He recovered the history of Tamil Buddhism and interpreted many works of Tamil literature from a Buddhist perspective. He explained, through a Buddhist lens, various rituals practised in the lives of Tamil people, including marriage and funeral rites, as well as festivals such as Karthigai Deepam, Pongal, and Deepavali. He was also a renowned Siddha physician.

After a long struggle by Dalit intellectuals, the State government has finally recognised his contributions. This has also led to the mainstreaming of his ideas.

Although BR Ambedkar embraced Buddhism, the Buddhism he accepted was entirely different from the existing sects, as we learn from his book The Buddha and His Dhamma. That is why the Buddhism he propounded is called “Navayana Buddhism.” Similarly, the Buddhism advanced by Iyothee Thass possessed a distinctive internal orientation.

In recent times, awareness about Buddhism has grown in Tamil Nadu. Many emphasise the necessity of embracing Buddhism for those who reject caste. In this context, we must understand the nature of the interpretation that Iyothee Thass gave to Buddhism.

In 1898, Iyothee Thass travelled to Sri Lanka, where he embraced Buddhism and received initiation. During the same period, Professor P Lakshmi Narasu was engaged in the work of adopting and propagating Buddhism. He wrote a book in English titled Essence of Buddhism (1907). In June same year, Iyothee Thass launched the journal Tamilan. From the very first issue, he began writing the life history of the Buddha under the title Buddharathu Aathivedam (’The Buddha’s Original Veda’).

In the preface to that work, which explains the life and philosophy of the Buddha through 28 cantos, he described his method of approach. He stated that he was not giving special attention to books written by “foreigners, speakers of foreign languages, and adherents of foreign religions.” Instead, he would write on the basis of works produced by those who established the Buddhist Sangha in this land, including Arunkalai Seppu, Aranerii Deepam, Aranerii Saaram, Thirukkural, Thirumanthiram, Thiruvaasagam, Thirikatugam, Manimekalai, Jivaka Chintamani, Silappathikaram, Valayapathi, Kundalakesi, Soolamani, Nigazhkaalathirangal, Nigandu, Divakaram, Perunkuravanji, Sirukuravanji, Perunthirattu, and Kurunthirattu, along with “the works of Jain monks and the oral traditions handed down through generations by ancient Buddhist thinkers.”

In Professor P Lakshmi Narasu’s Essence of Buddhism, there is a chapter titled “Buddhism and Caste.” In it, he explains how the Buddha admitted people from various castes into his Sangha and treated them equally. Lakshmi Narasu narrates that Ānanda, the Buddha’s foremost disciple, asked for water from and drank water offered by a woman belonging to the Chandala caste, and that this woman was later ordained as a bhikkhuni by the Buddha. He further writes that when this “untouchable” woman was admitted into the Sangha, King Prasenajit, along with Brahmins and Kshatriyas of Sravasti, met the Buddha and expressed their opposition, to which the Buddha offered an explanation.

Criticising this account, Iyothee Thass condemned those “who seek to study the Buddha’s Dhamma by believing false stories as though all the castes existing today already existed during Siddhartha’s time, and then repeating them themselves.”

After Lakshmi Narasu’s death, Ambedkar came to know of him through Pattabhi Sitaramayya and published the third edition of Essence of Buddhism in 1948. In its preface, Ambedkar wrote: “I regard this as the best book written on Buddhism so far.” Had Ambedkar been aware of Iyothee Thass’s interpretations of Buddhism, he would not have written so. This is because the information contained in Lakshmi Narasu’s book contradicts Ambedkar’s conclusions regarding the origins of untouchability.

In his book Who Were the Untouchables? How Did They Become Untouchables? Ambedkar establishes that untouchability did not exist during the time of Manu, that is, in the 2nd century CE. He then states that the references to the Chandalas in the accounts of the Chinese traveller Fa-Hien, who visited India in the 4th century CE, create the impression that they were untouchables, but that this was not actually the case. To support this, he points out that “the description of a Chandala woman in the literary work Kadambari rejects the notion that she was an untouchable. It stands in complete contradiction to the descriptions recorded by Fa-Hien.”