the sentence on the "socialistic" spirit of Buddhism but cites it to a 1912 edition, page 7, which does not match the reprint consulted here (page 45).}}
* Ayyathurai, Gajendran (2011). ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness: Pandit Iyothee Thass, Tamil Buddhism, and the Marginalized in South India''. PhD dissertation, Columbia University. {{annotation|Mentions Narasu only as an associate of Thass and as the main indirect link to Ambedkar; footnote 307 (p. 214) is a short biographical note. The dissertation finds no direct archival evidence of a connection between Thass and Ambedkar.}}
* Aloysius, G. (1998). ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity: A Buddhist Movement among the Tamils under Colonialism''. New Age International. {{annotation|The standard monograph on the Sakya Buddhist Society and the South Indian Buddhist Association. It records Narasu's presidency of four conferences, translates their resolutions, and reprints Ambedkar's preface of 1948 (App. 10).}}

== Secondary Literature in Other Languages ==

(''none identified'')
== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "P Lakshmi Narasu". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/P_Lakshmi_Narasu</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[category:P Lakshmi Narasu]]
[[category:India]]
[[category:Biographies]]
[[Category: Tamil Buddhist movement]]

Iyothee Thass

2026-10-27T11:07:37Z

Lajos: Created page with "{{Awaiting Review}} Iyothee Thass (அயோத்திதாசர், ''Ayothidasar''; 1845–1914) was a Tamil Siddha physician, journalist, and religious reformer, born into the Parayar caste, which was classified as "untouchable". In 1898 he founded the Sakya Buddhist Society in Madras (now Chennai), and from 1907 until his death he edited the weekly ''Oru Paisa Tamilan''. He argued that the casteless Dravidians were India's original inhabitants and its origina..."

{{Awaiting Review}}
Iyothee Thass (அயோத்திதாசர், ''Ayothidasar''; 1845–1914) was a Tamil Siddha physician, journalist, and religious reformer, born into the Parayar caste, which was classified as "untouchable". In 1898 he founded the Sakya Buddhist Society in Madras (now Chennai), and from 1907 until his death he edited the weekly ''Oru Paisa Tamilan''. He argued that the casteless Dravidians were [[India]]'s original inhabitants and its original Buddhists, and that caste was imposed on them by immigrant "false Brahmins". Dickens Leonard describes him as the first to develop an anti-caste narrative by espousing and writing on Buddhism, which places him well before [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]]'s conversion in 1956.<ref name="leo21">Leonard, Dickens (2021). "Caste-Less Tamils and Early Print Public Sphere: Remembering Iyothee Thass (1845–1914)". ''South Asia Research'' 41.3: 349–368, p. 351.</ref><ref name="leo25">Leonard, Dickens (2025). "Iyothee Thassar's Buddha and Civilizational Memory". In: Banerjee, Prathama (Ed.), ''Textual Lives of Caste Across the Ages: Hierarchy, Humanity and Equality in Indian History'': 113–127. Bloomsbury Academic, p. 114. The chapter is dated by the volume (2025); the chapter's own date is not printed.</ref> Thass combined Buddhism with anti-caste emancipation through institutional Buddhist activism and personal conversion. He praised British rule, opposed the swadeshi movement, and proposed self-improvement and institution-building rather than redistribution.

== Biography ==
Thass was born Kathavarayan on 20 May 1845 in the Coimbatore district to a Parayar family; he grew up in the Nilgiris and later settled in Madras.<ref name="al98">Aloysius, G. (1998). ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity: A Buddhist Movement among the Tamils under Colonialism''. New Age International, p. 50 n. 1. Sources print his name in several ways: "Iyothee Thass" (used here), "Iyothee Thassar" (used by Aloysius in his later works), "Pandit C. Iyothee Thass" (Aloysius 1998, p. 58), "Ayothidasa Pandithar", and, in his own English signature of 1911, "Pandit C. Iyothee Doss". His birth year is given as 1845 by Aloysius (1998, p. 50) and in the portrait caption of the collected edition of his writings (cited below); LeVine and Gellner give 1865 (LeVine, Sarah, & David N. Gellner (2005). ''Rebuilding Buddhism: The Theravada Movement in Twentieth-Century Nepal''. Harvard University Press, p. 9), probably a slip.</ref> He took the name Iyothee Thass in honor of his teacher, a Siddha physician, practiced Siddha medicine himself, and is described as proficient in Tamil, Pali, Sanskrit, and English.<ref>Leonard (2021), "Caste-Less Tamils", p. 352; Ayyathurai, Gajendran (2011). ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness: Pandit Iyothee Thass, Tamil Buddhism, and the Marginalized in South India''. PhD dissertation, Columbia University, pp. 21, 216. All translations from Tamil in this dissertation are the author's own (p. 24 n. 51).</ref>

According to Aloysius, his public activity began in the Nilgiris with the Advaidananda Sabha organization (1870) and continued with requests, from 1881, that the "outcastes" be recorded in the census as original Tamils rather than Hindus.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 54–55; Aloysius, G. (2004). ''Dalit-Subaltern Emergence in Religio-Cultural Subjectivity: Iyothee Thassar & Emancipatory Buddhism''. Critical Quest, p. 24; Leonard (2021), "Caste-Less Tamils", p. 351. Aloysius (2004) lists the Dravida Mahajana Sabha (1891) and the Advaidananda Sabha (1870) as the first organization without stating how they relate.</ref> Leonard credits him and the Rev. John Rathinam with starting the magazine ''Dravida Pandian'' in 1885.<ref>Leonard (2021), "Caste-Less Tamils", p. 363.</ref> In 1891 he helped to found the Dravida Mahajana Sabha, whose memorial of ten demands was addressed to the Indian National Congress in December 1891. The first demand would have made it an offense to call anyone a "Parayan"; others concerned separate schools, scholarships, public employment, and access to all public water tanks and wells.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', p. 55 and App. 1, pp. 195–196 (a translation from the ''Tamilan'' of 14 October 1908, where Thass reprinted the memorandum); Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'', pp. 59–60.</ref> In April 1892 he attended a meeting of the Madras Mahajana Sabha. In his own later account, a speaker repeated a legend that the poet Valluvar was born of a Brahmin father, and Thass retorted by asking from whose seed the Parayar B.A. and M.A. graduates, and the Iyer Brahmins held in jail, had been born.<ref>Aloysius, G. (Ed.) (1999). அயோத்திதாசர் சிந்தனைகள் ''Iyothee Thassar Cinthanaikal'' [Thoughts of Iyothee Thass], vols. 1–2. FRRC, St Xavier's College, vol. 1, item 56, pp. 132–134 (''Tamilan'' 2:34, 3 February 1909). The ''Tamilan'' issue number marks the end of the installment it names. Other versions of the meeting, including a temple-entry plea that was rejected, are in Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'', pp. 22–24, and Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', p. 152.</ref> Ayyathurai reads the episode as the point at which Thass concluded that the caste and casteless populations shared no common identity; Aloysius argues that the rebuff sent him on a "search and research" that led him to conclude that the outcastes had originally been Buddhists.<ref>Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'', pp. 22–23; Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', p. 152; Aloysius (2004), ''Dalit-Subaltern Emergence'', pp. 25–27.</ref>

In 1898 Thass and a colleague, P. Krishnaswami, delegates of "Paraiah" committees, approached Henry Steel Olcott of the Theosophical Society at Adyar, and on 1 July 1898 sailed with him to [[Sri Lanka|Colombo]], where Thass took the Five Precepts from the monk Hikkaduwe Sumangala at the Maligakanda monastery.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 50–53, drawing on Olcott's diary and on Thass; Thass's own English account of 1911 is in Aloysius (1999), vol. 2, item 82, pp. 180–181. Olcott's diary records that the delegates described their people as the aboriginal Buddhists of Asoka's time, and its editor remarks that this had not been proved (Aloysius 1998, p. 51 n. 4). Ayyathurai (2011, p. 216) calls the event a "baptism" by a Sinhala monk; Aloysius's account indicates that it was the taking of the precepts, not ordination.</ref> On his return he established the Sakya Buddhist Society at Royapettah, with himself as general secretary; it opened branches at Kolar, Bangalore, Tirupattur, Secunderabad, Rangoon, and Durban, and Aloysius links its growth to miners, sappers, railway workers, and migrants to Burma and Natal.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', p. 55; Aloysius (1999), vol. 2, item 82, pp. 180–184, which lists the branches and their secretaries; on the social base of the branches see also pp. 45–47 and 183 of Aloysius (1998). The date of his Buddhist turn varies: 1890 in his own appeal of 1911 ("So long back as the year 1890 I came to be convinced ... of the truths of Buddhism") and in Aloysius (2004), p. 28; 1898 in Aloysius (1998) and in his own later account; 1899 in Ayyathurai, Gajendran (2020). "Living Buddhism: Migration, Memory, and Castelessness in South India". ''History and Anthropology'' (online first, 14 December 2020): 1–19, p. 9 n. 5, which also dates the first Sakya Buddhist Association at Royapettah to 1899.</ref> In 1903 the Marathi Buddhist [[Dharmanand Kosambi]], during a stay in Madras, described a "Pandit Ayodhidas", probably Thass, as the leader of the city's Parayar Buddhists, who "did not get on" with the members of the Madras [[Maha Bodhi Society]], led by [[P Lakshmi Narasu|P. Lakshmi Narasu]]; Kosambi brought the groups together at a Bauddhashram in Royapettah.<ref>Kosambi, Dharmanand (1924). निवेदन ''Nivedan'' [Statement] (Marathi). Manoranjak Granthaprasarak Mandali, p. 115 (read from the page image). The page does not give the name "Thass"; the identification of "Ayodhidas" with Thass is an inference, as is the identification of the "Lakshminarasu Naidu" named there as president with Narasu (very probable).</ref> Ober reports that after Thass's death in 1914 the leadership of the Shakya Buddhist Society turned to Narasu, who became its president, while V. Geetha writes that the two parted ways, Narasu being the more rationalist; Thass's own writings examined in researching this article do not mention Narasu.<ref>Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press, pp. 135–143; Geetha, V. (2021). ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India''. Palgrave Macmillan, p. 266. In his appeal of 1911 Thass names the American writer Paul Carus as the Society's president (Aloysius 1999, vol. 2, item 82, p. 181).</ref>

From 19 June 1907 Thass published and edited the weekly ''Oru Paisa Tamilan'' ("The One-Pice Tamilian"), later simply ''The Tamilan'', which included a women's column and campaigned for women's education.<ref>Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'', p. 21; Leonard (2021), "Caste-Less Tamils", pp. 351–353; Aloysius, G. (2010). ''Dalit-Subaltern Self-Identifications: Iyothee Thassar & Tamizhan''. Critical Quest, pp. 11–13, which puts its circulation at a couple of thousand at most; Ayyathurai (2020), "Living Buddhism", p. 14.</ref> Through it he serialized his historical writings, attacked brahmin-led nationalism and the swadeshi movement, and campaigned for the 1911 census, in which he urged the casteless to be recorded as "Indian Buddhists"; the Madras government agreed to show Buddhists separately.<ref>Aloysius (1999), vol. 1, items 175 (''Tamilan'' 4:27, 14 December 1910; pp. 307–308) and 187 (4:34, 1 February 1911; pp. 321–322); Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'', pp. 133–139; Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', p. 74.</ref> In May 1911 he answered a reader who asked why he did not attend the Maha Bodhi Society's meetings in Madras: he objected that its members, while preaching that Buddhism had no caste, said they would teach the "lower classes" and thereby raised themselves, and that they denied rebirth and held that death was the end.<ref>Aloysius (1999), vol. 2, item 73, pp. 168–169 (''Tamilan'' 4:49, 17 May 1911). The doctrine is attributed to the Madras members, not to Anagarika Dharmapala. See also Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 145, 160. In item 100 (below) Thass attacks two unnamed men who "keep caste yet preach new Buddhism"; the sources do not identify them.</ref> His appeal of 1911 to Buddhists abroad says that honest co-workers are hard to find in "caste-ridden India" and asks European and American Buddhists to send missionaries.<ref>Aloysius (1999), vol. 2, item 82, pp. 180–184.</ref> In 1913 he described the Society's practices (images of the Buddha, the Five Precepts through monks, loyalty to British rule) and its achievements, including a separate census column and a separate burial ground.<ref>Aloysius (1999), vol. 2, item 100, pp. 439–441 (''Tamilan'' 6:51, 28 May 1913).</ref> His book ''Adivedam'' (the "first Veda") became, according to Ayyathurai, his most important work and remains the core text of the Hubli Buddhist community.<ref>Ayyathurai (2020), "Living Buddhism", p. 10; Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'', p. 101 n. 158. The date is given as 1911 by Ayyathurai (2020) and as a public release on 31 August 1912 by Aloysius (1998, p. 75); Aloysius (1999), pp. xlvii–xlviii, treats ''Adi Vedam'' (1912) as the one posthumous book that the movement did not alter, because it appeared under Thass's own supervision.</ref>

Thass died on 5 May 1914; Burmese monks officiated at the funeral.<ref name="al98d">Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', p. 79. Ayyathurai (2011, p. 75) gives only the year.</ref> The ''Tamilan'' continued under his eldest son, C.I. Pattabiram, until 1917 and was revived in 1921 under G. Appaduraiyar.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 81, 88; Aloysius (2010), ''Dalit-Subaltern Self-Identifications'', pp. 11–13. Ayyathurai (2011, p. 21) and Leonard (2021, p. 351) give 29 April 1914 as the end of the weekly; the sources do not explain the difference.</ref> The Society's successor, the South Indian Buddhist Association, held general conferences between 1917 and 1945, most of them under Narasu's presidency (see [[Tamil Buddhist Movement]]).<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 89–101 and App. 5–9, pp. 209–229.</ref>

== Ideas ==
Thass's central argument, made in the ''Tamilan'' serials and in ''Indirar Desa Sarithiram'', was historical: the casteless Dravidians (his term for the people later called Parayars or Panchamas) were the original inhabitants of India, Buddhism was their religion, and caste was the work of foreign newcomers who took refuge in Buddhist monasteries as "false Brahmins" (வேஷபிராமணர்கள்), were expelled, and then slandered and degraded their hosts.<ref>Aloysius (1999), vol. 1, item 56, pp. 118–137 (''Tamilan'' 2:23–2:37, 18 November 1908–24 February 1909), and item 20, pp. 600–679 (the serial ''Indirar Desa Sarithiram''; the newcomers are Persians in this text). His account of the sequence of events is not always consistent across passages, including the derivation of the word ''paraiyar''.</ref> He read the old Tamil names of occupations and callings (valluvar, vanigar, velalar, and others) as Buddhist honorifics that the newcomers later converted into hereditary castes, argued that India's name derives from Indra, a name of the Buddha, and claimed that many Hindu temples were originally Buddhist monasteries.<ref>Aloysius (1999), vol. 1, item 56, pp. 119–122 (''Tamilan'' 2:24–2:25) and pp. 134–136 (''Tamilan'' 2:35–2:36); item 20, pp. 600–605; vol. 2, item 3, pp. 10–26.</ref> Ober presents this thesis as a cornerstone of twentieth-century Dalit Buddhist thought.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 139.</ref> Ayyathurai observes that the argument depends heavily on the theory of an Aryan invasion, although Thass treated Sanskrit and Tamil as sister languages derived from Pali, and Leonard calls that theory discredited; V. Geetha and S.V. Rajadurai call him an "amateur philologist" whose history follows imaginative rather than empirical rules of inquiry.<ref>Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'', p. 48; Leonard (2025), "Iyothee Thassar's Buddha", p. 115; Geetha, V., & S.V. Rajadurai (1998). ''Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium: From Iyothee Thass to Periyar''. Samya, ch. 3, pp. 15, 20 (the page numbers restart in each chapter of the electronic copy used).</ref> Aloysius compares the method, which he calls "going back along the route of degradation", to Freudian catharsis, the Marxian critique of ideology, and Habermasian hermeneutics — these are Aloysius's comparisons, not Thass's.<ref>Aloysius (2004), ''Dalit-Subaltern Emergence'', p. 27; Aloysius (2010), ''Dalit-Subaltern Self-Identifications'', p. 37.</ref>

Thass treated Buddhism chiefly as an ethical practice and a rule of conduct, not as a metaphysics or a ritual system. High and low, he held, are decided by conduct and not by birth.<ref>Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'', pp. 28–33; Leonard (2021), "Caste-Less Tamils", p. 355; Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 133–136. The glosses of his key terms differ: ''eegai'' is rendered "generosity" by Leonard (2021, p. 357) and "compassion" by Leonard (2025, p. 122).</ref> He insisted that Buddhism is not atheism and criticized the "scientific" Buddhism of the Madras Maha Bodhi circle, and the rules he approved for his Society provided for a simplified lay-led ritual, the Five Precepts, abstinence from liquor and meat, and a marriage rite that he presented as the old Buddhist royal rite.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 107–116, 145, 160; Aloysius (1999), vol. 2, item 44, pp. 122–135 (''Tamilan'' 3:33–3:41, 26 January–23 March 1910), and item 81, pp. 178–179. Item 44 has the wife regard her husband as a god, which Aloysius (1998, p. 112) takes as part of his lack of a systematic position on women.</ref> He supported women's education and the ''Tamilan'' carried a women's column; Leonard calls him one of the earliest feminists of his time.<ref>Leonard (2021), "Caste-Less Tamils", p. 353.</ref>

Politically, Thass was loyalist and hostile to the Congress. He described the educated casteless Dravidians, who had obtained degrees through missionary kindness, as acting in loyalty to the Raj, and he praised the British government, as "abounding in compassion and wisdom" (கருணையும், விவேகமும் மிகுத்த பிரிட்டிஷ் ராஜாங்கம்).<ref>Aloysius (1999), vol. 1, item 56, pp. 118–119 (''Tamilan'' 2:23, 18 November 1908) and pp. 131–132 (2:33, 27 January 1909). Original: "கருணையும், விவேகமும் மிகுத்த பிரிட்டிஷ் ராஜாங்கம்".</ref> At the same time he recorded that caste Hindus barred casteless Dravidians from clean water and from barbers and washermen, and he accused Congress leaders of being "Brahmin" nationalists indifferent to the casteless.<ref>Aloysius (1999), vol. 1, item 56, pp. 118–119 and 133–134; Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'', pp. 59–64.</ref> Geetha and Rajadurai write that he failed to question colonial revenue administration and cast the casteless as a loyal vanguard of the Raj; Ayyathurai describes his position toward colonialism as not so radical, and the national movement as "not anti-caste but only selectively anti-colonial".<ref>Geetha & Rajadurai (1998), ''Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium'', ch. 2, pp. 24–25, 30; Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'', p. 217 (paraphrase).</ref>

Primary sources consulted in the research for this article contain no socialist, communist, or Marxist vocabulary and no demand for land redistribution, a wage increase, or labor organization.<ref>This statement covers Aloysius (1999), vol. 2, items 3, 44, and 82, and vol. 1, items 20 and 56, which were searched for Marx, socialism, communism, Narasu, Maha Bodhi, Olcott, Ambedkar, Periyar, and Singaravelu; the other items were read only in part. Item 20, pp. 644–648, traces the relation of masters and bondsmen to the estates of the immigrants, and item 56, pp. 132–134, blames rising rice prices on obedience to Manu's condemnation of farming (a verse he cites as Manu 84); neither passage uses a class analysis.</ref> Ayyathurai reports, from other issues of the ''Tamilan'', a proposed company of "Non-Caste Dravidian Industrials", a bank for the poor, and a demand that land go to those who work it.<ref>Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'', pp. 159, 175 (his reading; the passages are not among those examined here). Ayyathurai calls the first part of ''Indirar Desa Sarithiram'' "Buddhist historical materialism, so to speak" (p. 88; his phrase).</ref> His programme was thus this-worldly but built on self-improvement, education, crafts, and the restoration of an imagined Buddhist order of occupations. It can be called radical in its attack on caste as an imposture and in its institution-building among the poor, but it does not satisfy the second test of radical Buddhism (a program of systemic economic change), and it should not be read as a precursor of Marxist or socialist Buddhism.

Whether Thass shaped later movements is disputed. Aloysius argues that Tamil Buddhism was the ideological antecedent of the Dravidian movement, that it was "certainly one of the several factors" that moved Ambedkar toward Buddhism, and that Periyar built on Thass; in an earlier essay he goes further and calls Thass the foundation of Dravidian nationalism and of the later Ambedkarite parties, without evidence.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 189–193; Aloysius (2004), ''Dalit-Subaltern Emergence'', p. 24. Aloysius's evidence for the Periyar link is an earlier study by S. Perumal (1990) and the oral recollection of the followers of G. Appaduraiyar, and so is second-hand.</ref> Ayyathurai found "no direct archival evidence" that Thass influenced Ambedkar, and he adds that the Self-Respecters never adopted the Buddhist view of Tamil history.<ref>Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'', pp. 136, 218–219.</ref> Geetha is more confident that Ambedkar learned of the South Indian movement through Narasu's writings and through contacts of the Scheduled Castes Federation in Madras.<ref>Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', pp. 269–270.</ref> Valerian Rodrigues says that Ambedkar "studied in some depth" Thass's Sakya Buddhism alongside the Self-Respect movement, and that Ambedkar disagreed with Thass on regional political autonomy; Gail Omvedt wrote that Navayana Buddhism "follows" Thass in reinterpreting karma.<ref>Rodrigues, Valerian (2024). ''Ambedkar's Political Philosophy: A Grammar of Public Life from the Social Margins''. Palgrave Macmillan, ch. 1, pp. 5–6, and p. 249; Omvedt, Gail (2021). "Foreword". In: Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.), ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste'': xv–xviii. Routledge, p. xvii.</ref> The continuing community of Tamil Buddhists at Hubli, which keeps ''Adivedam'' as a core text, is the clearest surviving institutional legacy.<ref>Ayyathurai (2020), "Living Buddhism", pp. 2, 10–12. The community's castelessness and its descent from early Buddhists are the community's own account, which the author defends.</ref>

== Writings ==
Thass's periodical writings were collected in G. Aloysius (Ed.), அயோத்திதாசர் சிந்தனைகள் ''Iyothee Thassar Cinthanaikal'' [Thoughts of Iyothee Thass], vols. 1–2 (1999) and vol. 3 (2003), which are cited below by volume, item number, and page. The items are given as published in the ''Tamilan''; many of his books were issued posthumously, so the dates of later editions can differ from the dates of first publication.

* Thass, Iyothee (1898 or 1899). புத்தர் என்னும் இரவு பகலற்ற ஒளி ''Buddhar ennum Iravu Pagalatra Oli'' [Buddha, the Light Without Night or Day]. In: Aloysius (1999), vol. 2, item 3: 10–26. {{annotation|A life of the Buddha with an early statement of the claim that the casteless Dravidians were Buddhists, ending with a program of institutions (a temple, burial grounds, a medical hall, and a free college for boys). It may be the pamphlet of 1898 mentioned by Aloysius (1998, p. 57); the editor dates it to 1899 or earlier.}}
* Thass, Iyothee (1907–1914). ஒருபைசாத் தமிழன் ''Oru Paisa Tamilan'' [The One-Pice Tamilian]. Weekly, Madras. {{annotation|The weekly that Thass edited, which carried his serials, polemics, announcements of the Sakya Buddhist Society, and a women's column. Copies from the years 1907–1909 and 1911–1914 are held by the Roja Muttaiah Research Library in Chennai.}}
* Thass, Iyothee (1907–1908). சுதேச சீர்திருத்தம் ''Sudesa Seertiruttam'' [Swadeshi Reform]. In: Aloysius (1999), vol. 1, item 15: 27–72. {{annotation|A selection of the columns in which Thass argues against brahmin-led swadeshi nationalism and for civic reform and British rule. Only a few passages state the Buddhist thesis.}}
* Thass, Iyothee (1908–1909). [Untitled serial on the Buddhist origins of the casteless Dravidians]. ''Tamilan'' 2:21–2:48. In: Aloysius (1999), vol. 1, item 56: 115–152. {{annotation|His fullest statement of the thesis that the casteless Dravidians were the original Buddhists, with the theory of the false Brahmins and the claim that temples were Buddhist monasteries.}}
* Thass, Iyothee (1910). சாக்கைய பௌத்தர் விவாக விளக்கம் ''Sakkaiya Bauddhar Vivaha Vilakkam'' [Explanation of the Sakya Buddhist Marriage]. ''Tamilan'' 3:33–3:41. In: Aloysius (1999), vol. 2, item 44: 122–135. {{annotation|A description of a reformed Buddhist marriage rite, with an appeal to curb wedding expenses and an invitation to readers to send proposals for reform.}}
* Thass, Iyothee (1910–1911). இந்திரர் தேச சரித்திரம் ''Indirar Desa Sarithiram'' [History of the Indirar Country]. Serialized in the ''Tamilan'', August 1910–November 1911 (sixty-five parts); book 1912; second edition 1957. In: Aloysius (1999), vol. 1, item 20: 600–679. {{annotation|His longest historical narrative, tracing the name of India to the Buddha as "Indra" and recounting how false Brahmins displaced the Buddhist kings and imposed caste.}}
* Thass, Iyothee (1911). மகாபோதி பௌத்தம் ''Mahabodhi Bauddham'' [Mahabodhi Buddhism]. ''Tamilan'' 4:49, 17 May 1911. In: Aloysius (1999), vol. 2, item 73: 168–169. {{annotation|A reply to a reader in which Thass explains his objections to the Madras Maha Bodhi Society on grounds of caste conduct and doctrine.}}
* Thass, Iyothee (1911). "An Appeal to Buddhist Societies". In: Aloysius (1999), vol. 2, item 82: 180–184. {{annotation|An English appeal to Buddhists in Europe and America, with a history of the Sakya Buddhist Society and its branches, a complaint about caste-minded Buddhist leaders in India, and a calculation of the Buddha's date of birth.}}
* Thass, Iyothee (1913). நூதன பௌத்தம்! ''Noothana Bauddham'' [New Buddhism!]. ''Tamilan'' 6:51, 28 May 1913. In: Aloysius (1999), vol. 2, item 100: 439–441. {{annotation|A report of the Society's practices, branches, and gains, and an attack on rival Buddhist and reformist groups that he does not name.}}

== Secondary Literature in English ==
* Leonard, Dickens (2025). "Iyothee Thassar's Buddha and Civilizational Memory". In: Banerjee, Prathama (Ed.), ''Textual Lives of Caste Across the Ages: Hierarchy, Humanity and Equality in Indian History'': 113–127. Bloomsbury Academic. {{annotation|Reads ''Indirar Desa Sarithiram'', cited directly, as an account of a civilizational conflict between indigenous Buddhists and "Aryan" invaders, and notes Thass's reliance on the Orientalist theory of Indo-Aryan migration.}}
* Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press. {{annotation|Places Thass's Madras movement within a wider network of Buddhist revival in India before Ambedkar, and gives the Tamil movement's relations with the Maha Bodhi Society and Narasu.}}
* Ayyathurai, Gajendran (2020). "Living Buddhism: Migration, Memory, and Castelessness in South India". ''History and Anthropology'' (online first, 14 December 2020): 1–19. {{annotation|An ethnographic study of the Buddhist community of Hubli, which descends from Tamil railway migrants and keeps Thass's ''Adivedam'' as a core text. Its claim that the community is casteless is the community's own account, which the author defends.}}
* Leonard, Dickens (2021). "Caste-Less Tamils and Early Print Public Sphere: Remembering Iyothee Thass (1845–1914)". ''South Asia Research'' 41.3: 349–368. {{annotation|A short account of Thass's career, his press, and his ideas. Most of its quotations of Thass are the author's own translations from a secondary source (Ponnovium 1999), and should be checked against Thass's own texts.}}
* Ayyathurai, Gajendran (2011). ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness: Pandit Iyothee Thass, Tamil Buddhism, and the Marginalized in South India''. PhD dissertation, Columbia University. {{annotation|The most detailed English study of the arguments that Thass published in the ''Tamilan'', including his critique of the Congress and the swadeshi movement, the 1911 census campaign, and the Sakya associations. All translations are the author's, and the study finds no direct archival evidence of an influence on Ambedkar.}}
* Aloysius, G. (2010). ''Dalit-Subaltern Self-Identifications: Iyothee Thassar & Tamizhan''. Critical Quest. {{annotation|An essay by the editor of Thass's collected writings on his journalism and on his rejection of the labels "Paraiah", "Panchama", and "Hindu". It is the clearest English statement of Aloysius's interpretation, and should be read as an argument and not as a neutral summary.}}
* Aloysius, G. (1998). ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity: A Buddhist Movement among the Tamils under Colonialism''. New Age International. {{annotation|The standard monograph on the Sakya Buddhist Society and the South Indian Buddhist Association, with a chronology, conference resolutions, and appendices of petitions and appeals. Its thesis that Tamil Buddhism was the ideological antecedent of the Dravidian movement is the author's argument.}}
* Geetha, V., & S.V. Rajadurai (1998). ''Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium: From Iyothee Thass to Periyar''. Samya. {{annotation|A history of non-Brahmin thought in Tamil Nadu that begins with Thass and is critical of the empirical basis of his history. Chapter 3 is the main discussion of Thass; page numbers restart in each chapter of the electronic copy.}}

== Secondary Literature in Tamil ==
* Ponnovium, Anbu (அன்பு பொன்னோவியம்) (1999). அயோத்திதாசர்: ஒரு கண்ணோட்டம் ''Ayothidasar: Oru Kannottam'' [Ayothidasar: An Overview]. In: Aloysius (Ed.), ''Iyothee Thassar Cinthanaikal'', vol. 1: xxiii–xlv. {{annotation|An admiring biographical overview by a Tamil Buddhist writer, printed as the foreword to the collected writings. His quotations of Thass are condensed, and quotation marks in this essay do not guarantee verbatim text.}}

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "Iyothee Thass". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Iyothee_Thass</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[category:Iyothee Thass]]
[[category:India]]
[[category:Biographies]]
[[Category: Tamil Buddhist movement]]
[[category:Dalit Buddhism]]

Adi-Hindu Movement

2026-10-27T11:06:54Z

Lajos: Created page with "{{Awaiting Review}} The '''Adi-Hindu movement''' (Hindi ''Adi Hindu'', "original Hindu") was a movement of "untouchable" (Dalit) castes in northern India, strongest in the towns and cities of the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh) from the late 1910s to the early 1930s. Its leaders, foremost among them Swami Achhutanand (1879–1933), held that the untouchable castes were the original inhabitants of India, conquered and degraded by Aryan and Brahmin invaders (a thesis..."

{{Awaiting Review}}
The '''Adi-Hindu movement''' (Hindi ''Adi Hindu'', "original Hindu") was a movement of "untouchable" (Dalit) castes in northern India, strongest in the towns and cities of the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh) from the late 1910s to the early 1930s. Its leaders, foremost among them Swami Achhutanand (1879–1933), held that the untouchable castes were the original inhabitants of India, conquered and degraded by Aryan and Brahmin invaders (a thesis previously defended by [[Iyothee Thass]]), and they built associations, presses, and a pamphlet literature on that claim. The movement belongs to the Radical Buddhism Project only in part. According to Nandini Gooptu, its religion was bhakti (devotion), not Buddhism, and Sarah Beth Hunt places the entry of Buddhism into Adi-Hindu thought mainly after 1956. Yet a Buddhist wing existed in the same milieu: the monk Bodhananda (1874–1952) and the writer Chandrika Prasad Jigyasu produced Buddhist histories and manuals for Dalit readers, and Bodhananda's society made Lucknow a centre of anti-caste Buddhism. This page describes the movement, keeps its Buddhist and non-Buddhist strands apart, and gives its three best-documented figures short sections.

== Origins ==

The movement took its name from the claim that the untouchable castes were the ''adi'' (original) inhabitants of India, a claim also expressed in the Hindi phrase ''mool bharatvasi'' ("original inhabitants of India").<ref name="Hunt2014">Hunt, Sarah Beth (2014). ''Hindi Dalit Literature and the Politics of Representation''. New Delhi: Routledge. Hunt spells the founder's name "Achutanand" and the monk's "Bodhanand", and calls the writer "Chandrikaprasad Jigyasu"; Gooptu writes "Acchutanand" and "Chandrika Prasad Jijnasu" (see below). Hunt gives his pen-name as meaning "one who is curious". This page uses the spellings Achhutanand, Bodhananda, and Chandrika Prasad Jigyasu throughout and records the variants once. Because ''jigyasu'' is also an ordinary Hindi word, the surname is always given with the first names.</ref> Gooptu locates the origin of Adi-Hindu ideology in the early 1920s, among literate untouchables who left the Arya Samaj, the Hindu reform movement that had at first attracted them. She gives several reasons: the Samaj's continued emphasis on the Vedas and the varna order; its practice of ''shuddhi'' (ritual purification), which implied that untouchables had been impure; its image as an army of high-caste Hindus; and the 1919 reforms, which gave representation by population and so encouraged the Samaj's purification campaigns.<ref name="Gooptu2001">Gooptu, Nandini (2001). ''The Politics of the Urban Poor in Early Twentieth-Century India''. Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–157.</ref> She traces the theory of a pre-Aryan population to British ethnography and census-taking and to Christian missionary teaching, and finds no evidence of links to the Adi Dravida or Ad Dharm movements in their early stages.<ref>Gooptu (2001), ''Politics of the Urban Poor'', p. 158.</ref> Hunt describes Achhutanand's achievement as uniting the untouchable ''jatis'' (castes) as descendants of India's original inhabitants, inverting the contrast between "indigenous" and "foreign". She adds that he was influenced by Jotiba Phule but did not direct his attack at Brahmins alone, and that he kept the Arya Samaj's institution of itinerant preachers (''upadeshaks'').<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 32–33.</ref>

Hunt also describes an earlier tradition that the Adi-Hindu writers displaced. The first Dalit pamphlets, from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, were caste histories that supported petitions to be classed as Kshatriya in the census; Hunt argues that Dalit pamphlet literature proper begins with the Adi-Hindu writers, who rejected caste and varna and presented themselves as non-Hindu.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 27–31.</ref>

== Organization and Politics, 1919–1932 ==

The movement's organizations multiplied through the 1920s. The sources record an Adi Hindu Samaj in Lucknow in 1919, an Adi Hindu Mahasabha in Kanpur in 1923, and a body in Allahabad in the 1920s; Hunt notes Adi Hindu Sabhas in Kanpur, Lucknow, Banaras, and Allahabad by 1924.<ref>Gooptu (2001), ''Politics of the Urban Poor'', p. 159; Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', p. 74 n. 13.</ref> At the Kumbh Mela at Allahabad in 1928–29 the movement made what Gooptu calls its most strident proclamation, and a police report of 1922 had already recorded a spirit of revolt.<ref>Gooptu (2001), ''Politics of the Urban Poor'', pp. 159–160.</ref> Ram Charan (1888–1938), a Lucknow leader who had studied law after night school and worked in the Railway Audit Office, co-led demonstrations in the city in November 1928; Gooptu does not describe him as a Buddhist.<ref>Gooptu (2001), ''Politics of the Urban Poor'', p. 174 (his appearance with Jigyasu at a Lucknow meeting in October 1931).</ref> In 1931–32 Adi-Hindu leaders campaigned against Gandhi and stressed the "double servitude" of untouchables to the higher castes and to foreign rule; Gooptu argues that this earlier movement blunted Gandhi's ''harijan'' programme.<ref>Gooptu (2001), ''Politics of the Urban Poor'', pp. 174–175, 177–178.</ref> By the early 1930s, she shows, most leaders had turned to bargaining in the new representative institutions.<ref>Gooptu (2001), ''Politics of the Urban Poor'', p. 169.</ref>

== Bhakti and Buddhism ==

The religious position of the movement is contested in the sources. Gooptu reports a genealogy that the untouchables claimed for their egalitarian, formless (''nirguna'') bhakti, running through Mahavir, the Buddha, Kabir, Ravidas, Dadu, Paltu, and Sattakop; in that list, the Buddha is one name among several.<ref>Gooptu (2001), ''Politics of the Urban Poor'', p. 152 (citing Jigyasu's biography of Achhutanand). Gooptu's pages read for this entry mention Buddhism only in passing (pp. 152, 158, and 359).</ref> Hunt, citing Gooptu, likewise holds that the true religion of the original inhabitants, in Adi-Hindu thought, was bhakti.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', p. 34.</ref>

Hunt argues that Buddhism was added to the Adi-Hindu narrative only later, as the original religion of the Dalits, after Ambedkar's conversion of 1956 initiated a sudden popularity of Dalit pamphlets on Buddhism. The result, in her account, was a single Dalit stream of Buddhism and bhakti that merged Kabirpanthis, Ravidasis, and Buddhists without difficulty.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 45–47 (p. 46 for the popularity of Buddhist pamphlets). Hunt cites Lynch (1969) for the Agra Jatavs as more Ambedkarites than Buddhists (p. 47).</ref> Against this stands the evidence of Bodhananda's and Jigyasu's own books of 1930 and later, which already carried Buddhist content (see below). The sources do not reconcile the two accounts. Hunt's chronology describes the broad Adi-Hindu field, while the Buddhist wing was a smaller, earlier current within it.

