Perspectives on Eco-Theology

In a time when ecological doomsday and apocalypse is being resounded in every quarter, Eco-Theology for the Mar Thoma Church and the Christian Community at large promises to usher perspective and direction in confused times like this.  The debates are rife as to how should the imminent looming danger be averted or at least delayed.  Discourses of climate change, global warming agricultural crisis look too abstract and distant to pay attention upon.   In a world obsessed with GDP and battered by recession, any mention of ecology would appear Don Quixotic.  Developed countries resoundingly assert that they will not compromise on the economy for ecology.  The Myopic and skewed economic paradigms have left us staring at the inevitable.  The question to be asked is how long do we as community remain passive? The discourses and debates on eco-theology are binding upon our communitarian responses as Christians.  We are beckoned to be partners with our Creator to help sustain the planet of ours. To be able to do that, we need to comprehend the complexity of the problem.  For that, let us investigate what we mean by Ecology and the ensuing crisis.

Ecology and its Branches   

There is a lot of confusion between ecology and environmentalism. Ecology is an integrating science which is an academic discipline. The term ecology or “Oekologie” was coined in 1866 by the German Biologist Ernst Haeckel to describe the study of the relationship between living organisms and their environment. Ecology is derived from the Greek word ‘Oikos’ which means house and ‘Logos’ which means knowledge. Ecology therefore is employed to describe all aspects of our dwelling in the Earth Household. Environmentalism is a popular response to the perceived threat to the natural environment. It is an increasingly important aspect of the popular culture, rather than an academic discipline.[1]   So it becomes clear that when we deal with eco-theology, we are going to hold ecology in perspective. When we deal with ecology let us acquaint ourselves with five forms of ecological philosophy. They are: Deep Ecology, Social Ecology, Shallow Environmentalism, Gaia Hypothesis and Eco-feminism.

a) Deep Ecology. The Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess first coined the term Deep Ecology in 1973. He further proposed the term ‘Ecosophy’. It studies are place in the earth household and concerns itself with earth wisdom. It is inspired by the science of ecology and system theory. It draws on wider philosophical and religious traditions. The exponents of deep ecology are said to be deep because they look to the fundamental principles which are at the root of environmental crisis. Deep Ecology goes beyond the so-called factual science to the level of self and earth wisdom. It has sound environmental ethics. Deep Ecology seeks to understand and challenge the root causes of our planetary despoliation. The premises of Deep Ecology are the primacy of wilderness, a sense of place, opposition to stewardship, opposition to industrial society, focus on spirituality and self realization. Naess thinks that every religious movement from Buddhism to Christianity has some element with Deep Ecology.

b) Social Ecology.  Social Ecology was first used by the American Ecologist, E.A. Gutkind in 1954. It describes the tendering within the green movement which seas the present ecological crisis as a result of the breakdown of the organic fabric of both society and nature. It is concerned with the green movement with democracy, community and co-operation. It has a realization that there exists social and political institution of domination and hierarchy that block the liberation of nature and humanity. Social ecologists believe in the ecological principles of unity in diversity. Social ecology sees balance and integrity of the ecosphere as an end in itself. It wants to create a dynamic social movement to transform the way we find our place within nature and to change our relationships with each other and the non-human world. Social ecologists challenge the fundamental premises of western civilization.

c) Shallow Environmentalism. Shallow Environmentalism is concerned with reservation and conservation. Man is the central focus of the Shallow Environmentalist. They believe humans are superior to other beings because they create values. Hence their welfare is of first priority. They are categorized into conservationists and preservationists. Here their approach is top-down and very compartmentalized. This approach is anthropocentric. Nature is valued in this due to human association. [2]

d) Gaia Hypothesis.  Gaia Hypothesis by British Scientist James Lovelock. This hypothesis proposes the earth as a complex system which is ‘alive’ in the sense of ‘being auto poetic’ that is continually able to reconstitute and repair itself through a series of complicated feedback mechanisms which respond environmental changes. The Gaia hypothesis offers a view of the earth and the evolution of life from a holistic, inter-related perspective. It tries to offer remarkable insides on the nature of our planet. This hypothesis stimulate fascinating inter disciplinary discussions. According to Lovelock the entire earth, including the atmosphere is a delicately tuned interacting system. The atmosphere is part of the life system being created and sustained by life processes. Gaia-The Earth and its atmosphere is an independent life sustaining whole; it gives us a forceful image of growing awareness of the centrality of relationship as a defining characteristic of life. [3]

e) Eco-Feminism.  In the light of Ecological Epistemologies, Eco-feminism holds huge promise and perspective. Eco-feminism is a radical ecology. Feminists contribute significantly to radial ecology which is provocative and meaningful from the ecological point of view. Here preference is indicated in favour of a more organic and holistic in approach. It does not make any discrimination between sexes or species. Conditions of oppression in patriarchal society are the specific reasons why the feminists become sensitive to the detrimental effects of hierarchy and domination. Eco-feminist’s practice is anti-hierarchical. Life on earth is not a hierarchy, it is an inter-related web. [4]

Vandana Shiva describes development without the feminine principle as ‘Mal-development’. She says “Mal-development is the violation of the integrity of organic, inter-connected and inter-dependent systems that sets in motion a process of exploitation, inequality, injustice and violence. It is blind to the fact that the recognition of nature’s harmony an action to maintain in it is pre-conditions for distributive justice. Nature and women are turned into passive objects, to be used and exploited for the uncontrolled desires of alienated man.  From being the creatures and sustainers of life, nature and women are reduced to being ‘resources’ in the fragmented, anti-life model of mal-development. [5] She further contents that “The recovery of the feminine principle allows a transcendence and transformation of these patriarchal foundations of mal-development. It allows redefinition of growth and productivity as categories link to the production, not the destruction of the life.”[6]

Eco-feminism helps us to epistemologically locate eco-theology in the contemporary times.

