Has the Bhagavad Gita stolen the doctrine of nirvana from Buddhism?
Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar,regarded as father of the Indian Constitution,made many accusations on Hinduism while creating his new religion (which according to him was based on the teachings of Buddha), one of them being that the Bhagavad Gita had stolen the Nirvana doctrine from Buddhism. Today we will look into the depth of his claims and check if there is any truth in his allegations or the claims are hollow.
Before proceeding with Arguments ,l will assume following things[as given by biased Britishers,though they are disputed] as TRUE just for the sake of Argument ,then also l will prove that Ambedker's claim lacks substance. These below assumptions are acceptable to Ambedker & Ambedkaraites.
Assumptions :
CLAIM:
"The Bhagvat Gita discusses Bramha-Nirvana.The steps by which one reaches BramhaNirvana are stated by the Bhagvat Gita to be (1) Shraddha (Faith in oneself); (2) Vyavasaya (Firm determination); (3) Smriti (Rememberance of the goal); (4) Samadhi (Earnest contemplation) and (5) Prajna (Insight or True Knowledge). From where has the Gita borrowed this Nirvana theory? Surely it is not borrowed from the Upanishads. For no Upanishad even mentions the word Nirvana. The whole idea is peculiarly Buddhist and is borrowed from Buddhism. Anyone who has any doubt on the point may compare this Bramha-Nirvana of the Bhagvat Gita with the Buddhist conception of Nirvana as set out in the Mahapari-nibbana Sutta. It will be found that they are the same which the Gita has laid down for Bramha-Nirvana. Is it not a fact that the Bhagvat Gita has borrowed the entire conception of Brmhma Nirvana instead of Nirvana for no other reason except to conceal the fact of its having stolen it from Buddhism ?"
~~DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES，Volume 3 pp369...........[1]
1.Upanisadic roots of Brahma-Nirvana of Gita
2.Self Contradictory statement of Ambedker
"There was one common feature of the Brahmanic and Upanishadic conceptions of Nibbana. They involved the recognition of a soul as an independent entity—a theory which the Buddha had denied. The Buddha had therefore no difficulty in rejecting the Brahmanic and Upanishadic teaching of Nibbana"
~DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES, Volume 11pp233
Not only this,he was well aware of concept of Nirvana accourding to six Darshanas of Hinduism. And he interpreted teaching of Nirvana accourding to buddha as different from teaching/meaning of nirvana accourding to these hindu schools .
He clearly writes that there exists concept of Nirvana by predecessors of Buddha i.e Laukika [ probably charvaka-or karmakand school], Yogic School,by brahmanic he means "brahamans of vedas "( probably Mimansa school)& Vedanta school ( Upnishads) .
Let's look words of Ambedker only [ from B.S.B.R.A.W.A.S.Vol11]-
"What is Nibbana ? Nibbana as taught by the Buddha has a totally different meaning and content than what has been given to it by his predecessors.
By Nibbana they[ hindu] meant the salvation of the soul.[ Hindu Concept]
Thus there were four ways in which Nibbana was conceived of : (1) Laukik (material, eat, drink and be merry type) ; (2) Yogic ; (3) Brahmanic and (4) Upanishadic "
He stated that buddha REJECTED Materialistic concept of Nirvana-
"The Laukik conception of Nibbana was too materialistic to appeal to the Buddha. It meant nothing but the satisfaction of man’s animal appetites. There was nothing spiritual in it.To accept such a conception of Nibbana the Buddha felt was a gross wrong that can be done to a human being."
He further stated that buddha Rejected Concept of Nirvana accourding to Yogic philosophy-
"The Yogic conception of Nibbana was a purely temporary state. The happiness it brought was negative. It involved disassociation from the world. It avoided pain but gave no happiness. Whatever happiness it may be said to bring lasted as long as the yoga lasted. It was not permanent. It was temporary."
He again confirm the same-
"The Buddha’s conception of Nibbana is quite different from that of his predecessors."
Thus by his own words, There exists different different philoshphical model of Nirvana before buddha and buddha Expounded his own model.The pre existing meaning of Nirvana are according to Laukikas,Yoga philoshphy, Brahamas& Upnishads. & Since bhagwat geeta uses Upnishadic concept of Brahma-Nirvana (. from.[2]) So this implies that his above claim(.[1]) is FALSE.
3.Practice of Nothingness is Pre-buddhist.
"From the delightful city of the Kosalans,a brahman [Bāvarī]
who had mastered mantras,
aspiring to nothingness[meditative state~]"
Exact word used here was आकिञ्चनम् which simply refers to state of "non-existence".
Then Buddha praises him in following manner -
“His age is one hundred & twenty,
and by clan, he is a Bāvarī.
Three are the marks in his body,
three the Vedas he’s mastered.
In the marks & oral traditions,
etymologies & rituals,
he teaches five hundred.
In his own doctrine
he has reached perfection.”
Thus reference of practice of nothingness( by brahmin) from Buddhist text leads no room to claims that Nothingness is something very very very new& exclusively found in Buddhist tradition. Even contemporaries of Buddha such as Mahavira is said to achieve nirvana in Jain tradition.
4 . Shraddha, Vyavasaya,Smriti,Samadhi, Prajna ?
Conclusion:
"The Buddhism discusses Moksha.The steps by which one reaches Moksha&Mukti are stated by the buddhism to be Prajna,dhyana,samadhi. . From where has the Buddhism borrowed this Moksha/mukti theory? Surely it is not borrowed from Brahmanical doctrines. The whole idea is peculiarly hindu and is borrowed from Hinduism. Anyone who has any doubt on the point may compare this Buddhist concept of the moksha/mukti with the Upnishadic conception of moksha as set out in the brihadaranyak Upnishad. It will be found that they are the same which the Buddhist scriptures has laid down for Moksha/mukti. it is fact that the buddhism has borrowed the entire conception of Moksha/mukti from Hinduism"
Comments
Post a Comment