Editing Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India (section)

== ''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.