Babasaheb Ambedkar had a well developed and well trained modular mind that ventured into so many disciplines. He saw the value of how meaning is created through symbols, signs, and words. The full-length track or a possible book on symbols of Buddhism should be left to scholars who work in the field of semiology, archaeology, history, and perhaps psychology and deep ground in Buddhism. Only a person of Babasaheb’s mental stature can attempt such a work.

Babasaheb Ambedkar also proposed to write on symbols of Hinduism and perhaps other religions as well. However, we will try to possibly get to some guesswork as to why he planned such a piece and how he would have approached it.

Let us spend some time understanding what is a symbol. Semiology teaches us that signs and symbols are different. The sign offers an interpretive system in which the meaning is derived from the signs through inference or equivalence or abduction. It is like the system of traffic lights where different colors and arrows convey different meanings. While symbols stand for certain definite thoughts and for ideologies and religions. For example, when one encounters hammer and sickle symbol, one knows that it represents communism. A crescent the religion of Islam and a cross for Christianity. The symbols are accessible to interpretations, but their meanings are fixed as the representation of something, some ideology, some philosophy.

Certain symbols evoke different emotions as they can divide humanity for and against. The Swastika of Hitler might invoke fear and dread among the Jews but for Nazis and Brahminical Hindus, it connotes something else. For the Chinese, a Swastika may convey the power of the emperor over the material world and the power of the Buddha over the spiritual world. The symbol of two crossed lines forming a plus sign and rotation indicated by the other four lines has such a power to produce different emotions in the minds of different peoples.

The symbols can be geometric or pictorial or shape with different colours as they create equivalence with certain schools of thinking. Once symbols are created as the representative of some ideologies, they acquire tremendous power over people and the societies, even control them.

Though Buddhism was not so much in force when Babasaheb launched Buddhist movement, the symbols were being exhumed from the debris of the past at that time. The symbols of Buddhism came to represent the newly constituted India today.

Two symbols are famous in Buddhism. The symbols of lotus and diamond. The lotus represents the heart of a compassionate mind, while diamond represents the penetrating power of wisdom. There are two literary narratives and Buddhist Sutras well known in a Buddhist world: the lotus Sutra and the Diamond Sutra. The union of lotus and diamond is captured in the formulaic mantra: Om Mani Padme Hum!

If the symbols came first or the sutras raises other grounds for discussion and exploration. The symbols and sutras were developed over the history of Buddhism. Even today, the process is on.

We will, however, concentrate on the most famous and popular symbol that might have emerged in the beginning to represent the Dhamma. It is the symbol of the wheel known in Buddhism as the Dhammachakra. We do not if the sutra named after the Chakra came first or the symbol. There is a concept of the wheel- turning emperor known in Indian languages as Chakravarti. That the word Chakravarti existed at the time of the Buddha is clear. The first sutta the Buddha delivered is called Dhamma Chakka Pavattan sutta in Pali. The Buddha turned, but it was not an ordinary turning, it’s exalted perhaps higher turning( compare vatta and pavatta).

The wheel is the wheel of the Dhamma and the turning of it is more than political or territorial. The Dhamma Chakra is also known as Ashoka Chakra and it adorns the Indian flag. Was Ashoka the originator of this symbol that stands for Buddhism?

We do not know. What we know for sure is the excessive use of it by Ashoka. Ashoka was the Chakravarti, but more than territorial power, he wanted to acquire Dhammic society. He was Dhammachakravarti.

The symbol of Chakra stands for Buddhism is well known. The Buddha himself was against his personal presentation in the form of an image or statue. He represented his essence of enlightenment through the symbol of Stupa.

Was the Stupa representative of the Buddha and hence the symbol of the Buddha himself?

The answer is yes. And the presence of so many stupas of the Buddha and the previous Buddhas and the enlightened people indicate that the enlightenment might be the common experience of the multitude.

Did Babasaheb consider the Stupa as the symbol for Shakyamuni? This question cannot be just answered. Babasaheb worshipped the image of the Buddha himself and he sculpted and painted the Buddha himself as he visualised.

This brings us to the possible content of the book that Babasaheb Ambedkar planned to write. It would have Buddha images in various mudras (The Buddha and his Dhamma has a very uncommon mudra called tarjani mudra). It would have animals symbolising various qualities of the Buddha. Dhammachakra would be there perhaps with a detailed discussion.

He might also demonstrate revolution and counter-revolution in India through the symbols and their transformation during the conflict between Buddhism and Brahmanism. Perhaps, he would show through this analysis how the Hinduism destroyed, distorted, and where possible appropriated the symbols of Buddhism. From where does the Sudarshana Chakra in the hands of Krishna come? Perhaps these and many issues he would have dealt with. He might have definitely proved through symbols that the Vitthal was nothing but the Buddha and what Hindus worship today in Tirupati is none other than the Buddha.

We can only guess about the content of the book. But with the background of his other books and thoughts, this guess may be perhaps educated and informed one and perhaps close to the analysis of Babasaheb himself.

Author – Mangesh Dahiwale, Human Rights Activist