For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Lord Budha and Mahatma Gandhi

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar, Professor, Editor and Linguist

Gandhi International Study and Research Institute, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail- dr.yadav.yogendra@gandhifoundation.net;

dr.yogendragandhi@gmail.com

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

Lord Budha and Mahatma Gandhi

The Hindu religion underwent its first trial on the advent of Lord Buddha. The Buddha was himself the son of a king. He is said to have been born before 600 B.C. At that time the Hindus were under the glamour of the outward form of their religion, and the Brahmins had, out of selfishness, abandoned their true function of defending the Hindu faith. Lord Buddha was moved to pity when he saw his religion reduced to such a plight. He renounced the world and started doing penance. He spent several years in devout contemplation and ultimately suggested some reform in the Hindu religion. His piety greatly affected the minds of the Brahmins, and the killing of animals for sacrifice was stopped to a great extent. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Buddha founded a new or different religion. But those who came after him gave his teachings the identity of a separate religion. King Ashoka the Great sent missionaries to different lands for the propagation of Buddhism, and spread that religion in Ceylon, China, Burma and other countries. A distinctive beauty of Hinduism was revealed during this process: no one was converted to Buddhism by force. People’s minds were sought to be influenced only by discussion and argument and mainly by the very pure conduct of the preachers themselves. It may be said that, in India at any rate, Hinduism and Buddhism were but one and that even today the fundamental principles of both are identical.

When a lump of earth is broken into dust, it mixes with water and nourishes plant life. It is by sacrificing themselves that plants sustain every kind of animal life. Animals sacrifice themselves for the good of their progeny. The mother suffers unbearable pain at the time of child-birth, but feels only happy in that suffering. Both the mother and the father undergo hardships in bringing up their children. Wherever communities and nations exist, individual members of those communities or nations have endured hardships for the common good. In the sixth century B. C., Lord Buddha, after wandering from forest to forest, braving the extremes of heat and cold and suffering many privations, attained self-realization and spread ideas of spiritual welfare among the people. Nineteen hundred years ago, Jesus Christ, according to the Christian belief, dedicated his life to the people and suffered many insults and hardships. The prophet Mahomed suffered much. People had prepared themselves for an attack on his life. He paid no heed to it. These great and holy men obeyed the law stated above and brought happiness to mankind. They did not think of their personal interest but found their own happiness in the happiness of others. 1

Lord Buddha left his wife and became immortal and so did his wife. This is an extreme case. By these examples I only want to show you that your separation is not going to do you any harm. That it would cause you mental agony is quite natural. That is a sign of love. But that does not necessarily mean that it will do you harm. Weal and woe depend on the purpose behind separation. My separation from Ba was almost involuntary; that is, it was not of my choice and yet it proved to be a blessing to us both. By giving these examples, I do not want to impress upon your mind that you have to live in separation forever. I write this so that you are not unhappy over your separation during the struggle. I shall hardly be a cause of your separation after the struggle is over. My effort, however, is to change your mental attitude. That also will be affected after you understand and get used to it. 2

It is difficult to say who was the greatest among Krishna, Rama, the Buddha, Jesus, etc. Their achievements differed, because they lived in different times and under different circumstances. In point of character alone, possibly the Buddha was the greatest. But who can say? They have been described by their devotees according to their own inclinations. Vaishnavas attribute perfection to Krishna. One has to, of course. Otherwise single-minded bhakti would be impossible. Christians do the same to Jesus. In India, Krishna being the last of the incarnations, his figure is invested with especial greatness. 3 When Lord Buddha had an indirect knowledge of the truth, he went away, abandoning his wife as she slept, and causing much grief to his parents. Yet, the world has admired his action. At present, your ideas rest on your faith in me. I have, therefore, given you advice in keeping with your state. You may, however, remember my condition. I have told you that you will have to marry. All the same, if you have no sexual union with your wife, this cannot but conduce to the welfare of both of you. It will also be an excellent example to others. It is more difficult to observe unbroken brahmacharya in marriage than without marrying. You will be able to observe it only if you are strongly impressed with its great virtue. This will happen only if you have earned extraordinary punya in your previous lives. If you have the strength, you should do this. You should respectfully tell your parents of your views and your father-in-law through them. You may tell them: “I desire to observe inviolate brahmacharya and feel that it will be better for me not to marry. If you understand my ideas, kindly help me. If you think this to be mere childishness in me, I will obey you and marry. But I shall have no union with my wife. I shall try to persuade her also to observe brahmacharya and seek her cooperation in my effort. We shall not share the same bed. I shall look after her in all other ways and bear her pure love.” If you can speak these words with knowledge they will have effect and, having announced this, you will find it extremely difficult to seek union with the lady, notwithstanding the fact that you two are married. You will see that this course will keep you free from the difficulties of looking after children, etc., which you have been thinking of. You have correctly explained why unwholesome food produces an immediate effect on persons like us. When Lord Buddha ate the flesh he received as alms, his body fell dead. If, through ignorance or oversight, eggs have been used in Mrs. Besant’s food, she vomits it. 4

