Buddhist views on caste

Two differing positions have been taken on the problem of the Buddhist attitude to caste, which was by then already emerging as the major system of inequality in Indian society. It has been pointed out by Rhys Davis^[1] that if one considers the position of the Buddha on the question of recruitment into the sangha ² the only organ of society, over which he had complete control ² advantages or disadvantages arising from birth, occupation, and social status were completely irrelevant. He gives many examples to support his argument: of upali, the expert on the vinaya, who had been a barber, of Sunita, who was a pukkusa^[2], of sati, who was a fisherman; of Punna and Punnaika, who had been slave girls; and of subha, who was the daughter of a smith.^[3] Further Rhys Davis pointed out that the Buddha tried to influence public opinion by a ‘constant inculcation of reasonable views’ on the subject of caste outside the sangha, as for instance in the amagandha sutta of the sutta Nipata where he argued that defilement comes from evil deeds and words and thoughts^[4] and not from eating this or that, prepared and given by this or that person. In fact, it was the belief of Rhys Davids that, had the Buddha’s views won the day, the development of the evolution of the stratification of society would have been in a different way and the caste system would never have been built up.^[5] Rhys Davids has been the major proponent of the view that Buddhism was antagonistic to caste. This view has gained popular currency and the image of the Buddha as a social reformer led Ambedkar and the Mahars to adopt Buddhism when they rejected Hinduism as a system of institutionalized inequality.

On the other hand, it has been argued by Oldenberg that despite the fact that Buddhist theory accepted the equal right of all persons to be received into the sangha,^[6] the real structure of the sangha hints that it was by no means in keeping with ‘theory of equality’, and that a ‘marked learning to aristocracy seems to have lingered in ancient Buddhism.^[7] He also gives examples of the young brahmanas sariputta, Moggallana and Kaccana; of khattiyas like ananda, Rahula and Anuradha; and of great ‘merchants’ like Yasa, who were ‘men of the most respectable classes of society with an education in keeping with their social status.’ People like them gathered round the teacher, who himself belonged to the sakya nobility.^[8] The problem of the social origins of early Buddhists recurs frequently in the debate on the Buddha’s attitude to caste. These are actually two separate questions: one relates to practice, and the other to ideology, and we should guard against confusing the two.

Oldenberg is even more emphatic on the subject of social inequalities outside the sangha. In the opinion of Oldenberg, there was nothing resembling a social upheaval in India. Buddha did not give importance to the inequality inherent in the caste system and it has been pointed out by Oldenberg that it is historically not true to treat the Buddha as a champion of the lower classes.^[9] In the similar way, Fick states that in no way did Buddhism^[10] break or even retard the development of caste. In his opinion, the doctrine of the Buddha did not aim at a transformation of social conditions am that was taken for granted that they were unchangeable.^[11] Eliot points out that both the ritual and philosophy of the brahmanas was denied by the Buddha, he did not preach against caste, partly because it existed only in rudimentary form at the time.^[12]

The great noble families, the rich ‘burghers’, and the brahmanas who were distinguished representatives of a ‘cultured laity’ were recruited as the members of the sangha as has been pointed out by Weber’s study of Buddhism. In his opinion, Buddhism ignored caste or the ‘status order’ and had no tie with any social movement. According to him, early Buddhism as a whole was the product not of the underprivileged but of a very clearly privileged strata.^[13]

Chattopadhyaya treats both these attitude to early Buddhism as historically unsatisfactory. He points out that while it is true that Buddhism was supported by monarchs, merchants and contemporary aristocrats, it would be superficial to see only this view. According to him there are many reasons for Buddhism to become the ‘biggest socio-religious movement in Indian history’. Chattopadhyaya believes that the Buddha’s attitude to injustices of the caste system and his attacks upon Brahmanic ritual were important reasons for its appeal to the people. It has been pointed out by Chattopadhyaya that an illusion of liberty, equality, and fraternity was created by Buddha by modeling his sangha on the tribal values, whereas in reality these values were being trampled upon in the world outside the sangha.^[14] He does not explain the Buddhist attitude to social categories of the time; hence the earlier controversy has remained unresolved, but he suggests a dialectical relationship between Buddhism and the new society emerging in the sixth century B.C.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

T.W. Rhys Davis, D.B., I, p. 102.

[2]:

The pukkusas are one of the five low groups frequently mentioned in the Buddhist texts. They were associated with sweeping floors. Actually Sunita is described as a pupphachaddaka in the theragatha (Khuddaka Nikaya, Vol. II, p. 330).

[3]:

D.B., I, p. 102.

[4]:

D.B., I, p. 104. See also Sutta Nipata, Khuddaka Nikaya, Vol. I, pp. 304-7.

[5]:

D.B., I, p.107.

[6]:

H. Oldenberg, The Buddha, p. 154.

[7]:

Ibid., p. 155.

[8]:

Ibid., p. 156.

[9]:

Ibid., p. 153.

[10]:

R. Fick, The Social Organisation of North-East India in Buddha’s Time, p. 335.

[11]:

Charles Eliot, Hinduism and Buddhism, Vol.I, p. xxii.

[12]:

Ibid.

[13]:

Max Weber, The Religion of India, pp. 225-7.

[14]:

D.P. Chattopadhyaya, Lokayata, pp. 466-7.