 Ecological Crisis

 Here the authors do not wish to delve into the ecological crisis in detail, as the scope of the paper does not permit so. The Ecological crisis will be just mentioned in brief. Here we plan to deal with constructive definitions of ecological crisis.

a) Climate Change.  A change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.[7]

b) Global Warming. It refers to an average increase in the temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and the oceans.[8] 

c) Carbon footprint. This terminology is integral to the Kyoto Protocol. It is a measure of the greenhouse gas emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization, event or product, measured in units of carbon dioxide (CO2).[9] 

Placing Eco-Theology.

John Dryzek contends that the awareness of ecological crisis arrived in the late 1960’s, along with dire warnings about global shortages and ecological collapse.[10] The relationship of theology to the modern ecological crisis became intense issue of debate at the same time in 1967, following the publication of article, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis” by Lynn White, Professor of History at the University of California at Los Angeles. White proceeds to fault Christianity for propagating an anti-ecological understanding of the relationship between humanity and environment.   This was like a Copernican revolution for theology. But before we delve into this aspect, Historical development of Eco- Theology needs to be investigated as chronicled by Jurgen Moltmann. In the history of the Theological doctrine of creation, three stages can be distinguished. These have been determined by the relationship between theology and science at any given time.

a) In the first stage, the biblical traditions and the ancient world’s picture of universe were fused into a religious cosmology. In this fusion, pantheistic elements which glorified the cosmos and the Gnostic elements which disparaged it were both excluded. This in layman’s term is pre-scientific age.

b) The second stage is placed in the scientific age in the backdrop of the struggle between the church and the state.  The Sciences emancipated themselves from theology while theology detached its doctrine of creation from cosmology altogether and reduced to personal belief in creation.  The world views of ancient and medieval times were rejected as unscientific and biblical creation narratives were written off by historical criticism as myths.  So all that remained was the reduction of the doctrine of creation for the personal faith which  says that human beings  have to put their trust in God the creator, not His creatures.   In order to protect it from scientific attack the Protestant Theology of modern times explained faith in creation as an expression of the feeling of absolute dependence. In this second stage, science and theology were busy  with their mutual demarcation.  But it was peaceful co-existence on the basis of mutual irrelevance. 

c) Today theology and science have entered a third stage in their relationship.   Now they have become  companion in tribulation under the pressure of the ecological crisis in the quest for new direction and horizon.  It is only slowly the theologians are beginning to see that their continual attempts to draw dividing lines between theology and sciences are no longer necessary because sciences’ earlier unquestioning faith in itself has disappeared.   Scientist are slowly beginning to discover the Christian theology is not  conserving antiquated  world views but realizes that it is a partner  that deserves to be taken seriously, both in the sphere of cosmology and in the realm of social engineering .[11]   

              

Paradigms of Eco-theology.  

Eco-theology, like any inter disciplinary academic field, is full of dialectics and shifting paradigms. Lauren Kearns in the light of his 20 years researches in Eco-theology categorizes it into 3 paradigms that are not necessarily water tight compartments. They are Christian Stewardship, Eco-justice and Creation Spirituality. [12]

a) Christian Stewardship.  The term Stewardship has been widely deployed in recent years to justify Christian involvement in environmental action. The key “Dominion” passage is used to justify stewardship as a model of responsibility towards the earth. The main trouble with stewardship is the fact that it is anthropocentric and it does not exhaust what the Bible and Christian Theology have to say about relationship between human beings and the natural world. The emphasis on our duties and responsibilities rather than our rights. Paradoxically, this may have the effect of undermining environmental responsibility; a bonded servant may fulfill his duties but may not feel responsible as a free employee would. But, it cannot be undermined that Christian stewardship as a paradigm is an important voice countering a wide spread strain of conservative Christianity that is anti-science with “creationist over tones”. [13] 

b) Eco-justice.  Advocates of this branch represent more mainstream and liberal Protestant and Catholic Social-justice understandings of Christianity in which God’s Kingdom of just relations between humans and with the realm of creation is to be worked here on earth by righting social wrongs. Here the source of authority is the example of Jesus and the Social Gospel Tradition. The stress on the marginalized sections of the society and the impact of Ecological degradation on them. They believe that when one talks of eco-justice, it is better to ask the question who is the sufferers of climate change, rising waters, agricultural crisis, global warming etc. and the answer is inevitably the marginalized. [14] One gets the impression that the eco-justice paradigm is heavily dependent on the liberation theology hermeneutics. This also is largely anthropocentric. But this approach has positively affected ecological activism.  

c) Creation Spirituality.  Creation Spirituality focuses on the wonder of the universe, and the cosmological story of its evolution, which reveals that humans are but a small part of the “Universe Story”.  Proponents of this paradigm often come from the most liberal Protestant and Catholic groups that are open to a wide array of spiritual traditions, deep ecology, mysticisms, eco-feminism etc.  In this approach, the revolution of the universe is considered to supersede the knowledge of most religious traditions.  They embrace numinous or immanent sense of the sacred in the world. [15]  This is in tune with sacramental world view of Christian Eastern Theology. But the problem is many practicing Christians find this approach very offensive as they feel it compromises on their basic faith. So the appropriate solution to counter this dilemma is to adopt the model of Mark I. Wallace.  This will be added as the fourth paradigm for the sake of clarity of concept even though it can be included in the paradigm of creation spirituality. 

d) Ecological Pneumatology.   Mark I. Wallace is the proponent of this concept called Ecological Pneumatology.  He says the Holy Spirit is best understood not as a metaphysical entity but as a healing life force that engenders human flourishing as well as welfare of the planet. This model understands the Spirit not as Divine intellect or the principle of consciousness but as a healing and subversive life form- as water, light, dove, mother, fire, breath and wind- on the basis of different biblical and literary figurations of the spirit in nature. A nature based Pneumatology challenges the conventional assumptions by figuring the spirit, in the economies of confronting violence and healing the earth, as a leaving embodied being who works for healthy communities within our shared planet home. An earth based understanding of the Spirit will not domesticate the spirit by locating her activity simply alongside nature rather nature itself in all its variety and diversity will be construed as the primary mode of being for the Spirit’s work in the world. Spirit forges unity among enemies and opposites by eradicating the dysfunctional differences that define personal and communal identity. To follow the Spirit’s revolutionary promptings is to risk leaving liminal existence vulnerable to attack by mainstream members of society who bitterly resist the mixing of opposite and crossing of cultural boundaries.  Spirit gives us the prophetic role of being the bearers of Spirit’s nature based desire for integrity of all biotic populations that blur the human-non-human distinction an oppose distinctions that classify some life forms as valuable, pure and sacred and others as worthless, unclean and profane. [16] It would be better to locate the responses of the church and the Mar Thoma Church in specific from the Ecological Pneumatology-Paradigm. 