It is only when we cease to be selfishly attached to those we love that the heart feels true compassion and renders service to them. To the extent that I have grown free of such attachment for Ba, I am able to serve her better. The Buddha, by leaving his parents, brought deliverance to them as well. Gopichand, by his renunciation, displayed the purest love for his mother. In the same way, you will be serving your parents by strengthening your character and cultivating spotless morality. When your soul has grown pure, it cannot but produce a corresponding effect on all those whom you love. 5 When Lord Buddha decided to work for the emancipation of the world, he did not convene a conference and get it to pass resolutions. Nor did Jesus Christ do anything of the sort. But not being blessed with such greatness, we convene such conferences because, I think I am right in this, we lack the requisite strength for our work. This happens all over the country; and so I don’t say that yours is the only instance. 6

The time that may be taken up in this preparation should not be considered wasted. Christ, before he went out to serve the world, spent forty days in the wilderness, preparing himself for his mission. Buddha too spent many years in such preparation. Had Christ and Buddha not undergone this preparation, they would not have been what they were. Similarly, if we want to put this body in the service of truth and humanity, we must first raise our soul by developing virtues like celibacy, non-violence and truth. Then alone may we say that we are fit to render real service to the country. 7 I do not believe him to be the World Saviour in the sense in which orthodox Christianity understands the expression but he was a saviour in the same sense as Buddha, Zoroaster, Mohammed, and many other teachers were. In other words, I do not believe in the exclusive divinity of Jesus. The Sermon on the Mount left a deep impression on my mind when I read it. I do believe with you that the real meaning of the teachings of Jesus will be delivered from India. I have moved among thousands upon thousands of Indians, but I have not found any secret follower of Jesus. This does not mean that there are not secret followers of his in India. But there could not be many. However, I entirely subscribe to your opinion that such followers should come out in the open and declare their faith. 8

What was the “larger symbiosis” that Buddha and Christ preached? Buddha fearlessly carried the war into the enemy’s camp and brought down on its knees an arrogant priesthood. Christ drove out the money-changers from the temple of Jerusalem and drew down curses from Heaven upon the hypocrites and the Pharisees. Both were for intensely direct action. But even as Buddha and Christ chastised they showed unmistakable gentleness and love behind every act of theirs. They would not raise a finger against their enemies, but would gladly surrender themselves rather than the truth for which they lived. Buddha would have died resisting the priesthood, if the majesty of his love had not proved to be equal to the task of bending the priesthood. Christ died on the Cross with a crown of thorns on his head defying the might of a whole Empire. And if I raise resistances of a nonviolent character I simply and humbly follow in the footsteps of the great teachers named by my critic. 9

When Jesus described his times as a generation of vipers, it was not out of anger. At a time when everyone was afraid of telling the truth, Jesus risked his life, described hypocrisy, pride and Iying in plain terms for what they were and so put innocent and simple folk on their guard, and saved them. When the Buddha, with the lamb on his shoulder, went up to the cruel Brahmins who were engaged in an animal-sacrifice, it was in no soft language that he spoke to them; he was, however, all love at heart. Who am I in comparison with these? Even so, I aspire to be their equal in love in this very life. Let the reader not think me presumptuous on this account. The highest ideal I have set before myself is a Mehta of Gujarat, Shri Narasinhrao namesake. His love was no less than that of the Buddha. Buddha did not spare those who killed the innocent goats in the name of religion. Nor is the Koran or the Zend-Avesta free from such use. Only all these seers and prophets had no evil intention in them. They had to describe persons and things as they were and resort to language so as to enable us to make our choice between good and evil. Having said this much, I am at one with the writer that the more sparing we are in describing the Government or the Governors, the better it is for us. There is too much passion and too much evil in us to warrant the constant use of offensive language. The best use we can make of this Government is to ignore its existence and to isolate it as much as possible from our life, believing that contact with it is corrupting and degrading. 10

