DR.

AMBEDKARS RECONSTRUCTION OF
BUDDHISM1
Pradeep P. Gokhale
Research Professor,
Central University of Tibetan Studies,
Sarnath, Varanasi
I.REUNDERSTANDING OR RECONSTRUCTION?
Through upliftment of oppressed castes might have
been one of the immediate purposes behind Ambedkars
abandonment of Hindu identity and embracement of
Buddhism, his thoughts, decisions and actions in this
regard were not governed by this narrow consideration. To
consider this or similar consideration as his only
consideration is to oversimplify the matter. There must
have been various socio-political reasons which led him to
prefer Religion to non-religious, mundane form of life and
a few more reasons which led him to prefer Buddhism to
other religions. One of the reasons why he chose
Buddhism might have been that it had roots in India. But,
it was certainly not the whole reason, because there were
other religions of Indian origin such as Jainism and Sikhism
which he did not finally go for. His description of Buddhas
Dhamma that he gives in his work, The Buddha and his
Dhamma (hereafter, his Work) indicates additional reasons
for his acceptance of Buddhism. And those reasons, I
believe, are far more important than the contingent
The paper published with the title, Universal Consequentialism: A
Note on B. R. Ambedkars Reconstruction of Buddhism with special
reference to Religion, Morality and Spirituality in Surendra Jondhale
and Johannes Beltz (Eds.) Reconstructing the World: B. R. Ambedkar
and Buddhism in India, Oxford University Press, 2004
1

reason of the geographical root of Buddhism. The

following features of Buddhism seem to have attracted
Ambedkar towards it:
(i) Buddhism emphasised the role of reason as
against faith or superstitions.2
(ii)As a result, Buddhism rejected many objects of
dogmatic beliefs like God and Soul, which were
accepted by most of the other religions. 3
(iii)Buddhism strongly opposed caste-system. 4
(iv)Buddhism emphasised morality as an essence of
good life. This morality according to Buddhism was
essentially human-centric and had no reference to
Soul or God.5
Ambedkar took the above features of Buddhism
seriously. He not only took them seriously, he tried to
stretch some of them to their logical limits and attempted
a reconstruction of Buddhism in the light of them. While
doing so, he did not think that he was going beyond the
original Buddhism. He rather took a stand that he was
bringing out the real essence of Buddhism. But what he
2 In various passages of his Work, The Buddha and his Dhamma,

Ambedkar underlines the rational, scientific and non-superstitious

character of Buddhism.
3 Ambedkar B.R., The Buddha and his Dhamm, Siddhartha

Publication, Bombay, Second Edition 1974. Book IV, Part I.

4 Ibid, Book III, Part V, Section IV.
5

Ibid, Book IV, Part I, Section 5.

actually did, did amount to a reformation within Buddhism.

So, Ambedkar was performing a two-fold job. He was
presenting new thoughts and ideals which were not
accepted in the Buddhist tradition. On the other hand, he
was interpreting the tenets of traditional Buddhism in such
a way that it could express directly or indirectly the variant
thoughts and ideas which he wanted to express.
A question can be asked here whether trying to reform
Buddhism in this way was methodologically justified on
the part of Ambedkar. The question could be answered
affirmatively in the context of Indian philosophical
tradition. What Ambedkar was doing goes very well with
this tradition where philosophical innovations were
introduced by authors mostly under the garb of
discovering the hidden meanings of the original texts. In
fact the Indian philosophical systems have developed
through commentaries in this way. Buddhism is not an
exception to this general trend. The propounders of
various schools of Buddhism have rearranged and
reinterpreted Buddhas statements and derived the basic
tenets of their own schools from them. So what was
regarded as core of Buddhas teaching according to one
school of Buddhism was sometimes regarded as peripheral
by another school. The statements regarded as literally
meaningful and acceptable (ntrtha) by one school were
regarded as derivatively or metaphorically meaningful or
acceptable (neyrtha) by another school.6 So, even the
6 The distinction between ntrtha and neyrtha has been referred

to and used, for instance, by Candrakrti in his commentary on

Madhyamakastra of Ngrjuna, The Mithila Institute, Darbhanga
(1960).

