Ayothithasar and Ambedkar Meeting Point

8/10/2019 Ayothithasar and Ambedkar Meeting Point

1/4

S. Lourdunathan

1

[email protected]

MODERNIST RECONSIDERATION OF BUDDHISM: AMBEDKAR & AYOTHIDASAR (A/A)

(Notes only)

Take salt out of the water, after it has dissolved???

Issues

o How and Why Ambedkar and Ayothidasar (A/A) reconsidered Buddhism?o Can we speak of (A/A) Buddhism as modernist version, in the sense of provisioning

Buddhism within enlightenment morality? If yes or/ no, why so? What is modern intheir modernist version of Buddhism?

o What is the context that compels (A/A) to provision a rereading of Buddhism?o The philosophical issue that underlie, could then be what is the ground of meaning

or truth, the context of which they considered their discourse to be authentic asagainst the forms of inauthenticity? What is the philosophy (meaning context) oftheir reconsidering Buddhism?

o

After having said all these, the perturbing issue lingering in me, Is A/Areconsideration of Buddhism a task of taking the salt out of water after it has beendissolved?

Principles for Reconsidering of Buddhism (Family resemblance claims between A/A):

1. The principle of a negation of negation:A/A life episodes illustrate an experienceof persistent denials -for reasons that both have been considered belonging to annon-belong-able (not-in-caste) (out caste) community. If exclusion is the condition oflife then the struggle for inclusion seems to be strongly operative and ethicallyimperative in A/A. The ontological precondition as other-than-being (lesser being)impel in them a persistent desire to resist the consideration of other-than-being

towards the affirmation of the very being that is worth of (in metaphysicalepistemological and ethical significations).

2. The context of denial calls for a context to deny the very denials and the denial ofdenial for A/A is but an affirmation; perhaps, A/A deem it emancipation orliberation discourse.

3. The negation of negation, as a form o double negation and as a project of affirmationfor A/A originates in the broader context of conflict and contest. While Ambedkarreading of Buddhism pictures the theory of conflict between the settlers vs. nomadicgroups for the origin of casteism (as against the invasion theory) Ayothidasarenvisages conflict between adi-dravidians (Tamil Buddhists/sakyas) and outsiders (aclan who were chased away from northern region). The point is that both A/A are in

resemblance on the idea that conflict and contest is basis for either exclusion orinclusion, the exclusion of a community or inclusion of communities as out caste orin-caste and hence a dialectics of negation of negations is found to be vital.

4. Religion as meaning giving context: The religious/cultural context that provision tothe exercise of a denial of denial, for A/A, is Buddhism. Buddhism in specificexistential mode provide the ground of meaning, a sense of authenticity for bothA/A. Let me not go in detail the circulating debate on this issue and for now, wemay be content with the claim that both A/A considered Buddhism as the context, asthe weapon to resist the negations, namely casteism.

5. To the question, Whether Buddhism contained the hermeneutical possibility forpractice of a negation of negation while other religions do not? The answer of both

A/A is a vivid affirmation. For them, Buddhism provisions sufficient ground for the


2/4

S. Lourdunathan

2

[email protected]

practice of a negation of negation. How it does, and how other religions do not, is anissue I suspend for further exploration.

6. Towards inclusion possibility:Before arriving at the principle of double negation,both A /A seemed to have employed the logic of inclusion, an attempt to let

themselves included, to play the politics of inclusion however not successful. WhileAmbedkar having thrown to live in Hindu fold until/beyond his Yeolo Declaration,and embrace Buddhism at a later stage, Ayothidasar engaged strongly Advaiticmembership in confronting casteism in the beginning of his public life but later bedisillusioned either for political or cultural reasons.

7. Buddhism as meaning providing myth-logical engagement: Humans (in a

particular sense) are myth making animals. The myths they construe or in whichthey are construed operate as the foreground of meaning-provider. The myths intowhich they are patterned absorb and cherish them and in turn gets itself absorbedinto them. S/he be-comes both an actor of the myth and activated into the myth.