== Swami Achhutanand ==

Swami Achhutanand (1879–1933) is the founder of the movement in the accounts of both Hunt and Gooptu.<ref>Gooptu (2001), ''Politics of the Urban Poor'', p. 154 (dates); Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 34–41.</ref> Hunt gives his early name as Harihar. He came from a Chamar family and was raised in a military cantonment and educated by missionaries; Hunt gives his birthplace as Umari village in Mainpuri district in one place and as Farrukhabad elsewhere.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', p. 34 (Umari, Mainpuri), pp. 5 and 44 (Farrukhabad).</ref> From the age of fourteen to twenty-four he travelled with mendicants, and he read the ''Guru Granth Sahib'', Kabir's ''Bijak'', and the verses of Dadu Dayal, Ravidas, and Namdev. He worked for the Arya Samaj's ''shuddhi'' campaign under the name Harihar before breaking with it.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 35, 37.</ref> In 1917 he composed the poems in which, according to Hunt, Adi-Hindu thought first appeared, and the All India Achhut Caste Reform Sabha dates from 1919. He opposed the Non-Cooperation Movement and called the Congress Brahmanical, and he ran a press at Kanpur that issued a monthly, ''Achut'', in the early 1920s, a daily, ''Adi Hindu'', until 1932, and a monthly, ''Usha'', from 1928.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 38, 40, 74 n. 13.</ref> Chamar ''panchayats'' (caste councils) in Kanpur acknowledged him as leader, and he presided over sweepers' meetings in 1925; in a statement Gooptu quotes, he claimed for the untouchables a prior, natural, and superior claim to the nation.<ref>Gooptu (2001), ''Politics of the Urban Poor'', pp. 159, 175.</ref>

On religion, Hunt locates his philosophy in the bhakti tradition. Gooptu reports, second-hand through Jigyasu's biography of him, that he discussed religion with Theosophical missionaries and with Jain and Buddhist ''sadhus''; this is the only Buddhist contact for him that Gooptu records, and she draws no Buddhist conclusion from it.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', p. 34; Gooptu (2001), ''Politics of the Urban Poor'', p. 158 n. 49 (context only; the biography is Jigyasu's 1968 life of Achhutanand, translated in Narayan and Misra 2004, which was not consulted for this entry).</ref> V. Geetha's account of Achhutanand rests on Gooptu and adds nothing independent.<ref name="Geetha2021">Geetha, V. (2021). ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India''. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 264–266.</ref> His place in the RBP that of a boundary figure: a Dalit leader of the same anti-caste, anti-Brahmin movement as the Buddhist wing, but not a Buddhist himself. His drama ''Ram-rajya Nyaya'', from the late 1920s or early 1930s, was edited and published by Jigyasu and reached a second edition in 1964.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 97–98.</ref>

== Bodhananda and the Buddhist Wing ==

=== Identity and Sources ===

The sources name the monk differently. Ober and the ''Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'' write "Bodhananda", the latter listing "Bodhananda Mahastavir (1874–1952)" among the pioneers whose example Dalit Buddhist organizations invoke.<ref name="Handbook">Geary, [Given name], & [Given name] Mukherjee (2017). "Buddhism in Contemporary India". In: Jerryson, Michael (Ed.), ''The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'': 36–57. Oxford University Press, p. 50.</ref> Hunt and Gooptu write "Swami Bodhanand". No source consulted states that the "Swami Bodhanand" of Hunt and Gooptu and the "Bhadant Bodhananda Mahastavir" of Ober are one person. Ober, however, quotes Hunt on the same book and the same collaboration with Jigyasu, which indicates that he treats them as one man, and this page follows that reading while noting that it is an inference.<ref name="Ober2023">Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press, ch. 5, pp. 205–214.</ref> Much of what follows rests on Ober, with Hunt and Gooptu as independent partial accounts; Geetha's account is drawn from Ober's earlier dissertation and is second-hand.<ref>Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', pp. 266–267 (her n. 55 on p. 267 gives Ober's 2016 dissertation as her source).</ref>

=== Life ===

According to Ober, Bodhananda (1874–1952) was born Mukund Prakash Lahiri to a Bengali Brahmin family and was orphaned young.<ref name="Ober2023" /> He passed through Brahmoism, the Arya Samaj, Theosophy, Christianity, and the life of a Vaishnava ''sadhu'' (as "Nil Bodhananda") before turning to Buddhism after meeting Sinhalese monks at Sarnath during the famines of the 1890s. He took full ordination in Calcutta, in the Ramanna Nikaya, under Kripasaran and Gunalankar, possibly with Anagarika Dharmapala present. The year of his conversion is uncertain: Geetha, following Ober's dissertation, says he became a Buddhist in 1916, while Ober's book dates his conversion to the 1890s and gives 1916 as the year he founded his society.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 205–214; Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', p. 266.</ref>

In 1916 he founded the Bharatiya Bauddha Samiti (Indian Buddhist Society) in Lucknow, and in 1924–25 its vihara at Risaldar Park. Ober describes the Samiti as the organizational centre of anti-caste Buddhism in the United Provinces, serving oilmen, ropemakers, betel-nut sellers, porters, boatmen, and potters, and reproduces its nine founding goals.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 205–213 (the goals at pp. 206–207).</ref> Geetha lists among its aims the removal of casteism and of feelings of hierarchical difference, and the comparative study of Buddhism in relation to present-day science.<ref>Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', p. 266.</ref> Hunt describes the Lucknow mission, with its library and newspaper, as continued after his death by his adopted son, Mahathera Pragyanand, and as co-edited with G.P. Prashant in the late 1950s; her wording does not make clear whether this period follows or overlaps his lifetime.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', p. 46.</ref>

=== Writings and Ideas ===

Bodhananda's best-known work is ''Mool Bharatvasi aur Arya'' ("The Original Inhabitants of India and the Aryans", 1930), which argues that the Dalits and Shudras were the original Buddhist inhabitants of India, oppressed by conquering Aryans and Brahmins. It includes a chapter that recasts the medieval sant poets Kabir, Nanak, Dadu, and Namdev as Bodhisattvas carrying on the Buddha's mission.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 213.</ref> Hunt calls it "the most important historical text of the Adi Hindu movement".<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', p. 39 (quoted in Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 213).</ref> Ober also records a Hindi translation of the ''Dhammapada'' (c. 1928), a life of the Buddha, ''Bhagavan Gautam Buddh'' (1933), and a manual of Buddhist practice, ''Bauddhacharyapaddhati'' (1947).<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 205–214 and bibliography.</ref> According to Bhagwan Das, as reported by Hunt, the ''Bauddhacharyapaddhati'' was among the first Hindi books to instruct Dalits in Buddhist festivals and rituals.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', p. 46 (citing Das 1998, pp. 18–19, 68).</ref> Geetha, following Ober, reports that he presented the Buddha as the founder of the old and true religion of the subcontinent, destroyed by the Brahmins, which makes his position the Buddhist counterpart of Achhutanand's anti-Vedic, anti-Brahmin history of the original inhabitants.<ref>Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', p. 266.</ref> In the sources read, Bodhananda's writing shows no Marxist or socialist element.

=== Relations with Others ===

Ober reports that Bodhananda met Ambedkar in 1920 at the Kolhapur Non-Brahmin Conference.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 5; see also [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]].</ref> Geetha adds that Ambedkar stayed in touch with him and discussed his plan to convert.<ref>Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', p. 269.</ref> The claim that Ambedkar had hoped Bodhananda would officiate at the conversion of 1956 rests on a single second-hand report by Shanti Swarup Bauddh, relayed by Ober; Bodhananda died in 1952, and U Chandramani administered the precepts at Nagpur.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 214.</ref> Hunt says that Bodhananda introduced Jigyasu to Ambedkar.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 38–39.</ref> Ober also dates [[Rahul Sankrityayan]]'s meeting with Bodhananda in Lucknow in 1917 as the trigger of Sankrityayan's lifelong Buddhist engagement, and records that Yashpal acquired much of his knowledge of Buddhism from him in Lucknow.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 332 n. 24.</ref> From 1935 he wrote for ''Dharmadoot'', the Hindi Buddhist journal of the Sarnath branch of the [[Maha Bodhi Society]], alongside Har Dayal, Sankrityayan, Jagdish Kashyap, P.C. Bagchi, [[Narendra Deva]], and Jigyasu.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 195, 210.</ref>

== Chandrika Prasad Jigyasu ==

Chandrika Prasad Jigyasu was born in Lucknow in 1899, according to Hunt, to a relatively prosperous low-caste family; his father was headmaster of the American Mission School, and his own schooling ended at class ten when his father died.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', p. 38.</ref> His death date is not given in the pages of Hunt read, and the sources conflict: 1974 or 1978.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 210.</ref> His early career was in Hindu reform and nationalist publishing: he wrote a first book at sixteen, translated the ''Bhagavad Gita'' from Urdu, founded a Hindu Samaj Sudhar Karyalay, and had published more than thirty titles by 1931, including a proscribed pamphlet on Nehru that, Hunt reports, went through twelve editions in a year. The British raided his press five times and jailed him for several months.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 38–39.</ref> He first met Achhutanand in 1926 and later met Bodhananda, through whom he met Ambedkar; the meeting left him, in Hunt's account, disenchanted with Hindu reform. He renamed his press Bahujan Kalyan Prakashan, a date that Hunt gives as the early 1930s and that her notes leave open.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 38–39, 75 n. 22. Jigyasu is also reported to have met Achhutanand in 1926; the source for the date is Jigyasu's own 1968 biography of Achhutanand.</ref> At an October 1931 meeting of two to three thousand untouchables in Lucknow, which he addressed with Ram Charan, he is quoted as saying that to call themselves Adi Hindus was to assert a natural right over India.<ref>Gooptu (2001), ''Politics of the Urban Poor'', pp. 174–175.</ref>

His writing on history and Buddhism includes the Adi-Hindu histories ''Bharat ke Adi-Nivasiyon'' ([Devanagari]; "The Original Inhabitants of India") and a volume on the origins of human society, which Hunt dates variously to 1937 and 1938, with a third edition in 1941; Gooptu cites what appears to be the same work, which carries the word for socialism (''samajvad'') in its title, as a source for the Adi-Hindu self-image, and she says nothing about Marxism or Buddhism in connection with it. The title is not evidence of its content.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 40, 60, 86, 89; Gooptu (2001), ''Politics of the Urban Poor'', pp. 169 n. 85, 198 n. 39, 286–287.</ref> With Bodhananda he is credited with the co-authorship of Buddhist books, among them ''Bhagavan Gautam Buddh'' (1933) and ''Bauddhacharyapaddhati''.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', p. 39 (via the unpublished 1972 manuscript "Chandrikaprasad Jigyasu 'Prakash' Lakhanavi"); Ober's bibliography lists the 1933 ''Bhagavan Gautama Buddha: Jivani aur Updesh'' (Calcutta: Kishkamitra Press) under U Ottama, Bodhananda, and Jigyasu.</ref> He also issued Ambedkar pamphlets, among them a life of Ambedkar, ''Baba Saheb ka Jivan Sangharsh'' (1961), which reached sixteen editions by 1995, and he published Hindi translations of Ambedkar's ''Annihilation of Caste'', ''Who Were the Shudras?'', and ''The Untouchables''.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 45, 120, 122.</ref> He also wrote a Hindi life of E.V. Ramasamy (Periyar), in 1973, which Hunt describes as toned down; five years earlier, in 1968, Periyar Lalai Singh's Kanpur press had issued a Hindi version of Ramasamy's ''Sacchi Ramayana'' that was banned and litigated.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 101–102.</ref> Hunt reads his career as showing the false promise of inclusion held out by the mainstream Hindi public sphere. Whether he became a Buddhist is not clear, so his Buddhist activity is established only as authorship and collaboration. His press ran from the 1930s until the mid-1960s, and in 2004 was run by his son and grandson.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 25, 36, 59.</ref>

== Ambedkar and the Adi-Hindu Movement ==

The relation between the movement and Ambedkar runs in two directions in the sources. Ober sees in the movement's thesis of the original inhabitants clear affinities with, and possible influence on, Ambedkar's ''The Untouchables'' (1948).<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 5, pp. 205–224.</ref> Gooptu suggests, with a hedge, the opposite: that the Adi-Hindu inclusion of the Shudras through the Chandravamsi warrior story probably drew on Ambedkar's strategy of broad alliances.<ref>Gooptu (2001), ''Politics of the Urban Poor'', p. 197 n. 36.</ref> She also finds that by 1930 Ambedkar himself had come round to the need for political leverage.<ref>Gooptu (2001), ''Politics of the Urban Poor'', p. 171.</ref> In Uttar Pradesh the Scheduled Castes Federation opened a branch in 1944 and the Republican Party of India was formed in 1957; Hunt says the Republican Party proposed radical land redistribution and agricultural reform, and that Chamars and Jatavs dominated it.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 43–45 (citing Brass 1985, p. 224).</ref> The Adi-Hindu movement itself had mostly declined by then, but Hunt argues that its ideology survived in the pamphlet field long after the Sabhas faded.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', p. 41.</ref> For the later militant Dalit organization of 1970s Bombay, see [[Dalit Panthers]].

== The Pamphlet Field after the Sabhas ==

Hunt's study follows the Adi-Hindu argument into later Hindi Dalit literature. Narratives of the Aryan invasion run from Achhutanand's drama and poetry of the 1920s to Jigyasu's history of 1937, which she describes as more "scientific" in method, and later to S.L. Sagar.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', p. 86.</ref> In G.P. Prashant's ''Mul Vansha Katha'' (1994) the Buddha appears as an early opponent of the caste system, and Hunt reads this as a sign that Buddhism had gained legitimacy as a Dalit trope.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 84, 106–107.</ref> A few later texts bear on the left, though they stand outside the Adi-Hindu movement proper. The drama ''Shambuk Vadh'' (1962), by Periyar Lalai Singh and Ram Avtar Pal, presents its hero as reminiscent of a Marxist revolutionary, with a militia, and concludes that any state in upper-caste hands acts against the lower castes. Two later Hindi Dalit writers, Bechain and Tej Singh, were first politicized by Marxist groups and have since, Hunt reports, denounced Marxists as unwilling to address caste.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 103–105, 136–138.</ref> These are Hunt's characterizations. The contemporary Hindi Dalit literature falls outside the scope of this article.

== Literature in English ==

* Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press. {{annotation|Chapter 5 gives the fullest account of Bodhananda's life, the Bharatiya Bauddha Samiti, and the Risaldar Park vihara, and argues that Ambedkar drew on existing Buddhist networks, of which the Adi-Hindu Buddhist wing was one.}}

* Geetha, V. (2021). ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India''. Palgrave Macmillan. {{annotation|Brief accounts of Achhutanand and Bodhananda (pp. 264–270), drawn from Gooptu and from Ober's dissertation respectively; useful as a summary, but second-hand.}}

* Hunt, Sarah Beth (2014). ''Hindi Dalit Literature and the Politics of Representation''. New Delhi: Routledge. {{annotation|A study of Hindi Dalit pamphlet and autobiographical literature whose first chapter is the best account of the Adi-Hindu writers and of Jigyasu's press; it treats Buddhism as a late addition to the Adi-Hindu field.}}

* Gooptu, Nandini (2001). ''The Politics of the Urban Poor in Early Twentieth-Century India''. Cambridge University Press. {{annotation|A history of Kanpur and Lucknow labour and caste politics whose pp. 152–184 are the independent scholarly account of the Adi-Hindu movement; it treats the movement as bhakti and Buddhism as marginal.}}

== Literature in Hindi ==

* Bodhananda, Bhadant ([1930] 2009). ''Mool Bharatvasi aur Arya'' [''The Original Inhabitants of India and the Aryans'']. Samyak Prakashan. {{annotation|The central historical text of the Adi-Hindu movement. It was not consulted for this entry and is listed on the authority of Ober and Hunt.}}

* Ottama, U, Bhadant Bodhananda, & Chandrika Prasad Jigyasu (1933). ''Bhagavan Gautama Buddha: Jivani aur Updesh'' [''The Lord Gautama Buddha: His Life and Teaching'']. Calcutta: Kishkamitra Press. {{annotation|A life and teaching of the Buddha, written for Hindi readers; listed on the authority of Ober's bibliography and not consulted.}}

* Bodhananda, Bhadant (1947). ''Bauddhacharyapaddhati'' [''The Path of Buddhist Practice'']. Lucknow: Buddh Vihara. {{annotation|A manual of Buddhist festivals and rites for Dalit readers; listed on the authority of Ober and Hunt and not consulted.}}

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "Adi-Hindu Movement". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Adi-Hindu_Movement</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[category:India]]
[[category:Topical Pages]]
[[category:Movements]]
[[category:Adi-Hindu Movement]]
[[category:Dalit Buddhism]]

Maha Bodhi Society

2026-10-27T11:06:11Z

Lajos: Created page with "{{Awaiting Review}} The Maha Bodhi Society was founded in 1891 by the Sri Lankan Buddhist layman Anagarika Dharmapala (Don David Hewavitarana) to restore the Mahabodhi temple at Bodh Gaya to Buddhist control and to revive Buddhism in India. For several decades it was a leading Buddhist institution in India, with its headquarters in Calcutta (now Kolkata), a major center at Sarnath, and branches in cities such as Madras (now Chennai). It is relevant to the Radical..."

{{Awaiting Review}}
The Maha Bodhi Society was founded in 1891 by the [[Sri Lanka]]n Buddhist layman Anagarika Dharmapala (Don David Hewavitarana) to restore the Mahabodhi temple at Bodh Gaya to Buddhist control and to revive Buddhism in [[India]]. For several decades it was a leading Buddhist institution in India, with its headquarters in Calcutta (now Kolkata), a major center at Sarnath, and branches in cities such as Madras (now Chennai). It is relevant to the Radical Buddhism Project not as a radical body, which it was not, but as the institutional setting for many of the figures treated in the India entries. It sheltered the young [[Dharmanand Kosambi]], employed [[Rahul Sankrityaya]]n as a missionary, and counted Singaravelu and [[P Lakshmi Narasu |P. Lakshmi Narasu]] among the officers and speakers of its Madras branch. It clashed with [[Iyothee Thass]]'s casteless Sakya Buddhists and, in a lawsuit, with Narasu. Its relations with Hindu nationalism and with the state were close, and its response to [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]]'s conversion was divided. This page treats the Society only as these connections require and is not a full institutional history.

== Foundation and Bodh Gaya ==
The Mahabodhi temple, where the Buddha is said to have attained enlightenment, had been out of Buddhist hands for centuries. According to the sources used here, a Saiva mahant took up residence at Bodh Gaya in 1590, and the site was thereafter administered by his lineage as a Hindu place of worship.<ref name="ober23">Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press, chs. 3–4. Chudal dates the abandonment of the temple by Buddhists to "sometime in the 14th century" (Chudal, Alaka Atreya (2015). "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal". ''European Bulletin of Himalayan Research'' 46: 62–87).</ref> After a pilgrimage there, Dharmapala founded the Society in 1891, with Sumangala (Sumangalacharya) as its president; its stated aims were to restore the temple to Buddhist control, to revive Buddhism in India, to print Buddhist literature, and to train missionaries.<ref>Kosambi, Dharmanand (1924). निवेदन ''Nivedan'' [Statement] (Marathi). Manoranjak Granthaprasarak Mandali, p. 103 (read from the page image; the founding year and the president). The list of aims is from Chudal (2015) and Ober (2023). Kosambi writes "Dharmapal", the son of a rich Sinhalese trader, and does not equate him with any other Dharmapala.</ref> Geary and Mukherjee describe a dispute over the temple with the Giri mahants in which the colonial state was hesitant and cautious.<ref>Geary, David, & Sraman Mukherjee (2017). "Buddhism in Contemporary India". In: Jerryson, Michael (Ed.), ''The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism''. Oxford University Press, ch. 2: 36–57, pp. 43–44. Doyle (2003), "Liberate the Mahabodhi Temple!", is the lead for later Dalit activism at Bodh Gaya and was not examined.</ref> Kosambi, who reached Bodh Gaya in February 1902, found the temple compound in the mahant's monastery with Hindu image worship going on, heard from students that a Buddhist monk named Dharmapala was in litigation with the mahant, and was told by a monk there to learn Pali in Ceylon and to apply to the Maha Bodhi Society in Calcutta.<ref>Kosambi (1924), ''Nivedan'', pp. 83–88. Whether the monk of the lawsuit is Anagarika Dharmapala is not stated on the pages.</ref>

The Society was not the first Buddhist voluntary association in colonial India. Ober identifies the Chittagong Buddhist Association (1887) as the first such body, four years earlier, and Kripasaran's Bengal Buddhist Association (Calcutta, 1892) followed the Society by a year.<ref name="ober23" /> Ober also shows that the Panchama free schools of Henry Steel Olcott's Theosophical Society in Madras seeded the Sakya Buddhist Society (pp. 135–143; see [[Tamil Buddhist Movement]]).

== The Madras Branch ==
The Madras branch is the point at which the Society touched the anti-caste Buddhism of South India. G. Aloysius reports that the effort to open a Madras branch in 1898 began at the initiative of M. Singaravelu, although the branch itself opened in 1900, and he lists Singaravelu among its early lecturers.<ref>Aloysius, G. (1998). ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity: A Buddhist Movement among the Tamils under Colonialism''. New Age International, p. 58 and n. 27 (citing the Society's journal, vol. 8, no. 6, p. 51, and vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 39–40). The same page records that in 1903 the Sakya Buddhist Young Men's Association was formed under the joint patronage of Dharmapala and Thass.</ref> In 1903 Kosambi found a "Madras Maha Bodhi Sabha" whose president was a Professor Lakshminarasu Naidu (probably Narasu) and whose secretary was Singaravelu, which held its meetings at Singaravelu's house and at Royapettah, gave poor relief and school supplies, and did not get on with Thass's followers.<ref>Kosambi (1924), ''Nivedan'', pp. 110, 114–117; Murugesan, K., & C.S. Subramanyam (1975). ''Singaravelu: First Communist in South India''. People's Publishing House, pp. 8, 146. The identification of Lakshminarasu Naidu with Narasu is an inference from the pages. Singaravelu later signed a manifesto in 1923 as, among other offices, president of the Madras Maha Bodhi Society (Murugesan & Subramanyam, p. 187).</ref> The Society's Madras members and Thass were separate groups: in a reply to a reader in the ''Tamilan'' of 17 May 1911, Thass explained why he neither attended nor preached at the Maha Bodhi Sangam in Pudupettai. He objected that its members said Buddhism had no caste, yet said they would teach the "lower classes" and so raised themselves, and that they denied rebirth and held that death is the end. Aloysius adds that Thass distrusted the Society's "scientific Buddhism" as western atheist rationalism, and that his followers accused the Society of upper-caste condescension.<ref>Aloysius, G. (Ed.) (1999). அயோத்திதாசர் சிந்தனைகள் ''Iyothee Thassar Cinthanaikal'' [Thoughts of Iyothee Thass], vol. 2, item 73, pp. 168–169 (''Tamilan'' 4:49, 17 May 1911). The issue number marks the end of the instalment. The no-rebirth doctrine is attributed to the Madras members and not to Dharmapala, and the article names nobody. Aloysius (1998), pp. 145, 160.</ref>

== Narasu and the Society ==
{{Main|P Lakshmi Narasu}}
Dharmapala wrote the introduction to Narasu's ''Essence of Buddhism'' (1907), and the Society's Calcutta branch published his ''What Is Buddhism?'' (1916). The relationship worsened as Narasu's materialist reading of karma and rebirth and his criticism of the sangha became known. The Society had helped to fund the vihara at Perambur that belonged to the Sakya Buddhist Society, and its journal printed a report of a South Indian Buddhist conference at Bangalore that omitted key sentences of Narasu's presidential message. In his last years the Society sued him in a civil court for illegally occupying the vihara; Ober reports that the case was settled only sixty years later by the Madras High Court.<ref>Narasu, P. Lakshmi (1916). ''What is Buddhism?'' Calcutta: Mahabodhi Society of India (reprinted Samyak Prakashan, 2009); Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 142–143 and nn. 80, 83 (p. 314). Ober's text places the censored message at the second conference, but his note compares two printings of the transcript of the third conference of 1928; the Society's journal gave the case numbers and its side of the dispute in 1932–34. See the entry on Narasu for the details and for the difference between Ober's and Aloysius's dates for the vihara.</ref>

== Kosambi and Sankrityayan ==
The Society's Calcutta circle was Kosambi's first institutional contact with Buddhism. He turned to it for help, was sheltered by it in Calcutta, and was given letters of introduction to Madras.<ref>Kosambi (1924), ''Nivedan'', pp. 84–85, 95–97, 103.</ref> His stay at the Madras branch is described above, and his own career is treated in the entry on [[Dharmanand Kosambi]].

[[Rahul Sankrityayan]]'s work for the Society is better documented. In 1922, newly active in Congress politics at Chhapra, he drafted a resolution that the temple at Bodh Gaya be restored to Buddhist control; it was forwarded to the Gaya session of the Congress, where Dharmapala sent two monks, Bhikshu Sri Nivasa and a Bhikshu Dharmapala, with Burmese monks to press the case, and Sankrityayan translated the foreign delegates' speeches into Hindi at a meeting held in the Arya Samaj's tent.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 4; Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", p. 62 and n. 3. The monk "Bhikshu Dharmapala" of this episode should not be identified with Anagarika Dharmapala or with the monk of the Bodh Gaya lawsuit in Kosambi's memoir without evidence.</ref> In 1926 he sat, with K.P. Jayaswal and Rajendra Prasad, on the committee that negotiated over the temple, whose report appeared in the Society's journal.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 4, n. 25 (the ''Maha Bodhi Journal'' 34/1, 1926: 2–50). According to Ober, a document of the committee records him as "Sadhu Ramodar Das".</ref> He went to Sri Lanka in 1927 on Bhikshu Sri Nivasa's recommendation, and he served as the Society's missionary (''dhammaduta'') for the London Buddhist Mission in 1932–33.<ref>Chudal (2015), pp. 64–66 and n. 6. See the entry on [[Rahul Sankrityayan]].</ref> The Society's Sarnath branch also published a Hindi journal, ''Dharmadoot'', from 1935, which carried work by Bodhananda, Har Dayal, Sankrityayan, Jagdish Kashyap, and [[Narendra Deva]], among others; Ober counts the Society, Kashi Vidyapith, and the Vidyalankara Pirivena as the shared institutions through which the scholarly, leftist, and Dalit currents of Indian Buddhism were interconnected.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 195, 210.</ref>

== The Hindu Mahasabha and the Question of Hindu Nationalism ==
The Society was entangled with Hindu nationalism from the 1920s. Ober documents the Hindu Mahasabha's attempts to treat Buddhism as a part of "Hindu" India: Dharmapala's own shifting statements on Hindu-Buddhist unity (pp. 151–152), V.D. Savarkar's declaration in ''Hindutva'' (1923) that the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha were all "ours" (p. 159), and the industrialist J.K. Birla's long and well-documented financing of Buddhist temples (pp. 165–167), a policy that aimed to fold Buddhism into a wider "Arya Dharma".<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 4, pp. 151–167. The sources used here do not state that Birla's funds went to the Maha Bodhi Society itself; Ober notes that Birla also supported several leftist and anti-caste Buddhists of the 1930s, including Sankrityayan, Kashyap, and Kosambi, while they criticized the Mahasabha he supported, and leaves the tension unresolved.</ref> The sharpest link was a personal one: Syama Prasad Mookerjee was the Society's president from 1942 to 1953, and during those years he founded the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, the ancestor of the Bharatiya Janata Party.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 4.</ref> Sankrityayan attacked the Birla-funded dharmashala at Kushinagar (1939) as an attempt to turn the anti-caste, atheist, self-supporting Buddhists into Hindus by throwing money at the site.<ref>Sankrityayan, Rahul ([1944–63] 2014), vol. 2, p. 192, as cited by Ober (2023), ch. 4.</ref>

== Ambedkar's Conversion and the Nehru Era ==
Ober shows that Ambedkar's conversion was prepared by decades of engagement with this milieu: Ambedkar met Bodhananda in 1920 and had direct links with the Society and with his Pali tutor Ishwardatt Medharthi.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 5.</ref> When he converted at Nagpur on 14 October 1956, he is reported to have told the press that he wanted the whole of India to become Buddhist and that it should not be only a "Harijan religion"; the Society's journal printed the remark.<ref>''Maha Bodhi Journal'' 64/11 (1956), p. 504, as cited by Ober (2023); the journal was not seen.</ref> The response to the conversion was divided: the Society's journal printed one dismissive review, although Sankrityayan wrote an approving pamphlet in 1957, and the Society petitioned Nehru over the loss of reservation benefits for converts and distributed 50,000 copies of Bodhananda's ritual manual to the new Buddhists. The Birla-funded donor network, by contrast, effectively cut off funding to the Ambedkarite movement.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', chs. 5 and 7. The 50,000 copies and the petition are reported by Ober; the dismissive review is not identified here.</ref>

== Nepal ==
The Society was also a base of the Theravada revival in [[Nepal]]. The first Nepalese Theravada monks were ordained in India by monks of the Society, and the Buddhist Society of Nepal (1951) adopted objectives drawn from the Maha Bodhi programme.<ref>Letizia, Chiara (2014). "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging among Some Tharu and Magar Communities of Southern Nepal". In: Toffin, Gérard, & Joanna Pfaff-Czarnecka (Eds.), ''Facing Globalization in the Himalayas''. Sage, ch. 12, pp. 289–294, citing Kloppenborg, Ria (1977). "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal". ''Kailash'' 5.4: 301–321, p. 307.</ref> When the Rana government expelled the Theravada monks in July 1944, the Society offered them hospitality at Sarnath, and its Sarnath secretary, the Sri Lankan monk Bhikshu Sri Nivasa (1894–1968), sheltered five of them at his rest house at Nautanva on the Indian side of the border.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", p. 306; Chudal (2015), p. 65 n. 8. See the entry on Nepal.</ref>

== Literature in English ==
* Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press. {{annotation|The standard study of the Society's role in the Buddhist revival, its entanglements with the Theosophical Society, the Hindu Mahasabha, and the Nehru government, and its quarrel with Narasu.}}
* Geary, David, & Sraman Mukherjee (2017). "Buddhism in Contemporary India". In: Jerryson, Michael (Ed.), ''The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'': 36–57. Oxford University Press. {{annotation|A survey of the Society's founding, the Bodh Gaya dispute, and the post-1956 movement, with a bibliography of recent work.}}
* Chudal, Alaka Atreya (2015). "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal". ''European Bulletin of Himalayan Research'' 46: 62–87. {{annotation|Sankrityayan's work for the Society and the Society's role in the Nepalese revival.}}
* Aloysius, G. (1998). ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity: A Buddhist Movement among the Tamils under Colonialism''. New Age International. {{annotation|The relation of the Society's Madras branch to the Sakya Buddhist Society. Its interpretations are the author's own arguments.}}
* Murugesan, K., & C.S. Subramanyam (1975). ''Singaravelu: First Communist in South India''. People's Publishing House. {{annotation|Meetings of the Madras branch at Singaravelu's house, and his 1923 manifesto, signed as its president.}}

== Literature in Other Languages ==
* Kosambi, Dharmanand (1924). निवेदन ''Nivedan'' [Statement]. Manoranjak Granthaprasarak Mandali. {{annotation|The memoir of a Marathi monk, with eyewitness accounts of Bodh Gaya in 1902 (pp. 83–88), the Society's Calcutta circle (pp. 95–97, 103), and the Madras Sabha in 1903 (pp. 110–117). Marathi.}}
* Aloysius, G. (Ed.) (1999). அயோத்திதாசர் சிந்தனைகள் ''Iyothee Thassar Cinthanaikal'' [Thoughts of Iyothee Thass], vols. 1–2. FRRC, St Xavier's College. {{annotation|Thass's reply of 17 May 1911 on the Society's Madras members (vol. 2, pp. 168–169). Tamil.}}

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "Maha Bodhi Society". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Maha_Bodhi_Society</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[category:India]]
[[Category:Topical Pages]]
[[Category:Organizations]]
[[Category:Dharmanand Kosambi]]
[[Category:Rahul Sankrityaya]]
[[Category:P Lakshmi Narasu ]]
[[Category:BR Ambedkar]]

Tamil Buddhist Movement

2026-10-27T11:05:42Z

Lajos: Created page with "{{Awaiting Review}} The Tamil Buddhist movement was an anti-caste Buddhist revival among Tamil-speaking Paraiyars and other communities classed as "untouchable", centered on Madras (now Chennai), the Kolar Gold Fields, and the places where Tamil railway and mine workers settled. It ran from about 1898 into the 1940s. It began with Iyothee Thass's Sakya Buddhist Society and his weekly ''Oru Paisa Tamilan'' (1907–14), and from 1917 it was organized through the South..."

{{Awaiting Review}}
The Tamil Buddhist movement was an anti-caste Buddhist revival among Tamil-speaking Paraiyars and other communities classed as "untouchable", centered on Madras (now Chennai), the Kolar Gold Fields, and the places where Tamil railway and mine workers settled. It ran from about 1898 into the 1940s. It began with [[Iyothee Thass]]'s Sakya Buddhist Society and his weekly ''Oru Paisa Tamilan'' (1907–14), and from 1917 it was organized through the South Indian Buddhist Association, whose first four general conferences [[P Lakshmi Narasu|P. Lakshmi Narasu]] chaired. It overlapped with the Madras branch of the [[Maha Bodhi Society]], whose officers included the future communist M. Singaravelu, and in 1903 [[Dharmanand Kosambi]] worked among its members. The movement combined Buddhism with anti-caste emancipation through institution building and conversion, but it was not socialist: the conference resolutions examined are loyalist and constitutional. Its links with the Left run through individuals, above all Singaravelu, and through the Self-Respect movement of the 1930s.

== Origins, 1892–1903 ==
Thass's turn to Buddhism followed a career in caste politics in the Nilgiris and Madras. In April 1892 he attended the Madras Mahajana Sabha, where, by his own later account in the ''Tamilan'', an item on the "Parayar problem" was struck from the agenda and a speaker told him that Siva and Vishnu were not the gods of his community. Gajendran Ayyathurai reads the episode as the point at which Thass concluded that the caste and the casteless had no common identity.<ref name="ay11">Ayyathurai, Gajendran (2011). ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness: Pandit Iyothee Thass, Tamil Buddhism, and the Marginalized in South India''. PhD dissertation, Columbia University, pp. 22–24 (reading Thass's retelling in the ''Tamilan'' of 21 October 1908). Aloysius dates an earlier memorial of the Nilgiris Dravida Mahajana Sabha to the Congress to 1891 (Aloysius, G. (1998). ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity: A Buddhist Movement among the Tamils under Colonialism''. New Age International, pp. 55, 195–196).</ref>

In July 1898 Thass and P. Krishnaswami, delegates of "Paraiah" committees in Madras, sailed with Colonel H.S. Olcott of the Theosophical Society to [[Sri Lanka|Colombo]], where Thass took the five precepts from the monk Sumangala at Maligakanda. Aloysius, who draws on Olcott's diary and on Thass's own account, stresses that the initiative lay with the delegates, and he notes that not every founding member of the new society took the precepts.<ref name="al98">Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 50–55, 58. The editor of Olcott's diary remarked that the delegates' Buddhist ancestry had not been proved (p. 51 n. 4). Aloysius and later writers date the founding of the Sakya Buddhist Society to 1898; some sources give 1899 (and the Maha Bodhi Society's Madras branch 1898 or 1900), and the dates of Thass's turn to Buddhism vary between 1890, 1898, and 1899.</ref> The Sakya Buddhist Society, founded in Madras on his return, was the first institution of the movement; its relations with Thass's own life and writings are treated in the biography of [[Iyothee Thass]].

The Madras branch of the Maha Bodhi Society, the organization that Anagarika Dharmapala had founded in 1891, was a second and separate body. Aloysius says that the effort to open it began in 1898 at the initiative of Singaravelu, although he also states that the Society opened a Madras branch in 1900, and he lists Singaravelu and Narasu among its early lecturers.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', p. 58 and n. 27. The identification of Aloysius's "M. Singaravelu Chettiar" with the communist Singaravelu (see below) is Aloysius's own gloss.</ref> Kosambi's memoir of 1903 names a Professor Lakshminarasu Naidu, probably Narasu, as the president of the Madras Maha Bodhi Sabha and Singaravelu as its secretary, and it shows the Sabha and Thass's followers as two groups that did not get on.<ref name="nive">Kosambi, Dharmanand (1924). निवेदन ''Nivedan'' [Statement] (Marathi). Manoranjak Granthaprasarak Mandali, pp. 110–117. The pages do not name Narasu or Thass in full, and both identifications are inferences. See also Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press, pp. 135–143.</ref> Thass criticized the Madras members of the Society in 1911, and the quarrel between the Society and Narasu, described below, ended in a lawsuit.

== Dharmanand Kosambi in Madras ==
{{Main|Dharmanand Kosambi}}
Kosambi's memoir is the only eyewitness account of the Madras societies in 1903. He passed through Madras for a day in March 1902, when Singaravelu received him with a letter of introduction from the Maha Bodhi circle in Calcutta and helped him out of the plague quarantine at Tuticorin. From late March to mid-October 1903 he lived there for about six and a half months. He brought the Maha Bodhi Sabha and the recent Paraiyar converts around a Pandit Ayodhidas together in a rented house at Royapettah, the Bauddhashram, where on Sundays he read a Pali sutta, Singaravelu lectured in Tamil, and the professor taught him comparative study on Fridays.<ref>Kosambi (1924), ''Nivedan'', pp. 95–97 (1902) and 114–117 (1903); the pages record that Ayodhidas saw him off at the quay in October (p. 117). Meera Kosambi's translated selections corroborate the memoir only in part (Kosambi, Meera (Ed.) (2010). ''Dharmanand Kosambi: The Essential Writings''. Permanent Black, Selection 1). Ober (2023, p. 232) has Kosambi living at the Shakya Buddhist Society's rest houses from 1902 to 1904; the memoir gives one day in 1902 and six and a half months in 1903.</ref> He quarreled with Singaravelu, who had refused him the fare to Calcutta and later called the monks useless, and he left for Burma.

== Iyothee Thass ==
{{Main|Iyothee Thass}}
Thass (1845–1914) was a Siddha physician and journalist, born a Parayar, who argued that the casteless Dravidians were India's original inhabitants and its original Buddhists and that caste was imposed on them by immigrant "false Brahmins". He founded the Sakya Buddhist Society in 1898, edited the ''Tamilan'' from 1907, and led a campaign over the census of 1911.<ref>Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'' (the 1911 census campaign and the Sakya associations); Leonard, Dickens (2021). "Caste-Less Tamils and Early Print Public Sphere: Remembering Iyothee Thass (1845–1914)". ''South Asia Research'' 41.3: 349–368, p. 351. Ayyathurai records Sakya associations outside Madras, including in Burma and South Africa.</ref>

== P. Lakshmi Narasu ==
{{Main|P Lakshmi Narasu}}
Narasu (1861–1934) was a science teacher in Madras and the author of ''The Essence of Buddhism'' (1907), which reads the Buddha's teaching as a rationalist and ethical creed and, in a passage that Rajesh Kumar cites, calls the spirit of Buddhism essentially socialistic.<ref>Narasu, P. Lakshmi (1907). ''The Essence of Buddhism''. Colombo, with an introduction by Anagarika Dharmapala. The "socialistic" sentence is at p. 45 of the AES reprint of 1993; Kumar, in: Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.) (2021). ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste''. Routledge, ch. 1, p. 35, cites it as "Narasu 1912, 7", a reference that remains unexplained. The book itself has no Marx or communism in it.</ref> After Thass's death in 1914 he became the president of the Sakya Buddhist Society, and the movement regarded him as Thass's successor, although members from the Kolar Gold Fields elected M.Y. Murugesam as general president.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 140; Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', p. 83 n. 16.</ref> He presided over the first four general conferences of the Association. His materialist reading of karma and rebirth and his criticism of the sangha brought him into conflict with the Maha Bodhi Society, which sued him in the last years of his life over the Perambur vihara.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 142–143 and n. 83 (p. 314). The Society had helped to fund the vihara, which Ober dates to 1920 and Aloysius's chronology to 1922.</ref>

== The ''Tamilan'' and the Tamil Buddhist Press ==
The movement's first institution of lasting importance was a newspaper. ''Oru Paisa Tamilan'' ("The One Pice Tamilian") appeared weekly from 19 June 1907 until 29 April 1914, in four pages, and was printed at Thiru Adimoolam's Gautham Press; it was called ''The Tamilan'' from 1908, and Thass never said why the old title was dropped.<ref>Leonard (2021), "Caste-Less Tamils", pp. 351–352; Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'', p. 21 and n. 42. The paper is cited as ''Tamilan'' below. Aloysius's introduction to the collected writings gives the same range: Aloysius, G. (Ed.) (1999). அயோத்திதாசர் சிந்தனைகள் ''Iyothee Thassar Cinthanaikal'' [Thoughts of Iyothee Thass], vols. 1–2. FRRC, St Xavier's College.</ref> Besides news and argument on swadeshi, civic life, and caste, it carried a women's column and campaigned for women's education, and it was the vehicle for Thass's serial histories, among them the ''Indirar Desa Sarithiram'', which Ayyathurai counts as sixty-five parts between August 1910 and November 1911.<ref>Leonard (2021), "Caste-Less Tamils", p. 353; Ayyathurai (2011), ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness'', p. 88. The Roja Muttaiah Research Library in Chennai holds the paper for about 1907–09 and 1911–14 (Ayyathurai, p. 221), so much of the run is read through the selection printed by Aloysius.</ref>

After Thass's death the paper was revived. G. Appaduraiyar edited a revived ''Tamilan'' from Madras from 10 January 1921 (fortnightly from August of that year), and a ''Tamilan'' published at the Kolar Gold Fields from 1926 until about 1932; Aloysius judges that the Kolar paper, a popular and more secular journal of contemporary politics, lacked the learning of Thass's.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 82, 91; Aloysius, G. (2010). ''Dalit-Subaltern Self-Identifications: Iyothee Thassar & Tamizhan''. Critical Quest, pp. 11–13, 41. The paper in the 1914–17 interval and the Kolar paper's last year were not examined.</ref> Srinivasan's ''Paraiyan'' (1893) belongs to the same early Tamil subaltern press, and Appaduraiyar also wrote for Periyar's ''Kudi Arasu'' from 1925.<ref>Aloysius (2010), ''Dalit-Subaltern Self-Identifications'', pp. 14–17 and n. 5 (a list of early Tamil subaltern journals); Ayyathurai (2020), "Living Buddhism", p. 9 n. 4.</ref>

== The South Indian Buddhist Association, 1917–1945 ==
The Association held its general conferences at Madras on 4 November 1917, at Bangalore on 21 November 1920, at Madras on 6–8 April 1928, on 21 May 1932, and at Madras on 31 March–1 April 1945, with Narasu presiding over the first four and Appaduraiyar over the fifth.<ref name="conf">Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 89, 97–100 and App. 5–9, pp. 209–229 (the resolutions, in Aloysius's translation). The conferences are numbered inconsistently in the source, and the Association's own records were not seen.</ref> It continued the organization of the Sakya Buddhist Society and was the movement's public face. Its resolutions are those of a constitutional lobby: expressions of loyalty to the British government in 1917 and 1920, requests for a separate Buddhist column in the census and separate seats in the legislatures, demands about schools, liquor shops, land, and holidays, and a code of reformed Buddhist life, including a membership test that rejected idol worship, ritual customs, and caste discrimination, a wedding badge with the Bodhi tree and the wheel of the Dharma in place of the Hindu ''thali'', and equal inheritance for men and women on the Burmese model.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', App. 5–9, pp. 209–229 (1928 res. 3 and 16; 1920 res. 1 and 7; the liquor-shop, village-school, and holiday motions of 1928 were proposed by Appaduraiyar). The 1920 address was to George V and the "benign British Government of India". The sources do not say at which conference each motion was moved.</ref> The conference of 1932 recommended Narasu's ''Essence of Buddhism'' in Tamil as its authoritative book, and that of 1945 approved Appaduraiyar's Tamil explanation of Buddhism, which was based on it, as the common text.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', App. 5–9, pp. 225, 228.</ref>

The conference of 1928 had guests from outside the movement. Aloysius lists Periyar and "Comrade M. Singaravelu" among them, but he does not record what they said, and Murugesan and Subramanyam's biography of Singaravelu mentions neither the conference nor the revival of the Narasingapuram branch that he helped to bring about in 1930.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 95, 97; Murugesan, K., & C.S. Subramanyam (1975). ''Singaravelu: First Communist in South India''. People's Publishing House.</ref>

== M. Singaravelu ==
M. Singaravelu (1860–1946), a lawyer born to a fishing family in Madras, is the movement's best-documented link with the Communist movement.<ref name="mur75">Murugesan & Subramanyam (1975), ''Singaravelu'', pp. 1–7 (life), p. 6 (death on 11 February 1946). The book calls him "M. Singaravelu" and "Singaravelu Chettiar" and never expands the initial; the "M.N." of some earlier accounts is not supported by it.</ref> The Buddhist phase of his life is documented by four lines of evidence. Aloysius describes him as an early lecturer for both the Sakya and the Maha Bodhi societies and as the initiator of the Maha Bodhi branch in 1898. Kosambi, who knew him in 1902 and 1903, shows him as secretary of the Maha Bodhi Sabha, a hospitable and quick-tempered man who spoke in Tamil at the Sunday meetings of the Bauddhashram. Murugesan and Subramanyam report meetings of the Society at his house and name him, with Narasu, as the principal speaker.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', p. 58; Kosambi (1924), ''Nivedan'', pp. 110, 114–116; Murugesan & Subramanyam (1975), ''Singaravelu'', pp. 8, 146. Whether the Singaravelu of these accounts is the communist rests on Aloysius's gloss and on Murugesan's biography, and Nivedan, which predates any communist role, does not say.</ref> His manifesto for the first May Day celebration in India, at Madras in 1923, is signed as "Indian Communist" and as president of the Madras Maha Bodhi Society, among other offices; and in his presidential address to the first Communist Conference at Kanpur in 1925 he is reported to have said that communism was taught by the Buddha in one form and practiced by his disciples.<ref>Murugesan & Subramanyam (1975), ''Singaravelu'', p. 187 (the manifesto) and p. 206 (the address, in Murugesan's translation).</ref>

The evidence should not be stretched. His family told his biographers that he was not himself a Buddhist, none of his Tamil works has a Buddhist title, and an anonymous reviewer told Douglas Ober that his embrace of Buddhism and Marxism was more superficial than his biographers claim.<ref>Murugesan & Subramanyam (1975), ''Singaravelu'', p. 145; Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', nn. 2–3 (p. 330). Ober writes that his relations with Thass and Narasu appear to have been strained (p. 228); Thass's own writings examined for his biography never name Singaravelu.</ref> The evidence supports an early organizational role and a later use of Buddhist vocabulary and of the Buddha's authority in Marxist argument; a personal Buddhist identity is disputed or absent. His mature politics were Marxist, atheist, and anti-caste.

