Table Of Content

0 T T hinking he N W avayana ay by Mangesh Dahiwale Dedicated to all those seeking the Freedom of Mind The New Vehicle is an Imprint of the Insight Multipurpose Society (IMS). IMS is driven by a sincere desire to deepen people’s theoretical engagement with meaning(s) and truth(s). The New Vehicle endeavours to promote knowledge that is emancipatory in nature and help realize civility in self and society. It aims to further rational thought and humane philosophical discourse through publishing content across varied theoretical domains. The New Vehicle signifies the moving wheel of change and impermanence, also called anicca in pali. Knowledge and insights are fundamental to this change process. Our publishing house provides space for engaging, experiencing and articulating this anicca. EBook edition 2019: ISBN 978-81-942059-3-7 Published in India by Insight Multipurpose Society, Wardha, Maharashtra © 2019, Mangesh Dahiwale Cover Art Work: Mr.Radja Perumal Prefatory Introduction While some of the concrete social conditions and thematic issues reflected in this book are critical, it is the method employed for reflection that deserves greater conceptual focus and a deeper theoretical discussion. What constitutes a Navayana way of Thinking is what Mangesh attempts to unravel, problematizing in the process, other normative ways of thinking that we have been so accustomed to and have taken for granted. At the outset, I would like to state that like Mangesh, I also draw heavily from Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s experiential insights, sophisticated theoretical propositions, his expansive knowledge cutting across disciplinary domains and his principled political struggle. Each of the ideas that I plan to explicate in this prefatory introduction in relation to the book are sourced directly from Babasaheb himself, or at least, my reading and understanding of his methodological and theoretical propositions. Mangesh has touched upon very complex philosophical, historical and social issues with ease and helped provide superior insights into the problematics of each domain. Beginning with the explication of the buddha-dhamma, he discusses the theory and history of buddhism, captures the process of social transformation ushered by the buddhist framework, identify ‘torch bearers’ of the buddha-dhamma across context and concludes with clarifying the task ahead for people treading the Navayana path. Throughout the text he shows us how to think the Navayana Way. i Pulling thread from Mangesh’s praxis, I will attempt to equanimously self-reflect on his text and unravel my understanding, of the navayana way of thinking. The concept Navayana here connotes ‘newness’, and is often read to mean ‘the New Vehicle’. I will use the concept in the same way as Mangesh has framed in this text. I will approach the same by thinking deeply on a question that confronts many buddhist intellectuals on the Navayana path today - How do persons who see value in this unique, very contextual path to freedom of mind within the framework of the buddha-dhamma, think about philosophical dimensions of realities in general and methodologies of viewing society in particular? From my point-of-view, I opine that a Navayana way of thinking that draws its ontological source from Babasaheb Ambedkar, first and foremost requires a cultivation of mind that is fundamentally distinct from other epistemological paths. Further it also needs a methodological clarity of specific theoretico-contextual domains. These domains constitutes first and foremost an experiential understanding of (i) the philosophy of the buddha-dhamma-sangha, also known as triratna or Triple Gem, followed by (ii) an understanding of the method employed by Dr.Ambedkar in the study of Indian society, then (iii) the twin buddhist methods of satipathañña and ‘atta deep bhava’ and last but the most critical (iv) the twenty two commitments formulated by Dr. B.R.Ambedkar for attaining freedom of mind in the Indian context. These above four processes, in my understanding, are what a Navayana way of thinking is fundamentally grounded on. ii Briefly I will touch upon these subjects and try to draw out the theoretical content of the propositions and the linkages between each. (I) To me the buddha-dhamma-sangha (also popularly known as Buddhism; ‘Buddhism’ being a western construct of the framework) we have proclivity to look at reality in totality, whilst constitutive of three truths. The truth of the buddha –the reality as it is, the truth of the dhamma – the reality in motion governed by universal permeating laws, and the truth of sangha – the reality of physical matter as it appears to the senses, defined by relative truth(s). The framework that simultaneously informs this way of looking is the patticca samuppada, that constitutes of twelve links of interdependent co-arising; Avijja, Sankhara, Viññana, Namarupa, Salayatana, Phassa, Vedana, Tanha, Upadana, Bhava, Jati, Jara Marana. This framework is also referred to as the theory of ‘Dependent Origination’. The patticca samuppada constitutes the most fundamental basis for a buddha-dhamma-sangha’s worldview of social