doctrine like that of four noble truths, which is generally

regarded as the core of Buddhism, becomes the subject of
critical examination and consequent dialectical negation in
Mdhyamika philosophy of Ngrjuna.7 nyat is
accepted as the framework and other Buddhist doctrines
are adjusted in a deconstructed form within this
framework. So, one need not be surprised to see
Ambedkar questioning the originality and centrality of the
doctrine of four noble truths.8 Only he is doing it in a very
different framework, in the framework of secular
rationality
and
sacred
morality.
So
Ambedkars
restatement and reinterpretation of Buddhism could be
methodologically permissible from he point of Indian
philosophical tradition in general and Buddhist one in
particular.
But western style of philosophising requires one to
present ones deviations from the received tradition in an
independent fashion and not to present them in the garb
of authentic interpretation of the original sources. So one
could expect Ambedkar to have reconstructed Buddhism
and presented it as his own contribution without claiming
for its authenticity as an interpretation.
Ambedkar did not take such an independent stand
either because he strongly believed, for the reasons he
himself has given in the text, that his interpretation of
Buddhism was correct and authentic or because he
thought it practically wiser to re-interpret Buddhism but
7 Ibid, Chap. 24.
8 Ambedkar, Op.cit., Introduction.

not to disown it as such so that dalits can become

respectable members of the world Buddhism.
Whether his interpretation of Buddhism deviated from
the original or was actually true to the original is an
important controversial issue. But I am not going to
discuss it here.9 Personally, I am inclined to presume that
Ambedkar did deviate from the early Buddhism. He
deviated from the early Buddhist conceptions of karmadoctrine, rebirth, and the relation between matter and
consciousness. I believe that the Buddhist doctrine of
Anatt raises a problem with regard to the doctrines of
karma and rebirth as applicable to the same person, as
Ambedkar has rightly pointed out. But I also feel that early
Buddhism has tried to overcome this problem by
introducing the notion of person as a casual series
(Santna) of five aggregates (Skandhas) and maintain the
adherence to the doctrine of karma and rebirth as
applicable to the same person, i.e. to the same personseries.10 Here, instead of saying that the Buddha went
wrong here, Ambedkar holds that the Buddha did not
mean what he is generally taken to mean. 11 Similarly, I
believe that early Buddhists deny the position that
Here I more or less agree with the views of Macy J.R. and Zelliot
Eleanor which they present in Tradition and Innovation in
Contemporary Indian Buddhism in Studies in History of Buddhism,
Narain, A.K. (Ed.), Delhi, 1980.
9

10 The position, that the person is not the same yet not different,

has been held in the light of the notion of causal continuum, in

Milindapaho 42-43. Vide Vaidya P.L. (Ed.), Bauddhgamrthasagraha, Pune (1956), pp. 174-175.

consciousness arises from the four gross elements and

disappears at the time of death - the position maintained
by Ajita-Keakambal, a nihilist as mentioned in
Smaaphalasutta. Ambedkar, on the contrary, seems to
attribute this materialistic explanation of consciousness to
the Buddha and the Buddhists12 possibly because he
strongly felt that the doctrine of Anatt necessarily leads
to materialism.
I would be most happy if my beliefs that I have
expressed above prove to be wrong and if the Buddha
meant exactly how Ambedkar interpreted him. But as I
11 For Ambedkar, rationality was a criterion for calling something a

word of the Buddha. See Ambedkar, Op.cit., Book IV, Part II, Sec. V.
12

Compare (A) and (B):(A) Consciousness is result of the

combination of the four elements Prithvi, Apa, Tej and Vayu It
is true that consciousness arises with birth and dies with death,
(Ibid., III.IV.4). Question is when the human body dies, what
happens to these four elements?... The Buddha said, no. They
join the mass of similar elements floating in space(Ibid.,
IV.II.1-2)

(B) (Ajita believed that a human being is made of four elements.

When he dies, the earthy in him replaces to earth, the fluid to
water, the heat to fire, the windy to air and his faculties(five
senses and mind) to space Nothing survives after deathGoyal S. R. , A History of Indian Buddhism, Kusumanjali
Prakashan, Meerut (1987), p. 75
Of course Ambedkar presents Buddhas materialism in a more
sophisticated form than that of Ajitakeakambal, when for instance,
when for instance he compares consciousness with magnetic field.
(Ambedkar, Op. cit., III.IV.4). Secondly Ajita derives a kind of moral
scepticism from his materialism. Ambedkar emphasises moralism.

have already said, I am not interested in discussing this

issue here. It suffices to say here that Ambedkar presents
before us a reconstruction of Buddhism which is at least a
deviation from traditional Buddhism (though it may or may
not be a deviation from original Buddhism). What is more
important is that this reconstruction opens a novel
philosophical possibility according to which the moral
upliftment of individual and social life goes in harmony
with materialistic explanation of consciousness, and
religion goes in harmony with scientific rationality. Four
features of Ambedkars reconstruction of Buddhism could
be identified in this context.13
(i)Secular and Materialistic Approach:
Ambedkar restricted the Buddhist beliefs and practices
to this word and this life. The belief in other worlds and
past and future life was denied. The existence of
consciousness independent of body was denied.
(ii) Scientific Rationality:
Similarly scientific rationality was accepted as a core
of Buddhist approach to the nature of the world and man.
Whatever transgressed the authority of experience and
reason was regarded as non-Buddhistic in essence.
(iii) Anti-mysticism:
An attempt was made to eliminate mystical elements
from Buddhism. Accordingly the elements like dhyna and
I am aware that the list is not exhaustive. The features like Antipessimism (the hope of removing material sufferings like poverty
and inequality) may be added.
13

samdhi (meditation and meditative concentration) were

denied the central status.
(iv)Moral Basis :
The relation between religion and morality underwent
a radical change in Ambedkars reconstruction. Religious
morality is generally supposed to be rooted in religious
metaphysics of god and soul. For Ambedkar Buddhism as
religion is rooted in morality.
It is this last feature which I would like to elaborate in
the next section.
II. BAUDDHA-DHAMMA AS THE RELIGION ROOTED
IN MORALITY :
In other religions, belief in transcendent entities like
God, tman and other worlds becomes the basis of
morality. In Ambedkars words, Every religion preaches
morality, but morality is not the root of religion. 14 What
Ambedkar does in his work is that morality is made the
root of religion. In his words, In Dhamma morality takes
place of God, although there is no God in Dhamma .....
Morality is the essence of Dhamma.15 To my
understanding, this was a Copernican revolution in the
relationship between Morality and Religion which
Ambedkar tried to bring about. To put it crudely, religions
have put religious beliefs at the center and morality is
supposed to rotate around them. In Ambedkars
14 Ambedkar, Op.cit., IV.I.4.
15

Ibid, IV.I.5.

reconstruction of Buddhism morality is put at the center

and religious beliefs are supposed to rotate around it. Let
me elaborate.
Morality is justified in theistic religions in terms of
reward and punishment given by God to the individual.
The atheistic religions justify morality in terms of the
doctrine of Karma according to which morally good and
bad actions lead to consequences which are pleasant and
painful (respectively) to the agent. In this way, the ethics
in both theistic and atheistic religions leads to a kind of
egoistic
consequentialism.
Moreover,
the
egoistic
consequentialism of atheistic religions leads to the
doctrines of Karma, rebirth and other worlds. Thus, the
transcendental beliefs like God, soul, rebirth and other
worlds become the grounds of religious morality. In
Ambedkars reconstruction of Buddhism, morality is
justified in terms of universalistic consequentialism. I
quote him : Do kusala kamma so that humanity may
benefit by a good moral order which a Kusala Kamma
helps to sustain; do not do akusala kamma for humanity
will suffer from bad moral order which as akusala kamma
will bring about.16 Thus, Ambedkar tries to justify morality
without reference to transcendental religious beliefs.
Secondly, the considerations of universal well-being (or
well-being of mankind) itself being a moral consideration,
morality, in his scheme, does not depend upon
considerations external to morality and hence becomes
autonomous. Ambedkar makes such a morality the basis
of religion which he construes as Dhamma.
16 Ibid, III, III.6.25.

10

Here, a remark on Ambedkars use of the word

religion is necessary. Ambedkar in his work uses
sometimes the word religion in a popular sense when he
wants to contradistinguish it from Dhamma. In this sense
the word religion mainly stands for theistic religion in
which, according to him, both morality and rationality are
undermined. Religion emphasises the relation between
individual and god and undermines social relations.
Religion also falls prey to superstitions. 17 Dhamma, on the
other hand is essentially moral, social and rational. So, this
is one way in which the word religion is used by him. But
Ambedkar does not always use the word religion in a
popular sense; he also uses it in the sense of Dhamma,
when he says that the purpose of Religion (according to
the Buddha) is to make the world a Kingdom of
Righteousness.18 Here the word religion is used in the
sense of ideal form of religion. So, Ambedkar seems to be
making a distinction between religions as they generally
are and religion as it ought to be. Religions as understood
by European theologians are the religions as they are
generally accepted and practised by people and Dhamma
is the religion as it ought to be.19
Of course the distinction between a religion as it is in
practice and the religion as it ought to be, is the one which
17 Ibid, IV.I.2.
18 Ibid, III.V.I.2.
19 What Buddha calls Dhamma is analogous to what European

theologians call Religion. But, there is no greater affinity between

the two ... Ibid, IV.I.2.

11

many religious thinkers and religious reformers have

attempted in one way or the other. They criticise the
current forms of religion for the elements like superstitious
and/or unjust practices in them and present emphatically
what they regard as the essence of true or ideal religion.
The essence of true religion is conceived by them, broadly
speaking, in two ways. One, by reviving and emphasising
moral-social element and two, by reviving and
emphasising spiritual-individual element in it. 20 Ambedkar
takes the former root and tries to develop it to its logical
limit. Ambedkar, by doing this, develops the model of
morality based religion in its radical form. Since, morality
is essentially social according to him, he has not
emphasised
individualistic,
spiritualistic
aspect
of
Buddhism, especially the aspect of meditation, in his
model.
MORALITY AND SPIRITUALITY:
It may be asked whether Ambedkars approach of not
emphasising the spiritual aspect of Buddhism was right. It
is true that the spiritual practices like meditation and
devotion are generally associated with transcendent
objects like God, Brahman, soul and deities and
Ambedkars approach must have been influenced by this
fact. But, every spiritual practice, especially meditation,
need not necessarily be associated with such
The remarkable examples of religious thinkers who go by the
second root are J. Krishnamurthi and Osho Rajaneesh. They
emphasised spiritual and individualistic element of religion and deemphasised its moral, social and institutional aspect. It is
noteworthy that the religious thoughts of both are said to be
influenced by Buddhism.
20

12

transcendental beliefs. Meditation can be looked upon as a

step towards self-realisation and the way of disciplining
oneself. In the context of Buddhism it can lead to
realisation of impermanence and soul-lessness and
reduction of craving. Moral-social aspect of religion, on the
other hand, can be looked upon as the way of disciplining
ones relationship with others. Both these disciplines, of
oneself and of ones relationship with others, can support
each other. Hence, spirituality and morality can be
mutually complementary aspects of religion. I would like
to suggest here that the scope of Ambedkars
reconstruction of Buddhism can be extended so as to
include Buddhist meditation. While doing so, however, one
has to take two-fold care:
(i)Buddhist meditation has to be re-understood and
reconstructed in such a way that it does not lead to
mysticism or the belief in transcendental metaphysics.
(ii) Emphasis on meditation should not harm the moral
core of Buddhism, rather it should support and
strengthen it.

13

Meditation practised in this way should facilitate

moral perfection, but should not try to postulate
something beyond morality.21
In the first section of this paper, I identified four salient
features of Ambedkars reconstruction of Buddhism. They
were (a) secular and materialistic approach, (b) scientific
rationality, (c) anti-mysticism and (d) moral basis. Now I
am suggesting that if these can be said to constitute the
core of Ambedkars reconstruction of Buddhism, then the
scope of this reconstruction can be widened so as to
include meditational element without harming the core. I
would like to add that extending the scope of Ambedkars
Buddhism in this way need not amount to transcending it.
SACRED MORALITY AND PROF. M. P. REGE:
Welcoming Ambedkars reconstruction of Buddhism in
this way (and extending the scope of it without trying to
harm its core) may not be acceptable to many scholars of
Buddhism. Many neo-Hindu (and even Buddhist) scholars
are sympathetic to Buddhism but not to the same extent
to Buddhism as reconstructed by Ambedkar. Here I would
Among the modern formulation of Buddhism, Satyanarayan
Goenkas formulation seems to be largely compatible with
Ambedkars formulation due to its emphasis on morality and noninsistence on after-life. Goenka tries to de-religionise Buddhism
through his distinction between Dhamma and Sampradya (sect.).
Ambedkar tries to do the same by distinguishing between Dhamma
and Religion. Secondly, the Vipassan meditation which Goenka
teaches, centres on bodily sensations and hence is compatible with
materialism. So meditational element can be introduced in
Ambedkars formulation via the latters synthesis with Goenkas
formulation. The two formulations are close to each other; also
because both take their inspiration from Pali Buddhism.
21

14

like to consider the views of Late Prof. M. P. Rege, a

renowned philosopher of contemporary Maharashtra, as a
representative of this tendency. M. P. Rege has recently
stressed the need of transcending the limits of
Ambedkars Buddhism in the light of the latters
adherence of sacred morality.
Prof. Reges statement runs as follows:
.... Bauddha-dhama has established itself in
Maharashtra. Although Dalits accepted Bauddha-dhamma
in the beginning in a formal way, there are signs of their
assimilating gradually the whole of Buddhist philosophical
and spiritual tradition, especially that of Mahyna School
of Buddhism and of becoming Buddhists wholeheartedly. If
this materialises, then they would go beyond the position
which Ambedkar has presented in his The Buddha and his
Dhamma, because Ambedkars position in this book has
stationed itself a little behind the traditional Buddhism.
According to Ambedkar Dhamma means morality and
morality means Dhamma. But, morality, which is
Dhamma, should be sacred. In this context sacred can
mean only transcendent. Morality springs towards this
transcendent and it is rooted in the transcendent. 22

22

Vide Navabhrata, Vol. 51, No. 9 (June, 1998), (Wai,

Dist. Satara), Editorial, p-six. (Translation mine.)
mtra mahrrta bauddhadharma sthirval .....
nt hy attkae-jhepvata asate i attta rujalel
asate.