The message of the Buddha was too strong for the Burmese mentality. Both the nations have profited by the messages they received to the extent of their receptivity. But there is no doubt that Europe has still to understand the deep meaning and the mysteries of the mission of Jesus, as the Burmese of the Buddha. This the latter can only do, if they are enabled to progress along their own lines. It is, therefore, a matter of the keenest joy to me that there is a wonderful awakening in Burma. There is no doubt that the Burmese, if they persist ill their effort, can solve their simple problem much more quickly than we can with diversity of bewildering complications. 11 The only reason for inviting me to preside at this meeting is, I presume, that I am more than most people endeavouring to popularize the truth for which Gautama Buddha lived and died. For, my book-knowledge of Buddhism, I am sorry to have to confess, is of the poorest type. It is confined to the fascinating book of Sir Edwin Arnold, which I read for the first time now nearly thirty-five years ago, and one or two books during my brief incarceration in the Yeravda Jail. But that great Buddhist scholar, Professor Kausambi, tells me that The Light of Asia gives but a faint idea of Buddha’s life and that at least one incident in the beautiful poem is not to be found in any authoritative original Buddhist work. Perhaps someday the learned Professor will give us the results of his ripe scholarship in the shape of a reliable story of Buddha’s life for the ordinary Indian reader. For the moment, however, I would like to tell the meeting what I believe about Buddhism. To me it is a part of Hinduism.

Buddha did not give the world a new religion; he gave it a new interpretation. He taught Hinduism not to take but to give life. True sacrifice was not of others but of self. Hinduism resents any attack upon the Vedas. It regarded the new interpretation as such attack. Whilst, therefore, it accepted the central truth of Buddha’s teachings, it fought against Buddhism regarded as a new and anti-Vedic cult. It has become the fashion nowadays in some quarters to say that India’s downfall dates from her acceptance of Buddha’s teachings. It is tantamount to saying that love and piety, if sufficiently practised, will degrade the world. In other words, according to the critics, evil should triumph in the end. It is my unalterable belief that India has fallen not because it accepted Gautama’s teaching, but because it failed to live up to it. The priest has ever sacrificed the prophet. Vedas to be divine must be a living word, ever growing, ever expanding and ever responding to new forces. The priest clung to the letter and missed the spirit. But we need not despair. The reformation that Buddha attempted has not yet had a fair trial. Twenty-five hundred years are nothing in the life of the world. If the evolution of form takes aeons, why should we expect wonders in the evolution of thought and conduct? And yet the age of miracles is not gone as with individuals, so with nations. I hold it to be perfectly possible for masses to be suddenly converted and uplifted. Suddenness only seems. No one can say how far the leaven has been working. The most potent forces are unseen, even unfelt, for long. But they are working none the less surely. Religion to me is a living faith in the Supreme Unseen Force. That Force has confounded mankind before, and it is bound to confound us again. Buddha taught us to defy appearances and trust in the final triumph of Truth and Love. This was his matchless gift to Hinduism and to the world. He taught us also how to do it, because he lived what he taught. The best propaganda is not pamphleteering, but for each one of us to try to live the life we would have the world to live. 12

