The Radical Buddhism Project - Recent changes [en]

Rahul Sankrityayan

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:24:19 GMT

Writings

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:24, 27 October 2026
Line 47:		Line 47:
	* 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.}}		* 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.}}		* 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.}}		* 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.}}

Template:Listofchangesforfrontpage

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:22:48 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:22, 27 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''{{serifsc\|Latest Encyclopedia Entries\|135%}}'''<br>		'''{{serifsc\|Latest Encyclopedia Entries\|135%}}'''<br>
			[[India]] (revision)<br>
			[[:Category:India\|11 other new India-related pages]] (and 2 revisions)<br>
			[[Nepal]]<br>
	[[Takagi Kenmyo\|Takagi Kenmyō 高木顕明]]<br>		[[Takagi Kenmyo\|Takagi Kenmyō 高木顕明]]<br>
	[[The New Buddhist Fellowship~~]]<br>~~		[[The New Buddhist Fellowship]]
	~~[[Japan]] (revision)<br>~~
	~~[[Senoo Giro\|Seno'o Girō 妹尾義郎]] (revision)<br>~~
	~~[[Rahul Sankrityayan~~]]

	'''{{serifsc\|Latest Source Texts\|135%}}'''<br>		'''{{serifsc\|Latest Source Texts\|135%}}'''<br>

The New Article and Revision Pipeline

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:16:41 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:16, 27 October 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 11:		Line 11:

	'''{{serifsc\|In Preparation\|120%}}'''		'''{{serifsc\|In Preparation\|120%}}'''
	* ~~[[Iyothee Thass]]~~		* (''none'')
	* [[Dharmanand Kosambi]]
	* [[Namdeo Dhasal]]
	* [[P Lakshmi Narasu]]
	* [[Narendra Deva]]

	'''{{serifsc\|Planned\|120%}}'''		'''{{serifsc\|Planned\|120%}}'''
Line 33:		Line 29:

	'''{{serifsc\|In Preparation\|120%}}'''		'''{{serifsc\|In Preparation\|120%}}'''
	* ~~[[BR Ambedkar]]~~		* (''none'')
	* [[Rahul Sankrityayan]]

	'''{{serifsc\|Planned\|120%}}'''		'''{{serifsc\|Planned\|120%}}'''
Line 48:		Line 43:

	'''{{serifsc\|In Preparation\|120%}}'''		'''{{serifsc\|In Preparation\|120%}}'''
	* ~~[[Nepal]]~~		* (''none'')
	* [[Tamil Buddhist Movement]]
	* [[Maha Bodhi Society]]
	* [[Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India]]
	* [[Dalit Buddhism]]

	'''{{serifsc\|Planned\|120%}}'''		'''{{serifsc\|Planned\|120%}}'''
Line 67:		Line 58:

	'''{{serifsc\|In Preparation\|120%}}'''		'''{{serifsc\|In Preparation\|120%}}'''
	* ~~[[India]]~~		* (''none'')
	* [[Russia and the Soviet Union]]

	'''{{serifsc\|Planned\|120%}}'''		'''{{serifsc\|Planned\|120%}}'''

India

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:15:24 GMT

Rahul Sankrityayan

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:15, 27 October 2026
Line 48:		Line 48:

	{{Main\|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]].		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 ===		=== Ambedkar and the Conversion of 1956 ===

BR Ambedkar

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:14:58 GMT

Show changes

Russia and the Soviet Union

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:14:31 GMT

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{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.
+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 ==
@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 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>
 == Literature in English ==
 * 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.}}
@@ Line 74: / Line 100: @@
 <!-- AUTHORSHIP CHANGE LOG
 First version, 24 July 2026. Main: Brons, Lajos. Other: (none).
 -->
 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>.

Nepal

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:13:45 GMT

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..."

Show changes

Narendra Deva

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:13:02 GMT

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..."

New page

{{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

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:12:07 GMT

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..."

New page

{{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

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:10:44 GMT

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..."

New page

{{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

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:09:36 GMT

Show changes

Dharmanand Kosambi

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:08:48 GMT

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..."

New page

{{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

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:08:12 GMT

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..."

New page

{{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

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:07:37 GMT

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..."

New page

{{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

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:06:54 GMT

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..."

