Critics of His Doctrines. - Page 528

z:\ ambedkar\vol 011\vol11 07.indd MK SJ+YS 5 10 2013/YS 18 11 2013 509

CRITICS OF HIS DOCTRINES

509

and to wage his wars. Does the Tathagata, who teaches kindness without end and compassion with all sufferers, permit the punishment of the criminal ? And further, does the Tathagata declare that it is wrong to go to war for the protection of our homes, our wives, our children, and our property ? Does the Tathagata teach the doctrine of a complete self-surrender, so that I should suffer the evil-doer to do what he pleases and yield submissively to him who threatens to take by violence what is my own ? Does the Tathagata maintain that all strifes, including such warfare as is waged for a righteous cause, should be forbidden?”

  1. The Lord replied : “The Tathagata says: ‘He who deserves punishment must be punished, and he who is worthy of favour must be favoured. Yet at the same time he teaches to do no injury to any living being but to be full of love and kindness. These injunctions are not contradictory, for whosoever must be punished for the crimes which he has committed suffers his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but on account of his evil-doing. His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executor of the law inflicts. When a magistrate punishes, let him not harbour hatred in his breast, yet a murderer, when put to death, should consider that this is the fruit of his own act. As soon as he will understand that the punishment will purify his soul, he will no longer lament his fate but rejoice at it.’ ”

  2. A proper understanding of these instances would show that the Ahimsa taught by the Blessed Lord was fundamental. But it was not absolute.

  3. He taught that evil should be cured by the return of good. But he never preached that evil should be allowed to overpower good.

  4. He stood for Ahimsa. He denounced Himsa. But he did not deny that Himsa may be the last resort to save good being destroyed by evil.

  5. Thus it is not that the Blessed Lord taught a dangerous doctrine. It is the critics who failed to understand its significance and its scope.

VI