Responses of Churches .

Though our focus is on the Mar Thoma Church, the authors would use the more inclusive word Churches as one realizes that a joint effort from all the churches is necessary. This crisis rings bell for a wider ecumenism where the Spirit according to Wallace unites us. The environmental crisis is both an enormous opportunity and also a strong challenge to today’s churches.  Oelschleger (1994)in his book ‘Caring for Creation’ points out that church is our last, best chance to enter into the environment and work for the welfare of the universe, because Church is rooted and commissioned in the realms of the Eco-system propelled by the Holy Spirit.

1) To Join Hands with Persons in Ecological Movement.

In our country, in the national level and regional level there are lot of organizations or movements which are working with ecological concerns. As a church committed to the people and environment, we should join hands with the ‘Green Groups’ for keeping the integrity of ecosystems.[17]

2) Promotion Of the Idea of ‘Green’ through Seminars and Activities.

The church enjoys a special facility to reach out to millions of people all over the country. Empowering them to take on responsibility for earth should be a priority for the church. The Yuvajana Sakhyam should be oriented with systematic  seminars, discourses, and group discussions. The Sunday School curriculum should be modified in tune with new biblical hermeneutics regarding eco-theology. Since mothers have a vital role in attitudinal formations of the children, Sevika Sanghom should be sensitized about the practical trends in ecological conservations.

3) Practice of Eco – Spirituality.

This suggests a way of life that celebrates our eco – friendly vision. In this approach we have to praise God for the beauty of the creation and the wonder of our being. Celebrations like World Earth Day(April 22), World Environmental Day(June 5) etc. should be celebrated in our churches with various activities in connection with ecology. New Earth – Friendly Liturgies need to be created, with songs to capture the beauty of the Earth and all its mysteries.[18]

4) To Create a forum for Eco – Theology.

A forum for eco – theology in a church should mainly include the presence of ecological authors and theologians from various branches that support ecological restoration. Reinterpretation of biblical texts is necessary in congruence with the concept of Ecological Pneumatology.

5) Engagement with the Panchayat Raj

In the Indian context, Panchayat Raj plays a decisive role, but the church has not seriously engaged with it.  The schemes of Panchayat Raj programmed through local administrative bodies can be discussed in the core groups in the parish level.Therefore, the members of the group can invariably and voluntarily participate in the activities and execute eco-friendly projects. This type of engagement focuses upon the development of human resources instead of the reliability on nature and its resources in the perspective of instrumentality. [19]

6) The Challenge of Preaching and Teaching.

Our preaching and teaching should mention the environment and God’s Creation regularly. It should be part of the natural life of all Christian congregations, not just a task for a few specialists. All congregations of all denominations should give special attention to these questions. The chasm between abstract ecological crisis and its practical manifestation should be bridged. This task needs a lot of commitment as people should be able to connect with it. The problem is that today specialists deal with jargons that people feel have no relevance to their lives. Church as a forum should use all its resources to inculcate “Eco-sensitivity”. [20]

7) Participation in Rain Water Harvesting and Waste Water Treatment.

A church can implement waste water treatment programmes in church premises and in the houses of Church members. This will help in the biological removal of dissolved solids from water , which can be used for house hold activity. Rain Water Harvesting is one of the main techniques of conserving water, one which has great potential to solve the water crisis across the globe. Rooftops, compounds, rocky surfaces or hill slopes or artificially prepared land surfaces can be  used  for this. A church can easily involve in these areas to reduce the water crisis.[21] Feminist theology and eco – feminism are, in fact, two interrelated streams of thought that deal with proper relation between humanity and the rest of the creation.[22] One of the fundamental thrust of eco – feminism is that there is a natural – nexus between women and nature.[23]

8) Making paradigm shifts in the attitude of the church members

Churches have always concentrated on villages when the debate for ecological restoration arose. But it is time Church challenges the middle class section to come out of their comfort zones and envisage an ecologically sustainable lifestyle in urban settings. Small steps like water conservation, low electricity consumption, promotion of concepts like car pools and bike pools, minimal usage of AC’s etc. should be inculcated.

Conclusion

One viewing of Al Gore’s Oscar winning documentary “The Inconvenient Truth” makes us realize that the earth clock is ticking.  We believe that in our quest through Eco-theology, we are encountering a struggle to find God in a world scarred by violence, destruction, chaos and mayhem. For us the struggle to believe in God in the face of strong and troubling evidence to the contrary is the sign of Church being a Covenant Community. Our conviction of Being God’s creation beckons us to respond in a time like this. Let the famous quote of Rachel Carson the author of “Silent Springs” give us perspective and inspiration. She wrote to her friend this way “The beauty of the living World I was trying to save has always been uppermost in my mind. That, and anger at the senseless, brutish things that were being done. Now I can believe I have at least helped a little.”  Ecological Pneumatology construes humankind and other kind as members of a common ecosystem in which no one species is more valuable and worthy of protection than the other. This premise, if adopted by the Church, will hold promise for the much awaited ‘Renewal of the Creation’.

                                                                        BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dryzek, John. S. , The Politics Of The Earth.Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2005

Kearns,Lauren. “The Context Of Eco - Theology”. In The Blackwell Companion To Modern Theology.  