I do not believe that “my philosophy” is an indifferent mixture of Tolstoy and Buddha. I do not know what it is except that it is what I feel to be true. It sustains me. I owe much to Tolstoy and much to Buddha. I still somehow or other fancy that “my philosophy” represents the true meaning of the teaching of the Gita. I may be totally mistaken. Such a mistake can do no harm either to me or to anybody. For the source of my inspiration is of no consequence if what I stand for being unadulterated truth. 13 It is now my pleasant duty to perform this service. I shall not say anything of these proceedings. Dr. Dharmapala has added a pathetic touch to this service. And he has laid on my shoulders a burden which I consider I am ill-fitted to carry. I hesitated last year when Mr. Natarajan drew me out of my convalescent bed and asked me to preside at the anniversary last year, but I could not resist Mr. Natarajan, for I have very great and deep affection for him. I know that from that time I would be perhaps called upon to take part at such functions somewhere in India from year to year. And so it happened even when I came to Calcutta. It is a very strange thing that almost all the professors of great religions of the world claim me as their own. The Jains mistake me for a Jain. Scores of Buddhist friends have taken me for a Buddhist. Hundreds of Christian friends still consider that I am a Christian and some Christian friends do not even hesitate to ascribe, by implication, cowardice to me and say: “We know, you are a Christian, but you are afraid to own it. Why don’t you come forward boldly and say you believe in Jesus and his salvation?” Many of my Mussalman friends consider that, although I do not call myself a Mussalman, to all intents and purposes, I am one of them; and some Mussalman friends consider that I am on the road to it, very near, but still far short of it. All this is extremely flattering to me and I take it as a mark of their affection and their esteem. For me, however, I regard myself as one of the humblest of Hindus, but the deeper I study Hinduism the stronger becomes the belief in me that Hinduism is as broad as the Universe and it takes in its fold all that is good in this world. And so I find that with Mussalmans I can appreciate the beauties of Islam and sing its praises. And so simultaneously with the professors of other religions, and still something within me tells me that, for all that deep veneration I show to these several religions, I am all the more a Hindu, none the less for it. Nearly 40 or 38 years ago, I went to England as a lad and the first religious book that was placed into my hands was the Light of Asia. I had read nothing of any religion in the world, nothing therefore of Hinduism.

I knew of Hinduism what my parents taught me, not directly but indirectly, that is, by their practice, and I know a little more of it from a Brahmin to whom they sent me in order to learn Rama Raksha. That was the stock with which I sailed for England. So, when I found myself in possession of the Light of Asia, I devoured it. From page to page I went; I was really an indifferent reader of literature, but I could not resist the temptation that each page afforded to me and I closed the book with deep veneration for the expounding or teaching which has been so beautifully expressed by Sir Edwin Arnold. I read the book again when I had commenced the practice of my profession in South Africa. At that time, I had read something of the other great religions of the world, but the second study of that book did not diminish my veneration. Beyond that I have practically no acquaintance with Buddhism. I read some more literature in the Yeravda Jail, but I know that the reason why I am called upon to preside at such functions, whether they were in connection with Buddha or Mahavira or even with Jesus Christ, is that I endeavour to follow to the best of my ability such of these masters’ teachings as my limited understanding enables me to appreciate. Many friends consider that I am expressing in my own life the teachings of Buddha. I accept their testimony and I am free to confess that I am trying my level best to follow these teachings. Unlike Buddhist professors and unlike also many Hindu students—I was going to say philosophers—I draw no distinction between the essential teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism. In my opinion, Buddha lived Hinduism in his own life. He was no doubt a reformer of his terrible time, that is to say he was a reformer deeply in earnest and counted no cost or pain great for achieving the reform which he thought was indispensable for his own growth and for the uplift of the body.

If historical records are correct, the blind Brahmins of that period rejected his reform because they were selfish. But the masses were not philosophers who whiled away their time in philosophizing. They were philosophers in action, they had robust common sense and so they brushed aside the beast in the Brahmins, that is to say, selfishness, and they had no hesitation in recognizing in Buddha the true exponent of their own faith. And so, being myself also one of the masses living in their midst, I found that Buddhism is nothing but Hinduism reduced to practice in terms of the masses. And, therefore, sometimes the learned men are not satisfied with the incredibly simple teachings of Buddha. They go to it for the satisfaction of their intellect and they are disappointed. Religion is preeminently a matter of the heart and a man who approaches it with intellectual pride is doomed to disappointment. I make bold to say that Buddha was not an atheist. God refuses to see any person, any devotee who goes in with his pride. He believes not in men rubbing their noses on the ground, he wants not to see the marks on the noses, and some of you may not know that many Mussalmans really carry these marks on their foreheads as they lie prostrate in their mosques, rub their foreheads day after day so that they have got the scar on their forehead about the circumference of a rupee, sometimes, even larger. God does not want the marks.

