CASTE SYSTEM IN BUDDHIST TEXTS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO VAJRASUCHI

The Indian society from the past has been static and dominated by the idea of

caste. The traditional fourfold order of priests, soldiers and administrators,

merchants and agriculturists and menial workers was considered not only to be

absolute, fundamental and necessary to society but was also given a divine

sanction by being considered a creation of God (Brahma). "God created the

fourfold caste order with their specific aptitudes and functions", with the result

that people born into the different castes have certain special biologically

inherited aptitudes which eminently fit them to perform the caste functions

which it is their duty to perform.

Against this was the dynamic evolutionary conception of society as pictured in

early Buddhism. The fourfold order is here not considered absolute since, as the

Buddha says, in certain societies there are only two classes (Wo va vaNNaM) - the masters and the slaves, and that not too rigid a division since

'the masters sometimes become slaves and the slaves masters.’ Nor is caste

divine in origin. The belief that caste was a creation of God and that the Brahmins

were the chosen legitimate children of God, “born of the mouth of Brahma,” a

conception which is as old as the Rigveda, is denied in the Buddhist texts where it

is said that the birth of Brahmins, as is well known, is in no way different from

that of other human beings, and the Brahmins are referred to ironically as “the

kinsmen of God” (brahmabandhu)1.

1 Majhim Nikaya II 149

The Buddha profusely taught on this issue and said that it was a myth created by

ignorance and guided by the principle of egoism by a handful of people. The

Buddha realized the seriousness of the problem of such social inequality. This can

be substantiated in the Brahmana vagga of Dhammapada which says that …na jaait na gaaotona na jaccaa haoit ba`amhNaao…… , the Vasettha

sutta, Asvalayana sutta2 , Sardulakarnavadana of Divyavadana3, Uddana varga, etc.

also speak quite logically against the caste system. The Buddha's teachings

continued to be expounded by his followers i.e. Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Acharya

Chandrakirti, Acharya Bhavaviveka, Acharya Ashvaghosa and others who raised

the issue to the level of academic honesty and reasoning.4

Logical reasoning was one of the master strokes of the Buddha. In Vasettha sutta,

we see how the Brahmins were claiming superiority for themselves and the

Buddha logically defying their belief. Citing various examples of the birds, animals,

insects, fishes, the Buddha says that all these can be distinguished through their

physical characteristics, but can human being be distinguished? He further tells

Vasettha that whoever ploughs the land is a farmer, whoever is good in archery, is

a soldier, whoever does whatever deeds should be known by it. Thus he says that

"I do not call one a Brahmin on account of his birth or origin from a particular

mother"5. Thus we can see that the Buddha has out rightly rejected Brahmanism

on account of caste or birth. Man is biologically one species and hence there can

be no differentiation between color, shape or size since these are minor

differences.2 Majhim Nikaya 48

3 Divyavadana, pg.314, edited by P.L.Vaidya, Mithila Institute, 1959

4 Vajrasuchi, CIHTS, Bibliothecia Indo-Tibetica Series, 2006, pg.68

5 Vasettha Sutta, Sutta Nipata; trans. Fausboll, SBE, vol. X, page 111-114

In the Ambattha sutta6, we can clearly see the myth of the purity of caste of which

the Brahmins are so conscious. Ambattha, the Brahmin who was proud of his

caste, did not show normal courtesies to the Buddha. The Buddha points out to

his ancestry saying, "If one were to follow your ancient name and lineage, one of

your ancestors was the offspring of one of the slave girls of the Sakyas." Thus we

can see that the Buddha opposed the caste system as derogatory mark on human

beings. Hence he says, "A sudra who could commands enough wealth could easily

have a Brahmin or Kshatriya servant to attend him or do menial jobs in his

household"7

Based on such dynamic background, Buddhism continued to prosper for

generations and the ideology was carried forward even up to the 1st cent A.D and

beyond.

Acharya Ashvaghosa's Vajrasuchi:

Acharya Ashvaghosa belonged to the 1st cent A.D. who studied in Nalanda

University. Vajrasuchi of Acharya Ashvaghosa is a unique thought on social

philosophy of ancient India and is of great significance for the study of sociology;

however both - the historians and the sociologists have failed to give Vajrasuchi

the due respect that it deserves.

