Classical Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism and the Question of Caste

Pradeep P. Gokhale

• Publisher: Routledge India
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9780815381679
• eBook ISBN: 9781000202564
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Indian & South Asian History
• Index: Social Sciences

This book examines the interface between Buddhism and the caste system in India. It discusses how Buddhism in different stages, from its early period to contemporary forms—Therav?da, Mah?y?na, Tantray?na and Navay?na—dealt with the question of caste. It also traces the intersections between the problem of caste with those of class and gender. The volume reflects on the interaction between Hinduism and Buddhism: it looks at critiques of caste in the classical Buddhist tradition while simultaneously drawing attention to the radical challenge posed by Dr B. R. Ambedkar's Navay?na Buddhism or neo-Buddhism. The essays in the book further compare approaches to var?a and caste developed by modern thinkers such as M. K. Gandhi and S. Radhakrishnan with Ambedkar's criticisms and his departures from mainstream appraisals.

With its interdisciplinary methodology, combining insights from literature, philosophy, political science and sociology, the volume explores contemporary critiques of caste from the perspective of Buddhism and its historical context. By analyzing religion through the lens of caste and gender, it also forays into the complex relationship between religion and politics, while offering a rigorous study of the textual tradition of Buddhism in India. This book will be useful to scholars and researchers of Indian philosophy, Buddhist studies, Indology, literature (especially Sanskrit and P?li), exclusion and discrimination studies, history, political studies, women studies, sociology, and South Asian studies.

Part I

Classical Buddhism and caste

1

Buddha’s attitude towards the caste system as available in Pāli texts

Bimalendra Kumar

The Pāli texts of the Tipiṭaka of Theravāda Buddhists do not agree with the Brahmanic order of the varṇas,¹ i.e., Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Sūdra. Instead they change the order to the effect—Kṣatriya, Brāhmaṇa, Vaiśya and Sūdra (Khattiya, Brāhmaṇa, Vessa and Sudda). Buddhism considers the view that one caste is superior to another false and evil—“pāpakaṃ diṭṭhigataṃ.”² All the four so-called castes, it says, are exactly the same, equally pure and none of them is superior to the others.³ But the Buddha’s attitude towards the division of society on the basis of caste was antagonistic all along. He denounced the idea that Brāhmaṇas are superior on the grounds of birth. During his lifetime, society developed into a new structure of social order, generally known as “Four-Fold Assembly” or “Catu-parisā.” It is the assembly of monks (Bhikkhu-parisā), assembly of nuns (Bhikkūni-parisā), assembly of lay devotees (Upāsaka-parisā) and assembly of lay female devotees (Upāsikā-parisā). The Buddha often talks about many things common to all of them. In the Mahāparinibbānasutta, the Buddha says to the Māra, who asked him to attain parinibbāna, that he will not do so until all members of all four groups become well versed in his teaching. There are also occasional references to another four-fold classification as the assembly of Khattiyas (Khattiya-parisā), assembly of Brāhmanas (Brāhmaṇa-parisā), assembly of Gahapatis (Gahapati-parisā) and the assembly of recluses (Samaṇa-parisā)⁴ but the former is seen as more inclusive and popular than the latter. It is interesting to note that there is a reference to eight assemblies (aṭṭha parisā) in the Dīghanikāya.⁵ The Vasala Sutta and Vaseṭṭha Sutta of the Suttanipāta, Madhura Sutta, Assalāyana Sutta and Caṅki Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya, the Ambaṭṭha Sutta of the Dīgha Nikāya, etc., prove the worthlessness of the castes. In fact, the Buddha did away with all sorts of social distinctions between man and thus pleaded for social justice. He is reported to have said in the Cullavagga:

Just as the great rivers, such as, the Gaṅgā, the Yamunā, the Acirāvatī, the Sarabhū and the Mahī, when they pour their waters into the Great Ocean, lose their names and origins and become the Great Ocean precisely so, you monks, do These four castes—the Khattiya, the Brāhmaṇa, the Vessa and the Sudda—when they pass, according to the doctrine and discipline of the Tathāgata, from home to homelessness, lose their names and origins.⁶

Buddha’s attitude towards the caste system

The Buddha thus stood for the equality of man and the negation of the caste system. He maintained that it was kamma (deed, action) that determined the high and low state of a being. By birth one does not become an outcaste, by birth one does not become a Brāhmaṇa.⁷ Every living being has kamma as its master, its kinsman, its refuge.⁸ According to Pāli texts, there was no distinction of caste in the Buddha’s order of monks and nuns. The Buddha’s chief disciples even belonged to the so-called lower castes, such as barbers, sweepers and Caṇḍālas. Upāli, the most prominent Vinaya teacher after the Buddha, was from a barber family. He occupied a very high position in the Buddhist fraternity (Saṅgha).