                Edited by Gareth Jones.New York : Blackwell Publications, 2004

King, Caroly M. Habitat of Grace. Australia : Australian Theological Forum, 2002

Kurian. M (ed). Ecology : Responsibility Of The Church. Kottayam : Kerela Council Of Churches, 1990

Lersson, Per.  Your Will Be Done. Hongkong : Christian Conference Of Asia, 2004.

Lovelock, James . “Gaia : A new look on life on Earth”. In Classics in Environmental Studies.  Edited by

                Nico Nellisen, Jan Van Der Straaten and Leon Klinkers.New Delhi : Kusum Publishing, 2001.

Mattam, Joseph and Jacob Kavunkal, (ed). Ecological  Concerns. Bangalore:NBCLC,1998.

Moltmann, Jurgen.  God In Creation – An Ecological Doctrine Of Creation. London SCM Press Limited,

                1985.

 Murli, J. Global Mitigation Strategies To Address Climate Change. Kolkata : WWF, 2008

 Sarkar, R. L. The Bible, Ecology and Environment. New Delhi: ISPCK,2000

 Shiva, Vandana  “Staying Alive : Women, Ecology and Development”. In Classics In Environmental

 Studies. Edited by Nico Nellissen, Jan Van Der Straaten and Leon Klinkers. New Delhi : Kusum Publishing, 2001. 

 Wallace, Mark I. Fragments Of The Spirit : Nature, Violence and Renewal Of Creation.

Harrisburg : Trinity Press International, 2002.

Prepared by the students of: Mar Thoma Theological Seminary, Kottayam.

[1] R.L. Sarkar, The Bible, Ecology and Environment (New Delhi: ISPCK,2000), 59.

[2] Ibid, 65-67

[3] James Lovelock ”Gaia : A new look on life on Earth”, Classics in Environmental Studies, edited by Nico Nellissen, Jan Van Der Straaten and Leon Klinkers(New Delhi : Kusum Publishing, 2001), 243 – 248.

[4] Sarkar, op.cit.,71 – 73.

[5] Vandana Shiva “Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development”. Classics in Environmental Studies, edited by Nico Nellissen, Jan Van Der Straaten and Leon Klinkers(New Delhi : Kusum Publishing, 2001),287 -289.

[6] Ibid

[7] J. Murli, Global Mitigation Strategies To Address Climate Change(Kolkata : WWF, 2008), 32 – 34.

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid

[10] John. S. Dryzek, The Politics Of The Earth(Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2005), 5

[11] Jurgen Moltmann, God In Creation – An Ecological Doctrine Of Creation(London SCM Press Limited, 1985),33 - 34

[12] Lauren Kearns, op.cit,.477

[13] Ibid, 478

[14] Ibid

[15] Ibid

[16] Mark I. Wallace, Fragments Of The Spirit : Nature, Violence and Renewal Of Creation(Harrisburg : Trinity Press International, 2002), 2 - 5

[17] Joseph Mattam & Jacob Kavunkal, ed.,  Ecological Concerns (Banglore : NBCLC, 1998), 142

[18] Ibid

[19] Carolyn M. King, Habitat Of Grace (Australia : Australian Theological Forum, 2002), 159.

[20] Ibid., 163

[21] Per Larrson, Your Will Be Done On Earth(Hong Kong: Christian Conference of Asia,2004),93

[22] Joseph Mattam and Jacob Kavunkal, ed.,Ecological  Concerns(Bangalore:NBCLC,1998),69.)

[23] Per Larrson, op.cit., 94

Neo Buddhist Movement and Dr B.R. Ambedkar

               

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar’s path to his conversion in 1956 is marked by signposts or benchmarks which built in his mind both the certainty of Buddhism as a religion for Dalits and for all India, and also as an idea of the kind of Buddhism he wanted to reintroduce to India. In the introduction itself it is important to unravel the contours of his religious journey before looking at his brief biography. His quest can be categorized as follows. a) The intellectual revival of Buddhism in India and the writings of intellectuals, both in India and abroad, on Buddhism. b) The beauty of Buddhism as artistically grand as well as historically of great of great importance. C) The interest in Buddhism among Dalits in earlier generations. D) The relationship of Buddhism to the history of untouchability in India. E) Buddhism as a source of equality for women as well as all humanity. F) The importance of Buddhism internationally and in neighbouring countries. G) a realization of the value of the figure of the Buddha as focus of the new Buddhism. Within this framework let us briefly look into the history of the great icon and constitutionalist Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar.[1]

Historical Sketch of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar-

Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was born in the British-founded town and military cantonment of Mhow in the Central Provinces (now in Madhya Pradesh). He was the 14th and last child of Ramji Maloji Sakpal and Bhimabai Murbadkar. His family was of Marathi background from the town of Ambavade in the Ratnagiri district of modern-day Maharashtra. They belonged to the Hindu Mahar caste, who were treated as so called untouchables and subjected to intense socio-economic discrimination. Ambedkar’s father’s name was Ramji Sakpal.

Belonging to the Kabir Panth, Ramji Sakpal encouraged his children to read the Hindu classics. He used his position in the army to lobby for his children to study at the government school, as they faced resistance owing to their caste. Although able to attend school, Ambedkar and other Untouchable children were segregated and given no attention or assistance by the teachers. They were not allowed to sit inside the class. Even if they needed to drink water somebody from a higher caste would have to pour that water from a height as they were not allowed to touch either the water or the vessel that contained it. This task was usually performed for the young Ambedkar by the school peon, and if he could not be found Ambedkar went without water.  His native village name was "Ambavade" in Ratnagiri District so he changed his name from "Sakpal" to "Ambedkar" with the recommendation and faith of Mahadev Ambedkar, his teacher who believed in him.[2]