He sees through and through. A man may cut his nose and rub it on the ground, but God will not recognize him who will turn his back upon a man with pointed nose, if his heart is no bruised and blood does not flow freely from his heart. He recognizes that as his own. And the masses, not knowing what pride is, approach him in all humility and become the splendid philosophers in action, and we can freely follow them. That, in my opinion, is the essential teaching of Buddhism. It is pre-eminently a religion of the masses. I do not despair. I do not for one moment consider that Buddhism has been banished from India. Every essential characteristic of Buddhism, I see, is being translated into action in India, much more perhaps than in China, Ceylon and Japan, which nominally profess Buddhism. I make bold to say that we in India translate Buddhism into action far more and far better than our Burmese friends do. It is impossible to banish Buddha. You cannot deprive him of his birth in India. In his own life, he made out for himself an imperishable name. He lives today in the lives of millions of human beings. What does it matter whether we go to a little temple and worship his image or whether we even take his name? My Hinduism teaches me that, if my heart is pure, I may mispronounce the name of Sri Rama as Mara, still I can speak it with as much force as may, even more than, the learned Brahmins. So, I say to Dr. Dharmapala, what it matters whether he can count upon the support of so many men or whether a lady from Honolulu contributes a huge sum or not. Buddha has taught us, in my humble opinion that it is not necessary for millions to associate themselves with one man who seeks for truth.

Let each one say for himself how much of the massage of mercy and pity that Buddha came to deliver we have translated into our own lives, and in so much as we have translated that message in our own lives are we fit to pay our homage to that great Lord, Master and Teacher of mankind. So long as the world lasts, I have not a shadow of doubt that he will rank among the greatest of teachers of mankind. The thoughts that Buddha gave about 2,500 years ago will never vanish—thoughts leave also a mark, thought going at snail’s pace. It is still germinating, though one may find that Buddhism, like every other religion, at the present moment is really decadent. I am optimistic enough to feel that a day is dawning when all these great religions will be purged of all frauds, hypocrisy, humbug, untruthfulness, incredulity and all that may be described under the term “degradation”. They will be purified of that fraud and we will see a day dawned when he who learns to see will find that truth and love, after all, are two faces of a coin. That and that alone is the only current coin and every other is a base coin. May God help us to realize the massage that the Lord Buddha delivered to mankind so many hundred years ago and may we, each one of us, endeavour to translate that message in our lives, whether we call ourselves Hindus or not. 14

The nirvana of the Buddhists is shunyata, but the nirvana of the Gita means peace and that is why it is described as brahmanirvana. We need not concern ourselves with this distinction. There is no reason for supposing that there is a difference between the nirvana mentioned by Lord Buddha and the nirvana of the Gita. Buddha’s description of nirvana and this other description of nirvana refer to the same state. A number of learned men have shown that the Buddha did not teach a doctrine denying the existence of God. But all these are pointless controversies. What can we say about a state which is so different from anything known in our life that we cannot describe it even when we have attained to it? If it is agreed that our bodily existence is not a thing to be cherished, all these other controversies are unmeaning. Gautama Buddha was so filled with mercy and kindness that it was he who taught us to love not only the members of the human family but also to love all life, to love the entire animal world. And he taught us also personal purity of life. Therefore, if you, boys, are not truthful, are not loving and kind, and not pure in your personal conduct, you have learnt nothing in this institution. And which of the boys will tell me where Gautama Buddha was born? 15

And sometimes I feel even proud of being accused of being a follower of the Buddha, and I have no hesitation in declaring in the presence of this audience that I owe a great deal to the inspiration that I have derived from the life of the Enlightened One. Indeed, at an anniversary celebration in the new Buddha temple that has been erected in Calcutta I gave expression to this view. The leader in that meeting was Angarika Dharmapala. He was weeping over the fact that he was not receiving the response that he desired for the cause which was close to his heart, and I remember having rebuked him for shedding tears, I told the audience that though what passed under the name of Buddhism might have been driven out of India, the life of the Buddha and his teachings were by no means driven out of India. This incident happened, I think, now three years ago, and I have seen nothing since to alter the view which I pronounced at that meeting. It is my deliberate opinion that the essential part of the eachings of the Buddha now forms an integral part of Hinduism. It is impossible for Hindu India today to retrace her steps and go behind the great reformation that Gautama effected in Hinduism. By his immense sacrifice, by his great renunciation and by the immaculate purity of his life he left an indelible impress upon Hinduism and Hinduism owes an eternal debt of gratitude to that great teacher. And if you will forgive me for saying so, and if you will also give me the permission to say so, I would venture to tell you that what Hinduism did not assimilate of what passes as Buddhism today was not an essential part of Buddha’s life and his teachings. 16