== G. Appaduraiyar ==
G. Appaduraiyar (Gabriel Appaduraiyar, 1890–1961) was born in Salem district and worked at the Kolar Gold Fields, and he took the precepts in 1911 from a bhikkhu named Indravansa after writing for the ''Tamilan'' first as a "Christian friend". He edited the revived ''Tamilan'' (1921) and the Kolar ''Tamilan'' (1926–c. 1932), founded Buddhist centers in South India, notably in non-Tamil regions, and set up the Association's chapter and vihara at Hubli in 1924. In 1923 he joined the Ceylonese delegation to the Belgaum Congress on the question of Bodh Gaya and broke off a discussion with Gandhi over the ''varna'' system. He presided over the fifth conference of 1945, which approved his Tamil explanation of Buddhism, and Aloysius also lists a work of his, ''Puththarathu Arularam'' (1950).<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 70 n. 54, 72, 82, 84, 91, 96 n. 52, 100–102, 192–194, and App. 7–9; Ayyathurai, Gajendran (2020). "Living Buddhism: Migration, Memory, and Castelessness in South India". ''History and Anthropology'' (online first, 14 December 2020): 1–19, p. 9. His name is also printed Appaduratyar and Appadurai Pillai; Aloysius places his death at Vannivedu in 1961 and his funeral at the Kolar Gold Fields, which are not necessarily in conflict. Whether the "Appaduraiyar (1950)" cited by Aloysius at p. 107 n. 6 is the same work is not established.</ref> He was a friend of Periyar from the mid-1920s, wrote in ''Kudi Arasu'', and attended the Self-Respect conference at Kolar in May 1932 with his daughter; Periyar presided at his funeral.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 101–102, 192–194; Ayyathurai (2020), "Living Buddhism", p. 9 n. 4; Geetha, V., & S.V. Rajadurai (1998). ''Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium: From Iyothee Thass to Periyar''. Samya, ch. 9, p. 11 (the page numbers restart in each chapter of the electronic copy used).</ref>

== R. Srinivasan ==
Rettaimalai Srinivasan (1860–1945) was a leader of the Paraiyar community who founded the Paraiyar Mahajana Sabha (1891) and the journal ''Paraiyan'' (1893), urged the community to own the name "Paraiyar", later sat in the legislature, and supported Ambedkar at the Round Table Conferences.<ref>Aloysius (2010), ''Dalit-Subaltern Self-Identifications'', pp. 14–17, 42, 54; Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 57, 166, 187.</ref> His relation to Buddhism is unclear. Aloysius calls him an initiated Buddhist, but his monograph also describes him as an opponent of the Buddhist revival, and he criticized Thass's Buddhist organizing in a newspaper; the date, place, and officiant of his own initiation are not documented in the sources examined.<ref>Aloysius (2010), ''Dalit-Subaltern Self-Identifications'', p. 16; Aloysius (1998), pp. 57, 187. Ponnovium's overview in Aloysius (Ed.) (1999), vol. 1, pp. xxvi–xxvii, denies any enmity with Thass and speaks of a family tie and a doctrinal difference. Ober (2023, n. 91) calls him Thass's brother-in-law; Aloysius (1998, p. 82 n. 9) records the marriage in 1916 of Srinivasan's daughter to Thass's eldest son. The nature of the kinship is therefore not settled.</ref>

== The Self-Respect Movement and the Left ==
The Tamil Buddhists and the Self-Respect movement of Periyar were distinct movements that met at several points. Periyar was a guest at the conference of 1928, Appaduraiyar was his friend, and Narasu is reported to have called the Buddha's creed the oldest "samadharmic" one in an address to the Association that ''Kudi Arasu'' printed on 29 March 1931.<ref>Geetha & Rajadurai (1998), ''Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium'', ch. 11, p. 2. The report is second-hand; the periodical was not seen, and whether "samadharmic" renders Narasu's own word was not checked. Narasu also criticized Annie Besant in ''New India'' on 17 November 1916 for saying that a Paraiyar must work out his karma (ch. 1, p. 20).</ref> From 1931 Singaravelu wrote for the Self-Respect papers, including ''Kudi Arasu'' and, from 1935, ''Pudu Ulagam'', and with Periyar he drafted the Self-Respect-Samadharma action plan adopted at Erode in December 1932. In the Self-Respect press he read ''samadharma'' as a Buddhist word, with the Buddha using ''dharma'' for a thing and so for property, which made ''samadharma'' a call for common ownership against the caste duty that the Hindu ''dharma'' meant.<ref>Geetha & Rajadurai (1998), ''Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium'', ch. 11, pp. 2, 21 and App. 3; Murugesan & Subramanyam (1975), ''Singaravelu'', App. 17, pp. 221–222, where the same word is said not to capture "socialism". The authors judge his later socialism "imitative" and "unilinear" (ch. 11, p. 28; ch. 6, pp. 41–42).</ref> He broke with Periyar in 1933–34 over the movement's alliance with the Justice Party and with capitalists.<ref>Geetha & Rajadurai (1998), ''Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium'', ch. 11 (the articles in ''Kudi Arasu'' of 8 October 1933 and in ''Pagutharivu'' of 30 September 1934 are the main evidence; the page numbers were not recorded).</ref> Geetha and Rajadurai, whose history of non-Brahmin thought begins with Thass, are critical of the empirical basis of his history of the casteless as the first Buddhists. Whether the Tamil Buddhist movement prepared the ground for Periyar's movement, as Aloysius argues, or only overlapped with it, is disputed.

== Later Communities: Kolar, Hubli, and the Diaspora ==
The movement spread with the Tamil workers who moved to the mines and railways. At the Kolar Gold Fields the contractor M.Y. Murugesam was a patron of the movement, the Kolar ''Tamilan'' was published, and a Self-Respect conference was held in 1932.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 83 n. 16, 91; Geetha & Rajadurai (1998), ''Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium'', ch. 9, p. 11.</ref> At Hubli, in what is now Karnataka, a chapter of the Association and a vihara were founded in 1924, and the community of descendants of Tamil railway migrants that remains there keeps Thass's ''Adivedam'' as a core text. Ayyathurai's ethnographic study reports the community's own claim to be casteless, and the author defends it; the claim is the community's account and is given here as such.<ref>Ayyathurai, Gajendran (2020). "Living Buddhism: Migration, Memory, and Castelessness in South India". ''History and Anthropology'' (online first, 14 December 2020): 1–19, p. 9.</ref> The movement's later history, including its relations with Ambedkar's movement after 1956, is outside the scope of this page.

== Literature in English ==
* Leonard, Dickens (2025). "Iyothee Thassar's Buddha and Civilizational Memory". In: Banerjee, Prathama (Ed.), ''Textual Lives of Caste Across the Ages: Hierarchy, Humanity and Equality in Indian History'': 113–127. Bloomsbury Academic. {{annotation|Reads Thass's ''Indirar Desa Sarithiram'' as an account of a civilizational conflict between indigenous Buddhists and "Aryan" invaders, and notes his reliance on the Orientalist theory of Indo-Aryan migration.}}
* Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press. {{annotation|Places the Tamil movement within a wider network of Buddhist revival before Ambedkar, and gives its relations with the Maha Bodhi Society and with Narasu and Singaravelu.}}
* Ayyathurai, Gajendran (2020). "Living Buddhism: Migration, Memory, and Castelessness in South India". ''History and Anthropology'' (online first, 14 December 2020): 1–19. {{annotation|An ethnographic study of the Buddhist community of Hubli, which descends from Tamil railway migrants. Its claim that the community is casteless is the community's own account, which the author defends.}}
* Leonard, Dickens (2021). "Caste-Less Tamils and Early Print Public Sphere: Remembering Iyothee Thass (1845–1914)". ''South Asia Research'' 41.3: 349–368. {{annotation|A short account of Thass's career and his press. Most of its quotations of Thass are the author's own translations from a secondary source, and should be checked against Thass's texts.}}
* Aloysius, G. (2010). ''Dalit-Subaltern Self-Identifications: Iyothee Thassar & Tamizhan''. Critical Quest. {{annotation|An essay by the editor of Thass's collected writings on his journalism and on early Tamil subaltern journals. It is an argument and not a neutral summary.}}
* Ayyathurai, Gajendran (2011). ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness: Pandit Iyothee Thass, Tamil Buddhism, and the Marginalized in South India''. PhD dissertation, Columbia University. {{annotation|The most detailed English study of Thass's arguments in the ''Tamilan'' and of the Sakya associations. All translations are the author's, and the study finds no direct archival evidence of an influence on Ambedkar.}}
* Geetha, V., & S.V. Rajadurai (1998). ''Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium: From Iyothee Thass to Periyar''. Samya. {{annotation|A history of non-Brahmin thought in Tamil Nadu, critical of the empirical basis of Thass's history, with the fullest account of the Self-Respect movement and of Singaravelu's part in it. Page numbers restart in each chapter of the electronic copy.}}
* Aloysius, G. (1998). ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity: A Buddhist Movement among the Tamils under Colonialism''. New Age International. {{annotation|The standard monograph on the Sakya Buddhist Society and the South Indian Buddhist Association, with a chronology and the conference resolutions in translation. Its thesis that Tamil Buddhism was the ideological antecedent of the Dravidian movement is the author's argument.}}
* Murugesan, K., & C.S. Subramanyam (1975). ''Singaravelu: First Communist in South India''. People's Publishing House. {{annotation|The standard biography of Singaravelu, sympathetic to its subject, with translated speeches and manifestos among its appendices. It is the source for his Buddhist-communist remark of 1925, in translation.}}

== Literature in Other Languages ==
* Aloysius, G. (Ed.) (1999). அயோத்திதாசர் சிந்தனைகள் ''Iyothee Thassar Cinthanaikal'' [Thoughts of Iyothee Thass], vols. 1–2. FRRC, St Xavier's College. {{annotation|Thass's writings from the ''Tamilan'', cited by item and page, with an introduction by the editor and an overview of Thass's life by Anbu Ponnovium. Tamil (a third volume followed in 2003).}}
* Kosambi, Dharmanand (1924). निवेदन ''Nivedan'' [Statement]. Manoranjak Granthaprasarak Mandali. {{annotation|The memoir of a Marathi monk, with the only eyewitness account of the Madras societies in 1903 (pp. 95–97, 110–117). Marathi.}}

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "Tamil Buddhist Movement". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Tamil_Buddhist_Movement</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[category:India]]
[[Category:Topical Pages]]
[[Category:Movements]]
[[Category: Tamil Buddhist movement]]
[[Category:Iyothee Thass]]
[[Category:P Lakshmi Narasu]]
[[Category:Dharmanand Kosambi]]
[[category:Dalit Buddhism]]

Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India

2026-10-27T11:04:55Z

Lajos: Created page with "{{Awaiting Review}} 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 th..."

{{Awaiting Review}}
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 [[Dalit Buddhism|Ambedkarite movement]].

== Scope and Terms ==
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 [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]] and socialism.<ref name="geetha">Geetha, V. (2021). ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India''. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 51–52, 85, 117–119, 159–160, 221.</ref> Douglas Ober's chapter "When the Buddha Met Marx" is the fullest narrative account of the encounter between Buddhism and Marxism in India.<ref name="ober">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).</ref>

== Early Marxist Readings, 1910–1956 ==

=== Dharmanand Kosambi ===
{{Main|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.<ref name="mk">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.</ref> Ober counts the thesis among the most persuasive and enduring arguments of modern Indian Buddhism, while also calling it a modernist claim.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 233–234.</ref> 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.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 237–238, 240–241; M. Kosambi (Ed.) (2010), ''Essential Writings'', Selection 7.</ref> Ober describes the result as a "democratic Buddhist socialism" in which non-violence takes precedence over the Marxist emphasis on exploitation.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 241.</ref> His editor argues that he was the first to explain Marx and socialism to Maharashtra in Marathi; the claim was not checked.<ref>M. Kosambi (Ed.) (2010), ''Essential Writings'', Introduction, endnotes 24–34.</ref>

=== Rahul Sankrityayan ===
{{Main|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.<ref>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</ref> 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.<ref>Sankrityayan (1948), ''Bauddh Darshan'', p. 59.</ref> He also cautioned that it would be erroneous to say that Buddhism helped Marx or came near his fundamentals.<ref>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.</ref> He declined to call himself a follower of the Buddhist religion, since for him culture and religion were not the same thing.<ref>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.</ref>

=== Narendra Deva ===
{{Main|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.<ref>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.</ref> 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.<ref>Deva (1979), ''Towards Socialist Society'', pp. 283–286, 302–306; Deva (1956), ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'', pp. 1–3, 12–15, 31.</ref> His biographer Rakesh Ankit nevertheless concludes that he was "a Marxist and a Buddhist" to the end.<ref>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.</ref> 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 ==
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.<ref>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.</ref> Dharmanand Kosambi (1910), Rahul Sankrityayan (1935), D.D. Kosambi, and Chattopadhyaya each state a version of it.

=== D.D. Kosambi ===
Damodar Dharmanand Kosambi (1907–1966), the son of Dharmanand Kosambi, was a mathematician and a historian of ancient India.<ref>M. Kosambi (Ed.) (2010), ''Essential Writings'', Introduction.</ref> 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."<ref name="kos65">Kosambi, D.D. (1965). ''The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline''.</ref> (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 ===
Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya (1918–1993) was a Bengali Marxist philosopher best known for ''Lokāyata'' (1959) and ''Indian Philosophy: A Popular Introduction'' (1964).<ref>Chattopadhyaya (1959), ''Lokāyata''.</ref> He wrote as a self-declared Marxist and took his comparative method from George Thomson.<ref>Chattopadhyaya (1959), ''Lokāyata'', pp. xii, xvi, xviii.</ref> 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.<ref>Chattopadhyaya (1959), ''Lokāyata'', pp. 459–467.</ref> 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.<ref>Chattopadhyaya (1959), ''Lokāyata'', pp. 468–475, 483–494.</ref> 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.<ref>Chattopadhyaya (1959), ''Lokāyata'', pp. 494–504, 507.</ref> 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.<ref>Chattopadhyaya (1959), ''Lokāyata'', pp. 507, 524.</ref>

=== Primitive Communism: Three Positions ===
Chattopadhyaya builds on Morgan's primitive communism, which he treats as the inspiration for the sangha.<ref>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.</ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref> Sharad Patil, as reported by Sarwate, calls it a rhetorical device used by Marx and Engels.<ref name="sarwate">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.</ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref>

== ''Buddhism: The Marxist Approach'' (1970) ==
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).<ref name="anth">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.</ref> 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.<ref>Sharma (1970), "Some Aspects", p. 54; Balaramamoorty, Y. (1970). "Buddhist Philosophy". In: ''Buddhism: The Marxist Approach'': 37–53. People's Publishing House, p. 43.</ref> Sankrityayan's essay is a translation, and the essays may therefore predate the volume, but the sources do not establish this.

=== Y. Balaramamoorty ===
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."<ref>Balaramamoorty (1970), "Buddhist Philosophy", pp. 37, 39.</ref> 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.<ref>Balaramamoorty (1970), "Buddhist Philosophy", pp. 42–43.</ref> 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.<ref>Balaramamoorty (1970), "Buddhist Philosophy", pp. 43, 46–48, 52–53.</ref>

=== Ram Bilas Sharma ===
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.<ref>Sharma (1970), "Some Aspects", pp. 54–56.</ref> 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."<ref>Sharma (1970), "Some Aspects", pp. 57–58, 65.</ref> 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.<ref>Sharma (1970), "Some Aspects", pp. 58–65.</ref>

=== Mulk Raj Anand ===
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.<ref>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.</ref>

=== Disagreements among the Essays ===
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."<ref>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.</ref> 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.<ref>Chattopadhyaya (1970), "Some Problems of Early Buddhism", pp. 13, 14, 34; Sharma (1970), "Some Aspects", p. 65; Balaramamoorty (1970), "Buddhist Philosophy", pp. 42–43.</ref> 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.<ref>Sankrityayan (1970), "Buddhist Dialectics", p. 2; Chattopadhyaya (1970), "Some Problems of Early Buddhism", pp. 15–19, 23; Sharma (1970), "Some Aspects", pp. 54–56.</ref>

=== What the Volume Does Not Discuss ===
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.<ref>Balaramamoorty (1970), "Buddhist Philosophy", p. 48; Sharma (1970), "Some Aspects", p. 58.</ref> The Communist-orbit reading of Buddhism at this date thus appears entirely disconnected from the Ambedkarite movement.

== Later Syntheses ==

=== Sharad Patil ===
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.<ref name="sarwate2">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.</ref> 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.<ref>Sarwate (2025), "The Caste Subconscious", p. 212 and n. 2 (p. 224).</ref> 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."<ref>Sarwate (2025), "The Caste Subconscious", pp. 211–213, 217.</ref>

Patil held that Indian Marxists treated caste as superstructure and failed, and that Indian Marxism was itself "inherently Brahmanical."<ref>Sarwate (2025), "The Caste Subconscious", p. 212.</ref> He found that Buddhist impermanence "resonated deeply with dialectics," and he translated dialectics into Marathi as ''anitya'', later ''kshanikavada''.<ref>Sarwate (2025), "The Caste Subconscious", p. 213 and n. 7 (p. 225).</ref> 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.<ref>Sarwate (2025), "The Caste Subconscious", pp. 215–217, 223.</ref> He faulted Ambedkar's account of jati as static and unhistorical.<ref>Sarwate (2025), "The Caste Subconscious", pp. 214, 223.</ref> 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.<ref>Sarwate (2025), "The Caste Subconscious", pp. 212, 222–224.</ref>

=== Tulsi Ram ===

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.<ref>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.</ref>

== Marxist Readings and the Ambedkarite Movement ==

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 [[BR Ambedkar|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.<ref>Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', pp. 2, 51–52, 85.</ref> 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.<ref>Geetha (2021), ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar'', pp. 117–119, 159–160.</ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref> The manifesto itself criticizes the Communist Party of India for failing to combine class struggle with the struggle against untouchability;<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973). ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto''. Bombay, p. 4.</ref> 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 ==
* 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. {{annotation|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. {{annotation|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. {{annotation|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. {{annotation|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. {{annotation|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. {{annotation|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''. {{annotation|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). {{annotation|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 ==
* Deva, Narendra (1956). बौद्ध-धर्म-दर्शन ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'' [Buddhist Religion and Philosophy]. Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad. {{annotation|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. {{annotation|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]. {{annotation|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. {{annotation|The programmatic statement of "Marxism-Phule-Ambedkarism," known to the project only through Sarwate's report. Marathi.}}

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Marxist_Interpretations_of_Buddhism_in_India</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[category:India]]
[[category:Topical Pages]]
[[category:Buddhist Marxism in India]]
[[category:Dharmanand Kosambi]]
[[category:Rahul Sankrityayan]]
[[category:Narendra Deva]]

Dalit Buddhism

2026-10-27T11:04:02Z

Lajos: Created page with "{{Provisional Entry}} '''Dalit Buddhism''' is the Buddhism of India's former "untouchable" (Dalit) communities, above all the Mahars of Maharashtra who followed B.R. Ambedkar into Buddhism at Nagpur on 14 October 1956. The movement has a prehistory of more than half a century: from the 1890s, Tamil, North Indian, and Marathi Buddhist networks had already linked Buddhist identity to the rejection of caste, and Ambedkar's turn drew on some of them. Its late..."

{{Provisional Entry}}
'''Dalit Buddhism''' is the Buddhism of India's former "untouchable" (Dalit) communities, above all the Mahars of Maharashtra who followed [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]] into Buddhism at Nagpur on 14 October 1956. The movement has a prehistory of more than half a century: from the 1890s, Tamil, North Indian, and Marathi Buddhist networks had already linked Buddhist identity to the rejection of caste, and Ambedkar's turn drew on some of them. Its later history includes a militant, left-leaning phase in the 1970s, attempts to join Ambedkar with Marx, and the Dalit branch of the Triratna Buddhist Community.

== Terms ==

The literature uses several names for the same body of people and ideas, and they are not interchangeable. "Dalit Buddhism" is the term used in the ''Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'', and is the most general term.<ref name="Handbook">Geary, [Given name], & [Given name] Mukherjee (2017). "Buddhism in Contemporary India". In: Jerryson, Michael (Ed.), ''The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'': 36–57. Oxford University Press, pp. 52–53.</ref> Most other terms are associated with Ambedkar and the Ambedkarite movement and do not include earlier forms of Dalit Buddhism.

"Neo-Buddhism" is the term in the title of the volume edited by Pradeep P. Gokhale, ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste'', and Gopal Guru writes "New-Buddhism" in his chapter title.<ref name="Gokhale2021">Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.) (2021). ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste''. London: Routledge.</ref> "Navayana" ("new vehicle") is used by Gail Omvedt in her foreword to that volume, where she says that Navayana rejects four elements of classical Buddhism (the claim that all existence is suffering, karma and rebirth, the standard story of the Buddha's renunciation, and the sangha of renouncers) and "follows Iyothee Thass" in reinterpreting karma.<ref>Omvedt, Gail (2021). Foreword. In: Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.), ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste'': xv–xviii. London: Routledge, p. xvii.</ref> "Ambedkarite Buddhism" is the term that foregrounds the movement's founder, and it is also what Hunt, citing an earlier study, reports of the Jatavs of Agra: they were "more Ambedkarites than Buddhists."<ref name="Hunt2014">Hunt, Sarah Beth (2014). ''Hindi Dalit Literature and the Politics of Representation''. New Delhi: Routledge, p. 47 (citing Lynch 1969).</ref> The terms are also contested by the people they describe. In a study of the Tamil Buddhists of Hubli in Karnataka, Gajendran Ayyathurai reports that his informants reject the labels Scheduled Caste, Neo-Buddhist, Dalit, and Dalit-Bahujan as re-imposing caste, and that they report only "Buddhist" to the census.<ref>Ayyathurai, Gajendran (2020).</ref>

== Before Ambedkar, c. 1890–1950 ==

Douglas Ober argues, against the common view that Ambedkar built his Buddhism from scratch, that Ambedkar had been in contact with existing Buddhist networks for decades before 1956.<ref name="Ober2023">Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press, ch. 5 (the common view is cited there to Vajpeyi 2012).</ref> The ''Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'''s chapter on India likewise lists a set of pioneers whose example Dalit Buddhist organizations invoke: Mahavir (1833–1919), [[Iyothee Thass]] (1845–1914), Kripasaran Mahastavir (1865–1926), [[Dharmanand Kosambi]] (1876–1947), Bodhananda Mahastavir (1874–1952), [[Rahul Sankrityayan]] (1893–1963), Anand Kausalyayan (1905–1988), and Jagdish Kashyap (1908–1976).<ref>Geary and Mukherjee (2017), "Buddhism in Contemporary India", p. 50 (the list is given there as quoted; the Handbook notes that several of them spent formative years in [[Burma]] and [[Sri Lanka]]).</ref> Four strands in the period are summarized here. A common theme shared by many of these strands is the thesis that the Dalits are the descendants of the original inhabitants of India, marginalized by the Aryan/Vedic/Brahmanic immigrants. (Whether this idea was developed independently several times or that there was mutual influence in this regard is unclear.)

=== The Tamil Buddhist Movement ===

{{Main|Tamil Buddhist Movement}}

The earliest of the strands was among Tamil-speaking communities classed as "untouchable". In 1898 the Siddha physician and journalist [[Iyothee Thass]] (1845–1914), born a Parayar, founded the Sakya Buddhist Society in Madras and from 1907 edited the weekly ''Oru Paisa Tamilan''. From 1917 the movement was organized through the South Indian Buddhist Association, whose first four general conferences were chaired by [[P Lakshmi Narasu|P. Lakshmi Narasu]] (1861–1934). Dickens Leonard describes Thass as the first to develop an anti-caste narrative by espousing Buddhism.<ref>Leonard, Dickens (2021). "Caste-Less Tamils and Early Print Public Sphere: Remembering Iyothee Thass (1845–1914)". ''South Asia Research'' 41.3: 349–368, p. 351.</ref> G. Aloysius argues that the Tamil Buddhist Movement influenced both the Dravidian movement and Ambedkar, but this is his thesis, resting largely on inference and oral testimony, and Ayyathurai finds no direct archival evidence of Thass's influence on Ambedkar.<ref>Aloysius, G. (1998). ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity: A Buddhist Movement among the Tamils under Colonialism''. New Age International, pp. 187–189, 191–193; Ayyathurai, Gajendran (2011). ''Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness: Pandit Iyothee Thass, Tamil Buddhism, and the Marginalized in South India''. PhD dissertation, Columbia University, p. 136 n. 211.</ref> Narasu's ''The Essence of Buddhism'' was reprinted by Ambedkar in 1948 with a preface calling it the best book on Buddhism to that date; Ambedkar says there that he had never met Narasu.<ref>Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', App. 10, pp. 230–232.</ref> Omvedt's claim that Navayana "follows Iyothee Thass" is hers, and Thass's own surviving texts, as the page on him shows, contain none of the socialist vocabulary that some later readings attribute to the tradition.

=== The Adi-Hindu Strand in North India ===

{{Main|Adi-Hindu Movement}}

In the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh) the Adi-Hindu movement of the late 1910s to the early 1930s held that the untouchable castes were the original inhabitants of India, conquered and degraded by Aryan invaders. Its religion, according to Nandini Gooptu, was bhakti and not Buddhism, and Sarah Beth Hunt places the entry of Buddhism into Adi-Hindu thought mainly after 1956.<ref name="Gooptu2001">Gooptu, Nandini (2001). ''The Politics of the Urban Poor in Early Twentieth-Century India''. Cambridge University Press, p. 152; Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 34, 45–47.</ref> A smaller Buddhist wing existed in the same milieu: the monk Bodhananda (1874–1952), who in Ober's account founded the Bharatiya Bauddha Samiti in Lucknow in 1916 and wrote ''Mool Bharatvasi aur Arya'' (1930), which argues that the Dalits and Shudras were the original Buddhist inhabitants of India, and the writer Chandrika Prasad Jigyasu, who is credited with co-authoring Buddhist books with him.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 205–214. The identity of the Bodhananda of Ober and the Handbook with the "Swami Bodhanand" of Hunt and Gooptu is an inference, discussed on the page on the movement.</ref> Ober reports that Bodhananda met Ambedkar in 1920 at the Kolhapur Non-Brahmin Conference. The report that Ambedkar had hoped Bodhananda would officiate at the conversion of 1956 rests on one second-hand statement, and Bodhananda died in 1952.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 214.</ref> Hunt's chronology, in which Buddhism arrives late, and the evidence of Bodhananda's and Jigyasu's earlier books are not reconciled in the sources, and the page on the movement keeps the two apart.

=== Dharmanand Kosambi and the Bahujan Vihara ===

{{Main|Dharmanand Kosambi}}

In 1936, according to Ober, Ambedkar approached the Bombay Buddha Society, whose honorary president was the Marathi Pali scholar [[Dharmanand Kosambi]] (1876–1947), and said that Bombay needed a vihara. Kosambi raised funds from Gandhi and the industrialist J.K. Birla and on 26 January 1937 inaugurated the Bahujan Vihara in Parel, the mill-workers' district of Bombay.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 215–216 and n. 47 (p. 327); Kosambi, Meera (Ed.) (2010). ''Dharmanand Kosambi: The Essential Writings''. Permanent Black, Introduction. M. Kosambi's edition places the completion of the vihara in 1936 and Ober's account dates it to 1937.</ref> The name "Bahujan" (not "Buddha") reflected its focus on mill workers and its aim of ending caste discrimination among them. Ambedkar apparently never took part in its events; Ober suggests that this was because of its Birla financing and Kosambi's Brahmin and Gandhian affiliations.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 216 (the reasons are described there as unclear).</ref> Gandhi, replying to a Congress leader who objected to serving on a Buddhist vihara committee, said that the vihara was no different from a temple of Rama or Krishna and was part of the Hindu revival.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 182–183 (citing ''Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi'' 69: 318–319).</ref> Kosambi withdrew at the end of 1939 after Birla objected to opinions in ''Hindi Sanskriti ani Ahimsa''. He also has a second claim on the history of Dalit Buddhism: his life of the Buddha and his play on the Buddha's renunciation are among the sources of the account in Ambedkar's ''The Buddha and His Dhamma'', although the extent of the debt, and whether Ambedkar failed to credit it, are contested (see the page on [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]]). The Harvard doctorate sometimes attributed to Kosambi is also contested.

=== The Maha Bodhi Society ===

{{Main|Maha Bodhi Society}}

The Maha Bodhi Society, founded in 1891, was the main institutional network of Buddhist revival in India in this period and the setting of many of the contacts described above, including the Madras branch of 1900 and its quarrels with Narasu. After 1956 it petitioned Nehru over the loss of reservation benefits for converts and, according to Ober, distributed 50,000 copies of Bodhananda's ritual manual to new converts.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 7. See also the page on [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]], where the same passage is cited.</ref>

== Ambedkar and the Conversion of 1956 ==

{{Main|BR Ambedkar}}

At Yeola in October 1935 Ambedkar declared that although he had been born a Hindu he would not die one, and over the next two decades he studied alternative religions before choosing Buddhism.<ref>Gokhale, Balkrishna Govind (1999). "Theravada Buddhism and Modernization: Anagarika Dhammapala and B.R. Ambedkar". ''Journal of Asian and African Studies'' 34.1: 33–46, p. 42.</ref> On 14 October 1956, at Nagpur, he and his wife Savita took the Three Refuges and Five Precepts from the monk U Chandramani and then administered twenty-two vows to the crowd, renouncing Hindu deities and rites; he died on 6 December of that year.<ref>Rodrigues, Valerian (2024). ''Ambedkar's Political Philosophy: A Grammar of Public Life from the Social Margins''. Palgrave Macmillan, ch. 1; Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 185–186. Ambedkar's own account of the conversion and his arguments for Buddhism are on his page and are not repeated here.</ref> Pradeep Gokhale notes that Ambedkar was a lay follower (''upasaka'') who administered the refuges and precepts himself to thousands, a departure from the practice that only monks do so.<ref>Gokhale (Ed.) (2021), ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste'', p. 265 (ch. 13, by Gokhale).</ref>

The number converted at Nagpur is reported differently in the sources, and the differences are recorded here and not resolved. The ''Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'' says that "an additional 400,000" converted at Nagpur in its chapter on India (p. 47) and gives 600,000 in another chapter (p. 388); Hunt says "lakhs" (hundreds of thousands); Sarah LeVine and David Gellner write "half a million"; Meera Kosambi, reporting a figure of Sukhathankar, gives "two lakh" (200,000); and Aloysius writes "more than 300,000."<ref>Geary and Mukherjee (2017), "Buddhism in Contemporary India", p. 47; the Handbook, p. 388 (ch. 20); Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', p. 46; LeVine, Sarah, & David N. Gellner (2005). ''Rebuilding Buddhism: The Theravada Movement in Twentieth-Century Nepal''. Harvard University Press, p. 9; Kosambi (Ed.) (2010), ''Essential Writings''; Aloysius (1998), ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity'', pp. 103, 186–187.</ref> A related difficulty concerns the Handbook's wording: "additional" implies a prior Buddhist population, which the Handbook describes as limited, before the movement, to the Northeast and what is now Bangladesh, the Himalayan border populations, and Nepali ethnic groups.<ref>Geary and Mukherjee (2017), "Buddhism in Contemporary India", pp. 36, 47.</ref> The twenty-two vows are counted by LeVine and Gellner as including seven that are explicitly anti-Hindu or anti-Brahmin.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 10.</ref> Sponberg, as reported in the Handbook, says that Ambedkar left no comprehensive model for applying the Dhamma.<ref>Geary and Mukherjee (2017), "Buddhism in Contemporary India", p. 48 (reporting Sponberg 1996).</ref>

== After 1956 ==

The sources consulted for this page document the period after 1956 unevenly. The following summaries cover only the strands that have been researched; the post-1960 history of Ambedkarite organizations, parties, and writers is a gap waiting to be addressed.

=== The Dalit Panthers ===

{{Main|Dalit Panthers}}

The Dalit Panthers were founded in Bombay in 1972 by the poet [[Namdeo Dhasal]] (1949–2014) and Raja Dhale (1940–2019). Their manifesto defines "dalit" broadly, to include Neo-Buddhists as one constituency among several, and presents a programme of land redistribution, anti-capitalism, and opposition to institutional religion; the programme is not framed in Buddhist terms.<ref>Dalit Panthers (1973). ''Dalit Panthers Manifesto''. Bombay. 8 pp., p. 6 (the definition of "dalit") and pp. 7–8 (the programme). The imprint year is unresolved: the title page reads 1973, Gopal Guru cites the document as 1974, and the text counts Congress rule "from 1947 to 1974".</ref> Buddhist identity is therefore present in the movement but is not its organizing principle. Hovell reports that Dhasal was among the ex-Untouchables who converted to Buddhism following Ambedkar; the evidence concerning him is of a personal Buddhist identity and not of Buddhist political thought.<ref>Hovell, Laurie (1991). "Namdeo Dhasal: Poet and Panther". ''Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars'' 23(2): 77–83.</ref> Hunt reports that the Hindi Dalit autobiographical field took inspiration from the Marathi literature associated with the Panthers.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', pp. 3, 139, 181, 184.</ref>

=== Marx and Ambedkar ===

{{Main|Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India}}

Gopal Guru credits the Panthers' manifesto as the first document to bring Ambedkar and Marx together.<ref name="Guru2021">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. London: Routledge, p. 114.</ref> (This is his characterization and has not been checked independently.) The relation between Ambedkar's Buddhism and Marxism is debated in the secondary literature. A separate tradition of Marxist interpretation of Buddhism grew up, largely apart from the Ambedkarite movement; the exception is the Marathi historian and organizer Sharad Patil (1925–2014), who moved from the Communist Party to a "Marxism-Phule-Ambedkarism" and later to what he called "Sautrantika Marxism".

=== The Triratna Buddhist Community ===

The Triratna Bauddha Mahasangha (TBM, formerly known as TBMSG), the Indian branch of the Triratna Buddhist Community, grew out of connections between Ambedkar, Anand Kausalyayan, and the English-born teacher Sangharakshita (Dennis Lingwood, born 1925), whose Friends of the Western Buddhist Order was founded in London in 1967. Sangharakshita was active in aiding Ambedkar's work of converting and supporting Dalits, and the movement had centres in India and Nepal by the 1970s.<ref>Geary and Mukherjee (2017), "Buddhism in Contemporary India", pp. 49–50; the Handbook also treats the movement at pp. 339 and 407–408.</ref> The ''Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'' records two mass ceremonies in the post-1990 period: Delhi on 4 November 2004 (about 20,000) and the Mahalaxmi Race Course in Mumbai on 28 May 2007 (roughly 50,000, and 100,000 according to others), many of whose participants followed the writer Laxman Mane, who had converted in October 2006.<ref>Geary and Mukherjee (2017), "Buddhism in Contemporary India", pp. 49–50.</ref>

== Size and Shape of the Community ==

According to the ''Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'', the 2001 census counted about 7.95 million Buddhists in India, of whom at least 5.83 million were former Untouchables from Maharashtra.<ref>Geary and Mukherjee (2017), "Buddhism in Contemporary India", p. 36.</ref> The 2011 census figure, of about 8.4 million with some three-quarters of them Marathi Buddhists, is given on the page on [[India]]. The Handbook adds that the movement is largely made up of Mahars and Jatavs, and, citing Beltz (2004), that anti-caste rhetoric within it has coexisted with a hardening of caste consciousness.<ref>Geary and Mukherjee (2017), "Buddhism in Contemporary India", p. 49 (reporting Beltz 2004).</ref> The Handbook also reports deep differences between Dalit and Tibetan Buddhism, which it presents as a barrier to a pan-Asian Buddhist unity.<ref>Geary and Mukherjee (2017), "Buddhism in Contemporary India", pp. 52–53 (after Singh 2010).</ref> By the Handbook's account, the state's use of Buddhism after 1947 was symbolic and cultural: the Sarnath lion capital became the state emblem in 1950, and the Buddha Jayanti of 1956 was declared "cultural (not religious)".<ref>Geary and Mukherjee (2017), "Buddhism in Contemporary India", pp. 46–47.</ref>

Anand Kausalyayan (1905–1988), the Buddhist monk and writer, makes three claims about the legal and demographic position of Buddhists in a question-and-answer book of 1980. He says that the Buddhist population "should definitely exceed ten million" while the last census counted "thirty seven lakhs", an undercount that he blames on non-Buddhist enumerators; he does not name the census year. He also says that in "this so called secular state" a person who wishes to stand for a reserved seat "has to declare and prove that he is not a Buddhist."<ref>Kausalyayan, Anand (1992). ''An Intelligent Man's Guide to Buddhism''. [Publisher], Q. 257–260, pp. 174–175.</ref> Hunt reports, from Bhagwan Das, a related claim that denying reservations to Buddhist converts was a strategy to impede the spread of Buddhism.<ref>Hunt (2014), ''Hindi Dalit Literature'', p. 46.</ref> These are claims by participants and are reported as such. Kausalyayan's own list of the monks who re-established a foothold for Buddhism in India names Bodhananda, Mahavir, the Burmese monks Chandramani and Kittimaji, and Anagarika Dharmapala, and ends with Ambedkar's conversion.<ref>Kausalyayan (1992), ''Intelligent Man's Guide'', Q. 256, p. 174.</ref>

== The Scholarly Debate ==

The essays in the volume edited by Gokhale are the main source for the academic debate. Omvedt's foreword treats Navayana as a departure from classical Buddhism in four respects (see above) and argues that caste was not a social reality during the millennia of Buddhist hegemony and became firmly established only after Buddhism's defeat, which she places around the sixth century; that claim is her assertion and is contestable.<ref>Omvedt (2021), Foreword, pp. xvii–xviii.</ref> Gokhale compares Ambedkar with other engaged Buddhists, among them Dharmapala, [[Buddhadasa]], [[Thich Nhat Hanh]], and [[Sivaraksa]], and finds that his distinction is that the others were Buddhists first and became engaged, while Ambedkar was socially engaged and modern first; caste, he adds, was central for none of the others except Sangharakshita and his followers.<ref>Gokhale (Ed.) (2021), ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste'', ch. 13, pp. 258–270.</ref> Whether Dalit Buddhism is a break from Buddhist tradition or a continuation of it is thus a question on which the volume's authors are divided.