Ramji Sakpal remarried in 1898, and the family moved to Mumbai , where Ambedkar became the first untouchable student at the Government High School near Elphinstone Road. Although excelling in his studies, Ambedkar was increasingly disturbed by the segregation and discrimination that he faced. In 1907, he passed his matriculation examination and entered the University of Bombay, becoming one of the first persons of untouchable origin to enter a college in India. This success provoked celebrations in his community, and after a public ceremony he was presented with a biography of the Buddha by his teacher Krishnaji Arjun Keluskar also known as Dada Keluskar, a Maratha caste scholar. Ambedkar's marriage had been arranged the previous year as per Hindu custom, to Ramabai, a nine-year old girl from Dapoli.  In 1908, he entered Elphinstone College and obtained a scholarship of twenty five rupees a month from the Gayakwad ruler of Baroda, Sahyaji Rao III for higher studies in the USA. By 1912, he obtained his degree in economics and political science, and prepared to take up employment with the Baroda state government. His wife gave birth to his first son, Yashwant, in the same year. Ambedkar had just moved his young family and started work, when he dashed back to Mumbai to see his ailing father, who died on February 2, 1913. As a leading Indian scholar, Ambedkar had been invited to testify before the Southborough Committee, which was preparing the Government of India Act 1919. At this hearing, Ambedkar argued for creating separate electorates and reservations for Dalits and other religious communities. In 1920, he began the publication of the weekly Mooknayak (Leader of the Silent) in Mumbai. Attaining popularity, Ambedkar used this journal to criticize orthodox Hindu politicians and a perceived reluctance of the Indian political community to fight caste discrimination. His speech at a Depressed Classes Conference in Kolhapur impressed the local state ruler Shahu IV, who shocked orthodox society by dining with Ambekdar. Ambedkar established a successful legal practice, and also organised the Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha  to promote education and socio-economic uplifting of the depressed classes.[3]

By 1927 Dr. Ambedkar decided to launch active movements against untouchability. He began with public movements and marches to open up and share public drinking water resources, also he began a struggle for the right to enter Hindu temples. He led a satyagraha in Mahad to fight for the right of the untouchable community to draw water from the main water tank of the town.

He was appointed to the Bombay Presidency Committee to work with the all-European Simon Commission in 1925. This commission had sparked great protests across India, and while its report was ignored by most Indians, Ambedkar himself wrote a separate set of recommendations for future constitutional reformers. In 1935, Ambedkar was appointed principal of the Government Law College, a position he held for two years. Settling in Mumbai, Ambedkar oversaw the construction of a large house, and stocked his personal library with more than 50,000 books. His wife Ramabai died after a long illness in the same year. It had been her long-standing wish to go on a pilgrimage to Pandharpur, but Ambedkar had refused to let her go, telling her that he would create a new Pandharpur for her instead of Hinduism's Pandharpur which treated them as untouchables. His own views and attitudes had hardened against orthodox Hindus, despite a significant increase in momentum across India for the fight against untouchability. And he began criticizing them even as he was criticized himself by large numbers of Hindu activists. Speaking at the Yeola Conversion Conference on October 13 near Nasik, Ambedkar announced his intention to convert to a different religion and exhorted his followers to leave Hinduism.  He would repeat his message at numerous public meetings across India.[4]

In 1936, Ambedkar founded the Independent Labour Party, which won 15 seats in the 1937 elections to the Central Legislative Assembly. He published his book The Annihilation of Caste in the same year, based on the thesis he had written in New York. Attaining immense popular success, Ambedkar's work strongly criticized Hindu religious leaders and the caste system in general. He protested the Congress decision to call the untouchable community Harijans  (Children of God), a name coined by Gandhi. Ambedkar served on the Defence Advisory Committee and the Viceroy's Executive Council as minister for labour. With What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables, Ambedkar intensified his attacks on Gandhi and the Congress, charging them with hypocrisy. In his work “Who Were the Shudras?”, Ambedkar attempted to explain the formation of the Shudras i.e. the lowest caste in hierarchy of Hindu caste system. He also emphasised how Shudras are separate from Untouchables. Ambedkar oversaw the transformation of his political party into the All India Scheduled Castes Federation, although it performed poorly in the elections held in 1946 for the Constituent Assembly of India. In writing a sequel to “Who Were the Shudras?” in 1948, Ambedkar lambasted Hinduism in the The Untouchables: A Thesis on the Origins of Untouchability:[5]

The Journey Towards Buddhism-

At the Yeola conference in 1935, prominent Dalit leader B. R. Ambedkar declared that he would not die a Hindu, saying that it perpetuates caste injustices. Ambedkar was approached by various leaders of different denominations and faiths. Meetings were held to discuss the question of Dalit religion and the pros and cons of conversion. On May 22, 1936, an "All Religious Conference" was held at Lucknow. It was attended by prominent Dalit leaders including Jagjivan Ram, though Ambedkar could not attend it. At the conference, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, and Buddhist representatives presented the tenets of their respective religions in an effort to win over Dalits.

Buddhist monk Lokanatha visited Ambedkar's residence at Dadar on June 10, 1936 and tried to persuade him to embrace Buddhism. Later in an interview to the Press, Lokanatha said that Ambedkar was impressed with Buddhism and that his own ambition was to convert all Dalits to Buddhism. In 1937, Lokanatha published a pamphlet  “Buddhism Will Make You Free”, dedicated to the Depressed Classes of India from his press in Ceylon.

In early 1940s, Ambedkar visited Acharya Ishvardatt Medharthi's Buddhpuri School in Kanpur. Medharthi had earlier been initiated into Buddhism by Lokanatha, and by the mid-1940s, he had close contacts with Ambedkar. For a short while, Ambedkar also took Pali classes from Medharthi in Delhi.