It is my fixed opinion that Buddhism or rather the teaching of Buddha found its full fruition in India, and it could not be otherwise, for Gautama was himself a Hindu of Hindus. He was saturated with the best that was in Hinduism, and he gave life to some of the teachings that were buried in the Vedas and which were overgrown with weeds. His great Hindu spirit cut its way through the forest of words, meaningless words, which had overlaid the golden truth that was in the Vedas. He made some of the words in the Vedas yield a meaning to which the men of his generation were utter strangers, and he found in India the most congenial soil. And wherever the Buddha went, he was followed and surrounded not by non-Hindus but Hindus, those who were themselves saturated with the Vedic law. But the Buddha’s teaching like his heart was all-expanding and all-embracing and so it has survived his own body and swept across the face of the earth. And at the risk of being called a follower of Buddha I claim this achievement as a triumph of Hinduism. Buddha never rejected Hinduism, but he broadened its base. He gave it a new life and a new interpretation.

But here comes the point where I shall need your forgiveness and your generosity, and I want to submit to you that the teaching of Buddha was not assimilated in its fullness whether it was in Ceylon, or in Burma, or in China or in Tibet. I know my own limitations. I lay no claim to scholarship in Buddhist law. Probably, a fifth-form boy from Nalanda Vidyalaya would plough me in a Buddhist catechism. I know that I speak in the presence of very learned priests and equally learned laymen, but I should be false to you and false to myself if I did not declare what my heart believes. You and those who call themselves Buddhists outside India have no doubt taken in a very large measure the teachings of the Buddha, but when I examine your life and when I cross-question the friends from Ceylon, Burma, China or Tibet, I feel confounded to find so many inconsistencies between what I have come to understand as the central fact of Buddha’s life and your own practice, and if I am not tiring you out, I would like hurriedly to run through three prominent points that just now occurred to me. The first is the belief in an all-pervading Providence called God. I have heard it contended times without number and I have read in books also, claiming to express the spirit of Buddhism, that Buddha did not believe in God.

In my humble opinion such a belief contradicts the very central fact of Buddha’s teaching. In my humble opinion the confusion has arisen over his rejection, and just rejection, of all the base things that passed in his generation under the name of God. He undoubtedly rejected the notion that a being called God was actuated by malice, could repent of his actions, and like the kings of the earth could possibly be open to temptations and bribes and could possibly have favorites. His whole soul rose in mighty indignation against the belief that a being called God required for His satisfaction the living blood of animals in order that he might be pleased—animals who were his own creation. He, therefore, reinstated God in the right place and dethroned the usurper who for the time being seemed to occupy that White Throne. He emphasized and redeclares the eternal and unalterable existence of the moral government of this universe. He unhesitatingly said that the law was God Himself. 17

As I was passing today from Kandy to this place, I passed through some of the finest bits of scenery that I have ever witnessed in my life. Where nature has been so beneficent and where nature provides for you eternal and innocent intoxication in the grand scenery about you, surely it is criminal for men or women to seek intoxication from that sparkling but deadly liquor. I suggest to the followers of the Enlightened One that it is totally against the spirit of his teaching to consider that drink can possibly be taken by those who adore the Buddha. I was deeply pained to hear that even many of you who are Buddhists observe the curse of untouchability. I understood from a very high officer that some of you Buddhists consider it an insult for an untouchable woman to wear upper garments. I have no hesitation in saying without fear of contradiction that if you believe in untouchability, you deny totally the teaching of the Buddha. He who regarded the lowest animal life as dear as his own would never tolerate this cursed distinction between man and man and regard a single human being as an untouchable. I was equally sorry to hear that you, Hindus, had not left this curse in India itself, but had taken it with you even on entering Ceylon. I so wish that both the Buddhists and Hindus living in Ceylon would set about working and remove this curse from their midst. I must devote a sentence or two to one very important thing which I had almost forgotten. While I was in Colombo I received a letter which told me that the life of the men and women in the estates and in all huge workshops was not as pure as it ought to be. The letter went on to say that the relations between men and women were not what they should be. What chiefly distinguishes man from the beast is that man from his age of discretion begins to practise a life of continual self-restraint. God has enabled man to distinguish between the sister, his mother, his daughter and his wife. Do not for one moment imagine that because you are labourers you are absolved from having to observe these necessary distinctions and restrictions. If your huts are not so constructed as to enable you to observe the laws of decency and necessary privacy, I would request your employers to provide you with facilities to enable you to do so. 18

