II
The Vedas, Upanishads, Smritis and Puranas including Ramayana and Mahabharata are the Hindu Scriptures. Nor is this a
finite list. Every
age or even. generation has added to the list. It follows,
therefore, that everything printed or even found handwritten is not scripture. The Smrities for instance-contain much that can never be accepted as the
word of God. Thus. many of the texts that Dr. Ambedkar quotes from the Smritis
cannot be accepted as authentic. The scriptures,
properly so-called, can only be concerned with
eternal varieties and must appeal to any conscience i.e. any heart whose eyes of understanding are opened. Nothing can be accepted as the
word of God which cannot be tested by reason or be
capable of being spiritually experienced. And even when you have an expurgated
edition of the scriptures, you will need their interpretation. Who is the best
interpreter? Not learned men surely. Learning
there must be. But religion does not live it. It lives in the experiences of
its saints and seers, in their lives and sayings.
When all the most learned commentators of the scriptures are utterly forgotten,
the accumulated experience of the sages and saints
will abide and be an inspiration for ages to come.
Caste has
nothing to do with religion. It is a custom whose origin I do not know and do not need to know for
the satisfaction of my spiritual hunger. But I do know that it is harmful both
to spiritual and
national growth. Varna and Ashrama are institutions which have
nothing to do with castes
.The law of Varna
teaches us that we have each one of us to earn our bread by following the
ancestral calling. it defines
not our rights but our duties. It necessarily has reference to callings that are conducive to the welfare of
humanity and to no other. It also follows that
there is no calling too low and none too high. Ail
are good, lawful and absolutely equal in status. The callings of a Brahmin—
spiritual teacher—-and a scavenger are equal, and
their due performance carries equal merit before God and at one time seems to have carried identical reward before man. Both were entitled to their livelihood
and no more. Indeed one traces
even now in the villages the faint lines of this healthy operation of the law.
Living in Segaon with its population of 600, I do
not find a great disparity between the earnings of different tradesmen including
Brahmins. I find too that real Brahmins are to be found even in these
degenerate days who are living on alms freely given to them and are giving freely of what they
have of spiritual treasures. It would be wrong and improper to judge the law of Varna by its caricature in the lives of men who profess to belong to a Varna, whilst they openly commit a breach
of its only operative rule. Arrogation of a superior status by and of the Varna over
another is a denial of the law. And there is nothing in the law of Varna to warrant a belief in untouchability.
(The essence of Hinduism is contained in its enunciation of one and only God as Truth and its bold acceptance of Ahimsa
as the law of the human family.)
I am aware
that my interpretation of Hinduism will be disputed by many besides Dr. Ambedkar.
That does not affect my position. It is an
interpretation by which I have lived for nearly half a century and
according to which I have endeavoured to the best
of my ability to regulate my life.
In my opinion the profound mistake
that Dr. Ambedkar has made in his address is to pick out the texts of doubtful authenticity and
value and the state of degraded
Hindus who are no fit specimens of the faith they so woefully misrepresent. Judged by the standard
applied by Dr. Ambedkar, every known living faith
will probably fail.
In his able
address, the learned Doctor has over proved his case. Can a religion that was
professed by Chaitanya, Jnyandeo,
Tukaram, Tiruvailuvar,
Rarnkrishna Paramahansa, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Maharshi Devendranath Tagore, Vivekanand
and host of others who might be easily mentioned, so utterly devoid of merit as
is made out in Dr. Ambedkar's address ? A religion has to be judged not by it's worst specimens but by the best it might have
produced. For that and that alone can be used as
the standard to aspire to, if not to improve upon.
(Harijan,
July 18, 1936)
Comments
Social Counter