New page

{{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

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:06:11 GMT

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..."

New page

{{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

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:05:42 GMT

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..."

New page

{{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

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:04:55 GMT

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..."

New page

{{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

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:04:02 GMT

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..."

New page

{{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

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 11:02:26 GMT

Show changes

SR42VGX-T

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 01:57:39 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:57, 27 October 2026
Line 34:		Line 34:
	that will help us understand a great deal, even about our own minds.”		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>		“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.”		“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.”
Line 64:		Line 64:
	“But I have heard that he comes from a Chandala family.”		“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>		“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?”		“What if a community like this were established throughout the whole country?”
Line 72:		Line 72:
	{{opage\|204}}		{{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>		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 ==		== Notes ==

UG08MKK-T

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 01:24:48 GMT

Statement on the Purpose of Publication

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:24, 27 October 2026
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3:		Line 3:
	[[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]].)		[[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]].)

	~~<div style="margin-bottom:-2em;">~~
	__TOC__		__TOC__
	~~</div>~~

	== Translation ==		== Translation ==
Line 25:		Line 23:
	Let me put it in a little song:		Let me put it in a little song:

	Why are you so poor?		: Why are you so poor?
	If you don't know why, I'll tell you.		: If you don't know why, I'll tell you.
	The emperor, the rich, the great landlords—		: 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>		: 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.		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.
Line 112:		Line 110:
	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>		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		: Ōsugi Sakae
	Arahata Katsuzō		: Arahata Katsuzō
	Satō Satoru		: Satō Satoru

	Momose Susumu		: Momose Susumu
	Utsunomiya Takuji		: Utsunomiya Takuji
	Morioka Eiji		: Morioka Eiji

	Sakai Toshihiko		: Sakai Toshihiko
	Kimura Genjirō		: Kimura Genjirō
	Ōsuga Sato		: Ōsuga Sato

	Yamakawa Hitoshi		: Yamakawa Hitoshi
	Kogure Rei		: Kogure Rei
	Tokunaga Yasunosuke		: 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>		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>
Line 140:		Line 138:
	Letters sent to the imprisoned comrades should be addressed:		Letters sent to the imprisoned comrades should be addressed:

	Tokyo Prison, Ichigaya, Ushigome Ward, Tokyo City		: Tokyo Prison, Ichigaya, Ushigome Ward, Tokyo City
	Prisoner [name]		: Prisoner [name]

	Please clearly write the sender's address and name before mailing it.		Please clearly write the sender's address and name before mailing it.

Template:Listofchangesforfrontpage

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 01:23:03 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:23, 27 October 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:
	'''{{serifsc\|Latest Source Texts\|135%}}'''<br>		'''{{serifsc\|Latest Source Texts\|135%}}'''<br>
	[[SR42VGX\|राहुल सांकृत्यायन, प्रभा (७)]]<br>		[[SR42VGX\|राहुल सांकृत्यायन, प्रभा (७)]]<br>
	[[IH30MTZ\|~~市川白弦、「マルクス主義と禅―覚え書~~]]<br>		[[IH30MTZ\|市川白弦、「マルクス主義と禅―覚え書」]]<br>
	[[IH61ZKA\|市川白弦、「禅・華厳・アナキズム」]]<br>		[[IH61ZKA\|市川白弦、「禅・華厳・アナキズム」]]<br>
	[[UG11HJK\|内山愚童、『平凡の自覚』]]<br>		[[UG11HJK\|内山愚童、『平凡の自覚』]]<br>

MediaWiki:Common.css

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 01:13:24 GMT

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
+}
-/* Enforce 2 columns for references on wider screens */
+/* Mobile view: Ensure single column across all native wrapper elements */
 @media screen and (min-width: 768px) {
-     ol.references {
+    /* 1. Turn off columns entirely on the parent outer containers */
          column-count: 2 !important;
-         column-gap: 2em;
+         column-width: auto !important;
+     }
+}

Japan

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 01:05:01 GMT

Seno'o Girō and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:05, 27 October 2026
Line 53:		Line 53:

	=== Seno'o Girō and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism ===		=== Seno'o Girō and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism ===
	{{Main\|~~Seno'o~~ Giro}}		{{Main\|Senoo Giro}}
	{{Main\|Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism}}		{{Main\|Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism}}