Everybody with whom I have discussed this subject has assured me that there is no warrant whatsoever for caste distinctions, let alone untouchability, in Buddhism, and yet, strange as it may appear, even among the Buddhists of this country you have water-tight compartments, you have superiority and inferiority even bordering on untouchability as in the case of the Rodiyas who, I was glad to be told this morning, were now no more than 600. I know that, if India may take pride in having sent you Mahindra and the message of Buddha to this land, it has also to accept the humiliation of having sent you the curse of caste distinctions. How I wish you could take more and more of the spirit of the Buddha if it is still to be found in India, and do away with the curse that you have inherited from that great land. 19

Having thus registered my claim in the presence of this audience, I now wish to tell you as an orthodox Hindu what in my humble opinion your duty is in Jaffna, and in Ceylon. First of all I want to speak to you about your duty towards the predominant population in this island. And I wish to suggest to you that they are your co-religionists. They will, if they choose to, repudiate the claim for they will say that Buddhism is not Hinduism and they will be partly right. Many Hindus certainly repudiate the claim of Buddhism to be part and parcel of Hinduism. On the contrary, they delight in saying that they successfully drove Buddhism out of India. But I tell you that they did nothing of the kind. Buddha himself was a Hindu. He endeavoured to reform Hinduism. And he succeeded in his attempt to a very great extent and what Hinduism did at that time was to assimilate and absorb all that was good and best in the teachings of the Buddha. And on that account I ventured to say that Hinduism became broadened, and having assimilated the best of Buddhism, it is true that Hinduism drove out from India what might be termed the excrescences that had gathered round the teachings of Gautama. And the way in which you can demonstrate this to the Buddhists of Ceylon is by living the broadened Hinduism in their midst. The one thing that the Buddha showed India was that God was not a God who can be appeased by sacrificing innocent animals. On the contrary, he held that those who sacrificed animals in the hope of pleasing God were guilty of a double sin. So if you will be true to Hinduism, you will take care that you will not defile a single temple of yours by indulging in animal sacrifice. I am prepared to declare against the whole of Hindu India that it is wrong, sinful and criminal to sacrifice a single animal for the purpose of gaining any end whatsoever, or for the purpose of propitiating God. 20

Now I hold that where the law of ahimsa reins supreme, there should be no jealousy, no unworthy ambition, and no crime. I read your criminal statistics and I find that you are not behindhand in the race for crime. Murder on the slightest pretext seems to me to be fairly common in Burma. I will therefore appeal to the friends on my lift (the Phoongys) who are supposed to be the repositories of the faith you have inherited from the Buddha. Having travelled in Ceylon and now fairly long enough in Burma, I feel that we in India have perhaps more fully, though by no means as fully as possible, interpreted the message of the Buddha than you have done. We have it in our Shastras that whenever things go wrong, good people and sages go in for tapasya otherwise known as austerities. Gautama himself, when he saw oppression, injustice and death around him, and when he saw darkness in front of him, at the back of him and on each side of him, went out in the wilderness and remained there fasting and praying in search of light. And if such penance was necessary for him who was infinitely greater than all of us put together, how much more necessary is it for us, no matter whether we are dressed in yellow or not? My friends, if you will become torch-bearers lighting the path of a weary world towards the goal of ahimsa, there is no other way out of it, save that of self-purification and penance. So many priests are sitting here today. If some of them will take upon themselves the work of interpreting the message of the Buddha, they will revolutionize life. You will not be guided by rigid traditions, but will search your hearts and your scriptures and tear the hidden meaning lying behind the written word and vivify your surroundings.

