Commentary on Ambedkar's Posthumously Published "Philosophy of Hinduism"- Part III

Rajesh Sampath

doi:10.26812/caste.v2i2.337

Abstract

This article forms part III of a running commentary on Ambedkar’s posthumously published “Philosophy of History” (Ambedkar, 2014a). We attempt to follow Ambedkar’s reflections on the early origins of religion and his initial distinctions of the religions of “savage society” and “civilized society” (Ambedkar, 2014a, p. 9). Using the tools of philosophical critique, we see his attempt to dissect the real “principal” (Ambedkar, 2014a, p. 10) of religion beyond the apparitional nature of rites, rituals, and taboos. This leads to a series of deductions of what constitutes the very “core,” “source,” and “substance” of religion rooted in the “preservation of life” (Ambedkar, 2014a, p. 10). However, this is also a moment that will foreshadow Ambedkar’s ultimate judgement of Hinduism’s status as a religion when founded on the unequal social structure of caste. We argue the following in this article: what Ambedkar says about the architectonic of “savage society” and the failure to undergo a profound revolution in the nature and concept of religion bears an eerie resemblance to what ultimately takes the place of “savage society” (Ambedkar, 2014a, p. 9) over time, namely the Hindu caste system. This makes modern Hinduism a strange hybrid of pre-history and a future history whose conclusion is uncertain. Whether caste can disappear from society is the burning question. And this is intertwined with profound metaphysical questions of time, life, birth, and death, which only philosophy can deconstruct if a religion, like Hinduism, were submitted for critical judgement. The article concludes with an attempt to set the stage for the next phase of the commentary: there Ambedkar will transition from a general discussion about the philosophy and history of religion as a concept to an actual engagement with the philosophical contents of the religion known and practiced by hundreds of millions of adherents as Hinduism. As we already know, his conclusion is dire: a religion can only be true if it is rooted in ‘justice’ and serves the ‘utility’ of individual freedom (Ambedkar, 2014a, p. 22).

Highlights

In Part II of our Commentary on Ambedkar’s posthumously published “Philosophy of Hinduism”2 we left off on the issue of a massive epochal shift in the philosophy of history: one that involves a rearrangement of fundamental relations of society, God, and man
We must make a phenomenological distinction between revolutions in philosophical concepts of religion and historical events of revolutionary change in either philosophy or religion
At the foundation of his thought, Ambedkar is concerned with the notion of how religion and society became fused to the point of no return: this is the moment which yields a certain social structure of generalized behavior that goes unquestioned, namely the stringent caste system

Summary

Introduction

In Part II of our Commentary on Ambedkar’s posthumously published “Philosophy of Hinduism” we left off on the issue of a massive epochal shift in the philosophy of history: one that involves a rearrangement of fundamental relations of society, God, and man (human). We must make a phenomenological distinction between revolutions in philosophical concepts of religion and historical events of revolutionary change in either philosophy (say from one great thinker to another like Kant to Hegel) or religion (say the creation of a religion hatching out of another, for example gentile Christianity emerging out of first century CE Palestinian Judaism under Roman rule). Throughout this commentary, we have asserted the necessity of a genuinely philosophical investigation into the practical possibility of reimagining Indian society without the caste system. The problem for Ambedkar is why and how this system descended from Hinduism, in particular, and nowhere else in world history

Main Text

Conclusion