Table Of Content0
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