Bodhananda Mahastvir and B. R. Ambedkar first met in 1926, at the "Indian Non-Brahmin Conference" convened by Shahu IV of Kolhapur. They met on two more occasions and for a short while in the 1940s, where they discussed dhamma. Mahastavir was objected to Dr Ambedkar's second marriage because his wife was a Brahmin.  Later, his followers actively participated in Ambedkar's Republican Party of India.[6]

Ambedkar's conversion

After publishing a series of books and articles arguing that Buddhism was the only way for the Untouchables to gain equality, Ambedkar publicly converted on October 14, 1956 at Deekshabhoomi, Nagpur. He took the three refuges and the Five Precepts from a Buddhist monk, Bhadant bv Chandramani, in the traditional manner and then in his turn administered them to the 380,000 of his followers that were present. The conversion ceremony was attended by Medharthi, his main disciple Bhoj Dev Mudit, and Mahastvir Bodhanand's Sri Lankan successor, Bhante Pragyanand. Ambedkar would die less than two months later, just after finishing his definitive work on Buddhism.

Many Dalits employ the term "Ambedkarite Buddhism" to designate the Buddhist movement, which started with Ambedkar's conversion and many converted people called themselves as "Nava-Bauddha" i.e. New Buddhists.[7]

Basic Difference Between Buddhism and Neo-Buddhism-

Ambedkar introduced a number of innovations in traditional Buddhism.

a)  Stress on Rationalism- The rationalism of the Buddha serves chiefly in Neo-Buddhism to deny the existence of God and Atman. Traditional Buddhism is silent on such matters while in this Ambedkar formulated that Dhamma had nothing to do with God and Soul. This was rooted in the belief of Ambedkar that concept God and soul legitimizes the system of caste. According to Ambedkar ‘atheism’is the key element of Buddhism along with rationality and egalitarianism as its hallmark.

b)  The Social Interpretation of Dukkha- According to Ambedkar Buddha’s gospel is essentially social, so is dukkha, the central notion of Buddhist suffering and sorrow. Ambedkar says that the recognition of suffering is the real  basis of religion. This suffering is wrought by social and economic injustice. Man’s misery is the result of man’s inequality to man. It is what we do to each other than what we do to ourselves. This is a radical reinterpretation as traditional Buddhism believes the root cause of suffering is the misery of desire that we bring upon ourselves.

c)  Reinterpretation of Mahabhinishkrmana( Great Renunciation)- Ambedkar gives a new account ofMahabhinishkramana of Gautama Siddhartha. He contends that the causes for Gautama’s renunciation of princely life are not the legendary four sights.  He found it irrational to suppose that a man of 29 was not exposed to sickness and dying. He suggests that renunciation was the result of Gautama’s refusal to support a Sakya military action against the Koliya tribe in a feud over water rights. Determined not to participate in war, Siddhartha went into voluntary exile. His moral stand lent courage to those Sakya who were opposed to the use of force and  the war was averted. But when Gautama was invited back he said there are many problems other than war that need to be solved. He thought that the cause of conflict was class disharmony and he wanted to find solution to this problem. This idea he took from Dharmanand Kosambi, who in Bhagvan Buddha propounded this theory.

d)  Underplay of the Role of Sangha- Ambedkar played down the role of Sangha in the History of Buddhism. To remove the impression that Buddha addressed to Bhikkus primarily, he stresses that Buddha clearly had the laity in mind. The 5 precepts and the 8 fold paths were addressed to house holders.the Sangha was instituted to show that what he preached  was practical. He observed that there was no Dhamma Diksha for those who wanted to join the Dhamma but not the Sangha. He said this was the cause of decline of Buddhism in India. Ambedkar invented the Dhamma Diksha for the laity. He urged the Bhikkus to learn from Christian missionaries and reach out to the masses.

e)  Aborginal Connections of Buddhism- Ambedkar said that there were a aborgginal group called the Nagas. Subjugated by the Aryans the Nagas became Buddhist. They were progressively marginalized and caste out as the ancestors of the untouchables. But before being outcastes these people propagated the religion. Nagas were behind the spreading of Buddhism. many of his followers believe that tis is the reason why he selected Nagpur for his conversion.

f)  Inclusion of Ambedkar as an Object of Reverence- The inclusion of Babasaheb Ambedkar as an object of reverence is the most visible innovation in practice adopted by his followers. Buddha and Ambedkar in plaster, stone , poster-art and painting, in song, drama, and story, are never without each other. This shows that Neo- Buddhism combines its own tradition with mainstream Buddhism. on every occasion both  figure are garlanded, the Buddha first; incense is burnt and both are addressed before any speech is delivered. Some of his followers consider Ambedkar as Bodhisatva for his role as the savior of Buddhists in India. another effort is to include him in the 3 jewels which becomes 4. I go for refuge to Buddha, I go for refuge to the Dhamma, I go for refuge to the Sangha and I go to refuge to Bhimrao, i.e. Bhimmam Sharanam Gachchammi.

g) Redefining Viharas- Viharas are traditionally the living place of te monks and more of a monastery. But in Neo-Buddhism it is a meeting place for the laity, a place where the image of Buddha can be kept and lectures held on Buddhism. there is no Pujari and no stream of individual worshippers paying homage o the image. The Vihra srves chiefly as a centre for the community to gather as Buddhists. [8]

h)  Lack of Essentials- Ambedkar restricted Buddhists beliefs to this world and this life.the existence of consciousness of the body was denied. Buddhist approach was posited as rational and scientific. Whatever transgressed the authority of experience and reason was considered non-Buddhistic in essence by Ambedkar. Ambedkar sought to eliminate mystical elements such as Dhyana and Sammadhi( meditation). According to Ambedkar, Buddhism is a religion that is rooted in morality. [9]

Placing Neo-Buddhism in Larger Epistemological Framework-

To understand th various facets of Neo-Buddhism we have to analyse various dynamics that propelled Babasaheb to evolve Neo- Buddhism the way he did.