Acharya Ashvaghosa's Vajrasuchi is a remarkable text in a sense Ashvaghosa used

the authentic Brahmanical texts to show the sheer contradictoriness in claiming

their supremacy as Brahmins. Vajrasuchi merely does not talk of social justice

from humanitarian grounds, but reasons out sharply and demolishes the

opponent's grounds by taking help from their very own texts. The scholarship and

6 Ambattha sutta, Digha Nikaya 3

7 Majhim Nikaya, 189

intelligence of Ashvaghosa can be proved by the fact that in the entire Vajrasuchi

texts, not once did he refer the Buddha or any of his predecessors; however he

did talk from the Buddhist view point on caste and human equality. The beauty of

Vajrasuchi is that it is not confined to ancient history alone; it has more relevance

in today's social structure. The discrimination on grounds of birth, social status,

color has taken an ugly form in today's society. It is in this context Vajrasuchi acts

as an eye-opener to the illogical reasoning of supremacy of the Brahmins.

Vajrasuchi Theme:

In the caste based Indian society, Brahmins were considered next to the Gods. In

fact they declared themselves as Gods of the Land (bhudeva). They had an ego of

supremacy and their very presence made the caste system very prominent. Hence

Acharya Ashvaghosa in the Vajrasuchi deliberately starts the text by questioning

the presence of Brahmin. Based on the reasoning done by the existing texts which

were revered by the Brahmins, the Vajrasuchi starts asking by what is a

brahmana? whether it is a soul, body or whether one should be called a

brahmana after being born to a brahmin woman, or due to one's actions, or one's

knowledge or due to his profession or mastery over Vedas. Acharya Ashvaghosa

goes on the challenge each definition with context to all the texts and explains

why one particular thing i.e birth, soul, body, knowledge, profession cannot make

one a brahmin. He uses the same logic of the revered texts to pinpoint the failure

of right definition of a brahmana. He then goes on to explain the real definition of

a brahmana and concludes by invoking the readers to be honest and accept his

explanation only if it is reasonable.

Logical Reasoning in Vajrasuchi: Acharya Ashvaghosa starts the text by paying

homage to Manjunatha. Then, claiming to go by the texts namely the Vedas,

Shrutis, Smrutis, Manavdharma, Mahabharata, etc. he asks - Since Brahmana is

the principle of all castes, who is a brahmana? Is it a soul, a body, knowledge,

manners, action or Vedas? He then goes on to explain that the soul cannot be a

brahman because as per the Vedas and Mahabharata, the sun, moon, Indra were

animals in earlier life who became gods; also the seven hunters in Dasarna, the

deer, chakravaka, the swan all were reborn as Brahmins in Kurukshetra. This

transformation from animal to gods and animals to Brahmins confirm that soul

cannot be a brahmin.

The Brahmins had always held the notion that they were Brahmins due to birth. In

Vajrasuchi, Acharya Ashvaghosa beautifully enlists the birth of various rishis who

were revered by all. The sage Achala, Kesapingala, Agastya, Kausika, Kapila,

Gautama, Dronacharya, Tittiri, Rama, Risisringa, Vyasa, Kusika, Vishwamitra,

Vasistha were not born to a brahmin woman; in fact they were all born from low

caste women or from birds, animals or grass. Thus Ashvaghosa cleverly confirms

that birth cannot be a brahmana.

The Manusmriti says that one who is born of a non Brahmin mother and a

brahmana father is a brahmana. Ashvaghosa cites various examples of the past

where a brahmana had relations with a non-brahmana woman and if their child is

also a brahmana, then he counters saying that the present brahmana's status

itself is a question.

Likewise Ashvaghosa further questions if "knowledgeable" means brahmana,

because if it was so, then there were also few low caste Shudras who were well

versed in the texts and they could be Brahmins by definition.

Even manner cannot be termed as a brahmana since there were many sudras like

natas (dancers), bhatas (fighters), etc who were skillful in their activity but could

not be termed as a brahmana.

Thus after explaining that neither birth nor body, knowledge, manners or acts or

Vedas is a brahmana, Acharya Ashvaghosa explains that Brahmanhood is neither

by knowing the treatise, nor by sanctifying ceremonies or by birth, nor by caste or

knowledge nor by acts; but Brahmanhood is attained by strictly following the

penance, vows, austerity, abstinence from food, giving, control of senses and

concentration of mind. (verse 15). Whereas the absence of truth, austerity,

control over senses and absence of compassion are characteristics of a Chandala

(verse 16).

Giving examples of various trees, fruits and flowers, Acharya Ashvaghosa explains

that since all their characteristics are different, hence each flower, fruit or tree

can be differentiated, whereas such thing cannot be said that of human beings,

since they all have similar structure.

Conclusion: One can see that before the advent of Buddha, ancient India

reminisces of sphere of social philosophy based on the 'varna' division and the

justification of the supremacy of the 'Brahmins' and the injustice to the other 3

varnas. The Buddha had openly criticized this injustice and myth created by

handful of people. His message was further carried by his disciples, which is seen

in many works like Vajrasuchi.

Atul Bhosekar

M.A -II (Buddhist Studies)