The New Article and Revision Pipeline

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 01:03:22 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:03, 27 October 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 27:		Line 27:
	* Yŏ Ikku (See [[Minjung Buddhism]])		* Yŏ Ikku (See [[Minjung Buddhism]])
	* Ko Ŭn (See [[Minjung Buddhism]])		* Ko Ŭn (See [[Minjung Buddhism]])
	* Bhikshu Jagdish Kashyap
	* Bhadant Anand Kausalyayan
	* Debiprasad Chattopadhyay
	* Tou Samouth and Son Ngoc Minh		* Tou Samouth and Son Ngoc Minh

Line 46:		Line 43:
	\| style="width: 40%; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; padding-left: 12px; padding-right: 0px; border: none;" \|		\| style="width: 40%; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; padding-left: 12px; padding-right: 0px; border: none;" \|

	'''{{serifsc\|~~Topical~~ Pages\|200%}}'''		'''{{serifsc\|Other Pages\|200%}}'''

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

	~~'''{{serifsc\|In Preparation\|120%}}'''~~
	* [[India]]

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


	'''{{serifsc\|New\|165%}}'''		'''{{serifsc\|New\|165%}}'''
Line 65:		Line 52:
	* [[Maha Bodhi Society]]		* [[Maha Bodhi Society]]
	* [[Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India]]		* [[Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India]]
			* [[Dalit Buddhism]]

	'''{{serifsc\|Planned\|120%}}'''		'''{{serifsc\|Planned\|120%}}'''
Line 74:		Line 62:
	* [[Singapore]]		* [[Singapore]]
	* [[Bhutan]]		* [[Bhutan]]


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

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

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

	[[category:Project]]		[[category:Project]]

SR42VGX-T

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:58:33 GMT

Show changes

SR42VGX

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:27:11 GMT

Show changes

Template:Tpage

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:18:21 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:18, 27 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<includeonly>__NOEDITSECTION__</includeonly>		<includeonly>__NOEDITSECTION__</includeonly><span id="Page_{{{1}}}"></span>
	<div style="display: flex; align-items: flex-end; justify-content: space-between; margin-top: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">		<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-family: 'Linux Libertine', Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1;">🗎 Page {{{1}}}</div>

Template:Opage

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:18:08 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:18, 27 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<includeonly>__NOEDITSECTION__</includeonly>		<includeonly>__NOEDITSECTION__</includeonly><span id="Page_{{{1}}}"></span>
	<div style="display: flex; align-items: flex-end; justify-content: space-between; margin-top: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">		<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-family: 'Linux Libertine', Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1;">🗎 Page {{{1}}}</div>

SR42VGX

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:13:50 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:13, 27 October 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	{{tpage\|200}}		{{tpage\|200}}

	'''~~प्रभा — section 7~~'''		'''(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 वृक्ष की वन्दना करके कहा—		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 वृक्ष की वन्दना करके कहा—

MediaWiki:Common.css

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:10:17 GMT

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ol.references {
      font-size: 90%;
+}

The Managing Editor's Desk

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:05:25 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:05, 27 October 2026
Line 27:		Line 27:
	* [[:template:listofchangesforfrontpage\|Lists of New Pages Template]]		* [[:template:listofchangesforfrontpage\|Lists of New Pages Template]]
	* [[:MediaWiki:Timeless.css\|"Timeless" Skin Main CSS]]		* [[:MediaWiki:Timeless.css\|"Timeless" Skin Main CSS]]
			* [[:MediaWiki:Common.css\|Common CSS]]
	</div>		</div>

MediaWiki:Common.css

Lajos — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:03:33 GMT

Created page with "Make the Cite extension list of references look smaller: ol.references { font-size: 90%; }"

New page

/* Make the Cite extension list of references look smaller */
ol.references {
font-size: 90%;
}

IH61ZKA-T

Lajos — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 06:40:38 GMT

Show changes

IH30MTZ-T

Lajos — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 06:39:23 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:39, 26 October 2026
Line 20:		Line 20:
	== Translation ==		== Translation ==