reality. The patticca samuppada is further epistemologically entrenched in an overarching philosophical theory of existence or the buddhist ontological framework of ‘what exist’. In the buddha-dhamma-sangha this ontological framework is constituted by four foundational yet fluid categories – anicca, anatta, dukkha, and nibanna. Anicca points to rapid change characterised by rising and passing away of being. Dukkha refers to the pain arising out of unsatisfactoriness experienced because of dialectical dissonance between the mind (relative) and anicca. Anatta refers to the rise of a non-substantial, non-inherent, no- iii ‘self’ around a mind centric/located conceptual world that attempts to make sense and meaning of anicca. Finally the state of nibanna, the experiential self-awakening to anicca, dukkha and anatta realised through treading the eightfold path of samadhi, sila and puñña. A Navayana way of thinking, in my understanding, cannot but first be established on such premises. Needless to say that a deeper comprehension of the nitty-gritty of the above stated framework requires one to first take refuge in the buddha-dhamma-sangha. This is so because without embracing the ‘triple gem’, a deep insight and realization of such processes is difficult to attain. Taking refuge in the framework in toto is fundamental to the awakening/realization process. I wish to point out that it is judicious never to isolate and separate the buddha from the dhamma from the sangha. They constitute a single intricately linked framework and should never be reduced only to the buddha, as orientalist scholars who came to India in search of a ‘God’ have done. Engaging in reductionism, they mistook the buddha as God, thereby turning the most holistic, liberatory, moral, aesthetical onto-epistemological framework without a God, into a mere religion with a God Head. (II) At the core of Mangesh’s praxis is Babasaheb Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. For Mangesh, as well as for me, Babasaheb is the single person who through sheer struggle forced the wheel of change in motion, whose movement was dented for thousands of years. In the midst of extremely challenging politico-historical conditions, Dr. Ambedkar singlehandedly extracted the buddha-dhamma- iv sangha from the state of near destruction and gave it back to the world in ways it was originally intended; a rational, non-textual, self-respecting, compassionate, contextual and humane path to historio-social transformation, arrived at by awakening the ‘self’ to the true nature of reality, through persistent self-effort and a relentless pursuit of the ‘freedom of mind’. In the process of extracting this framework, he organically crafted a unique method to study Indian history and society. What is the method that he employed? Let me touch a bit on this subject from a methodological point-of- view. To begin with (a) we must recognize that Dr. Ambedkar had vast knowledge about social, political and economic theories cutting across contexts. He was well versed in so many subjects that he was able to use them with élan whenever the situation so demands, (b) Dr. Ambedkar’s was a contextualist par excellence. He was able to contextualise all his learnings to the Indian context and from a firm location, he began dissecting Indian society, (c) he used two simultaneous methods of contextualization – historical deconstruction-rational reconstruction. In ‘Historical Deconstruction’ he used the test of context, meaning that, for him, every historical narrative must stand the test of people’s lived experienced in context, and no fact/interpretation of history must be accepted if v such fact/interpretation affirms inhumanity, legitimises inequality, spiritualises exclusion, celebrates oppression and frames such processes as a matter of God manifested fact. In ‘Rational Reconstruction, every event or narrative in history presented as fact, must pass the test of (i) rationality and (ii) the concept of the welfare and good of all beings, without demeaning anyone nor affirming oppression in any way. Based on this premise he began to rationally and humanely reconstruct events in history, producing in the process a new way to look at the past, a new way to view the future and a new way to experience the present, (d) Dr. Ambedkar was prolific in framing his questions. In retrospect, the kind of questions he asked were so fundamental that he was able to hit at the very core of an issue producing in the process deep insights about social reality that altered his own and the people’ way of thinking and finally (e) Dr. Ambedkar was not only intellectually deep but had so much conceptual elegance and sophisticated articulation abilities. His conceptual capacity to articulate very complex issues, both in speech and writings, marked him out as a skilled philosopher. It was rare that anyone could defeat him in a debate and his arguments could not be easily faulted. (III) On the subject of the buddhist methods of gaining knowledge are two concepts - satipathanna and atta deep bhava. The former refers to turning the gaze within (self) as the subject-object of observation and the latter refers to a vi