The debate about Ambedkar and Marx, in brief, runs as follows. Guru argues that Ambedkar's Buddhism can be neither reduced to Marxism nor opposed to it, and that post-Ambedkar readings turned it spiritual or psychological.<ref name="Guru2021" /> Umesh Bagade argues that Ambedkar combated "rigid Marxist economism" and treated a socio-religious revolution as a prerequisite of the socialist one, and Gokhale reads "Buddha or Karl Marx" as reducing what survives of Marx's creed to four points that are already found in Buddhism, from which Buddhism differs on means.<ref>Bagade, Umesh (2021). “The Buddhist past as a cultural conflict: Ambedkar’s exhumation of Indian history”. In: Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.), ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste'': ch. 9, pp. 162–165. London: Routledge; Gokhale (Ed.) (2021), ch. 13, p. 266.</ref> The primary text and its disputed title are discussed on the page on Ambedkar.

== Literature in English ==

* Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.) (2021). ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste''. London: Routledge. {{annotation|A volume of thirteen chapters from a seminar held at Sarnath in 2013, with a foreword by Gail Omvedt. It is the main source for the scholarly debate on whether Ambedkar's Buddhism departs from the classical tradition and on its relation to Marxism.}}

* Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press. {{annotation|A narrative history of the Buddhist revival that argues that Ambedkar's Buddhism drew on Buddhist networks that already existed. Chapters 4 to 7 supply most of this page's pre-1956 material.}}

* Geary, [Given name], & [Given name] Mukherjee (2017). "Buddhism in Contemporary India". In: Jerryson, Michael (Ed.), ''The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'': 36–57. Oxford University Press. {{annotation|A survey chapter that gives the main figures on the size of the community, a list of the movement's pioneers, and an account of the Triratna branch. It is this page's source for the post-1956 organizations.}}

* Hunt, Sarah Beth (2014). ''Hindi Dalit Literature and the Politics of Representation''. New Delhi: Routledge. {{annotation|A study of Hindi Dalit pamphlet literature that treats Buddhism as a late addition to the Adi-Hindu field and records the pamphlets on Buddhism that followed the conversion of 1956.}}

* Aloysius, G. (1998). ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity: A Buddhist Movement among the Tamils under Colonialism''. New Age International. {{annotation|The monograph on the Tamil Buddhist movement. Its thesis that the movement influenced Ambedkar is the author's own and is contested.}}

== Literature in Other Languages ==

* Bodhananda, Bhadant ([1930] 2009). [Devanagari] ''Mool Bharatvasi aur Arya'' [''The Original Inhabitants of India and the Aryans'']. Samyak Prakashan. {{annotation|A Hindi work that is the central historical text of the Adi-Hindu movement and its Buddhist wing. It was not consulted for this entry and is listed on the authority of Ober and Hunt.}}

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "Dalit Buddhism". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Dalit_Buddhism</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[category:India]]
[[category:Dalit Buddhism]]
[[category:Topical Pages]]
[[category:BR Ambedkar]]
[[Category:Iyothee Thass]]
[[Category:P Lakshmi Narasu]]
[[Category:Dharmanand Kosambi]]
[[Category:Tamil Buddhist movement]]
[[category:Adi-Hindu Movement]]

India

2026-10-27T11:02:26Z

Lajos:

{{Provisional Entry}}
India was the birthplace of Buddhism, the tradition's home for roughly a millennium before a long decline left it largely absent from the subcontinent's mainstream by the thirteenth century even as it flourished elsewhere in Asia. Douglas Ober argues that it did not simply vanish, since small communities and networks survived at the margins, and that the modern revival grew out of colonial scholarship, new Buddhist associations, and caste politics. The revival's largest outcome was the conversion of about half a million Dalits (former "untouchables") under [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]] at Nagpur in 1956, which produced the movement known as Navayana ("New Vehicle") and the country's largest Buddhist community. Around that event stand other currents that this entry summarizes and that have their own pages: an anti-caste Tamil Buddhism from the 1890s, the Maha Bodhi Society, an Adi-Hindu strand in the north, Marxist readings of Buddhist history, and the militant Dalit Panthers. Scholars disagree about whether Ambedkarite Buddhism is a break from the Buddhist tradition or a continuation of it.<ref name="Gokhale2021">Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.) (2021). ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste''. London: Routledge.</ref>

== Buddhism in India ==

Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha, was born and lived in the Himalayan foothills of a region now shared between India and Nepal. The monastic and lay community that formed around his teaching flourished across the subcontinent for roughly a thousand years, gaining significant royal patronage, most famously under the Mauryan emperor Ashoka in the third century BCE, and producing major centers of learning such as the Nalanda monastic university. From roughly the seventh century CE onward Buddhism entered a prolonged decline on the subcontinent. It had effectively disappeared between the tenth and twelfth centuries, owing mainly to the loss of royal and mercantile patronage to a resurgent Hinduism.

For over six centuries after the decline, Buddhism existed in India mostly as an object of antiquarian interest. Ober qualifies this picture. He marshals evidence of continuous but diminished and marginalized practice into the colonial period: Newar Buddhism in the Kathmandu Valley, Buddhism in Chittagong, the persecutions in sixteenth-century Odisha (which imply a population to persecute), bronzes from Nagapattinam, and a wandering tantric figure named Buddhagupta-natha.<ref name="Ober2023">Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press, pp. 19–64.</ref> His point concerns degree and geography. Survival was marginal, and it was not continuous mainstream practice.

The nineteenth century then rediscovered Buddhism as a subject. Lancelot Wilkinson published the ''Vajrasuchi'', an anti-caste Sanskrit tract attributed to Ashvaghosha, in 1839, with a Brahman pandit's rebuttal appended, and the tract became reading for later anti-caste activists. Raja Sivaprasad's Hindi schoolbook of 1864–74 compared the Buddha's anti-caste message with Lincoln's abolitionism. The Asiatic Society, the short-lived Buddhist Text Society (1892), and the Archaeological Survey, which located Buddhist sites, institutionalized the field.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 38–105 (the ''Vajrasuchi'' at pp. 38–64; Sivaprasad at p. 70).</ref> The first Buddhist voluntary associations followed. According to Ober, the Chittagong Buddhist Association (1887) was the first, and the Bengal Buddhist Association (Calcutta, 1892) was founded by Kripasaran (1865–1926); a Bangladeshi source gives 1897 for the Chittagong body, and the discrepancy is unresolved. The [[Maha Bodhi Society]], founded in 1891 by the Sri Lankan layman Anagarika Dharmapala (see [[Sri Lanka]]), became the leading institution of the revival and the setting for much of what follows.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', chs. 2–3 (Chittagong Buddhist Association: pp. 121–123; Kripasaran: pp. 128–135).</ref>

According to the 2011 census, India's Buddhist population stands at approximately 8.4 million, and the great majority, some three-quarters of the national total, are Marathi Buddhists concentrated in Maharashtra and overwhelmingly converts or descendants of converts from Ambedkar's movement. Significant populations also exist in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, and among the older, ethnically distinct Himalayan Buddhist communities of Ladakh, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, and Darjeeling, whose practice predates and remains largely separate from the Ambedkarite revival. This division, a small continuous Himalayan population beside a much larger recently converted Dalit population, remains a structural feature of Indian Buddhism.

== Radical Buddhism in India ==

This section covers the Indian cases in which Buddhism was joined to anti-caste politics, to socialism or Marxism, or to both, between the 1890s and the 1970s. Its spine is a chronology that runs from the early revival, through the years of nationalism and the Left, to Ambedkar's conversion and its aftermath, and the people and movements that have pages of their own are summarized and linked and not retold. The history of Buddhism among the former untouchable communities over the whole century, from the Tamil societies before 1900 to the Dalit Panthers and the Triratna movement, is treated on the page [[Dalit Buddhism]], which does not fit under one chronological heading. Marxist readings of Buddhist history are covered on [[Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India]]. Research on the decades after about 1960 is an acknowledged gap, and the entry is correspondingly thin there.

=== The Early Revival, c. 1890–1930 ===

{{Main|Tamil Buddhist Movement}}
{{Main|Maha Bodhi Society}}
{{Main|Adi-Hindu Movement}}

The earliest of the anti-caste Buddhist movements arose among [[Tamil Buddhist Movement |Tamil]]-speaking communities classed as untouchable. In 1898 the physician and journalist [[Iyothee Thass]] (1845–1914) founded the Sakya Buddhist Society in Madras, and from 1907 he edited the weekly ''Oru Paisa Tamilan''. From 1917 the movement was organized through the South Indian Buddhist Association, whose first four general conferences were chaired by [[P Lakshmi Narasu|P. Lakshmi Narasu]] (1861–1934), the author of ''The Essence of Buddhism'' (1907). M. Singaravelu (1860–1946), later a founder of the communist movement in Madras, was an early officer and lecturer of the Society's Madras branch, although his family said he was not himself a Buddhist. The movement was loyalist toward the British, and its conference resolutions and Thass's own surviving texts contain no socialist content; its hostility was directed at Brahmanical nationalism. G. Aloysius argues that it was the ideological forerunner of the Dravidian movement and one of the factors that moved Ambedkar to Buddhism, but thesis is contested.

The [[Maha Bodhi Society]] (founded 1891) is the institutional setting of many of these contacts. It was not a radical body. It sheltered the young Marathi scholar [[Dharmanand Kosambi]] (1876–1947), employed [[Rahul Sankrityayan]] (1893–1963) as a missionary, clashed with Thass over caste and with Narasu in a lawsuit that took sixty years to settle, and pressed in the early 1920s for the return of the Mahabodhi temple at Bodh Gaya, which had been in the hands of a Hindu mahant since 1590, to Buddhist control. A resolution to that effect, drafted by Sankrityayan, went to the Gaya session of the Indian National Congress in 1922.

In the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh) a movement of untouchable castes, the [[Adi-Hindu Movement|Adi-Hindu movement]], grew from the late 1910s. Its leaders held that the untouchable castes were the original inhabitants of India, conquered by Aryan invaders. Its religion was bhakti and not Buddhism according to Nandini Gooptu, and Sarah Beth Hunt places the entry of Buddhism into Adi-Hindu thought mainly after 1956. A Buddhist wing existed alongside it: the monk Bodhananda (1874–1952) founded the Bharatiya Bauddha Samiti in Lucknow in 1916, and with Chandrika Prasad Jigyasu wrote Buddhist books for Dalit readers. Ober sees affinities between their thesis of original inhabitants and Ambedkar's ''The Untouchables'' (1948). The identity of Bodhananda is unsettled in the sources, which describe a "Swami Bodhanand" and a "Bhadant Bodhanand Mahastavir" without saying that they are one person.

==== The Kerala and Malabar Movement ====

A less documented movement arose in Kerala among the Izhava (Thiya) community in the 1920s. Ober, on whom the account depends, describes a Calicut Buddhist temple, the first in Kerala, founded in 1927 by C. Krishnan (1867–1938), a former high-court advocate and the editor of the Malayalam newspaper ''Mitavadi'', and a Kerala Buddhist Association that grew out of the All-Kerala Buddhist Conference of 1925, which the Brahmin temple-entry leader Manjeri Ramier (1877–1958) helped to organize. The movement did not last: by 1961 only seventeen people in Calicut district identified as Buddhist. Ober gives four causes: the Temple Entry Proclamation of 1936, the absorption of the cause by Narayana Guru's Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam, Gandhi's campaigning against conversion on his tour of 1927, and funding through the industrialist J.K. Birla and the Hindu Mahasabha, which denied the movement an independent identity.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 196–204.</ref>

=== Nationalism, the Left, and Buddhism, 1920s–1950s ===

Ober documents at length the attempt of the Hindu Mahasabha and of Hindu nationalists to claim Buddhism as part of "Hindu" India. V.D. Savarkar's ''Hindutva'' (1923) declared the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha to be "all ours."<ref name="Ober2023ch4">Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 4: Savarkar at p. 159; Dharmapala's shifting statements on Hindu–Buddhist unity at pp. 151–152; Birla's financing of Buddhist temples, tabulated at pp. 165–167.</ref> The industrialist J.K. Birla (1883–1967) financed Buddhist temples across the country for decades, with the avowed aim of folding Buddhism into an "Arya Dharma," and Syama Prasad Mookerjee was president of the Maha Bodhi Society from 1942 to 1953 while he founded the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, the predecessor of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Birla's money also reached figures who wrote against the Mahasabha, among them Sankrityayan, Jagdish Kashyap, Dharmanand Kosambi, and Anand Kausalyayan, a tension that Ober notes without resolving. Sankrityayan attacked the Birla-funded Dharmashala at Kushinagar (1939) as an attempt to turn anti-caste, atheist Buddhists into Hindus.

==== The Left and Caste ====

Socialism and communism reached India in the early twentieth century and became entangled with the movement for independence. V. Geetha's study of Ambedkar and socialism shows how the early Marxists understood caste. S.A. Dange described it as a feudal survival, M.N. Roy expected it to dissolve into class as capitalism advanced, and Bhupendranath Dutta read ancient religious controversy as coded class struggle; Buddhism enters Geetha's survey only as a field of class struggle in Dutta's reading.<ref name="Geetha2021">Geetha, V. (2021). ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India''. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 117–119, 159–160 (Dutta at p. 118; Roy at p. 75).</ref> Ambedkar worked with the Communist Party of India on specific causes in Bombay in the 1930s, but the communists, Geetha writes, were unwilling to join him in exploring the connected worlds of labor, caste, and class. The [[Dalit Panthers]] later faulted the party for the same failure. Anil Nauriya argues that the history of Indian socialism has neglected a vigorous Marxist tradition outside the Communist parties, represented by the Congress Socialist Party that Narendra Deva helped to found in 1934; that is Nauriya's argument and is not treated here as established.<ref>Nauriya, Anil (2015). ''Non-violent Action and Socialist Radicalism: Narendra Deva in India's Freedom Movement''. NMML Occasional Paper, History and Society, New Series 70. New Delhi: Nehru Memorial Museum and Library.</ref>

==== Marxist Readings of Buddhism ====

{{Main|Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India}}
A separate line of writers read Buddhist doctrine, the sangha, and Indian history in Marxist terms, most of them without becoming Buddhists. The earliest example found is the Marathi Pali scholar and former monk [[Dharmanand Kosambi]] (1876–1947), who in 1910 described the sangha as an instance of collective ownership. [[Narendra Deva]] (1889–1956), a founder of the Congress Socialist Party, wrote ''Bauddha-Dharma-Darshan'' (1956), and others have credited him with a synthesis of Marxism and Buddhism that the sources do not show him arguing himself. The "Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India" page also discusses the later tribal-sangha thesis of D.D. Kosambi and Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya and the anthology ''Buddhism: The Marxist Approach'' (1970).

==== Rahul Sankrityayan ====

{{Main|Rahul Sankrityayan}}
Rahul Sankrityayan (born Kedarnath Pandey, 1893–1963) was a Hindi polymath, Buddhist monk by training in [[Sri Lanka]], and communist who is the best-known figure to join Buddhist scholarship to Marxism in India. A Kisan Sabha organizer and a member of the Communist Party of India from 1939 to 1948 and again from 1955, he argued in ''Samyavad hi Kyon?'' (1935) and ''Bauddh Darshan'' (1948) that the sangha limited private property and anticipated communal ownership, and he read Buddhist metaphysics as proto-materialist. He did not settle into a Buddhist identity: he declined to call himself a follower of the Buddhist religion, even as he revered the Buddha. He recovered Buddhist manuscripts from [[Tibet]] and [[Nepa]]l, took part in the Kathmandu conference of 1956 (see [[Nepal]]), and, with Kosambi, worked at the Leningrad institute described under [[Russia and the Soviet Union#Soviet Indology and Its Indian Connections|Soviet Indology]].

=== Ambedkar and the Conversion of 1956 ===

{{Main|BR Ambedkar}}
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (1891–1956), jurist, principal architect of the Indian Constitution, and the leader of the untouchable communities, announced at Yeola in 1935 that he would not die a Hindu. Ober argues against the common view that he built his Buddhism from nothing: he met Bodhananda in 1920, studied Pali with Ishwardatt Medharthi, approached Dharmanand Kosambi and the Bombay Buddha Society in 1936, and was helped to attend the World Fellowship of Buddhists in [[Burma]] in 1954 by the monk Dharmarakshita.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 5.</ref> On 14 October 1956 at Nagpur he and his wife took the Three Refuges and Five Precepts from the Arakanese-Burmese monk U Chandramani of Kushinagar, and he then administered twenty-two vows of his own composition to the crowd. Sources give the number converted differently, from 200,000 to 600,000. (See the page on [[Dalit Buddhism]].) Ambedkar spoke on Buddhism and communism at the Fourth General Conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists in Kathmandu on 20 November 1956, and died on 6 December. His late essay "Buddha or Karl Marx" compares Buddhism with Marxism as rival remedies for social suffering; the secondary debate about it is summarized on the Ambedkar page. Geetha reads him as a critic of Indian communism who did not call himself a socialist, for whom socialism was nonetheless a "spectral presence" in his thought.

==== State Buddhism as Foil ====

The Indian state of the same years used Buddhism for its own purposes, and the two projects only partly overlapped. Ober reports that the dharmachakra replaced Gandhi's charkha on the national flag in 1947, the Ashokan lion capital became the state emblem, the government marked the "2,500 Years of Buddhism" in 1956, it toured relics of the Buddha's disciples through India's border regions and abroad as an instrument of diplomacy, and the Panchsheel Agreement of 1954 was named after Buddhist precepts. Ambedkar, the only nationally prominent Indian politician who called himself a Buddhist, was not invited, according to Ober, to Nehru's relic ceremony at Sanchi in 1952, and Nehru rebuffed his request in 1956 for funds to distribute ''The Buddha and His Dhamma''.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', ch. 7, pp. 252–283 (citing Ambedkar 1993: 191–192).</ref> The state's Buddhism came under strain from Ambedkar's conversion, from the [[Tenzin Gyatso|Dalai Lama]]'s flight in 1959, and from the Sino-Indian war of 1962.

=== After 1956 ===

{{Main|Dalit Panthers}}
The Dalit Panthers were founded in Bombay in 1972 by the Marathi poet [[Namdeo Dhasal]] (1949–2014) and Raja Dhale (1940–2019), after the Black Panther Party in the United States. Their ''Manifesto'' repudiates the Republican Party, which Ambedkar's followers had formed, criticizes the Communist Party for neglecting untouchability, and sets out a programme of land redistribution and opposition to capital and to institutional religion. It names Neo-Buddhists as one constituency among several in its broad definition of "dalit" and does not frame its programme in Buddhist terms. Dhasal was among the ex-untouchables who followed Ambedkar into Buddhism, but the sources show a personal identity and not a Buddhist political philosophy, and they do not show how he related the two. Gopal Guru credits the manifesto as the first document to bring Ambedkar and Marx together, a characterization that has not been checked independently. Beyond Dhasal, Dhale is a mention only: no source consulted documents his activities.

Beyond these strands later decades have not yet been researched. The Bahujan Samaj Party, founded in 1984 by Kanshi Ram and later led by Mayawati, mobilized Dalit voters on Ambedkarite themes without being a Buddhist organization, although the ''Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'' reports that Mayawati has said she intends to convert when it becomes politically feasible.<ref>Geary, [Given name], & [Given name] Mukherjee (2017). "Buddhism in Contemporary India". In: Jerryson, Michael (Ed.), ''The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'': 36–57. Oxford University Press, pp. 49–50.</ref> The rise of Hindu nationalism since the 1990s, and incidents such as the public flogging of Dalit men at Una in Gujarat in 2016, show that conversion has not ended caste discrimination. The Dalit branch of the Triratna Buddhist Community and the demographic and scholarly questions about the movement are discussed on the page about [[Dalit Buddhism]].

== Literature in English ==

* Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press. {{annotation|A narrative history of the Buddhist revival from the colonial period to the 1950s, built around the Maha Bodhi Society, the Hindu Mahasabha, Ambedkar's conversion, and the encounter of Buddhism with Marxism. Its argument that Ambedkar drew on existing Buddhist networks is the organizing source for much of this entry.}}
* Gokhale, Pradeep P. (Ed.) (2021). ''Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste''. London: Routledge. {{annotation|Essays from a seminar at Sarnath that debate whether Ambedkar's Buddhism breaks with the tradition and how it relates to Marxism, with a foreword by Gail Omvedt.}}
* Geetha, V. (2021). ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India''. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. {{annotation|The fullest study of Ambedkar's relations with socialism and with the Communist parties, and of how the early Indian Left understood caste.}}
* Omvedt, Gail (2003). ''Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahmanism and Caste''. Sage Publications. {{annotation|A broad history that places Ambedkar's Buddhist turn within the longer history of anti-caste thought in India.}}

== Literature in Hindi ==

* Sankrityayan, Rahul (1944–1967). ''Meri Jeevan Yatra'' [My Life Journey]. {{annotation|Sankrityayan's multi-volume autobiography, a major source for his formation and for the move from Buddhist scholarship to communism.}}
* Bodhananda, Bhadant. ''Mool Bharatvasi aur Arya'' [The Original Inhabitants of India and the Aryans] (1930). {{annotation|The monk Bodhananda's history of the Dalits and Shudras as the original Buddhist inhabitants of India. Ober sees affinities with, and possible influence on, Ambedkar's ''The Untouchables'' (1948).}}

== How to Cite This Article ==

Brons, Lajos & James Mark Shields ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). "India". ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/India</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:India]]
[[Category:Country Profiles]]

SR42VGX-T

2026-10-27T01:57:39Z

Lajos:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Rahul Sankrityayan, "Prabha" §7}}
{{Translation Review}}

[[Rahul Sankrityayan]], (राहुल सांकृत्यायन). 1942. वोल्गा से गंगा [From the Volga to the Ganges]. इलाहाबाद [Allahabad]: किताब महल [Kitab Mahal]. “प्रभा” [“Prabha” / “Radiance”], section 7, pp. 200–203.

==Translation ==

{{opage|200}}

'''Prabha — Section 7'''

There is a large courtyard, with a veranda all around it and rooms in a three-storey building behind. Yellow robes are drying on racks along the verandas. In one corner of the courtyard is a well, with a bathing area beside it. Elsewhere in the courtyard are several trees, one of them a Pipal. Around the Pipal is a platform, and a little farther away stands a stone railing, with spaces for thousands of lamps. Prabha knelt down and bowed before the beautiful

{{opage|201}}

tree, and said, “Beloved, it was a tree of this very kind beneath which Siddhartha Gautama sat, dispelled the delusions of his mind through his own effort and reflection, and attained awakening. From then on, he became known as the Buddha. It is only in memory of that beautiful event that we bow our heads before trees of this kind.”

“A symbol of dispelling the delusions of the mind and attaining awakening through one's own effort and reflection. Such a symbol deserves to be honoured, beloved. To honour such a symbol is to honour one's own effort—to conquer oneself.”

Then the two went to Bhadanta Dharmarakshita. At that time, he was sitting beneath a Bakula tree in the courtyard, where the sweet fragrance of newly opened blossoms filled the air. Prabha bowed to him in the manner of a Buddhist lay devotee, touching the ground with her feet, knees, hands, and forehead.<ref>This is ''pañca-pratiṣṭhita'', a five-point prostration. The passage describes the physical form of the bow, with five points of the body touching the ground.</ref> Ashvaghosha stood and showed his respect. Then they took pieces of leather lying on the ground and sat down. The monk's other disciples, assuming that Ashvaghosha had come to talk with him, withdrew. After the usual courtesies, Ashvaghosha began speaking about philosophy. Dharmarakshita said, “Brahmin youth, even philosophy is described in the Buddha's teaching as a bond—a heavy bond, a fetter of views.”<ref>The Hindi term is ''dṛṣṭi-saṃyojana'', a fetter or bondage associated with views. The point is not necessarily that philosophical inquiry has no place in Buddhism: the ensuing dialogue makes clear that the issue is attachment to views, rather than inquiry itself.</ref>

“Then, Bhadanta, does philosophy have no place in the Buddha's teaching?”

“Why should it have no place? The Buddha's teaching is full of philosophy. But he presents it as a raft for crossing over, not something to lift onto one's head and carry about.”

“What do you mean, like a raft?”

“Yes. When people come to a river without a boat, they make a raft and cross over on it. But once they have reached the other bank, they do not carry the raft's planks on their heads, even though the raft has been useful to them.”<ref>This is the raft simile found in the ''Alagaddūpama Sutta'' (Majjhima Nikāya 22). The teaching is to be used as a means of crossing over, not clung to as an object of attachment.</ref>

A man who had the courage to speak of his own teaching in this way must surely have seen the truth and its power. “Bhadanta, tell me something about the Buddha's philosophy

{{opage|202}}

that will help us understand a great deal, even about our own minds.”

“It is the doctrine of non-self, Kumar. The Brahmins regard the self as an eternal, unchanging, everlasting reality. The Buddha does not accept any such eternal, unchanging, everlasting reality, either within the world or beyond it. That is why his philosophy is called the doctrine of non-self: it is the philosophy of impermanence, of arising and passing away from moment to moment.”<ref>''Anātmavāda'' is the doctrine of non-self; ''anityatā'' is impermanence. The passage links them by contrasting Buddhist thought with the Brahmanical belief in an eternal self.</ref>

“This one point is enough for me, Bhadanta. Ashvaghosha bows a hundred times to the Buddha, who declared that the teaching and the doctrine of non-self are like a raft. Ashvaghosha has found what he was searching for. I had been experiencing something like these waves within myself, but I could not give them a name. If people had properly understood the Buddha's teachings, the world would be a very different place today.”

“You are quite right, Kumar. Great philosophers have arisen in our Yavana country, too. Pythagoras and Heraclitus were alive in the Buddha's time; Socrates, Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle came a little later. These Greek philosophers thought deeply, but, with the exception of Heraclitus, they could not rise above eternalism—the belief in what is permanent. They were too attached to the present. That is why they wanted to bind the future to it as well. Heraclitus, at least, did not believe that the world remained the same even for two moments in succession, as the Buddha did. But he had a personal interest in this.”

“A personal interest in philosophical ideas?”

“The stomach is close to everyone, Kumar. At that time, our city of Athens was governed by a ''gaṇa''—a polity without a king. At first, powerful aristocrats, from families like Heraclitus's, were the leading figures in this form of government. Later, the merchants and wealthy traders displaced them and took control of the state. In this situation,

{{opage|203}}

Heraclitus was dissatisfied with this state of affairs. He wanted revolution, but not in order to move forward: he wanted to turn back.”<ref>The Hindi here uses ''parivartan'', ordinarily “change” or “transformation.” I render it as “revolution” in this explicitly political passage because the contrast is between competing social orders and the interests of the groups seeking to restore or change them. Sankrityayan was a Marxist writing while imprisoned for his political convictions, and the story's framing of the Buddha's community as a model for a future society makes the political resonance significant. “Revolution” is therefore a contextual translation, not a claim that ''parivartan'' always means political revolution.</ref>

“We need revolution, but in order to move forward, not to turn back. I believe, Bhadanta, that the past is dead.”

“Exactly right, Kumar. The Buddha wanted revolution, too. To bring about a better world, he presented the community of monks as a model of that future world.”<ref>The Hindi again uses ''parivartan''. “Revolution” is retained here because the preceding exchange has explicitly framed change in political terms, and the Buddha's Saṅgha is now presented as a model for a different social order. The wording brings out Sankrityayan's revolutionary interpretation without implying that the Hindi word invariably has this meaning.</ref>

“A world without caste, without high and low.”

“A world in which everyone shares equally in its benefits, and everyone shares equally in service.”<ref>The Hindi ''bhoga samāna'' refers to equality in enjoyment or benefit, while the phrase about service stresses equality in serving. This supports a reading of the Saṅgha as an egalitarian community, although the wording alone does not establish a detailed system of collective ownership or equal distribution of every resource.</ref>

“You must have seen our Mahāsthavira Dharmasena working outside, sweeping.”

“That dark-skinned monk?”

“Yes. He is the most esteemed among us. We bow to him every day with the five-point prostration. He is the leader of the monastic community throughout the whole Kosala country.”

“But I have heard that he comes from a Chandala family.”

“The monastic community does not look at birth, Kumar; it looks at a person's qualities. He is our leader and our father because of his learning and his virtues. If he receives even enough food to grease the inside of his bowl, he will not eat it without sharing it with his companions. This is the Buddha's teaching. Apart from our three robes, earthen alms bowls, a needle, a ''jalḍukkā'', a razor, and a waistband, everything we have belongs to the community. This building, the garden, the platforms, the seats, and all the rest belong to the community. Some of our monasteries also have fields, and those too belong to the community. One person examines and listens to a man before making him a monk; but once he has entered the community and become a monk, he is equal to everyone else.”<ref>The passage contrasts the limited personal requisites of monks with property held by the Saṅgha as a community. ''Jalḍukkā'' is the reading in the Hindi text used here, but its precise identification is uncertain. The statement about community property describes the social ideal presented in the story, not necessarily the practice of every Buddhist monastery in every period.</ref>

“What if a community like this were established throughout the whole country?”

“How could that happen, Kumar? When have kings and the rich ever allowed others to become their equals? The monks once admitted a slave into the community.

{{opage|204}}

As soon as he entered the community, he was no longer a slave: he was equal to everyone else. But the man who owned him began to raise an outcry. Other slaveholders joined him. Kings themselves own thousands of slaves. How could they tolerate an attack of this kind on their property? The Buddha had to give his word that, from then on, the community would not admit slaves.<ref>The story refers to ''Vinaya Piṭaka, Mahāvagga, Mahākhandhaka'' 1.47 (Vin. i. 76). In this passage, the Buddha prohibits the ordination of runaway slaves (''na dāso pabbājetabbo'') following protests from slaveholders and decreeing that candidates must be asked if they are free (''bhujissosi'').</ref> Our community is a little island in an ocean of inequality. That is why it cannot be safe as long as poverty and slavery of this kind continue to exist in the world.”<ref>The image makes the political limits of the Saṅgha explicit. The community can embody a more egalitarian way of life, but it remains vulnerable while the surrounding society is structured by poverty, slavery, and inequality. The passage thus goes beyond praising the internal practices of the monastic community: it raises the question of the social conditions needed for such a community to endure. For the Saṅgha to be free ''securely'', the whole world must be free.</ref>

== Notes ==

<references />

[[Category:Rahul Sankrityayan]]
[[Category:Translations from Hindi]]

UG08MKK-T

2026-10-27T01:24:48Z

Lajos: /* Statement on the Purpose of Publication */

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Uchiyama Gudō, ''Anarchist Communism''}}

[[Uchiyama Gudo|Uchiyama Gudō]] 内山愚童 (1908). ''Museifu kyōsan'' 無政府共產 [Anarchist Communism], with the subtitle “Commemorating the Imprisoned—Why Do Tenant Farmers Suffer?” ([[UG08MKK|Original Japanese here]].)

__TOC__

== Translation ==

Tenant farmers! You produce food, the most important thing human beings need, something we simply cannot live without. And yet, although you have worked with all your might throughout your lives to produce this most essential of human necessities, just as your parents and ancestors did before you, year after year you end up without enough. What terrible misfortune!

Is this, as Buddhists say, evil retribution carried over from a previous life?<ref>Gudō writes ''zense kara no akuhō'' 前世からの惡報, literally “evil retribution from a previous existence.” The expression invokes the popular Buddhist understanding that present suffering may result from karmic actions in a previous life. Gudō immediately rejects such an explanation as “superstition” (''meishin'' 迷信), shifting the explanation of poverty from karmic causation to existing social and economic relations.</ref> But friends, in today's twentieth-century world, if you go on being deceived by such superstitions, in the end you will have no choice but to become like oxen and horses. Would that make you happy?

Year after year you live in poverty, lamenting that you don't have enough. If this were because, in the cold of winter, you took your aged parents to Zushi, Kamakura, Numazu, or Hayama to escape the cold, then perhaps you could resign yourselves to it. If, in the heat of summer, you took your ailing wife and children to Hakone or Nikkō to escape the heat, and that left you a little short that year, perhaps you could find some consolation in it.

If this year you sent your eldest son abroad to study in Germany, your younger son to university, and enrolled your daughter in a higher girls' school, and as a result had to sell a ''chō'' of woodland or mortgage five ''tan'' of farmland,<ref>''Chō'' 町 and ''tan'' 反 were units of land measurement. One ''chō'' was approximately 0.99 hectare (2.45 acres), and one ''tan'' approximately one-tenth of a ''chō''. Gudō's examples deliberately invoke expenditures and assets far beyond the ordinary circumstances of the tenant farmers he addresses.</ref> then at least you could look forward to future happiness, and your nighttime conversations with your wife would not be so bitter.

But friends, when you say year after year that you haven't enough, haven't enough, it is certainly not because of luxuries like these. New Year's comes, and Bon comes, but you don't even get a single new garment. They say that the art of building has advanced in this civilized twentieth century, but no news of that has reached your homes. Your houses are just as they were five hundred or a thousand years ago. Yet there is nothing surprising about this. Clothes require money paid to the cloth merchant; a house requires wages paid to a carpenter. And sadly, you have no money. So your clothes are always in tatters and your houses are like animals' dens.

But food—you produce that yourselves. So surely you eat the very best? Not at all. The best rice goes to the landlord, while you yourselves eat millet and barley, even though you work harder than either landlords or merchants.<ref>Gudō addresses the pamphlet specifically to tenant farmers (''kosakunin'' 小作人), cultivators who farmed land owned by landlords and paid a substantial portion of the harvest as rent, often in rice. His argument repeatedly contrasts the labor of the cultivator with the landlord's legal ownership of the land and claim upon its produce.</ref> And despite all that, year after year you still say, “Not enough, not enough.” Tenant farmers, that is your fate throughout your lives.

Why on earth should this be?

Let me put it in a little song:

: Why are you so poor?
: If you don't know why, I'll tell you.
: The emperor, the rich, the great landlords—
: there are ticks sucking people's blood.<ref>The Japanese reads 天子金もち、大地主。人の血をすふ、ダニがおる. Gudō identifies the emperor, the wealthy, and great landlords with “ticks” (ダニ) sucking human blood, presenting them as a parasitic social order living from the labor of others. ''Tenshi'' 天子, literally “Son of Heaven,” is Gudō's usual term for the emperor in this pamphlet.</ref>

Friends, think about this carefully. All year long you sweat and labor to produce your crops. Half of what you produce is taken by the thief called the landlord. With the half that remains, you have to buy sake, soy sauce, salt, fertilizer, and everything else. But sake, fertilizer, and everything you buy carries taxes taken by that great thief called the government. And on top of that, the thieves called merchants take their profits. Thus people like you tenant farmers, who possess no land of your own and labor honestly, can never escape poverty as long as you live.

And if that were all, it might still be bearable. But when you have a son, you raise him for years amid poverty. Just when you rejoice that now, at last, he can cultivate another plot of land and perhaps help you get out of debt, he turns twenty-one and—whether you like it or not—is taken away as a soldier. For three years you send him spending money while he is forced to learn something you have no desire even to hear about: how to kill people. And when war comes, he is dragged off to some blood-soaked place where he must either kill someone else or be killed himself.

There have even been fathers who, after their sons were taken away for three years of military service, were left at home with their wives and children and had to go out begging. The son who has become a soldier receives no money from home because his family is poor; without money he is bullied by the veteran soldiers. How many have hanged themselves, thrown themselves into rivers, or killed themselves on the railway? No one knows.

When tenant farmers are tormented like this, you may rise with the first cockcrow in the morning and work until darkness falls at night, but you and poverty will never part company.

Why should this be?

Although we are all born equally human, someone born into the household of a landlord or a rich man can remain at school or travel abroad until twenty-four or twenty-five—even thirty—and when he returns home, he escapes the summer heat in some cool place and builds a house on a warm seacoast for the winter. He spends his life amusing himself. Without plucking so much as a single mulberry leaf himself, he wraps his body in silk garments, indulges himself amid pools of wine and forests of meat,<ref>“Pools of wine and forests of meat” (''shuchi nikurin'' 酒池肉林) is a conventional expression for extravagant and decadent luxury, derived from accounts of the legendary excesses of the last Shang ruler in ancient China.</ref> and passes his entire life in idleness. Perhaps you don't know this.

They say that a great landlord or rich man can spend two or three thousand yen all by himself in just thirty days during the summer, amusing himself in Nikkō or Hakone. Three thousand yen! Friends, even if you worked without rest and without eating from the age of twenty until the age of fifty, you could never accumulate three thousand yen. And people like that don't even have to serve as soldiers.

Tenant farmers! Surely you too would like to enjoy the luxuries enjoyed by today's rich men and great landlords. Surely you would like, once in a while, to take some time off and eat something delicious. The reason you cannot do so is that you cling to a certain superstition.<ref>“Superstition” (''meishin'' 迷信) is the organizing concept of the pamphlet. Gudō shortly defines it as “cherishing and preserving a mistaken idea” (マチガツタ考へを大事本ぞんに守つておる事). The term encompasses not only conventional religious beliefs but assumptions concerning property, taxation, military service, and imperial authority that Gudō argues have been inculcated by the state.</ref> Because you have treasured this superstition since the days of your parents and ancestors, you cannot even dream of enjoying the luxuries of landlords and rich men. But if you listen to what we have to say and cast aside that superstition right now, you will become people who are truly at ease and free.

But if you abandon this superstition, the emperor and the rich will no longer be able to live idly and luxuriously. That is why, since ancient times, emperors and daimyō have made this superstition out to be something indispensable and sacred, and have used it to deceive you. So never forget that, from your standpoint, today's emperor and ministers, just like the Tokugawa and the daimyō of the past, are great enemies against whom grievances have accumulated since the days of your parents and ancestors.

It is exactly the same today in the Meiji era. The government works with all its might, employing everyone from university professors at the top to elementary-school teachers at the bottom, to make sure that you never abandon this superstition. And you, in turn, regard it with gratitude. That is why you can never escape poverty—not for your whole lives, nor even in the generations of your children and grandchildren.

What, then, are these superstitions that elementary-school teachers and others instill in you and your children? A superstition is simply the cherishing and preservation of a mistaken idea. I will leave until later the question of why you have held these mistaken ideas since ancient times. First let us consider what these mistaken ideas actually are.

△ You are allowed by the landlord to cultivate his rice fields and dry fields, and therefore, in gratitude, you must give him rent in rice.

△ Because there is a government, we farmers can work in peace; therefore, in gratitude, we must pay taxes.

△ If the country had no military forces, we farmers would be killed by foreigners; therefore, we must send our healthy young men away as soldiers.<ref>These are Gudō's three explicit examples of “mistaken ideas” or “superstitions”: the supposed obligations to pay rent to landlords, taxes to the government, and sons to the military. His argument is therefore directed not merely against particular economic burdens but against the beliefs that make those burdens appear legitimate, reciprocal, and necessary.</ref>

Because these three mistaken ideas have become deeply embedded in you, no matter how poor you become, you are incapable of opposing the payment of rent, the payment of taxes, or sending your children away as soldiers. If someone says, “You don't have to pay rent. You don't have to pay taxes. You don't have to send your beloved children away as soldiers,” you immediately call that person a rebel or a traitor. You refuse even to listen to or read something that would actually bring you ease and freedom. This is precisely where I want you to think very carefully about what you are reading.