a) Ambedkar’s Understanding of Religion- Ambedkar’s approach towards religion differed drastically from that of his contemporaries. He did not approach religion in a theistic and deistic perspective. He did not approach religion from a comparative perspective. His approach was enriched by the Marxist critique of religion but was not Marxist either. His approach was influenced on one hand by sociological, anthropological and philosophical works of Durkheim, Spencer, Robertson Smith, Dharmanand Kosambi, Dr. P.V. Kane. On the other hand he approached religion from historical evolution perspective and from the perspective of the philosophy of religion. But for him philosophy of religion meant critical application of reason. From historical evolution he traces from the savage society to civilized society. For a long time religious morality determined social fabric but was shattered by scientific revolution where secular morality replaced religious morality in modern times.  So morality became central.

b) Critique  of Hinduism- Ambedkar did not understand Hinduism as a primitive religion but regarded it as a positive religion. Positive religion emerges at a particular time in history; it has its own scheme of divine governance and a definite set of values. He believed the written code is Manusmriti which emerged after the defeat of Buddhism. so it is a historical religion and a revived form of Brahmanism. By making Hinduism historical he was making it come under reasonable scrutiny. He scrutinizes it on the basis of the principle of justice that  was based on liberty , equality and fraternity. He asked whether Hinduism have these aspects. His answer was big no. the varnasystem was the most dehumanizing part of Hinduism that created an ascending order of reverence and descending order of contempt. He found the Ashrama system very unreasonable and negates life. Manu’s code was anti-woman that denied education, equality and freedom to women. [10]

c) Ambedkar’s Construction of Dhamma to Transcend Religion- Ambedkar’s understanding of religion as Historical made him realize that religion works as both Social force and motive force. As a motive force it inspires the individual to act upon an event, to transcend ordinary conditions, to withstand difficulties and accept failure with a sense of detachment. As a social force it gives a community an identity, social security and works as a source of power. He believed for long that a state with written codes in democratic framework can institutionalize morality. But when he realized the limitation of state and religion he formulated Dhamma which is different  from Dharma. Dhamma was the guiding principle of Social conscience. Maintaining purity of life, to reach perfection in life, to live in Nibbana(nirvana), to give up craving, to believe karma is the instrument of moral order is Dhamma. Belief in God, belief in soul, belief in sacrifice, in the infallibity of books is against Dhamma. So he situates morality in the day to day life of the people. Dhamma is a social praxis, it originates in and thrives only through praxis. Ambedkar’s Dhamma rejects religion, demystifies morality and secularises social relations. [11]

d) Religion in the Context of Ambedkar’s Politics- Ambedkar located his politics in opposition to Swarajya and formulated Surajya that dealt civilizing dimension of politics. This enabled him at once inlaunching the politics of Dalit emancipation in the face of the caste system, communalism, colonialism and capitalism. He found Brahmanism in Hinduism destabilizing and developed a serious critique on Brahmanism. Ambedkar realized that Brahmanism and capitalism go hand in hand. So his Dhamma was constructed in accordance with his politics. He defined social in relation to morality. His construction of Dhamma at once was a creative blend of the norms and values of modern civil society and human beings’ eternal quest for communitarian life. His doctrine of Dhamma has helped the secularist discourse in India above the antagonism between tradition and modernity and reason and faith. He showed that the critique of religion can be used effectively for emancipatory politics   by reinterpreting Buddhism.[12]

Conclusion-

We have to accept that the movement of Neo- Buddhism was very innovative and its nature was very modern. Ambedkar is a creative genius in blending religion and reason. With his religion his slogan of ‘ Educate, agitate, organise’ gave the movement a footing that challenged the community to engage meaningfully with the education system. He blended religion and politics very beautifulyl. He gave a new cultural world to the Dalits to engage with. The demographic change that the movement brought about was phenomenal. It helped people to get out of the symbolic and cultural world of Brahminism and could be redefined with the categories of Buddhism and its stress on equality and fraternity. Because of the constitutional role of Ambedkar, the Neo- Buddhists have always respected constitutional means and politics has been parliamentary. They claim that the primitive Buddhism was like Neo-Buddhism and very different from traditional Buddhism. This movement has to be engaged with to understand one of the most important Subaltern social movements of India.

Rev Merin Mathew
Mar Thoma Syrian Church
Guwahati

Bibliography

Goyal, S.R., Buddhism: In Indian History and Culture, (Jodhpur, Kusumanjali Book World, 2004

[1], Dhanajay Keer, Dr Ambedkar :Life and Mission( Bombay: Popular Prakashan,  1971

Queen, Christopher, Ambedkar’s Dhamma: Source and Method in the Construction of Engaged Buddhism, , Edited by Surendra Jondhale and Johannes Beltz(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004

Sumant, Yashwant, Situating Religion in Ambedkar’s Political Discourse. Reconstructing the World: B.R. Ambedkar and Buddhism in India, Edited by Surendra Jondhale and Johannes Beltz(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004

Thomas, M.M, Ambedkar and the Neo-Buddhist Movement. Edited by T.S. Wilkinson and M.M.Thomas( Madras: The Christian Literature Society, 1972

Eleanor Zelliot, “ B.R. Ambedkar and search for a meaningfulBuddhism”, Reconstructing the World: B.R. Ambedkar and Buddhism in India, Edited by Surendra Jondhale and Johannes Beltz(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004),

[1], Eleanor Zelliot, “ B.R. Ambedkar and search for a meaningfulBuddhism”, Reconstructing the World: B.R. Ambedkar and Buddhism in India, Edited by Surendra Jondhale and Johannes Beltz(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 18

[2], Dhanajay Keer, Dr Ambedkar :Life and Mission( Bombay: Popular Prakashan,  1971),12-13

[3] Ibid., 72-77

[4]  M.M Thomas, Ambedkar and the Neo-Buddhist Movement. Edited by T.S. Wilkinson and M.M.Thomas( Madras: The Christian Literature Society, 1972), 64-70

[5]  Keer, op.cit., 276-280.

[6] Ibid, 305

[7]  Thomas., op.cit, 49-53

[8]  S.R Goyal., Buddhism: In Indian History and Culture, (Jodhpur, Kusumanjali Book World, 2004), 243-248.