S/he is both a performer and the performed. By myth, I mean here, as a narrativeform and a meaning-provider. Myths are neither true nor false. They are sort offrame work that provides intelligible order and moral grounds and account for socialrelations and legal governance. (For example, Platos Cave, the story of thebeginnings and final things in Christianity, the Vedic Purushasuktaetc). Myths andstories by nature may be classified as axiological, cosmological and ideological. Theyoften end up with a logic of And So types. They are not necessarily rational in themodernist terms, but a logic of cultural justifications. They do not seek/containempirical Truism or Falsities. They are agreeable or disagreeable types. They arehumanly satisfying or dissatisfying. For A/A, Buddhism is the myth that seems tohave provided the ground of meaning for authentic existence where as other myth-

logos (religions) like Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam are incapable of providingnecessary ground for an authenticity of meaningful ethical existence. Given to theexistential foreground of a plurality myths, and their practice of the principle ofnegation of negation against them, A/A seems to be convinced of the myth ofBuddhism.

8. While Ambedar having dissatisfied with the myth of Hinduism declares the embraceof the myth of Buddhism on a later stage of his life, where as Ayothidasar traces hiscultural origin and belonging to Buddhism. For Ambedkar, towards Buddhism couldbe a rational political choice, for Ayothidasar the choice does not seem to beimmediately political rather a way towards tracing his origin, when confronted with

the political issue of Hindu inclusivism. For A/A, given to the context of Pan IndianPolitical Nationalism and Pan-Indian Social Nationalism (Casteism), the hard choiceis Buddhism. Buddhism is both a Political and Cultural and Religious Issue toconfront both typologies of nationalism.

9. Whether Buddhism as such or given to its multiple catalogue of existence(s) is viableto promote the negation of negation is still an issue, and presently I may bracketthem. Given to the vagaries of Buddhism, what type of Buddhism that has beenconsidered/construed by A/A is yet another issue. However. the reasons for suchre-consideration is contextual and conceptual, conative and pragmatic and aconfiguration of all these.


3/4


4/4

S. Lourdunathan

4

[email protected]

(ii)

Both A/A operate on the logic of Democracy with religious rootedness,however, rational democracy historically exposes the fact that cultural andreligious rootedness is not sufficiently democratic.

(iii) If so, can we say that A/A are modernist cum religionist, (perhapsinconsistent it may be) or modernist in the sense of anti-religionist? Here

arises a sort of vagaries of perspectives with reference to A/A.(iv) Is not pre-modern Buddhism eschewing caste world order? Is the pre-modern

Buddhism purely devoid of casteism? Or Is the modern Buddhism de factoexcluded casteism per se? It seems to me, either Buddhism co-opted withinmodernist claims or modernist claims co-opted within InterpretativeBuddhism (Engaged Buddhism) , and in their mutualitylost/caricatured/diluted/absorbed/appropriated/assimilated eitherpotential sensibilities of a emancipator project. (A/A practical rational isdifferent from this type of logical positioning)

(a) Social/Political/Cultural Hermeneutics of Buddhism: Ambedkar engages amodernist version in interpreting Buddhism, employing the social epistemic

standards such as the metaphysics of change, equality, justice and utility(Philosophy of Hinduism and Buddha and Dhamma). In so doing does it meanor can we say that modernism has profoundly affected religious traditions and ifso is such affection has really promoted the modernist claims of progress,equality and justice?

(b)Ayothidasar engages a re-reading of the Tamil Buddhist history. In another sensehe attempted to re-caste/remake history. Every intelligible reading of history is aremaking of history. Thus, we can say both A/A attempted to repair historyfrom the bottom up. It is a movement towards an augment for subversive socialand political history. By reading on the basis of a subversive history, both A/Apromote a discourse of liberation.

(c)

If modernism is suspicioned of its claims of progress and religion is critiqued ofits paternalism then both Science Model and Religious Model either in exclusionor in interaction seems to not sufficiently justified. If A/A engage suchparadigms of emancipation, what is workable and what is non-workable in theseparadigms needs serious intellectual attention. We are to be aware of the fact thatWe are biologically limited to the extent that we need a we as to set us apartfrom the other whom we judge as not-we. The awareness of the contingency ofhistorical, social and political structures gives birth to new forms of quest forjustice and equality (in terms of emancipation) as to relook and shape societiesradically in new ways.

(d)Would Ambedkar and Ayothidasr join together to say this: as humans, we like

to tell stories. For us (A/A) the Buddhist way of telling the story is better way oftelling the story of emancipation than the non-Buddhist way of telling it. forexample, The Christian way of telling the story of suffering in some formdifferent from the Buddhist way of telling the story of suffering. we like theBuddhist way of telling the story than the non-Buddhist ways of telling it.

(e) Christian. Our argument with non-Buddhist is that, just because we do not optyour mythology that does not mean we don't care being human. We are socialanimals and as such, we respond to life about the same.

--------

Documents

Ayothithasar and Ambedkar Meeting Point