There is no discrimination at all in terms of being low or high, well-born or ill-born, big or small etc. The discriminating order (Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Sūdra existing immediately before the advent of the Buddha and the slightly changed order of Khattiya, Brāhmaṇa, Vessa and Sudda at his time⁹) had no valid ground for existence so far as the nature of human beings is concerned. “It is merely the empty sound, says the Buddha, that the Brāhmaṇas are superior, others are inferior; Brāhamaṇas are of high caste, others are low caste,”¹⁰ which can be translated to mean: “The people of all the four castes are equal and I see no difference in them.”¹¹ Distinctions, however, may be seen in various species because of their observable distinguishing marks:

“You know the worms, and the moths, and the different sorts of ants, the marks that constitute species are for them and their species are manifold.” “Know you also the birds that are born along on wings and move through the air, the marks that constitute are for them, and their species are manifold.” “But as in these species, the marks constitute species are abundant, so in men the marks that constitute species are not abundant.” “There is no difference as regards head, ears, eyes, mouth, nose, tongue, etc., difference there may be, if any, of their bodies, and that is also nominal.”

This can be seen among humans as professional names—“One, who lives by different mechanical arts, is an artisan, and so also whoever amongst men lives by serving, is a servant. One is named so because he lives on archery; one is merchant because lives by trade etc.”¹² According to this, one is named because of one’s deeds. The reality is that – “not by birth does one become an outcaste, by deeds one becomes a Brāhmaṇa.”

“A Brāhmaṇa, born in a preceptor family, friend of the hymns of the Vedas, when continually indulge in sinful deeds, is blamed in this world, and goes to the hell after death; his birth neither save him from birth in hell nor from the blame in the world.” On the other hand, Sopāka, born in a low caste family, did virtuous deeds and attained the status of a sage Mātaṅga by name, reached the highest fame, such as was very difficult to obtain, as well as many Khattiyas and Brahmaṇas went to serve him. Further, being free from the dust, having abandoned sensual pleasures went to the Brahma-world after expiry of his life. His birth neither prevented him in getting highest fame nor in entering into the Brahma-divine world after death.¹³

In the Vāseṭṭha sutta of the Sutta Nipāta, the Buddha proves scientifically that there are no distinguishing marks in men, whether they are black or yellow, as are found in different species of animals and plants. Beetles, ants, moths and termites are different because each species is distinguished by different marks. Quadrupeds both small and large, snakes, fish and birds are different from one another because of different marks found in them. So is the case with different kinds of plants. But where are such distinguishing marks in men?

Not by hair, nor head, nor ears, nor eyes, nor nose, nor mouth, nor lips, nor eyebrows, nor neck, nor shoulder, nor belly, nor back, nor buttock, nor chest… nor fingers, nor nails, nor calves, nor thighs, nor colour, nor voice is there a distinguishing mark arising from their species as in other species.¹⁴

All Homo sapiens constitute one species. According to the Buddha, jāti is primarily a biological term that means “species.” The biological test of distinction between two species is that a male of one and female of the other are unable to mate for the purpose of procreation. It is to this sense the Buddha asserted, “Aññamaññā hi jātiyo.” The social division among men cannot be treated as jātis in the above sense. These divisions are occupational and congenital. The Buddha’s view of caste is different. According to him, a man is high or low by virtue of his action.¹⁵ Kamma is to be understood in its widest possible sense as occupation of all kinds, including traditional culture.

Thus, becoming low or high socially depends on immoral and moral deeds. One can be a Vasala because of immoral deeds and a Brāhmaṇa because of moral ones.¹⁶ Expressions like Mahāsammata, Khattiya, Brāhmaṇa, Jhāyaka, Ajjhāyaka, Vessa, Sudda, etc. came to be accidently by way of conventional communications and not based on some basic principle of inheritance of a lineage or birth in a particular family. There is no solid ground of truth conveying the sense of superiority or inferiority in them. “Dhamma or righteousness alone is the Superior here in this world and hereafter.”¹⁷ What is Dhamma? It is the Vijjā and Caraṇa. One, who is endowed with them is superior to men and gods alike—“Vijjā-caraṇa-sampanno, so seṭṭho devamānuseti.”¹⁸

In the Assalāyanasutta of the Majjhimanikāya,¹⁹ the Buddha discusses Brāhmaṇas’ claims of being superior and the best varṇa, of being as white in colour, as pure, and the real sons of Brahmā, born from his mouth. The Buddha challenges the claim that they are birthed from the mouth of Brahmā by pointing out that they are born from the wombs of Brāhmaṇa women who conceive them, deliver them and feed them in the natural course of things. The Buddha also exploded the claims by Brahmins of inherent superiority with reference to several points. Brahmins were believers in the law of kamma. The Buddha pointed out to them that, like others, they have to suffer the consequences of their misdeeds. If there is any inherent superiority in Brahmins neither would they commit such deeds nor would they suffer for them. But Brahmins do commit them and suffer the consequences thereof.

With reference to this point, Mahākaccāna, one of the chief disciples of the Buddha, says to Avantiputta, King of Madhura, “If a noble kills, robs, fornicates, lies, slanders, a bitter of tongue, tattles, covets, harbours ill-will, and has a wrong outlook, will he, after death at the body’s dissolution, pass to a state of misery and woe?”

“Such...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of contributors
• Note on transliteration
• Foreword: Caste in classical and contemporary Buddhism
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I Classical Buddhism and caste
• Part II Neo-Buddhism: Ambedkar on caste, class and gender
• Part III Hinduism and Buddhism: interaction, conflict and beyond
• Part IV Religion, modernity and Navayāna Buddhism
• Appendix I: Vajrasūci
• Appendix II: Vajrasūci and its reverberations
• Index