You will then find upon searching your hearts that it is not enough not to take animal life, but you must see to it that it is not taken for the pleasures of the palate. You will then at once realize that it is inconsistent with the doctrine of love for all that lives to turn our mouths into chimneys. I understand that drink is on the increase in a people so simple-hearted as the Burmese and in a climate which does not necessitate the drinking of the fiery liquid. You will immediately see on further research that there is no room for one who loves everything that lives to have fear lurking in his breast. You will yourself cease to fear authority and you will teach all around you to cease to fear anybody. I hope that these few words that I have spoken to you in all humility and from the bottom of my heart will be received by you in the same spirit in which they have been spoken. Since you have at all your meetings credited me with a spirit of nonviolence and truth, I have endeavoured to interpret in the best way I could the message of non-violence and truth as I have understood it for an unbroken period of 40 years. May the words I have spoken find a lodgment in your hearts and may they bear abundant fruit, and if they do, there should be no difficulty in all factions and parties combining together for a common cause. I thank you for having listened to me with such patience and in perfect silence. 21

This view takes no note of history. Jesus was a carpenter. He never used his intellect to earn his livelihood. We do not know how much manual work Buddha did before he attained wisdom. Yes, we know this much, that he did not propagate religion for securing his livelihood. He lived on charity. That could not militate against the duty of labour. A roving ascetic has to do a lot of manual work. Now, to come to Tolstoy, what his wife has said is true but it is not the whole truth. After the change in his outlook Tolstoy never took for himself the income from his books. Although he had property worth millions, he lived like a guest in his own house. After the attainment of wisdom, he worked eight hours a day and earned his wages. Sometimes he worked in the field and sometimes he made shoes at home. Although he did not earn much by doing such work, still he earned enough to feed himself. Tolstoy strove hard to practise what he preached. This was characteristic of him. The sum and substance of all this discussion is that the duty which the ancients observed themselves and which the majority in the world discharges even today has been presented to the world in an explicit manner by him. In fact this doctrine was not Tolstoy’s original idea; it was thought of by a Great Russian writer by name Bondaref. Tolstoy endorsed it and proclaimed it to the world. 22

Did these great teachers never ask for or receive moneys? After Jesus many Christians, who believed in poverty also, took moneys and used them for service. And I can speak with better confidence about the Buddha who is reported in his own lifetime to have founded institutions. He could not possibly found institutions without money. And it is said that they who gave themselves body, soul and mind gave their riches also and placed them at the feet of the Buddha, who gladly accepted them—but not for himself. 23 If Lord Buddha was on earth in the body at this moment, such a war would be impossible. It is a travesty of truth to call English methods of peace. Asoka’s is perhaps the only instance of a great king having voluntarily abandoned war and adopted peaceful methods. 24

I have been told that a storm is still raging in the hearts of the citizens of Patna. I wish to remind you today that Bihar is the hallowed land of Lord Buddha and King Janaka. Lord Ramachandra had also once walked on this soil. It will be a great shame if this sacred land continues to witness the devilish dance of violence. You can retrieve the ancient glory of Bihar by means of non-violence. I do not want the bravery of swords or words. Today we need that nonviolence which was exemplified by the people of Champaran in 1917. 25 First and foremost, it is a mistake to consider me a reincarnation of Buddha or of the Prophet. I have never made any such claim. I am an ordinary man. Of course I do try to follow the principles of life as preached by our scriptures and our great men. I have even succeeded to a certain extent. Yet, I do not claim that I am a person with divine qualities or higher than you. I am a servant of all human beings, be they Hindu or Muslim. I do wish I had the power to end the bloody strife raging among men and women of the same country. I should then be happy. Great men like Lord Krishna and Lord Buddha were so many incarnations of God. Our scriptures say that these great men had the divine power to establish peace and happiness. But you will realize that I am no divine person since I am not able to establish peace. And, if I presume to be such a person, I would not be able to survive in the world even for a minute. I have certainly been tested in my vows of truth and non-violence. That is why I have come here after touring Noakhali, Bihar, and Delhi. I wish either to do something in this field or die. If you feel what Gandhi is doing is correct and Gandhi is needed in Calcutta I would first of all wish to make a humble request if you would allow me. 26

References: