S.

Lourdunathan

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 in
their 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 as
against the forms of inauthenticity? What is the philosophy (meaning context) of
their reconsidering Buddhism?
o After having said all these, the perturbing issue lingering in me, Is A/A
reconsideration of Buddhism a task of taking the salt out of water after it has been
dissolved?
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 experience
of persistent denials -for reasons that both have been considered belonging to an
non-belong-able (not-in-caste) (out caste) community. If exclusion is the condition of
life then the struggle for inclusion seems to be strongly operative and ethically
imperative 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 metaphysical
epistemological and ethical significations).
2. The context of denial calls for a context to deny the very denials and the denial of
denial for A/A is but an affirmation; perhaps, A/A deem it emancipation or
liberation discourse.
3. The negation of negation, as a form o double negation and as a project of affirmation
for A/A originates in the broader context of conflict and contest. While Ambedkar
reading of Buddhism pictures the theory of conflict between the settlers vs. nomadic
groups for the origin of casteism (as against the invasion theory) Ayothidasar
envisages conflict between adi-dravidians (Tamil Buddhists/sakyas) and outsiders (a
clan 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 or
inclusion, the exclusion of a community or inclusion of communities as out caste or
in-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 to
the exercise of a denial of denial, for A/A, is Buddhism. Buddhism in specific
existential mode provide the ground of meaning, a sense of authenticity for both
A/A. Let me not go in detail the circulating debate on this issue and for now, we
may be content with the claim that both A/A considered Buddhism as the context, as
the weapon to resist the negations, namely casteism.
5. To the question, Whether Buddhism contained the hermeneutical possibility for
practice 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
1
nathanlourdu1960@gmail.com

S. Lourdunathan
practice of a negation of negation. How it does, and how other religions do not, is an
issue 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. While
Ambedkar having thrown to live in Hindu fold until/beyond his Yeolo Declaration,
and embrace Buddhism at a later stage, Ayothidasar engaged strongly Advaitic
membership in confronting casteism in the beginning of his public life but later be
disillusioned 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 which
they are construed operate as the foreground of meaning-provider. The myths into
which they are patterned absorb and cherish them and in turn gets itself absorbed
into 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 narrative
form and a meaning-provider. Myths are neither true nor false. They are sort of
frame work that provides intelligible order and moral grounds and account for social
relations and legal governance. (For example, Platos Cave, the story of the
beginnings and final things in Christianity, the Vedic Purushasukta etc). Myths and
stories by nature may be classified as axiological, cosmological and ideological. They
often end up with a logic of And So types. They are not necessarily rational in the
modernist terms, but a logic of cultural justifications. They do not seek/contain
empirical Truism or Falsities. They are agreeable or disagreeable types. They are
humanly satisfying or dissatisfying. For A/A, Buddhism is the myth that seems to
have provided the ground of meaning for authentic existence where as other mythlogos (religions) like Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam are incapable of providing
necessary ground for an authenticity of meaningful ethical existence. Given to the
existential foreground of a plurality myths, and their practice of the principle of
negation of negation against them, A/A seems to be convinced of the myth of
Buddhism.
8. While Ambedar having dissatisfied with the myth of Hinduism declares the embrace
of the myth of Buddhism on a later stage of his life, where as Ayothidasar traces his
cultural origin and belonging to Buddhism. For Ambedkar, towards Buddhism could
be a rational political choice, for Ayothidasar the choice does not seem to be
immediately 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 Indian
Political Nationalism and Pan-Indian Social Nationalism (Casteism), the hard choice
is Buddhism. Buddhism is both a Political and Cultural and Religious Issue to
confront both typologies of nationalism.
9. Whether Buddhism as such or given to its multiple catalogue of existence(s) is viable
to promote the negation of negation is still an issue, and presently I may bracket
them. Given to the vagaries of Buddhism, what type of Buddhism that has been
considered/construed by A/A is yet another issue. However. the reasons for such
re-consideration is contextual and conceptual, conative and pragmatic and a
configuration of all these.
2
nathanlourdu1960@gmail.com