	{{~~tpage~~\|219~~\|original\|IH30MTZ~~}}		{{opage\|219}}
	The editors have assigned me the topic indicated above, but depending on how one approaches it, this is an exceedingly broad question, one that can be resolved only through the painstaking research and practice of numerous scholars. In this essay, I shall confine myself to reviewing and criticizing the various responses thus far advanced from the Buddhist side, while setting out a preliminary outline of my own views. Because of limitations of space, moreover, my account of Marxism's rejection of religion will be allowed to emerge only insofar as is necessary in examining the views of these various thinkers.		The editors have assigned me the topic indicated above, but depending on how one approaches it, this is an exceedingly broad question, one that can be resolved only through the painstaking research and practice of numerous scholars. In this essay, I shall confine myself to reviewing and criticizing the various responses thus far advanced from the Buddhist side, while setting out a preliminary outline of my own views. Because of limitations of space, moreover, my account of Marxism's rejection of religion will be allowed to emerge only insofar as is necessary in examining the views of these various thinkers.

Line 34:		Line 34:
	— Imanaka Tsugimaro 今中次麿, Chūgai Nippō, April 10, 1930; Akegarasu Haya, ibid.,		— Imanaka Tsugimaro 今中次麿, Chūgai Nippō, April 10, 1930; Akegarasu Haya, ibid.,

	{{~~tpage~~\|220~~\|original\|IH30MTZ~~}}		{{opage\|220}}
	April 24; and certain scholars of religion who emphasize the distinctive character of religious values.		April 24; and certain scholars of religion who emphasize the distinctive character of religious values.

Line 81:		Line 81:
	(11) Particular historical forms of religion may be rejected, but the essence of religion cannot be denied, so long as human beings experience the anguish of life and death or possess		(11) Particular historical forms of religion may be rejected, but the essence of religion cannot be denied, so long as human beings experience the anguish of life and death or possess

	{{~~tpage~~\|221~~\|original\|IH30MTZ~~}}		{{opage\|221}}
	a longing for the “infinite.”		a longing for the “infinite.”

Line 125:		Line 125:
	— Kimura Taiken, Yomiuri Shinbun, April 27; Miki 三木保幾, ibid., May 6; Hoashi Riichirō, ibid., May 7; Tanaka Kōtarō, ibid., May 6.		— Kimura Taiken, Yomiuri Shinbun, April 27; Miki 三木保幾, ibid., May 6; Hoashi Riichirō, ibid., May 7; Tanaka Kōtarō, ibid., May 6.

	{{~~tpage~~\|222~~\|original\|IH30MTZ~~}}		{{opage\|222}}

	=== II ===		=== II ===
Line 151:		Line 151:
	Capitalism has transformed everything—even human beings themselves—into “things,” into commodities. We must therefore also investigate the conditions under which everyone might live, as far as possible, free from domination by material things.		Capitalism has transformed everything—even human beings themselves—into “things,” into commodities. We must therefore also investigate the conditions under which everyone might live, as far as possible, free from domination by material things.

	{{~~tpage~~\|223~~\|original\|IH30MTZ~~}}		{{opage\|223}}
	(5) “Do good deeds. The purpose of human life is exhausted by this.” Such a statement is at once perfectly clear and profoundly ambiguous.		(5) “Do good deeds. The purpose of human life is exhausted by this.” Such a statement is at once perfectly clear and profoundly ambiguous.

Line 180:		Line 180:
	There are, moreover, various kinds of infinity. Extensional infinity—what Hegel called the “bad infinite”—is itself one form of infinity. Yet this is precisely the kind of infinity that we ordinarily desire. The matter calls for more careful examination.		There are, moreover, various kinds of infinity. Extensional infinity—what Hegel called the “bad infinite”—is itself one form of infinity. Yet this is precisely the kind of infinity that we ordinarily desire. The matter calls for more careful examination.

	{{~~tpage~~\|224~~\|original\|IH30MTZ~~}}		{{opage\|224}}
	(12) The criticism offered under (4) can also be developed in response to this position. I shall return to the question later.		(12) The criticism offered under (4) can also be developed in response to this position. I shall return to the question later.