15

I have a feeling that Prof. Rege in this passage has not

only misrepresented Ambedkar but has tried to dilute and
defeat the revolutionary turn which Ambedkar has tried to
give to traditional Buddhism in his work. Let me
substantiate.
Ambedkar devotes one full section to the explanation
of sacred and universal character of Dhamma-morality23. It
seems clear from that section that Ambedkar does not
relate the notion of sacred with anything transcendent.
Rather he seems to avoid such a connection deliberately.
For him sacred means something which cannot be
violated.24 Profane as against this means something
which may be violated. He does not draw there any
metaphysical conclusions from the sacred character of
Dhamma, but immediately goes to the pragmatic question
as to why morality should have been made sacred. 25 His
answer to this question too is pragmatic and social.
I have a feeling that since Ambedkar uses the terms
sacred and universal together and does not seem to
distinguish the two concepts sharply from each other, he
might be having in his mind a logical connection between
the two. One can develop an argument, though Ambedkar
has not developed it, by which sacred (i.e. inviolable)
character of Dhamma-morality can be derived from its
23 Ambedkar, Op.cit., III.V.IV.6.
24

25

Ibid, Statements 3,4.

Ibid, Statement 6.

16

universal character. I have already referred to universal

consequentialism in terms of which Ambedkar justifies
morality. There are two more aspects of the universality of
morality. The rules of moral conduct are binding upon all
human agents. This is one aspect. Secondly, these rules
are to be followed with respect to all recipients of actions,
unconditionally and indiscriminately. This three-fold
universality, I think makes morality inviolable, and in this
sense, sacred.
But, unfortunately, Prof. Rege has tried to read
transcendentalism - rather a raw one - in Ambedkars
concept of sacred morality. He has also induced
Ambedkarites to transcend this raw transcendentalism
and become full-blooded metaphysical transcendentalist
Buddhist. Here Prof. Reges own philosophical conviction
seems to supersede his sympathies for Ambedkar.
It is not clear what Prof. Rege meant by the term
traditional Buddhism when he said that Ambedkars
position has stationed itself behind traditional Buddhism.
Either he meant Hnayna tradition or Mahyna tradition
or something which consists of both. But it seems to be
clear that for him Ambedkars Buddhism falls behind even
Hnayna tradition because the latter is supposed to have
a conception of transcendence which the former does not
have. Prof. Rege seems to believe that Mahyna
tradition, as a religious tradition has greater persuasive
force than Hnayna tradition. So Ambedkarites according
to him can become better Buddhists if they assimilate
Mahyna tradition.

17

In his argument, Prof. Rege has also said that

Ambedkarites, while accepting transcendent Reality of
Mahyna Buddhism, need not accept it as something like
God or Brahman.26 Prof. Rege, I think, has played a trick
here, because in the same essay, he has said that there
isnt much difference between Brahman of akara and
nyat of Mahyna Buddhists27. So in a way Prof. Rege
has tried to bring Ambedkarities to the level of
assimilating Advaita-Vednta, which Ambedkar himself
had vehemently criticised in his work. 28 So, Prof. Reges
proposal seems to aim at diluting and defeating the very
spirit of Ambedkars reconstruction of Buddhism.
Here, I have discussed Prof. Reges proposal in order to
underline the need for understanding and re-vitalising the
core of Ambedkars reconstruction of Buddhism. The
distinct importance of Ambedkars reconstruction lies in
the fact that it places Buddhism on the frontiers of
Religion from where it can have critical and constructive
dialogue not only with other religions and other sects of
Buddhism but also with non-religious social approaches
like liberalism, Marxism and scienticism.

26 he atttatva mhaaje vara kiv brahma ase mnyace

kraa nh. Navabhrata, Op.cit., p. six.

Jara paa mdhyamika bauddhce nya i
akarcryn svkralele mana i vc hycy palikae
asalele brahma ymcyta phras bheda nh ase disna yete.
Ibid., p. five.
27

28 Ambedkar, Op.cit., III.IV.3.

18

For accomplishment of this task, however, Ambedkars

reconstruction has to be worked out with greater details
and greater clarity and its scope has to be widened
wherever necessary and possible, without, of course,
harming its core.
*