Why, then, is it all right not to pay rent to the landlord?

Tenant farmers, leave the fields you cultivate alone from spring until autumn. Don't put a plow into them, don't sow any seed, don't fertilize them—just leave them alone and see what happens. When autumn comes, not a single grain of rice will have been produced. When summer comes, you won't harvest even half a grain of barley.

Doesn't this make the matter perfectly obvious? Rice is produced in autumn and barley in summer because you farmers have worked without rest throughout the year, pouring out your sweat. If that is so, then the rice and barley produced by your labor belong—all of them—to you farmers. What sort of absurd reasoning says that you must hand half of them over to a landlord?

The land existed naturally. Our ancestors cleared it and made it capable of producing food. Why should anyone who cultivates that land and takes what it produces for himself be called a rebel?

Tenant farmers! For a very long time the landlords have been robbing you. Now that you have finally awakened from this delusion,<ref>Gudō shifts here from “superstition” (''meishin'' 迷信) to “delusion” (''mayoi'' 迷): 此迷がさめて見れば, literally “once you awaken from this delusion.” The language of awakening from delusion carries a recognizable Buddhist resonance even as Gudō redirects it toward recognition of economic exploitation.</ref> you have the right not merely to refuse to hand over the annual rent but, in repayment for these long, long years of grievance, to take back the barley, money, and everything else stored in the landlords' storehouses. Taking everything in the landlord's storehouse is certainly not theft. It is the honorable work of recovering what has long been stolen from you and from us.

Next: why is it all right not to pay taxes to the government?

Tenant farmers, there is no need for difficult arguments. How much ease has this thing called government actually brought you? If you can name even one thing about it for which you can say, “Here's something we should thank our esteemed government for,” then go ahead and name it.

Since ancient times people have said, “You cannot prevail against a crying child or a magistrate.”<ref>“You cannot prevail against a crying child or a magistrate” (''naku ko to jitō ni wa katarenu'' 泣く子と地頭には勝たれぬ) is a proverbial expression meaning that there is no use resisting those against whom reason or argument is powerless. The ''jitō'' 地頭 were medieval land stewards; by Gudō's time the proverb conveyed the more general sense of arbitrary or irresistible authority.</ref> Isn't unreasonable oppression precisely what those above us have always made their business? Tenant farmers work honestly and become poor in order to pay taxes merely to keep such a troublesome thing alive. This is the height of stupidity.

Friends, stop paying taxes to this ridiculous government and destroy this troublesome thing as soon as possible! Then let us take back the government's property, which has been unjustly stolen from us since the days of our parents and ancestors, and make it the common property of everyone.<ref>''minna no kyōyū ni shiyō'' みんなの共有にしやう, “let us make it the common possession/property of everyone.” Gudō's positive economic program is thus not merely redistribution to individual cultivators: property seized by the government is to become commonly held. This anticipates his concluding description of the desired society as “anarchist communism” (''museifu kyōsan'' 無政府共產).</ref> This is your natural right. People who value justice should take the initiative and resist the government for the freedom and well-being of all people.

Why is destroying the present government and creating a free country without an emperor not the work of rebels, but rather the work of courageous people who value justice?

Because the emperor, the chief boss of the present government, is not a child of the gods at all, despite what elementary-school teachers and others have deceived you into believing. The ancestors of the present emperor emerged from a corner of Kyushu, murdering and robbing people and destroying fellow bands of thieves such as Nagasunehiko. In other words, they were like Kumazaka Chōhan or Shuten Dōji—bandits who happened to succeed.<ref>Nagasunehiko 長髄彦 is an opponent of Emperor Jinmu in the legendary account of the imperial conquest of Yamato. Kumazaka Chōhan 熊坂長範 and Shuten Dōji 酒呑童子 are legendary outlaw or bandit figures. Gudō's deliberately irreverent comparison reverses the ideological function of imperial mythology: rather than demonstrating divine ancestry and legitimate conquest, the founding narratives become stories of one successful band of robbers defeating others.</ref> A little thought is enough to see that they were no gods.

When you hear that the imperial line has continued for twenty-five hundred years, you may imagine that this somehow makes the emperor a god.<ref>Meiji imperial ideology represented the reigning emperor as the descendant of an unbroken divine imperial line extending back to the legendary Emperor Jinmu. Gudō attacks both elements of this claim: divine descent and the legitimating force of dynastic antiquity.</ref> But generation after generation the emperors suffered from troubles abroad and at home were made playthings by their own retainers.

It has been the same in the Meiji era. The emperor must have suffered continually over domestic and foreign affairs. His suffering is the consequence of his own actions, so that is his concern. But because of it, honest, hardworking tenant farmers like you suffer more with each passing day merely to find enough to eat. However much they tell you that Japan is a divine country, there is nothing in that for you to be grateful for.

These things are perfectly obvious, yet those cowards called university professors and men of learning are incapable of saying or writing them. Instead they deceive others with endless lies while deceiving themselves. Elementary-school teachers, too, are at first at a loss when they have to explain how sacred and benevolent the emperor is. But gradually they become skilled at lying, and on the three great national holidays each year they put on an innocent face and teach you and your children that the emperor is the child of the gods.<ref>Gudō refers to the “three great festivals” (''sandai shukujitsu'' 三大祝日) of the Meiji state, school ceremonies that played an important role in imperial civic education. His immediate target is therefore not simply abstract imperial ideology but its reproduction through elementary schooling and ritual observance.</ref>

You are thereby taught to labor and serve throughout your lives for the descendants of thieves wearing the mask of gods. That is why you can never escape poverty. Having explained matters this far, even you, patient as you are, will surely feel ready to undertake a movement at the risk of your lives to recover what has been stolen from you.

Tenant farmers! Because of this long-standing superstition, you have believed that ordinary people could not survive unless the country possessed an army. Certainly, both in the past and today, when war begins, a country without an army will inevitably be destroyed by a country that has one.

But that is because there are great thieves called emperors and governments.

Isn't war a quarrel between governments? In other words, ordinary people suffer because thieves quarrel among themselves. If we do away with this thief called government, the thing called war will disappear. And once war disappears, it should be perfectly obvious that there will no longer be any need to send your beloved children away as soldiers.

Thus, if you want to stop giving rent to landlords and stop giving taxes and your children as soldiers to the government, the quickest way is to do away with that great thief called government.

How, then, are we to put this justice into practice?

There are various methods. But first, tenant farmers, join together—even if only ten or twenty of you—and put into practice the refusal to give rent to landlords and taxes and soldiers to the government. Once you put this into practice, justice will gain friends: from one village it will spread to an entire district, from one district to a prefecture, and eventually from all of Japan throughout the entire world. And there will arise the ideal land of anarchist communism, a land of freedom and well-being.<ref>Gudō's “ideal land of anarchist communism” (''museifu kyōsan no risōkoku'' 無政府共產の理想國) is literally the “ideal country/land of anarchist communism.” Because the society envisioned is explicitly stateless, “ideal land” avoids the potentially misleading English phrase “ideal state.” The paired ''anraku jiyū'' 安樂自由 combines ease or well-being with freedom.</ref>

Nothing can be accomplished without sacrifice. Those who consider themselves ready should undertake a movement for this justice even at the risk of their lives.<ref>Gudō's 命がけの運動 (''inochigake no undō'') denotes a movement or struggle undertaken “at the risk of one's life.” The phrase conveys Gudō's demand for potentially self-sacrificial commitment but does not in itself specify violent action. The pamphlet's explicit reference to revolutionary violence appears later, in the statement on the purpose of publication.</ref>

(END)

----

== Statement on the Purpose of Publication ==

This pamphlet has been published to commemorate the imprisonment of the following comrades. On 22 June 1908, in the capital of the Japanese Empire, more than ten of our comrades raised the red flag of anarchist communism and proclaimed a declaration of war against the sovereign power of the Japanese Empire. On 29 August of the same year, they were found guilty:<ref>This refers to the Red Flag Incident (''Akahata jiken'' 赤旗事件) of 22 June 1908, when police clashed with socialist and anarchist demonstrators in Tokyo. The subsequent convictions and imprisonment of leading activists provided the immediate occasion for Gudō's designation of the pamphlet as “Commemorating the Imprisoned” (''nyūgoku kinen'' 入獄紀念).</ref>

: Ōsugi Sakae
: Arahata Katsuzō
: Satō Satoru

: Momose Susumu
: Utsunomiya Takuji
: Morioka Eiji

: Sakai Toshihiko
: Kimura Genjirō
: Ōsuga Sato

: Yamakawa Hitoshi
: Kogure Rei
: Tokunaga Yasunosuke

This pamphlet has been published in commemoration of the imprisonment of these comrades.<ref>Gudō gives Arahata Katsuzō 荒畑勝三, better known by his pen name Arahata Kanson 荒畑寒村.</ref>

During the absence of these comrades, who will be released two or four years from now, this pamphlet represents the modest missionary work of the small number of comrades remaining in Tokyo.<ref>Gudō uses “missionary work” (''dendō'' 傳道), a term commonly used for religious proselytization. The same vocabulary recurs below, where readers are asked to spread anarchist communism to others. Together with his description of correspondence to imprisoned activists as a “gospel” (''fukuin'' 福音), the terminology gives revolutionary propaganda a distinctly religious register.</ref>

Those of you who, after reading this pamphlet, have come to understand that the coming revolution lies in the realization of anarchist communism—

(continued on reverse)

—please send either a postcard or a letter to our comrades who are now in prison. This is the one consolation we can offer the imprisoned comrades, a gospel that will strengthen the courage of those fighters.<ref>Gudō's use of “gospel” (''fukuin'' 福音) draws on Christian-derived vocabulary. He also employs terms such as “faith” (''shinkō'' 信仰) and the “Kingdom of Heaven” (''tengoku'' 天國) in his January 1908 essay “Lieutenant General Itō and the Question of Adultery,” illustrating the eclectic religious vocabulary that coexists with his criticism of “superstition” (''meishin'' 迷信).</ref>

Letters sent to the imprisoned comrades should be addressed:

: Tokyo Prison, Ichigaya, Ushigome Ward, Tokyo City
: Prisoner [name]

Please clearly write the sender's address and name before mailing it.

This pamphlet must be propagated widely and deeply, so that it may awaken you from the long, long dream of superstition and prevent you from misunderstanding the revolutionary movement that we must undertake in the near future. Therefore, those who understand what anarchist communism means and would not shrink even from throwing dynamite should each spread the teaching to as many people as possible.<ref>This is the pamphlet's most explicit reference to revolutionary violence: “not shrink even from throwing dynamite” (''dainamaito o tōzuru koto o mo jisenu'' ダイナマイトを投ずる事をも辭せぬ). Significantly, it occurs in the concluding statement on the purpose of publication rather than in the main argument addressed to tenant farmers. The body of the pamphlet proposes collective refusal to pay rent and taxes or supply soldiers, beginning with groups of ten or twenty and spreading from village to district, prefecture, Japan, and ultimately the world. The distinction does not make Gudō's willingness to contemplate violence less real, but it clarifies the relationship between revolutionary violence and the collective strategy actually developed in the text.</ref>

But those who still cannot understand after reading this should investigate deeply whether the society that presently exists is truly a just society, and whether our ideal is really to be satisfied with society as it now exists.

== Notes ==

<references responsive="0" />

== Source Note ==

''Museifu kyōsan'' 無政府共產 [Anarchist Communism] was clandestinely published by Uchiyama Gudō in 1908 in the aftermath of the Red Flag Incident (''Akahata jiken'' 赤旗事件) of 22 June and the subsequent imprisonment of twelve socialist and anarchist activists. Addressed primarily to tenant farmers, the pamphlet explains their poverty not in terms of karmic retribution but through landlordism, taxation, conscription, and the political and ideological structures that sustain them. Gudō characterizes the beliefs legitimating these institutions as “superstitions” (''meishin'' 迷信) and calls upon tenant farmers to refuse rent, taxes, and military service collectively. The society he envisages in their place is the “ideal land of anarchist communism” (''museifu kyōsan no risōkoku'' 無政府共產の理想國).

The concluding “Statement on the Purpose of Publication” (''Hakkō no shui'' 發行の趣意) explains the subtitle “Commemorating the Imprisoned” (''Nyūgoku kinen'' 入獄記念) by identifying the twelve activists imprisoned following the Red Flag Incident. It also extends the pamphlet's language of awakening from “superstition” while employing religiously inflected terms such as “missionary work” (''dendō'' 傳道) and “gospel” (''fukuin'' 福音). The statement concludes with the pamphlet's most explicit reference to revolutionary violence.

The Japanese text used for this translation is reproduced from 無政府主義図書館 (''Museifushugi Toshokan'' [Japanese Anarchist Library]), which identifies its source as a 2009 online reproduction of the original pamphlet. The transcription has not yet been checked in full against an original copy or facsimile. Apparent errors, irregular orthography and punctuation, and variations between hiragana and katakana have therefore not been silently emended. Several readings remain uncertain, and the translation of those passages should be regarded as provisional pending verification against a primary witness.

For the historical circumstances surrounding Gudō's clandestine publishing activities, see Kashiwagi Ryūhō 柏木隆法, 『大逆事件と内山愚童』 (''Taigyaku jiken to Uchiyama Gudō'' [The High Treason Incident and Uchiyama Gudō]) (Tokyo: JCA出版, 1979), chap. 6, 「秘密出版の決意」 (''Himitsu shuppan no ketsui'' [The Decision to Publish Secretly]), pp. 98–123.

== How to Cite this Text ==


Uchiyama Gudō (1908). ''Anarchist Communism'' (''Museifu kyōsan'' 無政府共產). Subtitle: “Commemorating the Imprisoned—Why Do Tenant Farmers Suffer?” Translated and annotated by James Mark Shields. ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/UG08MKK-T</nowiki>.

[[category:Uchiyama Gudo]]
[[category:Translations from Japanese]]

UG08MKK-T

2026-10-27T01:24:17Z

Lajos: /* Translation */

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Uchiyama Gudō, ''Anarchist Communism''}}

[[Uchiyama Gudo|Uchiyama Gudō]] 内山愚童 (1908). ''Museifu kyōsan'' 無政府共產 [Anarchist Communism], with the subtitle “Commemorating the Imprisoned—Why Do Tenant Farmers Suffer?” ([[UG08MKK|Original Japanese here]].)

__TOC__

== Translation ==

Tenant farmers! You produce food, the most important thing human beings need, something we simply cannot live without. And yet, although you have worked with all your might throughout your lives to produce this most essential of human necessities, just as your parents and ancestors did before you, year after year you end up without enough. What terrible misfortune!

Is this, as Buddhists say, evil retribution carried over from a previous life?<ref>Gudō writes ''zense kara no akuhō'' 前世からの惡報, literally “evil retribution from a previous existence.” The expression invokes the popular Buddhist understanding that present suffering may result from karmic actions in a previous life. Gudō immediately rejects such an explanation as “superstition” (''meishin'' 迷信), shifting the explanation of poverty from karmic causation to existing social and economic relations.</ref> But friends, in today's twentieth-century world, if you go on being deceived by such superstitions, in the end you will have no choice but to become like oxen and horses. Would that make you happy?

Year after year you live in poverty, lamenting that you don't have enough. If this were because, in the cold of winter, you took your aged parents to Zushi, Kamakura, Numazu, or Hayama to escape the cold, then perhaps you could resign yourselves to it. If, in the heat of summer, you took your ailing wife and children to Hakone or Nikkō to escape the heat, and that left you a little short that year, perhaps you could find some consolation in it.

If this year you sent your eldest son abroad to study in Germany, your younger son to university, and enrolled your daughter in a higher girls' school, and as a result had to sell a ''chō'' of woodland or mortgage five ''tan'' of farmland,<ref>''Chō'' 町 and ''tan'' 反 were units of land measurement. One ''chō'' was approximately 0.99 hectare (2.45 acres), and one ''tan'' approximately one-tenth of a ''chō''. Gudō's examples deliberately invoke expenditures and assets far beyond the ordinary circumstances of the tenant farmers he addresses.</ref> then at least you could look forward to future happiness, and your nighttime conversations with your wife would not be so bitter.

But friends, when you say year after year that you haven't enough, haven't enough, it is certainly not because of luxuries like these. New Year's comes, and Bon comes, but you don't even get a single new garment. They say that the art of building has advanced in this civilized twentieth century, but no news of that has reached your homes. Your houses are just as they were five hundred or a thousand years ago. Yet there is nothing surprising about this. Clothes require money paid to the cloth merchant; a house requires wages paid to a carpenter. And sadly, you have no money. So your clothes are always in tatters and your houses are like animals' dens.

But food—you produce that yourselves. So surely you eat the very best? Not at all. The best rice goes to the landlord, while you yourselves eat millet and barley, even though you work harder than either landlords or merchants.<ref>Gudō addresses the pamphlet specifically to tenant farmers (''kosakunin'' 小作人), cultivators who farmed land owned by landlords and paid a substantial portion of the harvest as rent, often in rice. His argument repeatedly contrasts the labor of the cultivator with the landlord's legal ownership of the land and claim upon its produce.</ref> And despite all that, year after year you still say, “Not enough, not enough.” Tenant farmers, that is your fate throughout your lives.

Why on earth should this be?

Let me put it in a little song:

: Why are you so poor?
: If you don't know why, I'll tell you.
: The emperor, the rich, the great landlords—
: there are ticks sucking people's blood.<ref>The Japanese reads 天子金もち、大地主。人の血をすふ、ダニがおる. Gudō identifies the emperor, the wealthy, and great landlords with “ticks” (ダニ) sucking human blood, presenting them as a parasitic social order living from the labor of others. ''Tenshi'' 天子, literally “Son of Heaven,” is Gudō's usual term for the emperor in this pamphlet.</ref>

Friends, think about this carefully. All year long you sweat and labor to produce your crops. Half of what you produce is taken by the thief called the landlord. With the half that remains, you have to buy sake, soy sauce, salt, fertilizer, and everything else. But sake, fertilizer, and everything you buy carries taxes taken by that great thief called the government. And on top of that, the thieves called merchants take their profits. Thus people like you tenant farmers, who possess no land of your own and labor honestly, can never escape poverty as long as you live.

And if that were all, it might still be bearable. But when you have a son, you raise him for years amid poverty. Just when you rejoice that now, at last, he can cultivate another plot of land and perhaps help you get out of debt, he turns twenty-one and—whether you like it or not—is taken away as a soldier. For three years you send him spending money while he is forced to learn something you have no desire even to hear about: how to kill people. And when war comes, he is dragged off to some blood-soaked place where he must either kill someone else or be killed himself.

There have even been fathers who, after their sons were taken away for three years of military service, were left at home with their wives and children and had to go out begging. The son who has become a soldier receives no money from home because his family is poor; without money he is bullied by the veteran soldiers. How many have hanged themselves, thrown themselves into rivers, or killed themselves on the railway? No one knows.

When tenant farmers are tormented like this, you may rise with the first cockcrow in the morning and work until darkness falls at night, but you and poverty will never part company.

Why should this be?

Although we are all born equally human, someone born into the household of a landlord or a rich man can remain at school or travel abroad until twenty-four or twenty-five—even thirty—and when he returns home, he escapes the summer heat in some cool place and builds a house on a warm seacoast for the winter. He spends his life amusing himself. Without plucking so much as a single mulberry leaf himself, he wraps his body in silk garments, indulges himself amid pools of wine and forests of meat,<ref>“Pools of wine and forests of meat” (''shuchi nikurin'' 酒池肉林) is a conventional expression for extravagant and decadent luxury, derived from accounts of the legendary excesses of the last Shang ruler in ancient China.</ref> and passes his entire life in idleness. Perhaps you don't know this.

They say that a great landlord or rich man can spend two or three thousand yen all by himself in just thirty days during the summer, amusing himself in Nikkō or Hakone. Three thousand yen! Friends, even if you worked without rest and without eating from the age of twenty until the age of fifty, you could never accumulate three thousand yen. And people like that don't even have to serve as soldiers.

Tenant farmers! Surely you too would like to enjoy the luxuries enjoyed by today's rich men and great landlords. Surely you would like, once in a while, to take some time off and eat something delicious. The reason you cannot do so is that you cling to a certain superstition.<ref>“Superstition” (''meishin'' 迷信) is the organizing concept of the pamphlet. Gudō shortly defines it as “cherishing and preserving a mistaken idea” (マチガツタ考へを大事本ぞんに守つておる事). The term encompasses not only conventional religious beliefs but assumptions concerning property, taxation, military service, and imperial authority that Gudō argues have been inculcated by the state.</ref> Because you have treasured this superstition since the days of your parents and ancestors, you cannot even dream of enjoying the luxuries of landlords and rich men. But if you listen to what we have to say and cast aside that superstition right now, you will become people who are truly at ease and free.

But if you abandon this superstition, the emperor and the rich will no longer be able to live idly and luxuriously. That is why, since ancient times, emperors and daimyō have made this superstition out to be something indispensable and sacred, and have used it to deceive you. So never forget that, from your standpoint, today's emperor and ministers, just like the Tokugawa and the daimyō of the past, are great enemies against whom grievances have accumulated since the days of your parents and ancestors.

It is exactly the same today in the Meiji era. The government works with all its might, employing everyone from university professors at the top to elementary-school teachers at the bottom, to make sure that you never abandon this superstition. And you, in turn, regard it with gratitude. That is why you can never escape poverty—not for your whole lives, nor even in the generations of your children and grandchildren.

What, then, are these superstitions that elementary-school teachers and others instill in you and your children? A superstition is simply the cherishing and preservation of a mistaken idea. I will leave until later the question of why you have held these mistaken ideas since ancient times. First let us consider what these mistaken ideas actually are.

△ You are allowed by the landlord to cultivate his rice fields and dry fields, and therefore, in gratitude, you must give him rent in rice.

△ Because there is a government, we farmers can work in peace; therefore, in gratitude, we must pay taxes.

△ If the country had no military forces, we farmers would be killed by foreigners; therefore, we must send our healthy young men away as soldiers.<ref>These are Gudō's three explicit examples of “mistaken ideas” or “superstitions”: the supposed obligations to pay rent to landlords, taxes to the government, and sons to the military. His argument is therefore directed not merely against particular economic burdens but against the beliefs that make those burdens appear legitimate, reciprocal, and necessary.</ref>

Because these three mistaken ideas have become deeply embedded in you, no matter how poor you become, you are incapable of opposing the payment of rent, the payment of taxes, or sending your children away as soldiers. If someone says, “You don't have to pay rent. You don't have to pay taxes. You don't have to send your beloved children away as soldiers,” you immediately call that person a rebel or a traitor. You refuse even to listen to or read something that would actually bring you ease and freedom. This is precisely where I want you to think very carefully about what you are reading.

Why, then, is it all right not to pay rent to the landlord?

Tenant farmers, leave the fields you cultivate alone from spring until autumn. Don't put a plow into them, don't sow any seed, don't fertilize them—just leave them alone and see what happens. When autumn comes, not a single grain of rice will have been produced. When summer comes, you won't harvest even half a grain of barley.

Doesn't this make the matter perfectly obvious? Rice is produced in autumn and barley in summer because you farmers have worked without rest throughout the year, pouring out your sweat. If that is so, then the rice and barley produced by your labor belong—all of them—to you farmers. What sort of absurd reasoning says that you must hand half of them over to a landlord?

The land existed naturally. Our ancestors cleared it and made it capable of producing food. Why should anyone who cultivates that land and takes what it produces for himself be called a rebel?

Tenant farmers! For a very long time the landlords have been robbing you. Now that you have finally awakened from this delusion,<ref>Gudō shifts here from “superstition” (''meishin'' 迷信) to “delusion” (''mayoi'' 迷): 此迷がさめて見れば, literally “once you awaken from this delusion.” The language of awakening from delusion carries a recognizable Buddhist resonance even as Gudō redirects it toward recognition of economic exploitation.</ref> you have the right not merely to refuse to hand over the annual rent but, in repayment for these long, long years of grievance, to take back the barley, money, and everything else stored in the landlords' storehouses. Taking everything in the landlord's storehouse is certainly not theft. It is the honorable work of recovering what has long been stolen from you and from us.

Next: why is it all right not to pay taxes to the government?

Tenant farmers, there is no need for difficult arguments. How much ease has this thing called government actually brought you? If you can name even one thing about it for which you can say, “Here's something we should thank our esteemed government for,” then go ahead and name it.

Since ancient times people have said, “You cannot prevail against a crying child or a magistrate.”<ref>“You cannot prevail against a crying child or a magistrate” (''naku ko to jitō ni wa katarenu'' 泣く子と地頭には勝たれぬ) is a proverbial expression meaning that there is no use resisting those against whom reason or argument is powerless. The ''jitō'' 地頭 were medieval land stewards; by Gudō's time the proverb conveyed the more general sense of arbitrary or irresistible authority.</ref> Isn't unreasonable oppression precisely what those above us have always made their business? Tenant farmers work honestly and become poor in order to pay taxes merely to keep such a troublesome thing alive. This is the height of stupidity.

Friends, stop paying taxes to this ridiculous government and destroy this troublesome thing as soon as possible! Then let us take back the government's property, which has been unjustly stolen from us since the days of our parents and ancestors, and make it the common property of everyone.<ref>''minna no kyōyū ni shiyō'' みんなの共有にしやう, “let us make it the common possession/property of everyone.” Gudō's positive economic program is thus not merely redistribution to individual cultivators: property seized by the government is to become commonly held. This anticipates his concluding description of the desired society as “anarchist communism” (''museifu kyōsan'' 無政府共產).</ref> This is your natural right. People who value justice should take the initiative and resist the government for the freedom and well-being of all people.

Why is destroying the present government and creating a free country without an emperor not the work of rebels, but rather the work of courageous people who value justice?

Because the emperor, the chief boss of the present government, is not a child of the gods at all, despite what elementary-school teachers and others have deceived you into believing. The ancestors of the present emperor emerged from a corner of Kyushu, murdering and robbing people and destroying fellow bands of thieves such as Nagasunehiko. In other words, they were like Kumazaka Chōhan or Shuten Dōji—bandits who happened to succeed.<ref>Nagasunehiko 長髄彦 is an opponent of Emperor Jinmu in the legendary account of the imperial conquest of Yamato. Kumazaka Chōhan 熊坂長範 and Shuten Dōji 酒呑童子 are legendary outlaw or bandit figures. Gudō's deliberately irreverent comparison reverses the ideological function of imperial mythology: rather than demonstrating divine ancestry and legitimate conquest, the founding narratives become stories of one successful band of robbers defeating others.</ref> A little thought is enough to see that they were no gods.

When you hear that the imperial line has continued for twenty-five hundred years, you may imagine that this somehow makes the emperor a god.<ref>Meiji imperial ideology represented the reigning emperor as the descendant of an unbroken divine imperial line extending back to the legendary Emperor Jinmu. Gudō attacks both elements of this claim: divine descent and the legitimating force of dynastic antiquity.</ref> But generation after generation the emperors suffered from troubles abroad and at home were made playthings by their own retainers.

It has been the same in the Meiji era. The emperor must have suffered continually over domestic and foreign affairs. His suffering is the consequence of his own actions, so that is his concern. But because of it, honest, hardworking tenant farmers like you suffer more with each passing day merely to find enough to eat. However much they tell you that Japan is a divine country, there is nothing in that for you to be grateful for.

These things are perfectly obvious, yet those cowards called university professors and men of learning are incapable of saying or writing them. Instead they deceive others with endless lies while deceiving themselves. Elementary-school teachers, too, are at first at a loss when they have to explain how sacred and benevolent the emperor is. But gradually they become skilled at lying, and on the three great national holidays each year they put on an innocent face and teach you and your children that the emperor is the child of the gods.<ref>Gudō refers to the “three great festivals” (''sandai shukujitsu'' 三大祝日) of the Meiji state, school ceremonies that played an important role in imperial civic education. His immediate target is therefore not simply abstract imperial ideology but its reproduction through elementary schooling and ritual observance.</ref>

You are thereby taught to labor and serve throughout your lives for the descendants of thieves wearing the mask of gods. That is why you can never escape poverty. Having explained matters this far, even you, patient as you are, will surely feel ready to undertake a movement at the risk of your lives to recover what has been stolen from you.

Tenant farmers! Because of this long-standing superstition, you have believed that ordinary people could not survive unless the country possessed an army. Certainly, both in the past and today, when war begins, a country without an army will inevitably be destroyed by a country that has one.

But that is because there are great thieves called emperors and governments.

Isn't war a quarrel between governments? In other words, ordinary people suffer because thieves quarrel among themselves. If we do away with this thief called government, the thing called war will disappear. And once war disappears, it should be perfectly obvious that there will no longer be any need to send your beloved children away as soldiers.

Thus, if you want to stop giving rent to landlords and stop giving taxes and your children as soldiers to the government, the quickest way is to do away with that great thief called government.

How, then, are we to put this justice into practice?

There are various methods. But first, tenant farmers, join together—even if only ten or twenty of you—and put into practice the refusal to give rent to landlords and taxes and soldiers to the government. Once you put this into practice, justice will gain friends: from one village it will spread to an entire district, from one district to a prefecture, and eventually from all of Japan throughout the entire world. And there will arise the ideal land of anarchist communism, a land of freedom and well-being.<ref>Gudō's “ideal land of anarchist communism” (''museifu kyōsan no risōkoku'' 無政府共產の理想國) is literally the “ideal country/land of anarchist communism.” Because the society envisioned is explicitly stateless, “ideal land” avoids the potentially misleading English phrase “ideal state.” The paired ''anraku jiyū'' 安樂自由 combines ease or well-being with freedom.</ref>

Nothing can be accomplished without sacrifice. Those who consider themselves ready should undertake a movement for this justice even at the risk of their lives.<ref>Gudō's 命がけの運動 (''inochigake no undō'') denotes a movement or struggle undertaken “at the risk of one's life.” The phrase conveys Gudō's demand for potentially self-sacrificial commitment but does not in itself specify violent action. The pamphlet's explicit reference to revolutionary violence appears later, in the statement on the purpose of publication.</ref>

(END)

----

== Statement on the Purpose of Publication ==

This pamphlet has been published to commemorate the imprisonment of the following comrades. On 22 June 1908, in the capital of the Japanese Empire, more than ten of our comrades raised the red flag of anarchist communism and proclaimed a declaration of war against the sovereign power of the Japanese Empire. On 29 August of the same year, they were found guilty:<ref>This refers to the Red Flag Incident (''Akahata jiken'' 赤旗事件) of 22 June 1908, when police clashed with socialist and anarchist demonstrators in Tokyo. The subsequent convictions and imprisonment of leading activists provided the immediate occasion for Gudō's designation of the pamphlet as “Commemorating the Imprisoned” (''nyūgoku kinen'' 入獄紀念).</ref>

Ōsugi Sakae
Arahata Katsuzō
Satō Satoru

Momose Susumu
Utsunomiya Takuji
Morioka Eiji

Sakai Toshihiko
Kimura Genjirō
Ōsuga Sato

Yamakawa Hitoshi
Kogure Rei
Tokunaga Yasunosuke

This pamphlet has been published in commemoration of the imprisonment of these comrades.<ref>Gudō gives Arahata Katsuzō 荒畑勝三, better known by his pen name Arahata Kanson 荒畑寒村.</ref>

During the absence of these comrades, who will be released two or four years from now, this pamphlet represents the modest missionary work of the small number of comrades remaining in Tokyo.<ref>Gudō uses “missionary work” (''dendō'' 傳道), a term commonly used for religious proselytization. The same vocabulary recurs below, where readers are asked to spread anarchist communism to others. Together with his description of correspondence to imprisoned activists as a “gospel” (''fukuin'' 福音), the terminology gives revolutionary propaganda a distinctly religious register.</ref>

Those of you who, after reading this pamphlet, have come to understand that the coming revolution lies in the realization of anarchist communism—

(continued on reverse)

—please send either a postcard or a letter to our comrades who are now in prison. This is the one consolation we can offer the imprisoned comrades, a gospel that will strengthen the courage of those fighters.<ref>Gudō's use of “gospel” (''fukuin'' 福音) draws on Christian-derived vocabulary. He also employs terms such as “faith” (''shinkō'' 信仰) and the “Kingdom of Heaven” (''tengoku'' 天國) in his January 1908 essay “Lieutenant General Itō and the Question of Adultery,” illustrating the eclectic religious vocabulary that coexists with his criticism of “superstition” (''meishin'' 迷信).</ref>

Letters sent to the imprisoned comrades should be addressed:

Tokyo Prison, Ichigaya, Ushigome Ward, Tokyo City
Prisoner [name]

Please clearly write the sender's address and name before mailing it.

This pamphlet must be propagated widely and deeply, so that it may awaken you from the long, long dream of superstition and prevent you from misunderstanding the revolutionary movement that we must undertake in the near future. Therefore, those who understand what anarchist communism means and would not shrink even from throwing dynamite should each spread the teaching to as many people as possible.<ref>This is the pamphlet's most explicit reference to revolutionary violence: “not shrink even from throwing dynamite” (''dainamaito o tōzuru koto o mo jisenu'' ダイナマイトを投ずる事をも辭せぬ). Significantly, it occurs in the concluding statement on the purpose of publication rather than in the main argument addressed to tenant farmers. The body of the pamphlet proposes collective refusal to pay rent and taxes or supply soldiers, beginning with groups of ten or twenty and spreading from village to district, prefecture, Japan, and ultimately the world. The distinction does not make Gudō's willingness to contemplate violence less real, but it clarifies the relationship between revolutionary violence and the collective strategy actually developed in the text.</ref>

But those who still cannot understand after reading this should investigate deeply whether the society that presently exists is truly a just society, and whether our ideal is really to be satisfied with society as it now exists.

== Notes ==

<references responsive="0" />

== Source Note ==

''Museifu kyōsan'' 無政府共產 [Anarchist Communism] was clandestinely published by Uchiyama Gudō in 1908 in the aftermath of the Red Flag Incident (''Akahata jiken'' 赤旗事件) of 22 June and the subsequent imprisonment of twelve socialist and anarchist activists. Addressed primarily to tenant farmers, the pamphlet explains their poverty not in terms of karmic retribution but through landlordism, taxation, conscription, and the political and ideological structures that sustain them. Gudō characterizes the beliefs legitimating these institutions as “superstitions” (''meishin'' 迷信) and calls upon tenant farmers to refuse rent, taxes, and military service collectively. The society he envisages in their place is the “ideal land of anarchist communism” (''museifu kyōsan no risōkoku'' 無政府共產の理想國).

The concluding “Statement on the Purpose of Publication” (''Hakkō no shui'' 發行の趣意) explains the subtitle “Commemorating the Imprisoned” (''Nyūgoku kinen'' 入獄記念) by identifying the twelve activists imprisoned following the Red Flag Incident. It also extends the pamphlet's language of awakening from “superstition” while employing religiously inflected terms such as “missionary work” (''dendō'' 傳道) and “gospel” (''fukuin'' 福音). The statement concludes with the pamphlet's most explicit reference to revolutionary violence.

The Japanese text used for this translation is reproduced from 無政府主義図書館 (''Museifushugi Toshokan'' [Japanese Anarchist Library]), which identifies its source as a 2009 online reproduction of the original pamphlet. The transcription has not yet been checked in full against an original copy or facsimile. Apparent errors, irregular orthography and punctuation, and variations between hiragana and katakana have therefore not been silently emended. Several readings remain uncertain, and the translation of those passages should be regarded as provisional pending verification against a primary witness.

For the historical circumstances surrounding Gudō's clandestine publishing activities, see Kashiwagi Ryūhō 柏木隆法, 『大逆事件と内山愚童』 (''Taigyaku jiken to Uchiyama Gudō'' [The High Treason Incident and Uchiyama Gudō]) (Tokyo: JCA出版, 1979), chap. 6, 「秘密出版の決意」 (''Himitsu shuppan no ketsui'' [The Decision to Publish Secretly]), pp. 98–123.

== How to Cite this Text ==


Uchiyama Gudō (1908). ''Anarchist Communism'' (''Museifu kyōsan'' 無政府共產). Subtitle: “Commemorating the Imprisoned—Why Do Tenant Farmers Suffer?” Translated and annotated by James Mark Shields. ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/UG08MKK-T</nowiki>.

[[category:Uchiyama Gudo]]
[[category:Translations from Japanese]]

UG08MKK-T

2026-10-27T01:23:51Z

Lajos:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Uchiyama Gudō, ''Anarchist Communism''}}

[[Uchiyama Gudo|Uchiyama Gudō]] 内山愚童 (1908). ''Museifu kyōsan'' 無政府共產 [Anarchist Communism], with the subtitle “Commemorating the Imprisoned—Why Do Tenant Farmers Suffer?” ([[UG08MKK|Original Japanese here]].)

__TOC__

== Translation ==

Tenant farmers! You produce food, the most important thing human beings need, something we simply cannot live without. And yet, although you have worked with all your might throughout your lives to produce this most essential of human necessities, just as your parents and ancestors did before you, year after year you end up without enough. What terrible misfortune!

Is this, as Buddhists say, evil retribution carried over from a previous life?<ref>Gudō writes ''zense kara no akuhō'' 前世からの惡報, literally “evil retribution from a previous existence.” The expression invokes the popular Buddhist understanding that present suffering may result from karmic actions in a previous life. Gudō immediately rejects such an explanation as “superstition” (''meishin'' 迷信), shifting the explanation of poverty from karmic causation to existing social and economic relations.</ref> But friends, in today's twentieth-century world, if you go on being deceived by such superstitions, in the end you will have no choice but to become like oxen and horses. Would that make you happy?

Year after year you live in poverty, lamenting that you don't have enough. If this were because, in the cold of winter, you took your aged parents to Zushi, Kamakura, Numazu, or Hayama to escape the cold, then perhaps you could resign yourselves to it. If, in the heat of summer, you took your ailing wife and children to Hakone or Nikkō to escape the heat, and that left you a little short that year, perhaps you could find some consolation in it.

If this year you sent your eldest son abroad to study in Germany, your younger son to university, and enrolled your daughter in a higher girls' school, and as a result had to sell a ''chō'' of woodland or mortgage five ''tan'' of farmland,<ref>''Chō'' 町 and ''tan'' 反 were units of land measurement. One ''chō'' was approximately 0.99 hectare (2.45 acres), and one ''tan'' approximately one-tenth of a ''chō''. Gudō's examples deliberately invoke expenditures and assets far beyond the ordinary circumstances of the tenant farmers he addresses.</ref> then at least you could look forward to future happiness, and your nighttime conversations with your wife would not be so bitter.

But friends, when you say year after year that you haven't enough, haven't enough, it is certainly not because of luxuries like these. New Year's comes, and Bon comes, but you don't even get a single new garment. They say that the art of building has advanced in this civilized twentieth century, but no news of that has reached your homes. Your houses are just as they were five hundred or a thousand years ago. Yet there is nothing surprising about this. Clothes require money paid to the cloth merchant; a house requires wages paid to a carpenter. And sadly, you have no money. So your clothes are always in tatters and your houses are like animals' dens.

But food—you produce that yourselves. So surely you eat the very best? Not at all. The best rice goes to the landlord, while you yourselves eat millet and barley, even though you work harder than either landlords or merchants.<ref>Gudō addresses the pamphlet specifically to tenant farmers (''kosakunin'' 小作人), cultivators who farmed land owned by landlords and paid a substantial portion of the harvest as rent, often in rice. His argument repeatedly contrasts the labor of the cultivator with the landlord's legal ownership of the land and claim upon its produce.</ref> And despite all that, year after year you still say, “Not enough, not enough.” Tenant farmers, that is your fate throughout your lives.

Why on earth should this be?

Let me put it in a little song:

Why are you so poor?
If you don't know why, I'll tell you.
The emperor, the rich, the great landlords—
there are ticks sucking people's blood.<ref>The Japanese reads 天子金もち、大地主。人の血をすふ、ダニがおる. Gudō identifies the emperor, the wealthy, and great landlords with “ticks” (ダニ) sucking human blood, presenting them as a parasitic social order living from the labor of others. ''Tenshi'' 天子, literally “Son of Heaven,” is Gudō's usual term for the emperor in this pamphlet.</ref>

Friends, think about this carefully. All year long you sweat and labor to produce your crops. Half of what you produce is taken by the thief called the landlord. With the half that remains, you have to buy sake, soy sauce, salt, fertilizer, and everything else. But sake, fertilizer, and everything you buy carries taxes taken by that great thief called the government. And on top of that, the thieves called merchants take their profits. Thus people like you tenant farmers, who possess no land of your own and labor honestly, can never escape poverty as long as you live.

And if that were all, it might still be bearable. But when you have a son, you raise him for years amid poverty. Just when you rejoice that now, at last, he can cultivate another plot of land and perhaps help you get out of debt, he turns twenty-one and—whether you like it or not—is taken away as a soldier. For three years you send him spending money while he is forced to learn something you have no desire even to hear about: how to kill people. And when war comes, he is dragged off to some blood-soaked place where he must either kill someone else or be killed himself.

There have even been fathers who, after their sons were taken away for three years of military service, were left at home with their wives and children and had to go out begging. The son who has become a soldier receives no money from home because his family is poor; without money he is bullied by the veteran soldiers. How many have hanged themselves, thrown themselves into rivers, or killed themselves on the railway? No one knows.

When tenant farmers are tormented like this, you may rise with the first cockcrow in the morning and work until darkness falls at night, but you and poverty will never part company.

Why should this be?

Although we are all born equally human, someone born into the household of a landlord or a rich man can remain at school or travel abroad until twenty-four or twenty-five—even thirty—and when he returns home, he escapes the summer heat in some cool place and builds a house on a warm seacoast for the winter. He spends his life amusing himself. Without plucking so much as a single mulberry leaf himself, he wraps his body in silk garments, indulges himself amid pools of wine and forests of meat,<ref>“Pools of wine and forests of meat” (''shuchi nikurin'' 酒池肉林) is a conventional expression for extravagant and decadent luxury, derived from accounts of the legendary excesses of the last Shang ruler in ancient China.</ref> and passes his entire life in idleness. Perhaps you don't know this.

They say that a great landlord or rich man can spend two or three thousand yen all by himself in just thirty days during the summer, amusing himself in Nikkō or Hakone. Three thousand yen! Friends, even if you worked without rest and without eating from the age of twenty until the age of fifty, you could never accumulate three thousand yen. And people like that don't even have to serve as soldiers.

Tenant farmers! Surely you too would like to enjoy the luxuries enjoyed by today's rich men and great landlords. Surely you would like, once in a while, to take some time off and eat something delicious. The reason you cannot do so is that you cling to a certain superstition.<ref>“Superstition” (''meishin'' 迷信) is the organizing concept of the pamphlet. Gudō shortly defines it as “cherishing and preserving a mistaken idea” (マチガツタ考へを大事本ぞんに守つておる事). The term encompasses not only conventional religious beliefs but assumptions concerning property, taxation, military service, and imperial authority that Gudō argues have been inculcated by the state.</ref> Because you have treasured this superstition since the days of your parents and ancestors, you cannot even dream of enjoying the luxuries of landlords and rich men. But if you listen to what we have to say and cast aside that superstition right now, you will become people who are truly at ease and free.

But if you abandon this superstition, the emperor and the rich will no longer be able to live idly and luxuriously. That is why, since ancient times, emperors and daimyō have made this superstition out to be something indispensable and sacred, and have used it to deceive you. So never forget that, from your standpoint, today's emperor and ministers, just like the Tokugawa and the daimyō of the past, are great enemies against whom grievances have accumulated since the days of your parents and ancestors.

It is exactly the same today in the Meiji era. The government works with all its might, employing everyone from university professors at the top to elementary-school teachers at the bottom, to make sure that you never abandon this superstition. And you, in turn, regard it with gratitude. That is why you can never escape poverty—not for your whole lives, nor even in the generations of your children and grandchildren.

What, then, are these superstitions that elementary-school teachers and others instill in you and your children? A superstition is simply the cherishing and preservation of a mistaken idea. I will leave until later the question of why you have held these mistaken ideas since ancient times. First let us consider what these mistaken ideas actually are.

△ You are allowed by the landlord to cultivate his rice fields and dry fields, and therefore, in gratitude, you must give him rent in rice.

△ Because there is a government, we farmers can work in peace; therefore, in gratitude, we must pay taxes.

△ If the country had no military forces, we farmers would be killed by foreigners; therefore, we must send our healthy young men away as soldiers.<ref>These are Gudō's three explicit examples of “mistaken ideas” or “superstitions”: the supposed obligations to pay rent to landlords, taxes to the government, and sons to the military. His argument is therefore directed not merely against particular economic burdens but against the beliefs that make those burdens appear legitimate, reciprocal, and necessary.</ref>

Because these three mistaken ideas have become deeply embedded in you, no matter how poor you become, you are incapable of opposing the payment of rent, the payment of taxes, or sending your children away as soldiers. If someone says, “You don't have to pay rent. You don't have to pay taxes. You don't have to send your beloved children away as soldiers,” you immediately call that person a rebel or a traitor. You refuse even to listen to or read something that would actually bring you ease and freedom. This is precisely where I want you to think very carefully about what you are reading.

Why, then, is it all right not to pay rent to the landlord?

Tenant farmers, leave the fields you cultivate alone from spring until autumn. Don't put a plow into them, don't sow any seed, don't fertilize them—just leave them alone and see what happens. When autumn comes, not a single grain of rice will have been produced. When summer comes, you won't harvest even half a grain of barley.

Doesn't this make the matter perfectly obvious? Rice is produced in autumn and barley in summer because you farmers have worked without rest throughout the year, pouring out your sweat. If that is so, then the rice and barley produced by your labor belong—all of them—to you farmers. What sort of absurd reasoning says that you must hand half of them over to a landlord?

The land existed naturally. Our ancestors cleared it and made it capable of producing food. Why should anyone who cultivates that land and takes what it produces for himself be called a rebel?

Tenant farmers! For a very long time the landlords have been robbing you. Now that you have finally awakened from this delusion,<ref>Gudō shifts here from “superstition” (''meishin'' 迷信) to “delusion” (''mayoi'' 迷): 此迷がさめて見れば, literally “once you awaken from this delusion.” The language of awakening from delusion carries a recognizable Buddhist resonance even as Gudō redirects it toward recognition of economic exploitation.</ref> you have the right not merely to refuse to hand over the annual rent but, in repayment for these long, long years of grievance, to take back the barley, money, and everything else stored in the landlords' storehouses. Taking everything in the landlord's storehouse is certainly not theft. It is the honorable work of recovering what has long been stolen from you and from us.

Next: why is it all right not to pay taxes to the government?

Tenant farmers, there is no need for difficult arguments. How much ease has this thing called government actually brought you? If you can name even one thing about it for which you can say, “Here's something we should thank our esteemed government for,” then go ahead and name it.

Since ancient times people have said, “You cannot prevail against a crying child or a magistrate.”<ref>“You cannot prevail against a crying child or a magistrate” (''naku ko to jitō ni wa katarenu'' 泣く子と地頭には勝たれぬ) is a proverbial expression meaning that there is no use resisting those against whom reason or argument is powerless. The ''jitō'' 地頭 were medieval land stewards; by Gudō's time the proverb conveyed the more general sense of arbitrary or irresistible authority.</ref> Isn't unreasonable oppression precisely what those above us have always made their business? Tenant farmers work honestly and become poor in order to pay taxes merely to keep such a troublesome thing alive. This is the height of stupidity.

Friends, stop paying taxes to this ridiculous government and destroy this troublesome thing as soon as possible! Then let us take back the government's property, which has been unjustly stolen from us since the days of our parents and ancestors, and make it the common property of everyone.<ref>''minna no kyōyū ni shiyō'' みんなの共有にしやう, “let us make it the common possession/property of everyone.” Gudō's positive economic program is thus not merely redistribution to individual cultivators: property seized by the government is to become commonly held. This anticipates his concluding description of the desired society as “anarchist communism” (''museifu kyōsan'' 無政府共產).</ref> This is your natural right. People who value justice should take the initiative and resist the government for the freedom and well-being of all people.

Why is destroying the present government and creating a free country without an emperor not the work of rebels, but rather the work of courageous people who value justice?

Because the emperor, the chief boss of the present government, is not a child of the gods at all, despite what elementary-school teachers and others have deceived you into believing. The ancestors of the present emperor emerged from a corner of Kyushu, murdering and robbing people and destroying fellow bands of thieves such as Nagasunehiko. In other words, they were like Kumazaka Chōhan or Shuten Dōji—bandits who happened to succeed.<ref>Nagasunehiko 長髄彦 is an opponent of Emperor Jinmu in the legendary account of the imperial conquest of Yamato. Kumazaka Chōhan 熊坂長範 and Shuten Dōji 酒呑童子 are legendary outlaw or bandit figures. Gudō's deliberately irreverent comparison reverses the ideological function of imperial mythology: rather than demonstrating divine ancestry and legitimate conquest, the founding narratives become stories of one successful band of robbers defeating others.</ref> A little thought is enough to see that they were no gods.

When you hear that the imperial line has continued for twenty-five hundred years, you may imagine that this somehow makes the emperor a god.<ref>Meiji imperial ideology represented the reigning emperor as the descendant of an unbroken divine imperial line extending back to the legendary Emperor Jinmu. Gudō attacks both elements of this claim: divine descent and the legitimating force of dynastic antiquity.</ref> But generation after generation the emperors suffered from troubles abroad and at home were made playthings by their own retainers.

It has been the same in the Meiji era. The emperor must have suffered continually over domestic and foreign affairs. His suffering is the consequence of his own actions, so that is his concern. But because of it, honest, hardworking tenant farmers like you suffer more with each passing day merely to find enough to eat. However much they tell you that Japan is a divine country, there is nothing in that for you to be grateful for.

These things are perfectly obvious, yet those cowards called university professors and men of learning are incapable of saying or writing them. Instead they deceive others with endless lies while deceiving themselves. Elementary-school teachers, too, are at first at a loss when they have to explain how sacred and benevolent the emperor is. But gradually they become skilled at lying, and on the three great national holidays each year they put on an innocent face and teach you and your children that the emperor is the child of the gods.<ref>Gudō refers to the “three great festivals” (''sandai shukujitsu'' 三大祝日) of the Meiji state, school ceremonies that played an important role in imperial civic education. His immediate target is therefore not simply abstract imperial ideology but its reproduction through elementary schooling and ritual observance.</ref>

You are thereby taught to labor and serve throughout your lives for the descendants of thieves wearing the mask of gods. That is why you can never escape poverty. Having explained matters this far, even you, patient as you are, will surely feel ready to undertake a movement at the risk of your lives to recover what has been stolen from you.

Tenant farmers! Because of this long-standing superstition, you have believed that ordinary people could not survive unless the country possessed an army. Certainly, both in the past and today, when war begins, a country without an army will inevitably be destroyed by a country that has one.

But that is because there are great thieves called emperors and governments.

Isn't war a quarrel between governments? In other words, ordinary people suffer because thieves quarrel among themselves. If we do away with this thief called government, the thing called war will disappear. And once war disappears, it should be perfectly obvious that there will no longer be any need to send your beloved children away as soldiers.

Thus, if you want to stop giving rent to landlords and stop giving taxes and your children as soldiers to the government, the quickest way is to do away with that great thief called government.

How, then, are we to put this justice into practice?

There are various methods. But first, tenant farmers, join together—even if only ten or twenty of you—and put into practice the refusal to give rent to landlords and taxes and soldiers to the government. Once you put this into practice, justice will gain friends: from one village it will spread to an entire district, from one district to a prefecture, and eventually from all of Japan throughout the entire world. And there will arise the ideal land of anarchist communism, a land of freedom and well-being.<ref>Gudō's “ideal land of anarchist communism” (''museifu kyōsan no risōkoku'' 無政府共產の理想國) is literally the “ideal country/land of anarchist communism.” Because the society envisioned is explicitly stateless, “ideal land” avoids the potentially misleading English phrase “ideal state.” The paired ''anraku jiyū'' 安樂自由 combines ease or well-being with freedom.</ref>

Nothing can be accomplished without sacrifice. Those who consider themselves ready should undertake a movement for this justice even at the risk of their lives.<ref>Gudō's 命がけの運動 (''inochigake no undō'') denotes a movement or struggle undertaken “at the risk of one's life.” The phrase conveys Gudō's demand for potentially self-sacrificial commitment but does not in itself specify violent action. The pamphlet's explicit reference to revolutionary violence appears later, in the statement on the purpose of publication.</ref>

(END)

----

== Statement on the Purpose of Publication ==

This pamphlet has been published to commemorate the imprisonment of the following comrades. On 22 June 1908, in the capital of the Japanese Empire, more than ten of our comrades raised the red flag of anarchist communism and proclaimed a declaration of war against the sovereign power of the Japanese Empire. On 29 August of the same year, they were found guilty:<ref>This refers to the Red Flag Incident (''Akahata jiken'' 赤旗事件) of 22 June 1908, when police clashed with socialist and anarchist demonstrators in Tokyo. The subsequent convictions and imprisonment of leading activists provided the immediate occasion for Gudō's designation of the pamphlet as “Commemorating the Imprisoned” (''nyūgoku kinen'' 入獄紀念).</ref>

Ōsugi Sakae
Arahata Katsuzō
Satō Satoru

Momose Susumu
Utsunomiya Takuji
Morioka Eiji

Sakai Toshihiko
Kimura Genjirō
Ōsuga Sato

Yamakawa Hitoshi
Kogure Rei
Tokunaga Yasunosuke

This pamphlet has been published in commemoration of the imprisonment of these comrades.<ref>Gudō gives Arahata Katsuzō 荒畑勝三, better known by his pen name Arahata Kanson 荒畑寒村.</ref>

During the absence of these comrades, who will be released two or four years from now, this pamphlet represents the modest missionary work of the small number of comrades remaining in Tokyo.<ref>Gudō uses “missionary work” (''dendō'' 傳道), a term commonly used for religious proselytization. The same vocabulary recurs below, where readers are asked to spread anarchist communism to others. Together with his description of correspondence to imprisoned activists as a “gospel” (''fukuin'' 福音), the terminology gives revolutionary propaganda a distinctly religious register.</ref>

Those of you who, after reading this pamphlet, have come to understand that the coming revolution lies in the realization of anarchist communism—

(continued on reverse)

—please send either a postcard or a letter to our comrades who are now in prison. This is the one consolation we can offer the imprisoned comrades, a gospel that will strengthen the courage of those fighters.<ref>Gudō's use of “gospel” (''fukuin'' 福音) draws on Christian-derived vocabulary. He also employs terms such as “faith” (''shinkō'' 信仰) and the “Kingdom of Heaven” (''tengoku'' 天國) in his January 1908 essay “Lieutenant General Itō and the Question of Adultery,” illustrating the eclectic religious vocabulary that coexists with his criticism of “superstition” (''meishin'' 迷信).</ref>

Letters sent to the imprisoned comrades should be addressed:

Tokyo Prison, Ichigaya, Ushigome Ward, Tokyo City
Prisoner [name]

Please clearly write the sender's address and name before mailing it.

This pamphlet must be propagated widely and deeply, so that it may awaken you from the long, long dream of superstition and prevent you from misunderstanding the revolutionary movement that we must undertake in the near future. Therefore, those who understand what anarchist communism means and would not shrink even from throwing dynamite should each spread the teaching to as many people as possible.<ref>This is the pamphlet's most explicit reference to revolutionary violence: “not shrink even from throwing dynamite” (''dainamaito o tōzuru koto o mo jisenu'' ダイナマイトを投ずる事をも辭せぬ). Significantly, it occurs in the concluding statement on the purpose of publication rather than in the main argument addressed to tenant farmers. The body of the pamphlet proposes collective refusal to pay rent and taxes or supply soldiers, beginning with groups of ten or twenty and spreading from village to district, prefecture, Japan, and ultimately the world. The distinction does not make Gudō's willingness to contemplate violence less real, but it clarifies the relationship between revolutionary violence and the collective strategy actually developed in the text.</ref>

But those who still cannot understand after reading this should investigate deeply whether the society that presently exists is truly a just society, and whether our ideal is really to be satisfied with society as it now exists.

== Notes ==

<references responsive="0" />

== Source Note ==

''Museifu kyōsan'' 無政府共產 [Anarchist Communism] was clandestinely published by Uchiyama Gudō in 1908 in the aftermath of the Red Flag Incident (''Akahata jiken'' 赤旗事件) of 22 June and the subsequent imprisonment of twelve socialist and anarchist activists. Addressed primarily to tenant farmers, the pamphlet explains their poverty not in terms of karmic retribution but through landlordism, taxation, conscription, and the political and ideological structures that sustain them. Gudō characterizes the beliefs legitimating these institutions as “superstitions” (''meishin'' 迷信) and calls upon tenant farmers to refuse rent, taxes, and military service collectively. The society he envisages in their place is the “ideal land of anarchist communism” (''museifu kyōsan no risōkoku'' 無政府共產の理想國).

The concluding “Statement on the Purpose of Publication” (''Hakkō no shui'' 發行の趣意) explains the subtitle “Commemorating the Imprisoned” (''Nyūgoku kinen'' 入獄記念) by identifying the twelve activists imprisoned following the Red Flag Incident. It also extends the pamphlet's language of awakening from “superstition” while employing religiously inflected terms such as “missionary work” (''dendō'' 傳道) and “gospel” (''fukuin'' 福音). The statement concludes with the pamphlet's most explicit reference to revolutionary violence.

The Japanese text used for this translation is reproduced from 無政府主義図書館 (''Museifushugi Toshokan'' [Japanese Anarchist Library]), which identifies its source as a 2009 online reproduction of the original pamphlet. The transcription has not yet been checked in full against an original copy or facsimile. Apparent errors, irregular orthography and punctuation, and variations between hiragana and katakana have therefore not been silently emended. Several readings remain uncertain, and the translation of those passages should be regarded as provisional pending verification against a primary witness.

For the historical circumstances surrounding Gudō's clandestine publishing activities, see Kashiwagi Ryūhō 柏木隆法, 『大逆事件と内山愚童』 (''Taigyaku jiken to Uchiyama Gudō'' [The High Treason Incident and Uchiyama Gudō]) (Tokyo: JCA出版, 1979), chap. 6, 「秘密出版の決意」 (''Himitsu shuppan no ketsui'' [The Decision to Publish Secretly]), pp. 98–123.

== How to Cite this Text ==


Uchiyama Gudō (1908). ''Anarchist Communism'' (''Museifu kyōsan'' 無政府共產). Subtitle: “Commemorating the Imprisoned—Why Do Tenant Farmers Suffer?” Translated and annotated by James Mark Shields. ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/UG08MKK-T</nowiki>.

[[category:Uchiyama Gudo]]
[[category:Translations from Japanese]]

Template:Listofchangesforfrontpage

2026-10-27T01:23:03Z

Lajos:

'''{{serifsc|Latest Encyclopedia Entries|135%}}''' 
[[Takagi Kenmyo|Takagi Kenmyō 高木顕明]] 
[[The New Buddhist Fellowship]] 
[[Japan]] (revision) 
[[Senoo Giro|Seno'o Girō 妹尾義郎]] (revision) 
[[Rahul Sankrityayan]]

'''{{serifsc|Latest Source Texts|135%}}''' 
[[SR42VGX|राहुल सांकृत्यायन, प्रभा (७)]] 
[[IH30MTZ|市川白弦、「マルクス主義と禅―覚え書」]] 
[[IH61ZKA|市川白弦、「禅・華厳・アナキズム」]] 
[[UG11HJK|内山愚童、『平凡の自覚』]] 
[[UG06OBG|内山愚童、『覚書』]]

'''{{serifsc|Latest Translations|135%}}''' 
[[SR42VGX-T|Rahul Sankrityayan, "Prabha" §7]] 
[[IH30MTZ-T|Ichikawa Hakugen, "Marxism and Zen: Notes"]] 
[[IH61ZKA-T|Ichikawa Hakugen, "Zen, Kegon, and Anarchism"]] 
[[UG11HJK-T|Uchiyama Gudō, ''The Self-Awakening of the Ordinary Person'']] 
[[UG08MKK-T|Uchiyama Gudō, ''Anarchist Communism'']]

MediaWiki:Common.css

2026-10-27T01:13:24Z

Lajos:

/* Make the Cite extension list of references look smaller */
ol.references {
font-size: 90%;
}

/* Mobile view: Ensure single column across all native wrapper elements */
.mw-references-wrap,
.mw-references-columns,
ol.references,
.references {
column-count: 1 !important;
column-width: auto !important;
}

/* Tablet & Desktop view: Prevent nested columns, lock layout to exactly 2 columns */
@media screen and (min-width: 768px) {
/* 1. Turn off columns entirely on the parent outer containers */
.mw-references-wrap,
.mw-references-columns {
column-count: 1 !important;
column-width: auto !important;
}

/* 2. Force exactly 2 columns strictly on the actual list layer with a forced gap */
ol.references,
.references {
column-count: 2 !important;
column-width: auto !important;
column-gap: 3.5em !important; /* Forces a wide, highly visible gap between the columns */
}

/* 3. Extra safeguard: Ensure list items don't crowd the center line */
ol.references li,
.references li {
padding-right: 1.5em !important; /* Pushes the citation text away from the center gap */
break-inside: avoid-column; /* Prevents an individual reference from splitting across columns */
}
}

MediaWiki:Common.css

2026-10-27T01:11:19Z

Lajos:

MediaWiki:Common.css

2026-10-27T01:09:37Z

Lajos:

/* Make the Cite extension list of references look smaller */
ol.references {
font-size: 90%;
}

/* Mobile view: Force single column for all reference elements */
.mw-references-wrap,
ol.references,
.references {
column-count: 1 !important;
column-width: auto !important;
}

/* Tablet & Desktop view: Force exactly 2 columns for all reference elements */
@media screen and (min-width: 768px) {
.mw-references-wrap,
ol.references,
.references {
column-count: 2 !important;
column-width: auto !important;
column-gap: 2em;
}
}

MediaWiki:Common.css

2026-10-27T01:07:10Z

Lajos:

/* Make the Cite extension list of references look smaller */
ol.references {
font-size: 90%;
}

/* Enforce 2 columns for references on wider screens */
@media screen and (min-width: 768px) {
ol.references {
column-count: 2 !important;
column-gap: 2em;
}
}

/* Limit references to a maximum of 2 columns on desktops, 1 column on mobile */
@media screen and (min-width: 768px) {
ol.references {
column-count: 2 !important;
max-width: 100%;
}
}

Japan

2026-10-27T01:05:01Z

Lajos: /* Seno'o Girō and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism */

Japan provides one of the richest historical settings for the study of radical Buddhism. From its early institutional development in Japan, Buddhism developed complex and often mutually supportive relationships with political authority, including the imperial court, the powerful religious institutions of the medieval period, and the Tokugawa shogunate. These relationships never eliminated conflict or dissent, however, and Japanese history also supplied later Buddhist radicals with memories and models of religiously inflected resistance, including peasant uprisings and traditions of the self-sacrificing “righteous person” (''gimin'' 義民).<ref>Shields, James Mark (2016), “Opium Eaters: Buddhism as Revolutionary Politics,” in Hiroko Kawanami, ed., ''Buddhism and the Political Process'' (Palgrave Macmillan), 213–32, 214–15; Shields, James Mark (2016), “Peasant Revolts as Anti-Authoritarian Archetypes for Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan,” ''Journal of Religion in Japan'' 5: 3–21.</ref>

The political and intellectual upheavals accompanying the Meiji Restoration of 1868 transformed this relationship. Following the brief but severe persecution of Buddhism known as ''haibutsu kishaku'' 廃仏毀釈, Buddhist clergy and lay intellectuals pursued a variety of projects to reconstruct Buddhism as compatible with a modernizing nation-state, modern science, new forms of scholarship, and changing conceptions of religion and ethics. Within and against this broader field of Buddhist reform there emerged, from the 1880s through the early Shōwa period, a much smaller and internally diverse current in which activists brought Buddhist ideas into constructive engagement with socialism, anarchism, and eventually Marxism. This entry uses “radical Buddhism” primarily for these attempts to connect Buddhist thought and practice with fundamental transformations of existing social, economic, and political relations.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press); Shields, James Mark (2014), “Zen and the Art of Treason: Radical Buddhism in Meiji Era (1868–1912) Japan,” ''Politics, Religion & Ideology'' 15, no. 2: 205–23.</ref>

Radical Buddhism in this narrower sense never became a dominant current within modern Japanese Buddhism. Its most explicitly left-wing prewar expressions were repeatedly subjected to state repression, most dramatically in the High Treason Incident of 1910–1911 and the destruction of Seno'o Girō's Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism in 1936–1937. Yet the questions these movements raised—about Buddhism's relationship to social inequality, capitalism, nationalism, war, and political authority—reappeared in different forms after 1945. The postwar critique of Buddhist complicity in Japanese militarism associated especially with Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦, and the later Critical Buddhism (''Hihan Bukkyō'' 批判仏教) movement, are therefore treated here not as straightforward organizational continuations of prewar radical Buddhism but as later forms of Buddhist social and doctrinal criticism that can be situated within a broader genealogy of modern Japanese critical Buddhism.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2023), “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan,” in Robert H. Scott and James McRae, eds., ''Introduction to Buddhist East Asia'' (State University of New York Press), 281–304.</ref>

== Buddhism in Japan ==

Buddhism entered Japan from the Asian mainland in the sixth century CE and over the following centuries became deeply embedded in the country's political, economic, and cultural institutions. By the medieval period, major monasteries and temple networks controlled substantial landholdings and exercised considerable political influence. Kuroda Toshio 黒田俊雄 famously analyzed religious institutions as one component of the system of powerful elite blocs (''kenmon'' 権門) through which court aristocrats, warriors, and major religious institutions constituted the medieval ruling order. The period also witnessed the development of influential Buddhist movements associated with figures such as Hōnen 法然, Shinran 親鸞, Dōgen 道元, and Nichiren 日蓮. Although some came into conflict with established religious and political authorities, Buddhist institutions generally developed through complex relationships of both autonomy and cooperation with political power rather than sustained opposition to it.<ref>Kuroda Toshio 黒田俊雄, “The Imperial Law and the Buddhist Law,” trans. Jacqueline I. Stone, ''Japanese Journal of Religious Studies'' 23, nos. 3–4 (1996): 271–85; Shields, James Mark (2016), “Opium Eaters: Buddhism as Revolutionary Politics,” 215.</ref> Under the Tokugawa shogunate (1603–1868), these relationships acquired an extensive administrative form. Through temple registration (''terauke'' 寺請) and hereditary temple-parishioner relationships (''danka'' 檀家), Buddhist temples participated in the registration of households and regulation of religious affiliation while providing funerary and memorial services increasingly central to ordinary religious life.<ref>Tamamuro Fumio 圭室文雄 (2001), “Local Society and the Temple-Parishioner Relationship within the Bakufu's Governance Structure,” ''Japanese Journal of Religious Studies'' 28, nos. 3–4: 261–92.</ref>

The Meiji Restoration of 1868 profoundly disrupted this institutional settlement. The government-mandated separation of Buddhism and Shinto (''shinbutsu bunri'' 神仏分離) was accompanied in many regions by anti-Buddhist violence and destruction conventionally known as ''haibutsu kishaku'' 廃仏毀釈, stripping Buddhist institutions of much of their former status and property and forcing Buddhist leaders to reconsider the tradition's place within the new nation-state.<ref>Ketelaar, James Edward (1990), ''Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution'' (Princeton University Press); Shields, James Mark (2012), “Awakening between Science, Art & Ethics: Variations on Japanese Buddhist Modernism, 1890–1945,” in Roy Starrs, ed., ''Rethinking Japanese Modernism'' (Brill/Global Oriental), 105–24, 108–9.</ref> Responses ranged from renewed observance of the Buddhist precepts (''kairitsu'' 戒律), associated with figures such as Fukuda Gyōkai 福田行誡 and Shaku Unshō 釈雲照, to participation in government-sponsored projects such as the Great Teaching (''Daikyō'' 大教) campaign. A subsequent generation of scholar-priests and lay intellectuals—including Hara Tanzan 原坦山, Shimaji Mokurai 島地黙雷, Murakami Senshō 村上専精, Inoue Enryō 井上圓了, Shaku Sōen 釈宗演, and Kiyozawa Manshi 清沢満之—engaged modern science, philosophy, historical scholarship, and changing conceptions of religion. Historical-critical scholarship could pose particularly difficult questions for inherited authority: Murakami, for example, became associated with ''Daijō hibussetsuron'' 大乗非仏説論, the thesis that Mahāyāna scriptures were not directly taught by the historical Buddha. Modern Japanese Buddhist thought also intersected increasingly with academic philosophy, including the work of Nishida Kitarō 西田幾多郎 and the later Kyoto School.<ref>Shields (2012), “Awakening between Science,” 108–21.</ref>

By the 1930s and during the Asia-Pacific War, major Buddhist institutions accommodated themselves in varying degrees to the Japanese imperial state and its war effort. The extent and implications of this accommodation became an important subject of postwar Buddhist self-criticism, although sustained institutional reckoning developed only gradually. Ichikawa Hakugen's analysis of Buddhist war responsibility and “Imperial-Way Zen” (''kōdō Zen'' 皇道禅) became one of the most searching examples of this critique. He examined not only particular instances of wartime collaboration but also the doctrinal, ethical, and institutional tendencies that had facilitated Buddhist accommodation to political authority.<ref>Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦, ''Bukkyōsha no sensō sekinin'' 仏教者の戦争責任 [The War Responsibility of Buddhists] (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1970); Ives, Christopher (2009), ''Imperial-Way Zen: Ichikawa Hakugen's Critique and Lingering Questions for Buddhist Ethics'' (University of Hawai‘i Press); Shields (2023), “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan,” 282–84.</ref> These developments form an important counterpoint to the much smaller traditions of progressive and radical Buddhism discussed below.

== Radical Buddhism in Japan ==

The Radical Buddhism Project uses “radical Buddhism” in modern Japan primarily for attempts to bring Buddhist thought and practice into sustained engagement with projects for fundamental social, economic, or political transformation, particularly socialism, anarchism, and Marxism. Radical Buddhism was historically distinct from, although deeply indebted to, the broader currents of Buddhist reform and modernism described above, and its emergence cannot be traced to a single continuous tradition. Premodern revolts should therefore not be understood retrospectively as instances of “radical Buddhism.” They did, however, provide historical memories and symbolic models through which later activists could imagine religiously grounded resistance to established authority. The ''Ikkō-ikki'' 一向一揆 of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, for example, brought together religious communities, peasants, local warriors, and other groups associated with the Honganji branch of Jōdo Shinshū in episodes of armed resistance and regional self-government. Their aims and social composition varied considerably and cannot simply be assimilated to modern socialism or anarchism.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2016), “Peasant Revolts as Anti-Authoritarian Archetypes for Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan,” ''Journal of Religion in Japan'' 5: 3–21, 6–7.</ref>

Of more demonstrable importance to modern radicals were Edo-period narratives of the self-sacrificing “righteous person” (''gimin'' 義民), especially village representatives remembered for suffering or dying after petitioning authorities on behalf of oppressed peasants. The semi-legendary Sakura Sōgorō 佐倉惣五郎 (1605–1653) became an especially powerful exemplar, while Ōshio Heihachirō 大塩平八郎 (1793–1837), the Osaka samurai scholar and former official who led an 1837 rebellion during a period of severe famine, provided another model of principled resistance to corrupt authority.<ref>Shields (2016), “Peasant Revolts,” 7–9.</ref> Their significance lies less in direct institutional or doctrinal continuity than in later appropriation. Such figures supplied what Shields describes as “root paradigms” of self-sacrificing resistance through which modern activists could interpret new conflicts involving poverty, capitalism, state authority, and social injustice. Uchiyama Gudō 内山愚童, for example, explicitly invoked earlier traditions of peasant resistance while articulating a thoroughly modern Buddhist anarchism.<ref>Shields (2016), “Peasant Revolts,” 4–5, 11.</ref> These appropriations did not make the earlier rebels socialists or anarchists retrospectively; rather, they allowed modern radicals to understand their political commitments through indigenous historical resources as well as newly imported ideas.

=== The Eastern Socialist Party ===

One of the earliest attempts in modern Japan to articulate a socialist political program through Buddhist and other East Asian concepts was the short-lived Eastern Socialist Party (''Tōyō Shakaitō'' 東洋社会党), founded by Tarui Tōkichi 樽井藤吉 (1850–1922) in May 1882. Established amid the political ferment of the Freedom and People's Rights movement, the party was prohibited by the government the following month. Tarui nevertheless continued his efforts to revive it and circulated revised party regulations in January 1883, activity for which he was sentenced to a year in prison.<ref>Tanaka Sōgorō 田中惣五郎, ''Tōyō Shakaitō kō'' 東洋社会党考 [A Study of the Eastern Socialist Party] (Tokyo: Ichigensha, 1930); Komatsu Yutaka 小松裕, “Tarui Tōkichi to Tōyō Shakaitō” 樽井藤吉と東洋社会党 [Tarui Tōkichi and the Eastern Socialist Party], ''Ōsaka jiken kenkyū'' 大阪事件研究 5 (July 1986): 14–19; Shields, James Mark (2019), “Carrying Buddha into the Streets: Buddhist Socialist Thought in Modern Japan,” in Gereon Kopf, ed., ''The Dao Companion to Japanese Buddhist Philosophy'', 255–85, 256–60.</ref>

Tarui's draft party regulations reveal an eclectic attempt to formulate socialism through concepts drawn from Asian religious and ethical traditions rather than simply reproduce contemporary European socialist theory. Its first three principles made “affection” (''shin'ai'' 親愛) the standard of words and actions, affirmed the “equality of self and other” (''jita byōdō'' 自他平等), and identified the “greatest welfare” (''saidai fukuri'' 最大福利) of society as the party's goal. Subsequent provisions proposed measures intended to overcome divisions between rich and poor, including forms of communal ownership.<ref>Tarui Tōkichi 樽井藤吉, “Tōyō Shakaitō tōsoku sōan” 東洋社会党党則草案 [Draft Regulations of the Eastern Socialist Party], in Nihon shakai undō shisō shi 日本社会運動思想史, ed. Itoya Hisao 絲屋寿雄 and Kishimoto Eitarō 岸本英太郎, vol. 2 (Tokyo: Aoki Shoten, 1968), 125–29; Shields (2019), “Carrying Buddha into the Streets,” 256–59.</ref>

Whether the Eastern Socialist Party should be regarded as “socialist” in the same sense as the socialist movements that developed in Japan around the turn of the twentieth century has long been debated. Some later commentators emphasized its distance from European socialist theory and situated it instead within the Freedom and People's Rights movement, agrarian demands for economic justice, and older East Asian ethical traditions.<ref>Kurokawa Teizaburō 黒川貞三郎, “‘Tōyō Shakaitō’ ron” 「東洋社会党」論 [On the Eastern Socialist Party], ''Seikei kenkyū'' 政経研究 28, no. 3 (1991): 39–42.</ref> For the history of radical Buddhism, however, this ambiguity is itself significant. Tarui's experiment illustrates an enduring problem for later Buddhist socialists: whether socialism should be understood as a largely imported body of political and economic theory to which Buddhism might be added, or whether egalitarian and communal elements within Buddhist and other Asian traditions could themselves provide resources for constructing a distinctively local form of socialism.<ref>Shields (2019), “Carrying Buddha into the Streets,” 255–60.</ref>

=== The New Buddhist Fellowship ===
{{Main|The New Buddhist Fellowship}}

The most sustained collective expression of Meiji Buddhist modernism emerged in the Shin Bukkyō Dōshikai 新仏教同志会 (New Buddhist Fellowship), established in 1899 as the Bukkyō Seito Dōshikai 仏教清徒同志会 and renamed in 1903. Its members included Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋, Watanabe Kaikyoku 渡辺海旭, Takashima Beihō 高嶋米峰, Sugimura Sojinkan 杉村楚人冠, and Katō Genchi 加藤玄智, many of whom had studied with figures such as Murakami Senshō and Inoue Enryō. Through their journal, ''Shin Bukkyō'' 新仏教 (New Buddhism), they attacked “old Buddhism” (''kyū Bukkyō'' 旧仏教) as sectarian, ritualistic, superstitious, and institutionally corrupt. Their 1900 declaration called for a “sound Buddhist faith,” free investigation of Buddhism and other religions, the eradication of superstition, freedom from traditional religious institutions and ceremonies, opposition to state interference in religion, and the fundamental reform of society.<ref>“Sengen” 宣言 [Declaration], ''Shin Bukkyō'' 1, no. 1 (July 1900): 3; Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 91–100.</ref>

Central to New Buddhism was ''genseshugi'' 現世主義 (this-worldliness), which located the significance of Buddhist practice within present human and social existence rather than another world. Although most New Buddhists rejected revolutionary socialism and materialism, their insistence that Buddhism address contemporary society brought some members increasingly close to the emerging socialist movement. Watanabe developed forms of Buddhist social welfare and mutual aid, while Inoue Shūten 井上秀天 articulated an explicitly Buddhist critique of war, nationalism, and imperial aggression. The New Buddhist Fellowship thus occupied an important intermediate position between Meiji Buddhist modernism and radical Buddhism: it transformed the modernist reconstruction of Buddhist belief into a more explicitly social project without developing a common program for structural political and economic transformation.<ref>Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 99–128; Shields, James Mark (2017), “Immanent Frames: Meiji New Buddhism, Pantheism, and the ‘Religious Secular’,” ''Japan Review'' 30: 79–96.</ref>

=== Takagi Kenmyō ===
{{Main|Takagi Kenmyo}}

Takagi Kenmyō 高木顕明 (1864–1914), a priest of the Ōtani branch of Jōdo Shinshū, represents one of the earliest sustained attempts in modern Japan to articulate an explicitly socialist Buddhism. In 1899 he became resident priest of Jōsenji 浄泉寺 in Shingū, Wakayama Prefecture, where encounters with poverty, discrimination against ''burakumin'' 部落民, and social inequality contributed to his involvement with the socialist and antiwar movements. In his 1904 essay “Yo ga shakaishugi” 余が社会主義 [My Socialism], Takagi explicitly distinguished his socialism from that of Marx and contemporary Japanese socialists, grounding it instead in his own Buddhist faith and practice. He understood socialism as a form of ''jissen'' 実践 (practice) beginning with personal spiritual transformation, while interpreting ''Namu Amida Butsu'' 南無阿弥陀仏 and the Pure Land tradition through the ideals of equality, peace, and compassion. Takagi declared Buddhism to be “the mother of the common people and the enemy of the nobility” and described the Pure Land as a realm in which socialism was already practiced. His Buddhist socialism thus joined social reform to the transformation of the practitioner, while providing a religious basis for his opposition to social inequality and the Russo-Japanese War.<ref>Takagi Kenmyō 高木顕明, “Yo ga shakaishugi” 余が社会主義 [My Socialism] (1904); Hishiki Masaharu 菱木政晴 (2012), ''Gokuraku no ninzu: Takagi Kenmyō “Yo ga shakaishugi” o yomu'' 極楽の人数――高木顕明『余が社会主義』を読む (Tokyo: Hakutakusha); Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 145–52.</ref>

=== Uchiyama Gudō ===
{{Main|Uchiyama Gudo}}

Uchiyama Gudō 内山愚童 (1874–1911), a Sōtō Zen priest and abbot of Rinsenji 林泉寺 near Hakone, developed one of the most explicitly anarchist forms of radical Buddhism in Meiji Japan. Explaining his embrace of socialism, Uchiyama recalled that as a Buddhist missionary he taught that all beings possess buddha-nature, that within the Dharma there is equality without high or low, and that all beings are children of the Buddha; he came to see these teachings as fundamentally compatible with socialism. His radicalism joined this Buddhist egalitarianism to a critique of private property, economic inequality, imperial authority, and militarism. Unlike Takagi Kenmyō, whose Buddhist socialism remained largely reformist, Uchiyama increasingly identified the social and political structures producing inequality as themselves objects of transformation. Using a clandestine printing press at Rinsenji, he produced and circulated socialist and anarchist writings calling upon ordinary people to free themselves from the political, economic, and religious beliefs sustaining the existing social order.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 153–62; Sanada Yoshiaki 眞田芳憲 (2016), “Taigyaku jiken to zensō Uchiyama Gudō no ‘Bukkyō shakaishugi’ to sono kōdō no kiseki: Zensō Gudō no teikō no shūkyōteki rinri to sekinin” 大逆事件と禅僧内山愚童の「仏教社会主義」とその行動の軌跡――禅僧愚童の抵抗の宗教的倫理と責任 [The High Treason Incident and Zen Priest Uchiyama Gudō's “Buddhist Socialism” and the Course of His Activities: The Religious Ethics and Responsibility of Gudō's Resistance], ''Chūō Gakujutsu Kenkyūjo kiyō'' 中央学術研究所紀要 45: 2–61, 20–21.</ref>

Uchiyama was arrested in May 1909 for violating publication laws after police discovered his clandestine printing operation at Rinsenji; during their search, police claimed to have found materials for making explosives. Already imprisoned, he was subsequently implicated in the High Treason Incident (''Taigyaku jiken'' 大逆事件), convicted of participating in the alleged conspiracy against Emperor Meiji, and executed on January 24, 1911. Although Uchiyama advocated revolutionary change and did not categorically reject violence, the extent of his involvement in an actual assassination plot remains disputed. The Sōtō establishment stripped him of his clerical status in 1910 and strongly repudiated his ideas; in 1993 the denomination reversed its earlier action and restored his status, acknowledging that its treatment of Uchiyama had reflected the sect's alignment with the emperor-centered political establishment.<ref>Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 153–56; Sanada (2016), “Taigyaku jiken to zensō Uchiyama Gudō,” 32–39; Sanada Yoshiaki 眞田芳憲 (2018), ''“Taigyaku jiken” to zensō Uchiyama Gudō no teikō'' 〈大逆事件〉と禅僧内山愚童の抵抗 (Tokyo: Kōsei Shuppansha).</ref>

=== From the High Treason Incident to the YLRB ===

The High Treason Incident of 1910–1911 marked a severe rupture in the development of explicitly radical Buddhism in Japan. The execution of Uchiyama Gudō and imprisonment of Takagi Kenmyō formed part of a broader suppression of socialist and anarchist activity, making open attempts to combine Buddhism with revolutionary socialism or anarchism exceptionally difficult. Buddhist social experimentation nevertheless continued in less overtly political forms. Itō Shōshin 伊藤証信 (1876–1963), for example, developed the ideal of ''muga-ai'' 無我愛 (selfless love), combining religious and ethical transformation, pacifism, and communal social practice while deliberately distinguishing his movement from socialism. His Muga-ai movement, begun in 1905, survived the repression of the late Meiji period and reemerged during the Taishō era alongside other experiments in Buddhist, Tolstoyan, agrarian, and communal reform.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 163–80; Brons, Lajos (2022), ''A Buddha Land in This World: Philosophy, Utopia, and Radical Buddhism'' (punctum books), 77–80.</ref>

The relative openness of the Taishō period (1912–1926) nevertheless transformed the context in which Buddhist social thought operated. Socialist ideas circulated more widely, while Buddhist thinkers confronted questions of poverty, capitalism, labor, and the social responsibilities of religion. There was no continuous “radical Buddhist” movement linking the Meiji radicals to their successors: responses ranged from anti-socialist apologetics to social welfare, utopian experiments, and selective engagement with socialism and Marxism. Seno'o Girō's emergence from the quite different world of reformist and nationalist Nichiren Buddhism illustrates both this discontinuity and the persistence of the underlying social questions. By 1926 he was criticizing nationalist readings of Nichiren, and by 1929 he was arguing that a revitalized Nichirenism must stand with the public and engage the socialist struggle against capitalism. These developments prepared the ground for the founding of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei 新興仏教青年同盟) in 1931.<ref>Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 181–205, 213–16.</ref>

=== Seno'o Girō and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism ===
{{Main|Senoo Giro}}
{{Main|Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism}}

Seno'o Girō 妹尾義郎 (1889–1961) emerged from the reformist but strongly nationalist Nichirenshugi 日蓮主義 movement before moving increasingly toward socialism during the 1920s. By the end of the decade, his encounters with poverty and social conflict, criticism of established Buddhist institutions, and engagement with socialist and Marxist thought had led him to identify capitalism itself as a major source of suffering. On April 5, 1931, Seno'o and a small group of young activists founded the Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei 新興仏教青年同盟 (Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism, YLRB). Rejecting existing Buddhist sects as corrupt and capitalism as incompatible with the Buddhist spirit, the League sought to create a Buddha land in this world through the conjunction of individual ethical transformation and fundamental social reform.<ref>Shields, James Mark (2012), “A Blueprint for Buddhist Revolution: The Radical Buddhism of Seno'o Girō (1889–1961) and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism,” ''Japanese Journal of Religious Studies'' 39, no. 2: 333–51; Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), 203–43.</ref>

The YLRB developed into a nationwide movement whose increasingly socialist and internationalist program joined Buddhist reform to labor, tenant, antiwar, and antifascist activism. Seno'o combined structural criticism of capitalism with an insistence upon ethical transformation, arguing that Buddhism must confront the material and institutional causes of suffering without reducing liberation to economic change alone. This combination made the YLRB the most sustained attempt in prewar Japan to construct an organized radical Buddhist movement. It also brought the League under increasing police scrutiny. Seno'o was arrested in December 1936 under the Peace Preservation Law and publicly recanted his former political position in 1937; a nationwide roundup later that year effectively destroyed the organization.<ref>Seno'o Girō 妹尾義郎, “Shakai henkaku tojō no shinkō Bukkyō” 社会変革途上の新興仏教 [Revitalized Buddhism on the Road to Social Transformation] (1933), repr. in ''Seno'o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集 (1975), 325–88; Shields (2017), ''Against Harmony'', 203–43; [Matsune/state sources for repression].</ref>

=== Ichikawa Hakugen ===
{{Main|Ichikawa Hakugen}}

A different form of radical Buddhist critique emerged after Japan's defeat in 1945 in the work of the Rinzai Zen priest and scholar Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦 (1902–1986). Having himself participated in the intellectual world of wartime Japanese Zen, Ichikawa devoted much of his postwar work to examining Buddhism's responsibility for Japanese militarism and imperialism. Rather than explaining Buddhist support for the war simply through state coercion or individual failure, he asked how Buddhist doctrines, institutions, and historical relations with political authority had facilitated accommodation with established power. His critique focused especially on “Imperial-Way Zen” (''kōdō Zen'' 皇道禅), while also recovering suppressed currents of Buddhist socialism represented by figures such as Takagi Kenmyō and Uchiyama Gudō.<ref>Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦, ''Bukkyōsha no sensō sekinin'' 仏教者の戦争責任 [The War Responsibility of Buddhists] (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1970); Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press), [pages].</ref>

Ichikawa's critique was also reconstructive. Drawing upon socialism, Marxism, anarchism, and postwar peace activism, he sought forms of Buddhism capable of resisting rather than sanctifying established power and insisted that Buddhist doctrines themselves be subjected to critical scrutiny when they served to naturalize hierarchy or obscure injustice. This combination of social criticism and Buddhist self-criticism also anticipates important concerns of the later movement known as Critical Buddhism (''Hihan Bukkyō'' 批判仏教), although the relationship is better understood as a critical affinity than as a direct intellectual succession.<ref>Ichikawa Hakugen, “Nihon ni okeru Bukkyō shakaishugi no mondai” 日本における仏教社会主義の問題 [The Problem of Buddhist Socialism in Japan], repr. in ''Ichikawa Hakugen chosakushū'' 市川白弦著作集, vol. 3, ''Bukkyō no sensō sekinin'' 仏教の戦争責任 (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1993), [pages]; Shields, James Mark (2023), “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan,” in Robert H. Scott and James McRae, eds., ''Introduction to Buddhist East Asia'' (State University of New York Press), 281–304.</ref>

=== Critical Buddhism ===
{{Main|Critical Buddhism}}

A later form of radical Buddhist self-criticism emerged in the 1980s around the Sōtō scholars Hakamaya Noriaki 袴谷憲昭 and Matsumoto Shirō 松本史朗. The movement known as Critical Buddhism (''Hihan Bukkyō'' 批判仏教) subjected influential strands of East Asian Buddhist thought—particularly ''tathāgatagarbha'' (buddha-nature) and ''hongaku'' 本覚 (original enlightenment) thought—to sustained criticism. Hakamaya and Matsumoto argued that doctrines positing an underlying, universal ground of enlightenment departed from the critical, relational, and non-substantialist dimensions of Buddhist teaching and might contribute to forms of social accommodation rather than resistance. Hakamaya captured the movement's provocative stance in the proposition that “Buddhism is criticism” (''Bukkyō wa hihan de aru'' 仏教は批判である). Critical Buddhism was neither a continuation of prewar Buddhist socialism and anarchism nor a reproduction of Ichikawa Hakugen's political project. Nevertheless, its insistence that Buddhist doctrines themselves be subjected to criticism—and its concern that appeals to harmony, nonduality, and original enlightenment could obscure discrimination and social injustice—places it within a broader genealogy of modern Japanese Buddhist self-criticism.<ref>Hakamaya Noriaki 袴谷憲昭, ''Hihan Bukkyō'' 批判仏教 [Critical Buddhism] (Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1990); Matsumoto Shirō 松本史朗, ''Engi to kū: Nyoraizō shisō hihan'' 縁起と空――如来蔵思想批判 [Dependent Origination and Emptiness: A Critique of Tathāgatagarbha Thought] (Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1989); Shields, James Mark (2023), “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan,” in Robert H. Scott and James McRae, eds., ''Introduction to Buddhist East Asia'' (State University of New York Press), 281–304.</ref>

=== The Legacy of Radical Buddhism in Japan ===

Radical Buddhism never constituted a continuous movement or a major current within modern Japanese Buddhism. The Eastern Socialist Party disappeared almost immediately; Takagi Kenmyō and Uchiyama Gudō fell victim to state repression; and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism was dismantled in 1937. Nor did these movements establish an enduring institutional lineage after 1945. Their historical significance lies instead in recurrent attempts to ask whether Buddhist teachings could provide resources not merely for individual ethical reform or social welfare but for fundamental criticism and transformation of existing political and economic structures.

One explanation for the historical marginality of these experiments was offered by the comparative political scientist George O. Totten. Writing in 1960, Totten contrasted Japanese socialism with the avowedly Buddhist socialism of Burma, arguing that Japanese socialism emerged from competing Christian, secular, Marxist, and Buddhist currents rather than from a widely shared Buddhist social idiom. Influential Japanese Marxists such as Sano Manabu 佐野学 regarded religion largely as a private matter destined to disappear, while attempts to bring Buddhism and Marxism into constructive engagement remained minority currents within the prewar left. Totten's comparison highlights an important feature of Japanese radical Buddhism: the relationship between Buddhism and socialism was neither assumed nor uncontested, but repeatedly had to be constructed.<ref>Totten, George O. (1960), “Buddhism and Socialism in Japan and Burma,” ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 2, no. 3: 293–304, 295–96, 302–3.</ref>

The forms that relationship took varied considerably. Tarui Tōkichi drew upon Buddhist and other Asian ethical concepts in formulating an indigenous socialism; Takagi derived socialism from Jōdo Shinshū faith; Uchiyama brought Buddhist equality into conversation with anarchist communism; and Seno'o combined Buddhist ethical transformation with increasingly Marxist social analysis. Ichikawa Hakugen subsequently turned radical criticism back upon Buddhism itself, while Critical Buddhism extended this self-critical impulse in a different, primarily doctrinal direction. These projects constitute neither a single tradition nor variations on a common political ideology. Rather, they represent historically distinct efforts to rethink the relationship between Buddhism, power, equality, and social transformation.<ref>Brons, Lajos (2022), ''A Buddha Land in This World: Philosophy, Utopia, and Radical Buddhism'' (punctum books); Shields, James Mark (2017), ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' (Oxford University Press); Shields, James Mark (2023), “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan,” in Robert H. Scott and James McRae, eds., ''Introduction to Buddhist East Asia'' (State University of New York Press), 281–304.</ref>

== Selected Literature in English ==

* Brons, Lajos (2022). ''A Buddha Land in This World: Philosophy, Utopia, and Radical Buddhism''. punctum books. {{annotation|A wide-ranging philosophical history of Buddhist utopianism, with substantial treatment of Meiji and Taishō Buddhist reform and radicalism, including several figures and currents less prominent in the existing English-language literature.}}

* Ives, Christopher (2009). ''Imperial-Way Zen: Ichikawa Hakugen's Critique and Lingering Questions for Buddhist Ethics''. University of Hawai'i Press. {{annotation|The principal English-language study of Ichikawa Hakugen and his critique of Zen's accommodation to Japanese nationalism and militarism.}}

* Ketelaar, James Edward (1990). ''Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution''. Princeton University Press. {{annotation|A major study of the early Meiji persecution of Buddhism and the subsequent reconstruction of Buddhist identity and institutions, providing essential background for the emergence of Buddhist modernism and reform.}}

* Large, Stephen S. (1987). “Buddhism, Socialism, and Protest in Prewar Japan: The Career of Seno'o Girō”. ''Modern Asian Studies'' 21.1: 153–171. {{annotation|An influential early English-language study of Seno'o Girō and his political development, based substantially on his published diary.}}

* Shields, James Mark (2011). ''Critical Buddhism: Engaging with Modern Japanese Buddhist Thought''. Ashgate. {{annotation|A book-length study of Critical Buddhism, particularly the thought of Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shirō and its relationship to modern Japanese Buddhist philosophy.}}

* Shields, James Mark (2014). “From Topos to Utopia: Critical Buddhism, Globalization, and Ideology Criticism”. In: Kalmanson, Leah, & Shields, James Mark (Eds.), ''Buddhist Responses to Globalization'': 51–77. Lexington Books. {{annotation|Examines Critical Buddhism through ideology criticism and explores its relationship to materialist and utopian forms of Buddhist praxis.}}

* Shields, James Mark (2014). “Zen and the Art of Treason: Radical Buddhism in Meiji Era (1868–1912) Japan”. ''Politics, Religion & Ideology'' 15.2: 205–223. {{annotation|Examines Tarui Tōkichi, Takagi Kenmyō, and Uchiyama Gudō as distinct experiments in Meiji radical Buddhism.}}

* Shields, James Mark (2016). “Opium Eaters: Buddhism as Revolutionary Politics”. In: Kawanami, Hiroko (Ed.), ''Buddhism and the Political Process'': 213–232. Palgrave Macmillan. {{annotation|Places modern Japanese radical Buddhism in a broader history of Buddhist relations with political authority and compares Seno'o Girō with B. R. Ambedkar.}}

* Shields, James Mark (2016). “Peasant Revolts as Anti-Authoritarian Archetypes for Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan”. ''Journal of Religion in Japan'' 5: 3–21. {{annotation|Examines the later appropriation of peasant revolts and ''gimin'' narratives as historical models of Buddhist and religiously inflected resistance.}}

* Shields, James Mark (2017). ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan''. Oxford University Press. {{annotation|A synthetic history of progressive and radical Buddhism in modern Japan, with extensive treatment of Meiji Buddhist reform, Tarui Tōkichi, Takagi Kenmyō, Uchiyama Gudō, Seno'o Girō, and Ichikawa Hakugen.}}

* Shields, James Mark (2017). “Immanent Frames: Meiji New Buddhism, Pantheism, and the ‘Religious Secular’”. ''Japan Review'' 30: 79–96. {{annotation|Examines the New Buddhist Fellowship's ''genseshugi'' (this-worldliness) and the philosophical and religious background to later progressive and radical Buddhism.}}

* Shields, James Mark (2023). “A Century of Critical Buddhism in Japan”. In: Scott, Robert H., & McRae, James (Eds.), ''Introduction to Buddhist East Asia'': 281–304. State University of New York Press. {{annotation|Places contemporary Critical Buddhism within a longer genealogy of twentieth-century Japanese Buddhist criticism.}}

* Totten, George O. (1960). “Buddhism and Socialism in Japan and Burma”. ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 2.3: 293–304. {{annotation|An early comparative analysis of the differing relationships among Buddhism, socialism, and nationalism in Japan and Burma.}}

* Victoria, Brian (1997). ''Zen at War''. Weatherhill. {{annotation|An influential and controversial study of Japanese Zen and militarism that also helped draw English-language attention to Uchiyama Gudō.}}

== Selected Literature in Japanese ==

* Daitō Satoshi 大東仁. ''Taigyaku no sō Takagi Kenmyō no shinjitsu: Shinshū sōryo to Taigyaku jiken'' 大逆の僧高木顕明の真実――真宗僧侶と大逆事件 [The Truth about Takagi Kenmyō, the High-Treason Priest: Shin Buddhist Priests and the High Treason Incident]. Nagoya: Fūbaisha, 2011. {{annotation|A substantial study of Takagi Kenmyō and his involvement in the High Treason Incident.}}

* Hishiki Masaharu 菱木政晴. ''Gokuraku no ninju: Takagi Kenmyō “Yo ga shakaishugi” o yomu'' 極楽の人数――高木顕明『余が社会主義』を読む [The People of the Pure Land: Reading Takagi Kenmyō's “My Socialism”]. Tokyo: Hakutakusha, 2012. {{annotation|A sustained interpretation of Takagi's Buddhist socialism centered on “My Socialism,” the key primary text for his thought.}}

* Ichikawa Hakugen 市川白弦. ''Bukkyōsha no sensō sekinin'' 仏教者の戦争責任 [The War Responsibility of Buddhists]. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1970. {{annotation|Ichikawa's foundational postwar critique of Buddhist complicity in Japanese militarism and the structural conditions that made it possible.}}

* Inagaki Masami 稲垣真美. ''Budda o seoite gaitō e: Seno'o Girō to Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei'' 仏陀を背負いて街頭へ――妹尾義郎と新興仏教青年同盟 [Carrying the Buddha on His Back into the Streets: Seno'o Girō and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1974. {{annotation|The foundational Japanese-language biography of Seno'o and history of the YLRB, based extensively on Seno'o's diary and papers.}}

* Izumi Keiki 泉惠機. “Takagi Kenmyō ni kansuru kenkyū: Shiryō oyobi ryakunenpu ni tsuite” 高木顕明に関する研究――資料及び略年譜について [Research on Takagi Kenmyō: Sources and a Brief Chronology]. ''Shinshū Sōgō Kenkyūjo kenkyū kiyō'' 真宗総合研究所研究紀要 14 (1997): 103–36. {{annotation|An important archival and chronological study of Takagi incorporating previously neglected Ōtani-ha materials.}}

* Kashiwahara Yūsen 柏原祐泉. ''Nihon Bukkyōshi: Kindai'' 日本仏教史――近代 [A History of Japanese Buddhism: The Modern Period]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1990. {{annotation|A standard scholarly history of Japanese Buddhism from the Meiji Restoration through the modern period.}}

* Komatsu Yutaka 小松裕. “Tarui Tōkichi to Tōyō Shakaitō” 樽井藤吉と東洋社会党 [Tarui Tōkichi and the Eastern Socialist Party]. ''Ōsaka jiken kenkyū'' 大阪事件研究 5 (1986): 14–19. {{annotation|A focused study of Tarui Tōkichi and the Eastern Socialist Party.}}

* Kunba Hiroshi 訓覇浩. “Takagi Kenmyō o fukken, kenshō suru to wa” 高木顕明を復権、顕彰するとは [What Does It Mean to Rehabilitate and Commemorate Takagi Kenmyō?]. ''Shoki shakaishugi kenkyū'' 初期社会主義研究 22 (2010): 126–37. {{annotation|Examines Takagi's postwar rehabilitation and the contemporary significance of his commemoration.}}

* Kurokawa Teizaburō 黒川貞三郎. “‘Tōyō Shakaitō’ ron” 「東洋社会党」論 [On the Eastern Socialist Party]. ''Seikei kenkyū'' 政経研究 28.3 (1991): 39–42. {{annotation|Reconsiders the political and ideological character of Tarui Tōkichi's Eastern Socialist Party and its relationship to early Japanese socialism.}}

* Matsune Takashi 松根鷹. ''Seno'o Girō to “Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei”'' 妹尾義郎と「新興仏教青年同盟」 [Seno'o Girō and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism]. Tokyo: San'ichi Shobō, 1975. {{annotation|An important early reconstruction of Seno'o and the YLRB, especially valuable for the League's organization, repression, and final years.}}

* Sanada Yoshiaki 眞田芳憲. “Taigyaku jiken to zensō Uchiyama Gudō no ‘Bukkyō shakaishugi’ to sono kōdō no kiseki” 大逆事件と禅僧内山愚童の「仏教社会主義」とその行動の軌跡 [The High Treason Incident and the Zen Priest Uchiyama Gudō's “Buddhist Socialism” and the Course of His Activities]. ''Chūō Gakujutsu Kenkyūjo kiyō'' 中央学術研究所紀要 45 (2016): 2–61. {{annotation|A detailed study of Uchiyama's Buddhist socialism, political activity, and prosecution in the High Treason Incident.}}

* Tanaka Sōgorō 田中惣五郎. ''Tōyō Shakaitō kō'' 東洋社会党考 [A Study of the Eastern Socialist Party]. Tokyo: Ichigensha, 1930. {{annotation|The foundational study of Tarui Tōkichi and the Eastern Socialist Party.}}

* Yoshida Kyūichi 吉田久一. ''Nihon kindai Bukkyōshi kenkyū'' 日本近代仏教史研究 [Studies in the History of Modern Japanese Buddhism]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1992. {{annotation|A major synthetic study of modern Japanese Buddhism, including Buddhist reform and socially engaged currents.}}

== How to Cite This Article ==

Shields, James Mark, and Lajos Brons ({{REVISIONYEAR}}). “Japan”. ''The Radical Buddhism Project''. Version of {{#time: j F Y | {{REVISIONYEAR}}-{{REVISIONMONTH}}-{{REVISIONDAY}} }}. <nowiki>http://radicalbuddhism.net/wiki/Japan</nowiki>.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[category:Country Profiles]]
[[category:Japan]]

The New Article and Revision Pipeline

2026-10-27T01:03:22Z

Lajos:

{| style="width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse; border: none;"
|-



| style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; padding-right: 20px; padding-left: 0px; border: none;" |

'''{{serifsc|Biographies|200%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|New|165%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|In Preparation|120%}}'''
* [[Iyothee Thass]]
* [[Dharmanand Kosambi]]
* [[Namdeo Dhasal]]
* [[P Lakshmi Narasu]]
* [[Narendra Deva]]

'''{{serifsc|Planned|120%}}'''
* [[Taixu]]
* [[Shifu]]
* [[Neville Wijeyekoon]]
* [[Buddhadasa Bhikkhu]]
* [[Sulak Sivaraksa]]

'''{{serifsc|Under Consideration|120%}}'''
* Yŏ Ikku (See [[Minjung Buddhism]])
* Ko Ŭn (See [[Minjung Buddhism]])
* Tou Samouth and Son Ngoc Minh

'''{{serifsc|Revision|165%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|In Preparation|120%}}'''
* [[BR Ambedkar]]
* [[Rahul Sankrityayan]]

'''{{serifsc|Planned|120%}}'''
* (''none'')



| style="width: 40%; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; padding-left: 12px; padding-right: 0px; border: none;" |

'''{{serifsc|Other Pages|200%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|New|165%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|In Preparation|120%}}'''
* [[Nepal]]
* [[Tamil Buddhist Movement]]
* [[Maha Bodhi Society]]
* [[Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India]]
* [[Dalit Buddhism]]

'''{{serifsc|Planned|120%}}'''
* (''none'')

'''{{serifsc|Under Consideration|120%}}'''
* [[Bangladesh]]
* [[Malaysia]]
* [[Singapore]]
* [[Bhutan]]

'''{{serifsc|Revision|165%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|In Preparation|120%}}'''
* [[India]]
* [[Russia and the Soviet Union]]

'''{{serifsc|Planned|120%}}'''
* [[Thailand]]
* [[Cambodia]]
|}

[[category:Project]]

The New Article and Revision Pipeline

2026-10-27T01:01:52Z

Lajos:

{| style="width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse; border: none;"
|-



| style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; padding-right: 20px; padding-left: 0px; border: none;" |

'''{{serifsc|Biographies|200%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|New|165%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|In Preparation|120%}}'''
* [[Iyothee Thass]]
* [[Dharmanand Kosambi]]
* [[Namdeo Dhasal]]
* [[P Lakshmi Narasu]]
* [[Narendra Deva]]

'''{{serifsc|Planned|120%}}'''
* [[Taixu]]
* [[Shifu]]
* [[Neville Wijeyekoon]]
* [[Buddhadasa Bhikkhu]]
* [[Sulak Sivaraksa]]

'''{{serifsc|Under Consideration|120%}}'''
* Yŏ Ikku (See [[Minjung Buddhism]])
* Ko Ŭn (See [[Minjung Buddhism]])
* Bhikshu Jagdish Kashyap
* Bhadant Anand Kausalyayan
* Debiprasad Chattopadhyay
* Tou Samouth and Son Ngoc Minh

'''{{serifsc|Revision|165%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|In Preparation|120%}}'''
* [[BR Ambedkar]]
* [[Rahul Sankrityayan]]

'''{{serifsc|Planned|120%}}'''
* (''none'')



| style="width: 40%; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; padding-left: 12px; padding-right: 0px; border: none;" |

'''{{serifsc|Other Pages|200%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|New|165%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|In Preparation|120%}}'''
* [[Nepal]]
* [[Tamil Buddhist Movement]]
* [[Maha Bodhi Society]]
* [[Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India]]
* [[Dalit Buddhism]]

'''{{serifsc|Planned|120%}}'''
* (''none'')

'''{{serifsc|Under Consideration|120%}}'''
* [[Bangladesh]]
* [[Malaysia]]
* [[Singapore]]
* [[Bhutan]]

'''{{serifsc|Revision|165%}}'''

'''{{serifsc|In Preparation|120%}}'''
* [[India]]
* [[Russia and the Soviet Union]]

'''{{serifsc|Planned|120%}}'''
* [[Thailand]]
* [[Cambodia]]
|}

[[category:Project]]

SR42VGX-T

2026-10-27T00:58:33Z

Lajos:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Rahul Sankrityayan, "Prabha" §7}}
{{Translation Review}}

[[Rahul Sankrityayan]], (राहुल सांकृत्यायन). 1942. वोल्गा से गंगा [From the Volga to the Ganges]. इलाहाबाद [Allahabad]: किताब महल [Kitab Mahal]. “प्रभा” [“Prabha” / “Radiance”], section 7, pp. 200–203.

==Translation ==

{{opage|200}}

'''Prabha — Section 7'''

There is a large courtyard, with a veranda all around it and rooms in a three-storey building behind. Yellow robes are drying on racks along the verandas. In one corner of the courtyard is a well, with a bathing area beside it. Elsewhere in the courtyard are several trees, one of them a Pipal. Around the Pipal is a platform, and a little farther away stands a stone railing, with spaces for thousands of lamps. Prabha knelt down and bowed before the beautiful

{{opage|201}}

tree, and said, “Beloved, it was a tree of this very kind beneath which Siddhartha Gautama sat, dispelled the delusions of his mind through his own effort and reflection, and attained awakening. From then on, he became known as the Buddha. It is only in memory of that beautiful event that we bow our heads before trees of this kind.”

“A symbol of dispelling the delusions of the mind and attaining awakening through one's own effort and reflection. Such a symbol deserves to be honoured, beloved. To honour such a symbol is to honour one's own effort—to conquer oneself.”

Then the two went to Bhadanta Dharmarakshita. At that time, he was sitting beneath a Bakula tree in the courtyard, where the sweet fragrance of newly opened blossoms filled the air. Prabha bowed to him in the manner of a Buddhist lay devotee, touching the ground with her feet, knees, hands, and forehead.<ref>This is ''pañca-pratiṣṭhita'', a five-point prostration. The passage describes the physical form of the bow, with five points of the body touching the ground.</ref> Ashvaghosha stood and showed his respect. Then they took pieces of leather lying on the ground and sat down. The monk's other disciples, assuming that Ashvaghosha had come to talk with him, withdrew. After the usual courtesies, Ashvaghosha began speaking about philosophy. Dharmarakshita said, “Brahmin youth, even philosophy is described in the Buddha's teaching as a bond—a heavy bond, a fetter of views.”<ref>The Hindi term is ''dṛṣṭi-saṃyojana'', a fetter or bondage associated with views. The point is not necessarily that philosophical inquiry has no place in Buddhism: the ensuing dialogue makes clear that the issue is attachment to views, rather than inquiry itself.</ref>

“Then, Bhadanta, does philosophy have no place in the Buddha's teaching?”

“Why should it have no place? The Buddha's teaching is full of philosophy. But he presents it as a raft for crossing over, not something to lift onto one's head and carry about.”

“What do you mean, like a raft?”

“Yes. When people come to a river without a boat, they make a raft and cross over on it. But once they have reached the other bank, they do not carry the raft's planks on their heads, even though the raft has been useful to them.”<ref>This is the raft simile found in the ''Alagaddūpama Sutta'' (Majjhima Nikāya 22). The teaching is to be used as a means of crossing over, not clung to as an object of attachment.</ref>

A man who had the courage to speak of his own teaching in this way must surely have seen the truth and its power. “Bhadanta, tell me something about the Buddha's philosophy

{{opage|202}}

that will help us understand a great deal, even about our own minds.”

“It is the doctrine of non-self, Kumar. The Brahmins regard the self as an eternal, unchanging, everlasting reality. The Buddha does not accept any such eternal, unchanging, everlasting reality, either within the world or beyond it. That is why his philosophy is called the doctrine of non-self: it is the philosophy of impermanence, of arising and passing away from moment to moment.”<ref>''Anātmavāda'' is the doctrine of non-self; ''anityatā'' is impermanence. The passage links them by contrasting Buddhist thought with the Brahmanical belief in an eternal self. This is a concise presentation of the story's philosophical argument, not a complete account of the different Buddhist analyses of self and impermanence.</ref>

“This one point is enough for me, Bhadanta. Ashvaghosha bows a hundred times to the Buddha, who declared that the teaching and the doctrine of non-self are like a raft. Ashvaghosha has found what he was searching for. I had been experiencing something like these waves within myself, but I could not give them a name. If people had properly understood the Buddha's teachings, the world would be a very different place today.”

“You are quite right, Kumar. Great philosophers have arisen in our Yavana country, too. Pythagoras and Heraclitus were alive in the Buddha's time; Socrates, Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle came a little later. These Greek philosophers thought deeply, but, with the exception of Heraclitus, they could not rise above eternalism—the belief in what is permanent. They were too attached to the present. That is why they wanted to bind the future to it as well. Heraclitus, at least, did not believe that the world remained the same even for two moments in succession, as the Buddha did. But he had a personal interest in this.”

“A personal interest in philosophical ideas?”

“The stomach is close to everyone, Kumar. At that time, our city of Athens was governed by a ''gaṇa''—a polity without a king. At first, powerful aristocrats, from families like Heraclitus's, were the leading figures in this form of government. Later, the merchants and wealthy traders displaced them and took control of the state. In this situation,

{{opage|203}}

Heraclitus was dissatisfied with this state of affairs. He wanted revolution, but not in order to move forward: he wanted to turn back.”<ref>The Hindi here uses ''parivartan'', ordinarily “change” or “transformation.” I render it as “revolution” in this explicitly political passage because the contrast is between competing social orders and the interests of the groups seeking to restore or change them. Sankrityayan was a Marxist writing while imprisoned for his political convictions, and the story's framing of the Buddha's community as a model for a future society makes the political resonance significant. “Revolution” is therefore a contextual translation, not a claim that ''parivartan'' always means political revolution.</ref>

“We need revolution, but in order to move forward, not to turn back. I believe, Bhadanta, that the past is dead.”

“Exactly right, Kumar. The Buddha wanted revolution, too. To bring about a better world, he presented the community of monks as a model of that future world.”<ref>The Hindi again uses ''parivartan''. “Revolution” is retained here because the preceding exchange has explicitly framed change in political terms, and the Buddha's Saṅgha is now presented as a model for a different social order. The wording brings out Sankrityayan's revolutionary interpretation without implying that the Hindi word invariably has this meaning.</ref>

“A world without caste, without high and low.”

“A world in which everyone shares equally in its benefits, and everyone shares equally in service.”<ref>The Hindi ''bhoga samāna'' refers to equality in enjoyment or benefit, while the phrase about service stresses equality in serving. This supports a reading of the Saṅgha as an egalitarian community, although the wording alone does not establish a detailed system of collective ownership or equal distribution of every resource.</ref>

“You must have seen our Mahāsthavira Dharmasena working outside, sweeping.”

“That dark-skinned monk?”

“Yes. He is the most esteemed among us. We bow to him every day with the five-point prostration. He is the leader of the monastic community throughout the whole Kosala country.”

“But I have heard that he comes from a Chandala family.”

“The monastic community does not look at birth, Kumar; it looks at a person's qualities. He is our leader and our father because of his learning and his virtues. If he receives even enough food to grease the inside of his bowl, he will not eat it without sharing it with his companions. This is the Buddha's teaching. Apart from our three robes, earthen alms bowls, a needle, a ''jalḍukkā'', a razor, and a waistband, everything we have belongs to the community. This building, the garden, the platforms, the seats, and all the rest belong to the community. Some of our monasteries also have fields, and those too belong to the community. One person examines and listens to a man before making him a monk; but once he has entered the community and become a monk, he is equal to everyone else.”<ref>The passage contrasts the limited personal requisites of monks with property held by the Saṅgha as a community. ''Jalḍukkā'' is the reading in the Hindi text used here, but its precise identification is uncertain; it is best left transliterated pending confirmation from another edition or a reliable lexicon. The statement about community property describes the social ideal presented in the story, not necessarily the practice of every Buddhist monastery in every period.</ref>

“What if a community like this were established throughout the whole country?”

“How could that happen, Kumar? When have kings and the rich ever allowed others to become their equals? The monks once admitted a slave into the community.

{{opage|204}}

As soon as he entered the community, he was no longer a slave: he was equal to everyone else. But the man who owned him began to raise an outcry. Other slaveholders joined him. Kings themselves own thousands of slaves. How could they tolerate an attack of this kind on their property? The Buddha had to give his word that, from then on, the community would not admit slaves.<ref>The story portrays a conflict between the egalitarian principle of the Saṅgha and the interests of slaveholders. It presents the Buddha's promise as a concession forced by the political power of those who regarded enslaved people as property. This is Sankrityayan's account of the episode; it should not be treated, without further evidence, as a complete description of historical monastic admission rules or the legal status of enslaved people.</ref> Our community is a little island in an ocean of inequality. That is why it cannot be safe as long as poverty and slavery of this kind continue to exist in the world.”<ref>The image makes the political limits of the Saṅgha explicit. The community can embody a more egalitarian way of life, but it remains vulnerable while the surrounding society is structured by poverty, slavery, and inequality. The passage thus goes beyond praising the internal practices of the monastic community: it raises the question of the social conditions needed for such a community to endure.</ref>

== Notes ==

<references />

[[Category:Rahul Sankrityayan]]
[[Category:Translations from Hindi]]

SR42VGX-T

2026-10-27T00:57:28Z

Lajos:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Rahul Sankrityayan, "Prabha" §7}}

[[Rahul Sankrityayan]], (राहुल सांकृत्यायन). 1942. वोल्गा से गंगा [From the Volga to the Ganges]. इलाहाबाद [Allahabad]: किताब महल [Kitab Mahal]. “प्रभा” [“Prabha” / “Radiance”], section 7, pp. 200–203.

==Translation ==

{{opage|200}}

'''Prabha — Section 7'''

There is a large courtyard, with a veranda all around it and rooms in a three-storey building behind. Yellow robes are drying on racks along the verandas. In one corner of the courtyard is a well, with a bathing area beside it. Elsewhere in the courtyard are several trees, one of them a Pipal. Around the Pipal is a platform, and a little farther away stands a stone railing, with spaces for thousands of lamps. Prabha knelt down and bowed before the beautiful

{{opage|201}}

tree, and said, “Beloved, it was a tree of this very kind beneath which Siddhartha Gautama sat, dispelled the delusions of his mind through his own effort and reflection, and attained awakening. From then on, he became known as the Buddha. It is only in memory of that beautiful event that we bow our heads before trees of this kind.”

“A symbol of dispelling the delusions of the mind and attaining awakening through one's own effort and reflection. Such a symbol deserves to be honoured, beloved. To honour such a symbol is to honour one's own effort—to conquer oneself.”

Then the two went to Bhadanta Dharmarakshita. At that time, he was sitting beneath a Bakula tree in the courtyard, where the sweet fragrance of newly opened blossoms filled the air. Prabha bowed to him in the manner of a Buddhist lay devotee, touching the ground with her feet, knees, hands, and forehead.<ref>This is ''pañca-pratiṣṭhita'', a five-point prostration. The passage describes the physical form of the bow, with five points of the body touching the ground.</ref> Ashvaghosha stood and showed his respect. Then they took pieces of leather lying on the ground and sat down. The monk's other disciples, assuming that Ashvaghosha had come to talk with him, withdrew. After the usual courtesies, Ashvaghosha began speaking about philosophy. Dharmarakshita said, “Brahmin youth, even philosophy is described in the Buddha's teaching as a bond—a heavy bond, a fetter of views.”<ref>The Hindi term is ''dṛṣṭi-saṃyojana'', a fetter or bondage associated with views. The point is not necessarily that philosophical inquiry has no place in Buddhism: the ensuing dialogue makes clear that the issue is attachment to views, rather than inquiry itself.</ref>

“Then, Bhadanta, does philosophy have no place in the Buddha's teaching?”

“Why should it have no place? The Buddha's teaching is full of philosophy. But he presents it as a raft for crossing over, not something to lift onto one's head and carry about.”

“What do you mean, like a raft?”

“Yes. When people come to a river without a boat, they make a raft and cross over on it. But once they have reached the other bank, they do not carry the raft's planks on their heads, even though the raft has been useful to them.”<ref>This is the raft simile found in the ''Alagaddūpama Sutta'' (Majjhima Nikāya 22). The teaching is to be used as a means of crossing over, not clung to as an object of attachment.</ref>

A man who had the courage to speak of his own teaching in this way must surely have seen the truth and its power. “Bhadanta, tell me something about the Buddha's philosophy

{{opage|202}}

that will help us understand a great deal, even about our own minds.”

“It is the doctrine of non-self, Kumar. The Brahmins regard the self as an eternal, unchanging, everlasting reality. The Buddha does not accept any such eternal, unchanging, everlasting reality, either within the world or beyond it. That is why his philosophy is called the doctrine of non-self: it is the philosophy of impermanence, of arising and passing away from moment to moment.”<ref>''Anātmavāda'' is the doctrine of non-self; ''anityatā'' is impermanence. The passage links them by contrasting Buddhist thought with the Brahmanical belief in an eternal self. This is a concise presentation of the story's philosophical argument, not a complete account of the different Buddhist analyses of self and impermanence.</ref>

“This one point is enough for me, Bhadanta. Ashvaghosha bows a hundred times to the Buddha, who declared that the teaching and the doctrine of non-self are like a raft. Ashvaghosha has found what he was searching for. I had been experiencing something like these waves within myself, but I could not give them a name. If people had properly understood the Buddha's teachings, the world would be a very different place today.”

“You are quite right, Kumar. Great philosophers have arisen in our Yavana country, too. Pythagoras and Heraclitus were alive in the Buddha's time; Socrates, Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle came a little later. These Greek philosophers thought deeply, but, with the exception of Heraclitus, they could not rise above eternalism—the belief in what is permanent. They were too attached to the present. That is why they wanted to bind the future to it as well. Heraclitus, at least, did not believe that the world remained the same even for two moments in succession, as the Buddha did. But he had a personal interest in this.”

“A personal interest in philosophical ideas?”

“The stomach is close to everyone, Kumar. At that time, our city of Athens was governed by a ''gaṇa''—a polity without a king. At first, powerful aristocrats, from families like Heraclitus's, were the leading figures in this form of government. Later, the merchants and wealthy traders displaced them and took control of the state. In this situation,

{{opage|203}}

Heraclitus was dissatisfied with this state of affairs. He wanted revolution, but not in order to move forward: he wanted to turn back.”<ref>The Hindi here uses ''parivartan'', ordinarily “change” or “transformation.” I render it as “revolution” in this explicitly political passage because the contrast is between competing social orders and the interests of the groups seeking to restore or change them. Sankrityayan was a Marxist writing while imprisoned for his political convictions, and the story's framing of the Buddha's community as a model for a future society makes the political resonance significant. “Revolution” is therefore a contextual translation, not a claim that ''parivartan'' always means political revolution.</ref>

“We need revolution, but in order to move forward, not to turn back. I believe, Bhadanta, that the past is dead.”