Line 211:		Line 211:
	“Since social movements arise from the objective circumstances of a particular society and historical moment, one must understand that it is impossible to decide in advance whether to proceed to the right		“Since social movements arise from the objective circumstances of a particular society and historical moment, one must understand that it is impossible to decide in advance whether to proceed to the right

	{{~~tpage~~\|225~~\|original\|IH30MTZ~~}}		{{opage\|225}}
	or to the left. When a ship is listing to starboard and about to capsize, passengers who recognize the danger will quickly leap from the right side to the left. At such a moment, even if someone were to shout, ‘The safest place on a ship is in the middle,’ no one would pay the slightest attention.” (Chūgai Nippō, June 28, 1929)		or to the left. When a ship is listing to starboard and about to capsize, passengers who recognize the danger will quickly leap from the right side to the left. At such a moment, even if someone were to shout, ‘The safest place on a ship is in the middle,’ no one would pay the slightest attention.” (Chūgai Nippō, June 28, 1929)

Line 227:		Line 227:
	In short, from the standpoint of the Eastern spirit's orientation toward emptiness (kū 空), “things” appeared as “provisionally existent” or “to be renounced.” It must therefore be regarded as almost inevitable that a rigorous science of “things”—that is, natural science—did not develop in the East. Whether one speaks of “elementary learning” or “great learning,” [continues].		In short, from the standpoint of the Eastern spirit's orientation toward emptiness (kū 空), “things” appeared as “provisionally existent” or “to be renounced.” It must therefore be regarded as almost inevitable that a rigorous science of “things”—that is, natural science—did not develop in the East. Whether one speaks of “elementary learning” or “great learning,” [continues].

	{{~~tpage~~\|226~~\|original\|IH30MTZ~~}}		{{opage\|226}}
	…or of “setting one's heart upon learning at fifteen,” all such learning was ultimately nothing other than the learning of the sages.		…or of “setting one's heart upon learning at fifteen,” all such learning was ultimately nothing other than the learning of the sages.

Line 257:		Line 257:
	No one would imagine that the problem of unemployment could be solved through the “gospel” or a charity soup kitchen.		No one would imagine that the problem of unemployment could be solved through the “gospel” or a charity soup kitchen.

	{{~~tpage~~\|227~~\|original\|IH30MTZ~~}}		{{opage\|227}}
	No one would suppose that what can be achieved through the conscious regulation of economic laws could instead be obtained through faith in Inari. Such errors arise from a failure to understand social or economic laws.		No one would suppose that what can be achieved through the conscious regulation of economic laws could instead be obtained through faith in Inari. Such errors arise from a failure to understand social or economic laws.

Line 288:		Line 288:
	We must guard against the recklessness of attempting to address every social problem through such an empty conception of society.		We must guard against the recklessness of attempting to address every social problem through such an empty conception of society.

	{{~~tpage~~\|228~~\|original\|IH30MTZ~~}}		{{opage\|228}}
	(5) Yet I am not advocating a “compromise” or “eclectic synthesis” between Buddhism and the materialist conception of history. Compromise and eclecticism invariably diminish the distinctive character of both positions, weaken their vitality, and frequently introduce confusion into the very manner in which they are combined. Here lies the defect of eclecticism. It is rash simply to proclaim, without further consideration, “Become socially engaged!” or “Attend to material conditions!”		(5) Yet I am not advocating a “compromise” or “eclectic synthesis” between Buddhism and the materialist conception of history. Compromise and eclecticism invariably diminish the distinctive character of both positions, weaken their vitality, and frequently introduce confusion into the very manner in which they are combined. Here lies the defect of eclecticism. It is rash simply to proclaim, without further consideration, “Become socially engaged!” or “Attend to material conditions!”

Line 316:		Line 316:
	“The only means by which humanity can recover its humanity, its very essence, is through the fundamental overcoming of all religious representations and a resolute return—not to God, but to humanity itself—”		“The only means by which humanity can recover its humanity, its very essence, is through the fundamental overcoming of all religious representations and a resolute return—not to God, but to humanity itself—”

	{{~~tpage~~\|229~~\|original\|IH30MTZ~~}}		{{opage\|229}}
	This call for the fundamental overcoming of all religious representations and for a resolute, rightful return to humanity itself can, ironically, be “deepened” into a maxim of Zen.		This call for the fundamental overcoming of all religious representations and for a resolute, rightful return to humanity itself can, ironically, be “deepened” into a maxim of Zen.