[9]  Christopher Queen , Ambedkar’s Dhamma: Source and Method in the Construction of Engaged Buddhism, ,Edited by Surendra Jondhale and Johannes Beltz(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 132-136

[10] Yashwant Sumant ,Situating Religion in Ambedkar’s Political Discourse. Reconstructing the World: B.R. Ambedkar and Buddhism in India, Edited by Surendra Jondhale and Johannes Beltz(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 70-76

[11] Ibid

[12] ibid

Isn’t the liturgy Meaningless Mate?

Let me start by saying that this question has always baffled and confused me. I have struggled very hard to understand to know why we need this. I have a history that I am not necessarily proud of. I have read novels and books in the church using the order of worship as a shield. So here I am trying to put some light on our liturgy and I will try my best to keep it as interesting and simple as possible. I don’t think anyone will be with me if I elaborately expound it, so I will highlight certain key points of the worship. I Prayerfully hope this will help you in helping you participate in worship meaningfully.

We have Jacob, popularly called Jack(why ?) who is a 2nd year student at the theological seminary, and along with him are Minjo(how symbolic a name. Mother’s name is Mini and dad’s name is John, so guess who we have. Malayalis I say, they are genius with names) and Dan who are members of the Epiphany Mar Thoma Church, where cool dude Jack is assigned for Sunday assignment. Jack, took these two youths for a coffee at “Kaapi Kada: Coffee is Just an Excuse(why do I feel I have heard that somewhere)”. Now can you imagine he took them out to talk about worship? These two dudes are here so as not to offend him and to be nice(and who doesn’t like free coffee?). They truly believe that the “Worship order is meaningless”. So after the initial talks about cars and of course girls, Matt dares the two to ask questions pertaining to the structure of Worship. Here, let us hear it.

Minjo. Do we have a structure in here?

Jack.  Yes is the answer and it is called the a)Preperatory service or the thooyaba b) Ante-Communion or Pre-Communion, c) Communion.

Thuyaba is where the priest prepares himself for the service. This can be both public and private. There is an order that is followed. But I would not as of now elaborate more upon it.

Dan. This Ante-Communion, Communion sounds very funny. I thought the entire service is called Holy Communion. I don’t get it.

J . Frankly even I was unaware of this division. Actually in the ante-communion comes the preparatory service. But I here to make it more pronounced divided it. So the Ante communion is also called the ‘Liturgy of the Word’ as the Epistles and Gospel is read in this section.

‘Shobha Niranja Aleyathil….’  Is the call to the community to participate in this Worship. It affirms the holiness of God and confesses our sinful state and asks God to intervene.

M . Dude whats Mary doing in the opening prayer of the priest? Why do we have John in there too? We don’t worship the saints, do we? ( In reference to “Mariyamil nin Shariram Dharikyugeyum…” O Lord Jesus Christ, born of Mary, Baptised by John, have mercy on us)

J . Ok to answer that I will call upon your attention to the fact that the curtain is drawn open in between “Shobha Niranja”. Now why do we need that curtain? It is a symbol. This symbolizes the full revelation of God in Christ. It is here that we remember Mary and John. This prayer calls us to the attention of the incarnation of Christ. So it is Mary’s willing response to God that made the incarnation of Jesus or to put in easier terms, the possibility GOD becoming human in Jesus became possible. John prepared the way for the ministry of Jesus and baptized him. So this prayer remembers the incarnation and the public ministry of Jesus which is significant for our salvation. So, they are remembered as facilitators in the process. Does that make sense?

D. Yeah. Kind of. Getting the hang of it. I think this would be my last question for the day as I am just gettin started, it would be an overdose. The HOLY ART THOU part is said three times. What is that all about?

J. yeah, that’s a neat question. Let us remember that ‘Holy Art Thou O God’ in our liturgy signifies Jesus. Here we affirm Christ’s Holiness, Immortality and his Crucifixion. The crucifixion was to save us. “O Thou that was crucified for us have mercy on us” means he was crucified on our behalf. For our salvation. It is said three times for affirmation, so it is called Trisagion. Some claim that this is how you affirm as we see in John 21:15-17, Jesus before reinstating Peter asked him thrice ‘Do you love me’. It is an affirmation on our behalf.

M. Ok. Seriously what do you mean by salvation? What is the fuss all about?

A . I will answer you what I learnt from my Principal Rev Dr Abraham Kuruvilla and my friend and guide, Rev Sam Koshy. We have to understand Salvation in the continuation of Creation. God created the world and He saw it was good. God had a purpose in creation. He made man ‘In his Own image’. But man sinned and defeated the purpose of creation. We distorted the ‘Image of God’. As Paul says ‘Image of God’ was completely revealed in Jesus. His crucifixion and resurrection defeated the chaotic forces of death. He showed what God’s image is and showed creation its purpose. Salvation is return of the fallen creation to become the Creation that God saw ‘It was good’. It is also the journey from the distorted image that we have in sin to Grow to the “image of God”, seen in the life, Crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. I guess what Athanasius, the church father said sums it all. “God became man, so that man can become divine.”

D . Honestly I dint wanna hear all this. But it kinda sounds interestin. But not anymore today. How about meetin in the weekend. Guess you should call Arpit. But nothing more than half an hour. I seriously don have patience. Bye.

J. Thanks guys for comin over.

M. Dude anythin for free coffee. (Jacob reminded him that he had seen Dil Chahta hai.)

*Ok guys coming up shortly are answers to questions like “what is the Gospel reading doing in between the service, n so the epistle. Why on earth, the “Kiss of Peace”, “what are the 4 blessings all about”.  “Why Bread and wine?” and anything you ask and I can try to answer. Your feedback, no matter what the texture is solicited, as there are 2 more series to come. Also comment on the casual structure adopted, is there anything more to be simplified. I have kept it short as a long article can put us off. Haha. And if you think I am smart since I know all the answers, I would love that you believe so. I am majorly depending on the works of Rev Dr. George Mathew, who is a liturgy specialist.