“Exactly right, Kumar. The Buddha wanted revolution, too. To bring about a better world, he presented the community of monks as a model of that future world.”<ref>The Hindi again uses ''parivartan''. “Revolution” is retained here because the preceding exchange has explicitly framed change in political terms, and the Buddha's Saṅgha is now presented as a model for a different social order. The wording brings out Sankrityayan's revolutionary interpretation without implying that the Hindi word invariably has this meaning.</ref>

“A world without caste, without high and low.”

“A world in which everyone shares equally in its benefits, and everyone shares equally in service.”<ref>The Hindi ''bhoga samāna'' refers to equality in enjoyment or benefit, while the phrase about service stresses equality in serving. This supports a reading of the Saṅgha as an egalitarian community, although the wording alone does not establish a detailed system of collective ownership or equal distribution of every resource.</ref>

“You must have seen our Mahāsthavira Dharmasena working outside, sweeping.”

“That dark-skinned monk?”

“Yes. He is the most esteemed among us. We bow to him every day with the five-point prostration. He is the leader of the monastic community throughout the whole Kosala country.”

“But I have heard that he comes from a Chandala family.”

“The monastic community does not look at birth, Kumar; it looks at a person's qualities. He is our leader and our father because of his learning and his virtues. If he receives even enough food to grease the inside of his bowl, he will not eat it without sharing it with his companions. This is the Buddha's teaching. Apart from our three robes, earthen alms bowls, a needle, a ''jalḍukkā'', a razor, and a waistband, everything we have belongs to the community. This building, the garden, the platforms, the seats, and all the rest belong to the community. Some of our monasteries also have fields, and those too belong to the community. One person examines and listens to a man before making him a monk; but once he has entered the community and become a monk, he is equal to everyone else.”<ref>The passage contrasts the limited personal requisites of monks with property held by the Saṅgha as a community. ''Jalḍukkā'' is the reading in the Hindi text used here, but its precise identification is uncertain; it is best left transliterated pending confirmation from another edition or a reliable lexicon. The statement about community property describes the social ideal presented in the story, not necessarily the practice of every Buddhist monastery in every period.</ref>

“What if a community like this were established throughout the whole country?”

“How could that happen, Kumar? When have kings and the rich ever allowed others to become their equals? The monks once admitted a slave into the community.

{{opage|204}}

As soon as he entered the community, he was no longer a slave: he was equal to everyone else. But the man who owned him began to raise an outcry. Other slaveholders joined him. Kings themselves own thousands of slaves. How could they tolerate an attack of this kind on their property? The Buddha had to give his word that, from then on, the community would not admit slaves.<ref>The story portrays a conflict between the egalitarian principle of the Saṅgha and the interests of slaveholders. It presents the Buddha's promise as a concession forced by the political power of those who regarded enslaved people as property. This is Sankrityayan's account of the episode; it should not be treated, without further evidence, as a complete description of historical monastic admission rules or the legal status of enslaved people.</ref> Our community is a little island in an ocean of inequality. That is why it cannot be safe as long as poverty and slavery of this kind continue to exist in the world.”<ref>The image makes the political limits of the Saṅgha explicit. The community can embody a more egalitarian way of life, but it remains vulnerable while the surrounding society is structured by poverty, slavery, and inequality. The passage thus goes beyond praising the internal practices of the monastic community: it raises the question of the social conditions needed for such a community to endure.</ref>

== Notes ==

<references />

[[Category:Rahul Sankrityayan]]
[[Category:Translations from Hindi]]

SR42VGX-T

2026-10-27T00:47:17Z

Lajos:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Rahul Sankrityayan, "Prabha" §7}}

[[Rahul Sankrityayan]], (राहुल सांकृत्यायन). 1942. वोल्गा से गंगा [From the Volga to the Ganges]. इलाहाबाद [Allahabad]: किताब महल [Kitab Mahal]. “प्रभा” [“Prabha” / “Radiance”], section 7, pp. 200–203.

==Translation ==

```text
{{opage|200}}

'''Prabha — Section 7'''

There is a large courtyard, with a veranda all around it and rooms in a three-storey building behind. Yellow robes are drying on racks along the verandas. In one corner of the courtyard is a well, with a bathing room beside it. Elsewhere in the courtyard are several trees, one of them a Pipal. Around the Pipal is a platform, and a little farther away stands a stone railing, with spaces for thousands of lamps. Prabha knelt down and bowed before the beautiful

{{opage|201}}

tree, and said, “Beloved, it was a tree of this very kind beneath which Siddhartha Gautama sat, dispelled the delusions of his mind through his own effort and reflection, and attained awakening. From then on, he became known as the Buddha. It is only in memory of that beautiful event that we bow our heads before trees of this kind.”

“A symbol of dispelling the delusions of the mind and attaining awakening through one's own effort and reflection! Such a symbol deserves to be honoured, beloved. To honour such a symbol is to honour one's own effort—to conquer oneself!”

Then the two went to Bhadanta Dharmarakshita. At that time, he was sitting beneath a Bakula tree in the courtyard, where the sweet fragrance of newly opened blossoms filled the air. Prabha bowed to him in the manner of a Buddhist laywoman, prostrating herself with the five points of her body touching the ground: both feet, both knees, both hands, and her forehead.<ref>The Hindi calls this form of prostration ''pañca-pratiṣṭhita'', literally involving five points of contact with the ground.</ref> Ashvaghosha showed his respect while remaining standing. Then the two took pieces of leather lying on the ground and sat down. The monk's disciples, assuming that Ashvaghosha had come to talk with him, withdrew. After the usual courtesies, Ashvaghosha broached the subject of philosophy. Dharmarakshita said, “Brahmin youth, even philosophy is described in the teaching of the Buddhas—the enlightened ones—as a bond, and a heavy bond at that: a fetter of views.”<ref>The Hindi gives the expression as ''dṛṣṭi-saṃyojana'', a bond or fetter of views.</ref>

“Then, Bhadanta, does philosophy have no place in the Buddha's teaching?”

“Why should it have no place? The Buddha's teaching is full of philosophy. But the Buddha presents it as a raft for crossing over, not something to lift onto one's head and carry about.”

“What do you mean, like a raft?”

“Yes. People who come to a river where there is no boat make a raft and cross over on it. But once they have reached the other bank, they do not carry the raft's planks on their heads, even though the raft has served them well.”<ref>This is the familiar raft simile in the ''Alagaddūpama Sutta'' (Majjhima Nikāya 22): the teaching is a means of crossing over, not something to which one should become attached.</ref>

A man who had the courage to speak of his own teaching in this way must surely have seen the truth and its power. “Bhadanta, tell me something about the Buddha's philosophy

{{opage|202}}

that will help us understand a great deal about our own minds as well.”

“It is the doctrine of non-self, Kumar. The Brahmins regard the self as an eternal, unchanging, everlasting reality. The Buddha does not accept any such eternal, unchanging, everlasting reality, either within the world or beyond it. That is why his philosophy is called the doctrine of non-self: it is a philosophy of impermanence, of arising and passing away from moment to moment.”<ref>Here the story connects ''anātmavāda'' (the doctrine of non-self) with impermanence, in opposition to the Brahmanical conception of an eternal self.</ref>

“This one point is enough for me, Bhadanta. Ashvaghosha bows a hundred times to the Buddha, who declared that the teaching and the doctrine of non-self are like a raft. Ashvaghosha has found what he was searching for. I had been experiencing something like these waves within myself, but I could not give them a name. If people had properly understood the Buddha's teachings, the world would be a very different place today!”

“You are quite right, Kumar. Great philosophers have arisen in our Yavana country, too. Pythagoras and Heraclitus were alive in the Buddha's time; Socrates, Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle came a little later. These Greek philosophers thought deeply, but, with the exception of Heraclitus, none could rise above eternalism—the belief in what is permanent. They were too attached to the present. That is why they wanted to bind the future to it as well. Heraclitus, at least, did not believe that the world remained the same even for two successive moments, as the Buddha did. But he had a personal interest in this.”

“A personal interest in philosophical ideas?”

“Everyone has a stomach, Kumar. At that time, our city of Athens was governed by a ''gaṇa''—a polity without a king. At first, powerful aristocrats, from families like Heraclitus's, held the reins of this form of government. Later, the merchants—the wealthy traders—displaced them and took control of the state. In this situation,

{{opage|203}}

Heraclitus was dissatisfied. He wanted change, but not in order to move forward: he wanted to turn back!”

“We need change, but in order to move forward, not to turn back. I believe, Bhadanta, that the past is dead!”

“Exactly right, Kumar! The Buddha wanted change, too. To bring about a better world, he presented the community of monks as a model of that future world.”

“A world without caste, without high and low.”

“A world in which everyone shares equally in its benefits, and everyone shares equally in service. You must have seen our Mahāsthavira Dharmasena working outside, sweeping.”

“That dark-skinned monk?”

“Yes. He is the most esteemed among us. We bow to him every day with the five-point prostration. He is the leader of the monastic community throughout the whole Kosala country.”

“But I have heard that he comes from a Chandala family!”

“The monastic community does not look at family or birth, Kumar; it looks at a person's qualities. He is our leader and our father because of his learning and his virtues. If he receives even enough food to grease the inside of his bowl, he will not eat it without sharing it with his companions. This is the Buddha's teaching. Apart from our three robes, earthen alms bowls, a needle, a ''jalḍukkā'', a razor, and a waistband, everything we have belongs to the community. This building, the ''vāra'', the platforms, the seats, and everything else belong to the community. Some of our monasteries have fields as well, and those too belong to the community. The community examines a man and hears what he has to say before making him a monk; but once he has entered the community and become a monk, he is equal to everyone else.”<ref>The passage contrasts the monks' limited personal requisites with the property held by the Saṅgha as a community. The precise meanings of ''jalḍukkā'' and ''vāra'' are uncertain from this text alone, so I have left them transliterated rather than guessed at their meanings.</ref>

“What if a community like this were established throughout the whole country?”

“How could that happen, Kumar? When have kings and the rich ever allowed others to become their equals? The monks once admitted a slave into the community.

{{opage|204}}

As soon as he entered the community, he was no longer a slave: he was equal to everyone else. But the man who owned him began to raise an outcry. Other slaveholders joined him. Kings themselves own thousands of slaves. How could they tolerate an attack of this kind on their property? What could the Buddha do? He gave his word that, from then on, the community would not admit slaves. Our community is a little island in an ocean of inequality. That is why it cannot be safe as long as poverty and slavery of this kind continue to exist in the world.”<ref>The story presents the Saṅgha as an egalitarian community constrained by the slaveholding society around it. The Buddha's promise is portrayed as a concession to the power of slaveholders, not as a resolution of the wider social inequality.</ref>

== Notes ==

<references />

[[Category:Rahul Sankrityayan]]
[[Category:Translations from Hindi]]

SR42VGX-T

2026-10-27T00:39:02Z

Lajos:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Rahul Sankrityayan, "Prabha" §7}}

[[Rahul Sankrityayan]], (राहुल सांकृत्यायन). 1942. वोल्गा से गंगा [From the Volga to the Ganges]. इलाहाबाद [Allahabad]: किताब महल [Kitab Mahal]. “प्रभा” [“Prabha” / “Radiance”], section 7, pp. 200–203.

==Translation ==

{{opage|200}}

'''Prabha — Section 7'''

There is a large courtyard, with a veranda all around it and rooms in a three-storey building behind. Yellow robes are drying on racks along the verandas. In one corner of the courtyard is a well, with a bathing area beside it. Elsewhere in the courtyard are several trees, one of them a Pipal. Around the Pipal is a platform, and a little farther away stands a stone railing, with spaces for thousands of lamps.

Prabha knelt down and bowed before the beautiful

{{opage|201}}

tree, and said, “Beloved, it was a tree of this very kind beneath which Siddhartha Gautama sat, dispelled the delusions of his mind through his own effort and reflection, and attained awakening. From then on, he became known as the Buddha. It is only in memory of that beautiful event that we bow our heads before trees of this kind.”

“A symbol of dispelling the delusions of the mind and attaining awakening through one's own effort and reflection! How beautiful! To honour such a symbol is to honour one's own effort—to conquer oneself!”

Then the two went to Bhadanta Dharmarakshita, who was sitting beneath a flowering Bakula tree in the courtyard, its newly opened blossoms filling the air with their sweet fragrance. Prabha bowed to him in the manner of a Buddhist lay devotee, touching the ground with her feet, knees, hands, and forehead.<ref>This is ''pañca-pratiṣṭhita'', a five-point prostration. The passage describes the physical form of the bow, with five points of the body touching the ground.</ref> Ashvaghosha stood and showed his respect. Then they took pieces of leather lying on the ground and sat down. The monk's other disciples, assuming that Ashvaghosha had come to talk with him, withdrew. After the usual courtesies, Ashvaghosha began speaking about philosophy. Dharmarakshita said, “Brahmin youth, even philosophy is described in the Buddha's teaching as a bond—a heavy bond, a fetter of views.”<ref>The Hindi term is ''dṛṣṭi-saṃyojana'', a fetter or bondage associated with views. The point is not necessarily that philosophical inquiry has no place in Buddhism: the ensuing dialogue makes clear that the issue is attachment to views, rather than inquiry itself.</ref>

“Then, Bhadanta, does philosophy have no place in the Buddha's teaching?”

“Why should it have no place? The Buddha's teaching is full of philosophy. But he presents it as a raft for crossing over, not something to lift onto one's head and carry about.”

“What do you mean, like a raft?”

“Yes. When people come to a river without a boat, they make a raft and cross over on it. But once they have reached the other bank, they do not carry the raft's planks on their heads, even though the raft has been useful to them.”<ref>This is the raft simile found in the ''Alagaddūpama Sutta'' (Majjhima Nikāya 22). The teaching is to be used as a means of crossing over, not clung to as an object of attachment.</ref>

A man who had the courage to speak of his own teaching in this way must surely have seen the truth and its power. “Bhadanta, tell me something about the Buddha's philosophy that will help us understand a great deal, even about our own minds.”

{{opage|202}}

“It is the doctrine of non-self, Kumar! The Brahmins regard the self as an eternal, unchanging, everlasting reality. The Buddha does not accept any such eternal, unchanging, everlasting reality, either within the world or beyond it. That is why his philosophy is called the doctrine of non-self: it is the philosophy of impermanence, of arising and passing away from moment to moment.”<ref>''Anātmavāda'' is the doctrine of non-self; ''anityatā'' is impermanence. The passage links them by contrasting Buddhist thought with the Brahmanical belief in an eternal self. This is a concise presentation of the story's philosophical argument, not a complete account of the different Buddhist analyses of self and impermanence.</ref>

“This one point is enough for me, Bhadanta. Ashvaghosha bows a hundred times to the Buddha, who declared that the teaching and the doctrine of non-self are like a raft. Ashvaghosha has found what he was searching for. I had been experiencing something like these waves within myself, but I could not give them a name. If the world had properly understood the Buddha's teaching, it would be a very different place today!”

“You are quite right, Kumar. Great philosophers have arisen in our Yavana country, too. Pythagoras and Heraclitus were alive in the Buddha's time; Socrates, Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle came a little later. These Greek philosophers thought deeply, but, with the exception of Heraclitus, they could not rise above eternalism—the belief in what is permanent. They were too attached to the present. That is why they wanted to bind the future to it as well. Heraclitus, at least, did not believe that the world remained the same even for two moments in succession, as the Buddha did. But he had a personal interest in this.”

“A personal interest in philosophical ideas?”

“The stomach is close to everyone, Kumar. At that time, our city of Athens was governed by a ''gaṇa''—a polity without a king. At first, powerful aristocrats, from families like Heraclitus's, were the leading figures in this form of government. Later, the merchants and wealthy traders displaced them and took control of the state. In this situation,

{{opage|203}}

Heraclitus was dissatisfied with this state of affairs. He wanted revolution, but not in order to move forward: he wanted to turn back!”<ref>The Hindi here uses ''parivartan'', ordinarily “change” or “transformation.” I render it as “revolution” in this explicitly political passage because the contrast is between competing social orders and the interests of the groups seeking to restore or change them. Sankrityayan was a Marxist writing while imprisoned for his political convictions, and the story's framing of the Buddha's community as a model for a future society makes the political resonance significant. “Revolution” is therefore a contextual translation, not a claim that ''parivartan'' always means political revolution.</ref>

“We need revolution, but in order to move forward, not to turn back. I believe, Bhadanta, that the past is dead!”

“Exactly right, Kumar! The Buddha wanted revolution, too. To bring about a better world, he presented the community of monks as a model of that future world.”<ref>The Hindi again uses ''parivartan''. “Revolution” is retained here because the preceding exchange has explicitly framed change in political terms, and the Buddha's Saṅgha is now presented as a model for a different social order. The wording brings out Sankrityayan's revolutionary interpretation without implying that the Hindi word invariably has this meaning.</ref>

“A world without caste, without high and low.”

“A world in which everyone shares equally in its benefits, and everyone shares equally in service.”<ref>The Hindi ''bhoga samāna'' refers to equality in enjoyment or benefit, while the phrase about service stresses equality in serving. This supports a reading of the Saṅgha as an egalitarian community, although the wording alone does not establish a detailed system of collective ownership or equal distribution of every resource.</ref>

“You must have seen our Mahāsthavira Dharmasena working outside, sweeping.”

“That dark-skinned monk?”

“Yes. He is the most esteemed among us. We bow to him every day with the five-point prostration. He is the leader of the monastic community throughout the whole Kosala country.”

“But I have heard that he comes from a Chandala family!”

“The monastic community does not look at birth, Kumar; it looks at a person's qualities. He is our leader and our father because of his learning and his virtues. If he receives even enough food to grease the inside of his bowl, he will not eat it without sharing it with his companions. This is the Buddha's teaching.

“Apart from our three robes, earthen alms bowls, a needle, a ''jalḍukkā'', a razor, and a waistband, everything we have belongs to the community. This building, the garden, the platforms, the seats, and all the rest belong to the community. Some of our monasteries also have fields, and those too belong to the community. One person examines and listens to a man before making him a monk; but once he has entered the community and become a monk, he is equal to everyone else.”<ref>The passage contrasts the limited personal requisites of monks with property held by the Saṅgha as a community. ''Jalḍukkā'' is the reading in the Hindi text used here, but its precise identification is uncertain; it is best left transliterated pending confirmation from another edition or a reliable lexicon. The statement about community property describes the social ideal presented in the story, not necessarily the practice of every Buddhist monastery in every period.</ref>

“What if a community like this were established throughout the whole country?”

“How could that happen, Kumar? When have kings and the rich ever allowed others to become their equals? The monks once admitted a slave into the community.”

{{opage|204}}

“As soon as he entered the community, he was no longer a slave: he was equal to everyone else. But the man who owned him began to raise an outcry. Other slaveholders joined him. Kings themselves own thousands of slaves. How could they tolerate an attack of this kind on their property? The Buddha had to give his word that, from then on, the community would not admit slaves.”<ref>The story portrays a conflict between the egalitarian principle of the Saṅgha and the interests of slaveholders. It presents the Buddha's promise as a concession forced by the political power of those who regarded enslaved people as property. This is Sankrityayan's account of the episode; it should not be treated, without further evidence, as a complete description of historical monastic admission rules or the legal status of enslaved people.</ref>

“Our community is a little island in an ocean of inequality. That is why it cannot be safe as long as poverty and slavery of this kind continue to exist in the world.”<ref>The image makes the political limits of the Saṅgha explicit. The community can embody a more egalitarian way of life, but it remains vulnerable while the surrounding society is structured by poverty, slavery, and inequality. The passage thus goes beyond praising the internal practices of the monastic community: it raises the question of the social conditions needed for such a community to endure.</ref>

== Notes ==

<references />

[[Category:Rahul Sankrityayan]]
[[Category:Translations from Hindi]]

SR42VGX

2026-10-27T00:27:11Z

Lajos:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:राहुल सांकृत्यायन, प्रभा (७)}}
{{Textual Verification}}

[[Rahul Sankrityayan]], (राहुल सांकृत्यायन). 1942. वोल्गा से गंगा [From the Volga to the Ganges]. इलाहाबाद [Allahabad]: किताब महल [Kitab Mahal]. “प्रभा” [“Prabha” / “Radiance”], section 7, pp. 200–203.

==Text==

{{tpage|200}}

'''(७)'''

एक बड़ा आँगन है, जिसके चारों ओर बराम्दा और पीछे तितल्ले मकान की कोठरियाँ हैं। बराम्दों में अरगनों पर पीले वस्त्र सूख रहे हैं। आँगन के एक कोने में एक कुआँ तथा पास ही एक स्नान-कोष्ठक है। आँगन की दूसरी जगहों में कितने ही वृक्ष हैं, जिनमें एक पीपल का है। पीपल के गिर्द वेदी है और फिर हटकर पत्थर का कटघरा, जिस पर हज़ारों दीपकों के रखने के लिए स्थान बने हुए हैं। प्रभा ने घुटने टेक उस सुन्दर

{{tpage|201}}

वृक्ष की वन्दना करके कहा—“प्रिय, इसी जाति का वह वृक्ष था, जिसके नीचे बैठकर सिद्धार्थ गौतम ने अपने प्रयत्न, अपने चिन्तन द्वारा मन की भ्रान्तियों को हटा बोध प्राप्त किया, और तबसे वह बुद्ध के नाम से प्रख्यात हुए। सिर्फ़ उसी मधुर स्मृति के लिए हम इस जाति के वृक्षों के सामने सिर झुकाते हैं।”

“अपने प्रयत्न, अपने चिन्तन द्वारा मन की भ्रान्तियों को हटा बोध प्राप्त करने का प्रतीक। ऐसे प्रतीक की पूजा होनी चाहिए, प्रिये। ऐसे प्रतीक की पूजा अपने प्रयत्न—आत्म-विजय—की पूजा है।”

फिर दोनों भदन्त धर्मरक्षित के पास गए। वह उस वक्त आँगन के एक वकुल वृक्ष के नीचे बैठे थे, जहाँ नवपुष्पित फूलों की मधुर सुगन्धि फैल रही थी। प्रभा ने बौद्ध-उपासिका की भाँति पंच-प्रतिष्ठित से (पैरों के दोनों पंजों-घुटनों, हाथ की दोनों हथेलियों और ललाट को धरती पर रखकर) वन्दना की। अश्वघोष ने खड़े ही खड़े सम्मान प्रदर्शन किया। फिर दोनों ज़मीन पर पड़े चर्म-खण्डों को लेकर बैठ गए। भदन्त के शिष्य अश्वघोष को बातचीत करने के लिए आया समझ वहाँ से हट गए। साधारण शिष्टाचार की बातों के बाद अश्वघोष ने दर्शन की बात छेड़ी।धर्मरक्षित ने कहा—“ब्राह्मण-कुमार, दर्शन को भी बुद्धों—ज्ञानियों—के धर्म में बन्धन और भारी बन्धन (दृष्टि-संयोजन) कहा गया है।”

“तो भदन्त, क्या बुद्ध के धर्म में दर्शन का स्थान नहीं है?”

“स्थान क्यों नहीं, बुद्ध का धर्म दर्शनमय है; किन्तु बुद्ध उसे बेड़े की भाँति पार उतरने के लिए बताते हैं, सिर पर उठाकर ढोने के लिए नहीं।”

“क्या कहा, बेड़े की भाँति?”

“हाँ, बिना नाववाली नदी में लोग बेड़ा बाँधकर उससे पार उतर जाते हैं; किन्तु पार उतरकर बेड़े की उन लकड़ियों को उपकारी समझ सिर पर ढोते नहीं फिरते।”

अपने धर्म के लिए भी जिस पुरुष को इतना कहने की हिम्मत थी, उसने ज़रूर सत्य और उसके बल को देखा होगा। भदन्त, बुद्ध के दर्शन

{{tpage|202}}

की कोई ऐसी बात बतलायें, जिसके जानने से हमें अपने मन से भी बहुत-सा समझ जाने में सुभीता हो।”

“अनात्मवाद है, कुमार। ब्राह्मण आत्मा को नित्य, ध्रुव, शाश्वत तत्त्व मानते हैं। बुद्ध जगत के भीतर-बाहर किसी ऐसे नित्य, ध्रुव, शाश्वत तत्त्व को नहीं मानते, इसलिए उनके दर्शन को अनात्मवाद—अनित्यता, क्षण-क्षण उत्पत्ति-विनाश—का दर्शन कहते हैं।”

“मेरे लिए यह एक बात ही काफ़ी है, भदन्त। बेड़े की भाँति धर्म तथा अनात्मवाद की घोषणा करनेवाले बुद्ध को अश्वघोष शतशः प्रणाम करता है। अश्वघोष जिसको ढूँढ़ता था, उसे उसने पा लिया। मैं अपने भीतर अनुभव कर रहा था कुछ ऐसी ही लहरों को; किन्तु मैं उसे नाम नहीं दे पाता था। आज बुद्ध की शिक्षाओं को लोगों ने ठीक से माना होता, तो दुनिया दूसरी ही होती।”

“ठीक कहा, कुमार। हमारे यवन देश में भी महान् दार्शनिक पैदा हुए हैं, जिनमें पिथागोर, हेराक्लितु तो भगवान् के समय जीवित थे; सुकरात, देमोक्रितु, अफ़लातून, अरस्तू उनसे थोड़ा बाद में हुए। इन यवन दार्शनिकों ने गम्भीर चिन्तन किया; किन्तु हेराक्लितु को छोड़ सभी शाश्वतवाद—नित्यतावाद—से ऊपर नहीं उठ सके। वर्तमान का उन्हें हृदय से ज़्यादा मोह था। यही कारण था कि वह भविष्य को भी उससे बाँध रखना चाहते थे। हेराक्लितु अवश्य बुद्ध की भाँति जगत को किसी दो क्षण भी वैसा ही नहीं मानता था; किन्तु इसमें उसका एक वैयक्तिक स्वार्थ था।”

“दर्शन-विचार में वैयक्तिक स्वार्थ?”

“पेट सभी के पास होता है, कुमार। उस वक्त हमारे एथेन्स नगर में गण—बिना राजा का राज्य—था। पहले हेराक्लितु के परिवार की तरह के बड़े-बड़े सामन्त गण-शासन के सूत्रधार थे, पीछे उनको हटाकर व्यापारियों—सेठों—ने शासन-सूत्र अपने हाथ में लिया। इस अवस्था में

{{tpage|203}}

हेराक्लितु असन्तुष्ट था। वह परिवर्तन चाहता था; किन्तु आगे जाने के लिए नहीं, बल्कि पीछे की ओर लौटने के लिए।”

“हमें परिवर्तन चाहिए; किन्तु आगे बढ़ने के लिए, पीछे लौटने के लिए नहीं; मैं समझता हूँ, भदन्त, अतीत मुर्दा है।”

“बिल्कुल ठीक कहा, कुमार। बुद्ध परिवर्तन चाहते थे, और बेहतर जगत को लाने के लिए भिक्षु-संघ को उन्होंने उसी भविष्य के जगत के लिए एक नमूने के तौर पर पेश किया।”

“जहाँ जात-पाँत नहीं, जहाँ ऊँच-नीच नहीं।”

“जहाँ सबके लिए भोग समान है, जहाँ सबके लिए सेवा करना समान है। तुमने हमारे महास्थविर धर्मसेन को बाहर झाड़ लगाते देखा होगा?”

“वह काले-काले?”

“हाँ, वह हममें सबसे श्रेष्ठ हैं। हम रोज़ पंच-प्रतिष्ठित से उनकी वन्दना करते हैं। सारे कोसल-देश के भिक्षु-संघ के वह नायक हैं।”

“सुना है, वह चण्डाल-कुल के हैं?”

“भिक्षु-संघ कुल नहीं देखता, कुमार, वह गुण देखता है। वह अपनी विद्या और अपने गुणों से हमारे नायक हैं, हमारे पिता हैं। उनके भिक्षा-पात्र में यदि पात्र चुपड़ने भर की भी कोई चीज़ मिल जाती है, तो वह बिना साथियों को दिए नहीं खाते। यही बुद्ध की शिक्षा है। पहनने के तीन कपड़ों, मिट्टी के भिक्षा-पात्र, सुई, जलडुक्का, अस्तुरा और कमरबन्द के सिवाय हमारी सारी चीज़ें संघ की हैं। यह घर, वारा, मंच, पीठ आदि सब संघ के हैं। हमारे किसी-किसी विहार में खेत भी, वह भी संघ के हैं। संघ देख-सुनकर एक आदमी को भिक्षु बनाता है; किन्तु जो संघ में प्रविष्ट हो गया—भिक्षु बन गया—वह सबके समान है।”

“इस तरह का संघ यदि सारे देश के लिए बनता?”

“वह कैसे हो सकता है, कुमार। राजा और धनी कब दूसरों को बराबर होने देंगे। भिक्षुओं ने एक दास को संघ में दाख़िल कर लिया था।

{{tpage|204}}

संघ में दाख़िल होते ही वह अदास—सबके समान था; किन्तु जिसका वह दास था, उसने हल्ला मचाना शुरू किया। दूसरे दास-स्वामी भी उसके साथ शामिल हो गए। राजा स्वयं हज़ारों दासों के स्वामी होते हैं। वह भी अपनी सम्पत्ति पर इस तरह का प्रहार कैसे सह सकते। बुद्ध क्या करते, उन्होंने वचन दिया कि आगे से संघ दास को अपने भीतर नहीं लेगा। हमारा संघ विषमतापूर्ण समुद्र में एक छोटा-सा द्वीप है, इसीलिए वह सुरक्षित नहीं है, जब तक कि संसार में इस तरह की गरीबी, इस तरह की दासता है।”

[[Category:Rahul Sankrityayan]]
[[Category:Original Texts in Hindi]]

SR42VGX

2026-10-27T00:26:43Z

Lajos:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:राहुल सांकृत्यायन, प्रभा (७)}}

[[Rahul Sankrityayan]], (राहुल सांकृत्यायन). 1942. वोल्गा से गंगा [From the Volga to the Ganges]. इलाहाबाद [Allahabad]: किताब महल [Kitab Mahal]. “प्रभा” [“Prabha” / “Radiance”], section 7, pp. 200–203.

==Text==

{{tpage|200}}

'''(७)'''

एक बड़ा आँगन है, जिसके चारों ओर बराम्दा और पीछे तितल्ले मकान की कोठरियाँ हैं। बराम्दों में अरगनों पर पीले वस्त्र सूख रहे हैं। आँगन के एक कोने में एक कुआँ तथा पास ही एक स्नान-कोष्ठक है। आँगन की दूसरी जगहों में कितने ही वृक्ष हैं, जिनमें एक पीपल का है। पीपल के गिर्द वेदी है और फिर हटकर पत्थर का कटघरा, जिस पर हज़ारों दीपकों के रखने के लिए स्थान बने हुए हैं। प्रभा ने घुटने टेक उस सुन्दर

{{tpage|201}}

वृक्ष की वन्दना करके कहा—“प्रिय, इसी जाति का वह वृक्ष था, जिसके नीचे बैठकर सिद्धार्थ गौतम ने अपने प्रयत्न, अपने चिन्तन द्वारा मन की भ्रान्तियों को हटा बोध प्राप्त किया, और तबसे वह बुद्ध के नाम से प्रख्यात हुए। सिर्फ़ उसी मधुर स्मृति के लिए हम इस जाति के वृक्षों के सामने सिर झुकाते हैं।”

“अपने प्रयत्न, अपने चिन्तन द्वारा मन की भ्रान्तियों को हटा बोध प्राप्त करने का प्रतीक। ऐसे प्रतीक की पूजा होनी चाहिए, प्रिये। ऐसे प्रतीक की पूजा अपने प्रयत्न—आत्म-विजय—की पूजा है।”

फिर दोनों भदन्त धर्मरक्षित के पास गए। वह उस वक्त आँगन के एक वकुल वृक्ष के नीचे बैठे थे, जहाँ नवपुष्पित फूलों की मधुर सुगन्धि फैल रही थी। प्रभा ने बौद्ध-उपासिका की भाँति पंच-प्रतिष्ठित से (पैरों के दोनों पंजों-घुटनों, हाथ की दोनों हथेलियों और ललाट को धरती पर रखकर) वन्दना की। अश्वघोष ने खड़े ही खड़े सम्मान प्रदर्शन किया। फिर दोनों ज़मीन पर पड़े चर्म-खण्डों को लेकर बैठ गए। भदन्त के शिष्य अश्वघोष को बातचीत करने के लिए आया समझ वहाँ से हट गए। साधारण शिष्टाचार की बातों के बाद अश्वघोष ने दर्शन की बात छेड़ी।धर्मरक्षित ने कहा—“ब्राह्मण-कुमार, दर्शन को भी बुद्धों—ज्ञानियों—के धर्म में बन्धन और भारी बन्धन (दृष्टि-संयोजन) कहा गया है।”

“तो भदन्त, क्या बुद्ध के धर्म में दर्शन का स्थान नहीं है?”

“स्थान क्यों नहीं, बुद्ध का धर्म दर्शनमय है; किन्तु बुद्ध उसे बेड़े की भाँति पार उतरने के लिए बताते हैं, सिर पर उठाकर ढोने के लिए नहीं।”

“क्या कहा, बेड़े की भाँति?”

“हाँ, बिना नाववाली नदी में लोग बेड़ा बाँधकर उससे पार उतर जाते हैं; किन्तु पार उतरकर बेड़े की उन लकड़ियों को उपकारी समझ सिर पर ढोते नहीं फिरते।”

अपने धर्म के लिए भी जिस पुरुष को इतना कहने की हिम्मत थी, उसने ज़रूर सत्य और उसके बल को देखा होगा। भदन्त, बुद्ध के दर्शन

{{tpage|202}}

की कोई ऐसी बात बतलायें, जिसके जानने से हमें अपने मन से भी बहुत-सा समझ जाने में सुभीता हो।”

“अनात्मवाद है, कुमार। ब्राह्मण आत्मा को नित्य, ध्रुव, शाश्वत तत्त्व मानते हैं। बुद्ध जगत के भीतर-बाहर किसी ऐसे नित्य, ध्रुव, शाश्वत तत्त्व को नहीं मानते, इसलिए उनके दर्शन को अनात्मवाद—अनित्यता, क्षण-क्षण उत्पत्ति-विनाश—का दर्शन कहते हैं।”

“मेरे लिए यह एक बात ही काफ़ी है, भदन्त। बेड़े की भाँति धर्म तथा अनात्मवाद की घोषणा करनेवाले बुद्ध को अश्वघोष शतशः प्रणाम करता है। अश्वघोष जिसको ढूँढ़ता था, उसे उसने पा लिया। मैं अपने भीतर अनुभव कर रहा था कुछ ऐसी ही लहरों को; किन्तु मैं उसे नाम नहीं दे पाता था। आज बुद्ध की शिक्षाओं को लोगों ने ठीक से माना होता, तो दुनिया दूसरी ही होती।”

“ठीक कहा, कुमार। हमारे यवन देश में भी महान् दार्शनिक पैदा हुए हैं, जिनमें पिथागोर, हेराक्लितु तो भगवान् के समय जीवित थे; सुकरात, देमोक्रितु, अफ़लातून, अरस्तू उनसे थोड़ा बाद में हुए। इन यवन दार्शनिकों ने गम्भीर चिन्तन किया; किन्तु हेराक्लितु को छोड़ सभी शाश्वतवाद—नित्यतावाद—से ऊपर नहीं उठ सके। वर्तमान का उन्हें हृदय से ज़्यादा मोह था। यही कारण था कि वह भविष्य को भी उससे बाँध रखना चाहते थे। हेराक्लितु अवश्य बुद्ध की भाँति जगत को किसी दो क्षण भी वैसा ही नहीं मानता था; किन्तु इसमें उसका एक वैयक्तिक स्वार्थ था।”

“दर्शन-विचार में वैयक्तिक स्वार्थ?”

“पेट सभी के पास होता है, कुमार। उस वक्त हमारे एथेन्स नगर में गण—बिना राजा का राज्य—था। पहले हेराक्लितु के परिवार की तरह के बड़े-बड़े सामन्त गण-शासन के सूत्रधार थे, पीछे उनको हटाकर व्यापारियों—सेठों—ने शासन-सूत्र अपने हाथ में लिया। इस अवस्था में

{{tpage|203}}

हेराक्लितु असन्तुष्ट था। वह परिवर्तन चाहता था; किन्तु आगे जाने के लिए नहीं, बल्कि पीछे की ओर लौटने के लिए।”

“हमें परिवर्तन चाहिए; किन्तु आगे बढ़ने के लिए, पीछे लौटने के लिए नहीं; मैं समझता हूँ, भदन्त, अतीत मुर्दा है।”

“बिल्कुल ठीक कहा, कुमार। बुद्ध परिवर्तन चाहते थे, और बेहतर जगत को लाने के लिए भिक्षु-संघ को उन्होंने उसी भविष्य के जगत के लिए एक नमूने के तौर पर पेश किया।”

“जहाँ जात-पाँत नहीं, जहाँ ऊँच-नीच नहीं।”

“जहाँ सबके लिए भोग समान है, जहाँ सबके लिए सेवा करना समान है। तुमने हमारे महास्थविर धर्मसेन को बाहर झाड़ लगाते देखा होगा?”

“वह काले-काले?”

“हाँ, वह हममें सबसे श्रेष्ठ हैं। हम रोज़ पंच-प्रतिष्ठित से उनकी वन्दना करते हैं। सारे कोसल-देश के भिक्षु-संघ के वह नायक हैं।”

“सुना है, वह चण्डाल-कुल के हैं?”

“भिक्षु-संघ कुल नहीं देखता, कुमार, वह गुण देखता है। वह अपनी विद्या और अपने गुणों से हमारे नायक हैं, हमारे पिता हैं। उनके भिक्षा-पात्र में यदि पात्र चुपड़ने भर की भी कोई चीज़ मिल जाती है, तो वह बिना साथियों को दिए नहीं खाते। यही बुद्ध की शिक्षा है। पहनने के तीन कपड़ों, मिट्टी के भिक्षा-पात्र, सुई, जलडुक्का, अस्तुरा और कमरबन्द के सिवाय हमारी सारी चीज़ें संघ की हैं। यह घर, वारा, मंच, पीठ आदि सब संघ के हैं। हमारे किसी-किसी विहार में खेत भी, वह भी संघ के हैं। संघ देख-सुनकर एक आदमी को भिक्षु बनाता है; किन्तु जो संघ में प्रविष्ट हो गया—भिक्षु बन गया—वह सबके समान है।”

“इस तरह का संघ यदि सारे देश के लिए बनता?”

“वह कैसे हो सकता है, कुमार। राजा और धनी कब दूसरों को बराबर होने देंगे। भिक्षुओं ने एक दास को संघ में दाख़िल कर लिया था।

{{tpage|204}}

संघ में दाख़िल होते ही वह अदास—सबके समान था; किन्तु जिसका वह दास था, उसने हल्ला मचाना शुरू किया। दूसरे दास-स्वामी भी उसके साथ शामिल हो गए। राजा स्वयं हज़ारों दासों के स्वामी होते हैं। वह भी अपनी सम्पत्ति पर इस तरह का प्रहार कैसे सह सकते। बुद्ध क्या करते, उन्होंने वचन दिया कि आगे से संघ दास को अपने भीतर नहीं लेगा। हमारा संघ विषमतापूर्ण समुद्र में एक छोटा-सा द्वीप है, इसीलिए वह सुरक्षित नहीं है, जब तक कि संसार में इस तरह की गरीबी, इस तरह की दासता है।”

[[Category:Rahul Sankrityayan]]
[[Category:Original Texts in Hindi]]

Template:Tpage

2026-10-27T00:18:21Z

Lajos:

<includeonly>__NOEDITSECTION__</includeonly>
<div style="display: flex; align-items: flex-end; justify-content: space-between; margin-top: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">
<div style="font-family: 'Linux Libertine', Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1;">🗎 Page {{{1}}}</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1;">[[{{PAGENAME}}-T#Page {{{1}}}|► English Translation of this Page.]]</div>
</div>
<noinclude>[[Category:Editorial Templates]]</noinclude>