Line 343:		Line 343:
	There are undoubtedly many aspects of religion's origins and significance that can be exposed through Marxist methods and overcome through Marxist practice.		There are undoubtedly many aspects of religion's origins and significance that can be exposed through Marxist methods and overcome through Marxist practice.

	{{~~tpage~~\|230~~\|original\|IH30MTZ~~}}		{{opage\|230}}
	Yet I cannot believe that religion can thereby be wholly negated. The essential seeds of religion lie within the very nature and limitations of what it means to be human.		Yet I cannot believe that religion can thereby be wholly negated. The essential seeds of religion lie within the very nature and limitations of what it means to be human.

Line 370:		Line 370:
	Thought, as the principle of division, is simultaneously a demand for unity. Yet the ultimate duality cannot be overcome through thought—		Thought, as the principle of division, is simultaneously a demand for unity. Yet the ultimate duality cannot be overcome through thought—

	{{~~tpage~~\|231~~\|original\|IH30MTZ~~}}		{{opage\|231}}
	…because thought is a principle that processes all phenomena through relations between subject and predicate—that is, through “opposition.” The final opposition must therefore be entrusted to a leap beyond thought. Here lies the path toward Zen.		…because thought is a principle that processes all phenomena through relations between subject and predicate—that is, through “opposition.” The final opposition must therefore be entrusted to a leap beyond thought. Here lies the path toward Zen.

Line 397:		Line 397:
	(12) We must establish our objectives as purely and rigorously as possible. Having done so, we must select the most appropriate and effective plans and means for realizing those objectives, adapting them to changes in the material and spiritual structures of our circumstances at any given time.		(12) We must establish our objectives as purely and rigorously as possible. Having done so, we must select the most appropriate and effective plans and means for realizing those objectives, adapting them to changes in the material and spiritual structures of our circumstances at any given time.

	{{~~tpage~~\|232~~\|original\|IH30MTZ~~}}		{{opage\|232}}
	In doing so, we need only determine our concrete methods through the proper application of induction and deduction. There is no necessity to proceed according to a dialectical schema of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.		In doing so, we need only determine our concrete methods through the proper application of induction and deduction. There is no necessity to proceed according to a dialectical schema of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

Template:Opage

Lajos — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 06:37:35 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:37, 26 October 2026
Line 2:		Line 2:
	<div style="display: flex; align-items: flex-end; justify-content: space-between; margin-top: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">		<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-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;">[[{{#sub:{{PAGENAME}}\|0\|-2}}#Page {{{1}}}\|▸ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>		<div style="font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1;">[[{{#sub:{{PAGENAME}}\|0\|-2}}#Page {{{1}}}\|► Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
	</div>		</div>
	<noinclude>[[Category:Editorial Templates]]</noinclude>		<noinclude>[[Category:Editorial Templates]]</noinclude>

Template:Tpage

Lajos — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 06:37:33 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:37, 26 October 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 2:		Line 2:
	<div style="display: flex; align-items: flex-end; justify-content: space-between; margin-top: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">		<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-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 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>		</div>
	<noinclude>[[Category:Editorial Templates]]</noinclude>		<noinclude>[[Category:Editorial Templates]]</noinclude>

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:24, 27 October 2026
Line 47:		Line 47:
	* 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.}}		* 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.}}		* 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.}}		* 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.}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:23, 27 October 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:
	'''{{serifsc\|Latest Source Texts\|135%}}'''<br>		'''{{serifsc\|Latest Source Texts\|135%}}'''<br>
	[[SR42VGX\|राहुल सांकृत्यायन, प्रभा (७)]]<br>		[[SR42VGX\|राहुल सांकृत्यायन, प्रभा (७)]]<br>
	[[IH30MTZ\|~~市川白弦、「マルクス主義と禅―覚え書~~]]<br>		[[IH30MTZ\|市川白弦、「マルクス主義と禅―覚え書」]]<br>
	[[IH61ZKA\|市川白弦、「禅・華厳・アナキズム」]]<br>		[[IH61ZKA\|市川白弦、「禅・華厳・アナキズム」]]<br>
	[[UG11HJK\|内山愚童、『平凡の自覚』]]<br>		[[UG11HJK\|内山愚童、『平凡の自覚』]]<br>