S. Lourdunathan
10. Buddhism as a Perfomative Sincere Speech Act: J.L Austin employs the performative
theory of language which position that meaning is a matter of performative, and a
speech is an act that is performed. Religion if and when considered as a language is
but a speech-act whose meaning of meaning is decided on the ground of it being
sincere or insincere and not necessarily true or false. Religious propositions and
positions are not empirical but cultural and hence fall within the category of
permatives or perform-able propositions. A/A reconsideration Buddhism be
characterized in terms of speech-acts or perfomatives that are sincere while other
religious linguistic propositions are speech acts that are insincere, though all of them
are speech acts. Though belonging to modernist culture, their engagement of
religions do not rely on the grounds of scientific verifications but/rather based on
the ground of pragmaticity and perform-ability in terms of ethical sincerity and
utility. (Buddha and Dhamma provide ample evidences to this).
11. Option for Buddhism -Conversion or Origination?: In a specific sense, While
Hinduism is excluding the Other, Christianity/Islam are alien-colonial and casteinclusive, therefore a form(s) of cultural imperial enslavement, both A/A, as the
voice of the excluded other, do opt for Buddhism for its rationality of historical
indigenous and political considerations. The point of difference (however debatable)
is that while Ambedkar ends with the embrace of Buddhism, Ayothidasar renders
his origination from Buddhism.
12. The question of conversion a contested terrain here. The contest on religious
conversion is implicitly intertwined with the issue of reservationism as well.
(i)
Whether either conversion to Buddhism or Tracing ones roots in Buddhism
served sufficient political instrumentality to promote modernist democratic
status in terms of equality and Justice?
(ii)
Whether hermeneutical re-reading and rendering of Buddhism in terms of
Enlightenment morality without losing sight of a religious tradition namely
Buddhism is a viable cultural resource-position to bring about of equality and
Justice?
13. The question of reservation (socio-political) within the boundaries/criterion of
Religion: By not converting to any other religion and by being within the fold of
Buddhism has guaranteed Reservationism and in so doing, the British (census
calculation) and Pro-congress political programme (Political Nationalism) by
retaining the Buddhists (however interpretative it may be) within Hindu-fold has
only been achieved and the question of castes seems to continuously reproduced by
reservations strategy.
14. Modernism vs. Religionism: : Why A/A did not exclusively choose modernism as
to enable the practice of a negation of negation, as political social and moral weapon
while EVR choose a sort of exclusive modernism is yet another issue that calls for
exploration and explanation.
(i)
Deeply rooted and retaining the resources of a religious tradition yet
augmenting for modernist democratic though indigenously intelligent but
not politically a viable weapon against inequality and the injustice of
casteism.

3
nathanlourdu1960@gmail.com

S. Lourdunathan
(ii)

Both A/A operate on the logic of Democracy with religious rootedness,

however, rational democracy historically exposes the fact that cultural and
religious rootedness is not sufficiently democratic.
(iii)
If so, can we say that A/A are modernist cum religionist, (perhaps
inconsistent 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 facto
excluded casteism per se? It seems to me, either Buddhism co-opted within
modernist claims or modernist claims co-opted within Interpretative
Buddhism
(Engaged
Buddhism)
,
and
in
their
mutuality
lost/caricatured/diluted/absorbed/appropriated/assimilated
either
potential sensibilities of a emancipator project. (A/A practical rational is
different from this type of logical positioning)
(a) Social/Political/Cultural Hermeneutics of Buddhism: Ambedkar engages a
modernist 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 mean
or can we say that modernism has profoundly affected religious traditions and if
so 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 sense
he attempted to re-caste/remake history. Every intelligible reading of history is a
remaking of history. Thus, we can say both A/A attempted to repair history
from the bottom up. It is a movement towards an augment for subversive social
and political history. By reading on the basis of a subversive history, both A/A
promote a discourse of liberation.
(c) If modernism is suspicioned of its claims of progress and religion is critiqued of
its paternalism then both Science Model and Religious Model either in exclusion
or in interaction seems to not sufficiently justified. If A/A engage such
paradigms of emancipation, what is workable and what is non-workable in these
paradigms needs serious intellectual attention. We are to be aware of the fact that
We are biologically limited to the extent that we need a we as to set us apart
from the other whom we judge as not-we. The awareness of the contingency of
historical, social and political structures gives birth to new forms of quest for
justice and equality (in terms of emancipation) as to relook and shape societies
radically 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 of
telling the story of emancipation than the non-Buddhist way of telling it. for
example, The Christian way of telling the story of suffering in some form
different from the Buddhist way of telling the story of suffering. we like the
Buddhist 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 opt
your mythology that does not mean we don't care being human. We are social
animals and as such, we respond to life about the same.
--------

4
nathanlourdu1960@gmail.com