By OP Sudrania
“Hans Wolfgang Schumann has statistically proven that almost all of Buddha’s disciples were high caste people and that the brahmanas comprised the majority of the sangha.” Edmund Weber
I have split this monogram in three sections for ease of readers mostly to avoid monotony of a long continuous read in one stretch. Section three has distinctly dealt with the various schools and their innumerable subsects with potential influence of their long term divisive propensities.
Read Is Caste Only a Hindu Problem? Part 1
Read Is Caste only a Hindu Problem? Part 2
Read Is Caste only a Hindu Problem? Part 3
Section A:
This monograph is a part of the series intended to explore the existence of castes in various religions apart from Hindus. It is this aspect that is dealt within the Buddhists’ communities.
Weber expresses in the introduction of his essay:
(Edmund Weber: Buddhism: An Atheistic and Anti-Caste Religion?)
“The historian has to safeguard the strangeness of the past. Therefore, religio-historical research has to scrutinise the reconstruction of the real history of religions by religious ideologies of the present. Very often religious ideologies fall back to the past in order to get an alleged legitimacy for their actual ambitions; however, for that purpose they have to model or falsify the past according to their present ideological needs.
One of the outstanding examples of such an ideologisation of history of religion is the modern view of Buddhism. Developed by the Western colonialist Indology this ideology portrayed and still is portraying Buddhism as a rationalist-atheistic, anti-brahmanical, anti-caste and egalitarian religion – in contrast to Hinduism which is caricatured as idolatrous, casteistic and brahmanised. The aim of such an ideological interpretation is to demonstrate the alleged Western modernity of Buddhism and the alleged obscurantism of Hinduism. The target of that ideological aggression was the Hinduism. In order to exploit the wealth of India the Western colonialists needed the weakening of the Hindu self-consciousness; therefore they favoured an Indology which produced an not existing Indian Buddhism (2) as an alleged modern alternative to the alleged primitive religion of the ‘Hindoos’. Playing the Buddhism against the ‘Hindoos’ the colonialist attempt to defame the vast majority of the Indian people was very successful. Even Indian religious intellectuals and leaders (i.e. the secularists or the Neo-Buddhists1) are sharing and supporting that colonialist view still today.
We want to dispute these asserted positions by empirico-historical reasons. First we will discuss the early Buddhism, than Ashoka’s reform program of the dharma and at last the historiographical dilemmata of scholars sharing the colonialist ideology of Buddhism.” He thus continues:
“Buddha tells about the earlier Buddhas in the so called Mahapadana Suttanta – Great Sermon on the Legends.21 He refers to their membership of (high) caste as the first characteristic of their full enlightenment. According to this report the Buddhas belonged all to the high castes, to the kshatriyas and brahmanas. Buddha says proudly about himself “And now I, the venerable and fully enlightened one, was born a warrior and have come from the caste of warriors, o monks.”22
However, to Siddharta and the monks that listened to him, not only the varna, the hierarchical class but also the jati, the clan respectively the family were of substantial importance. For example, he tells about Buddha Vipassi that he belonged to the Kondanna clan. About himself Siddharta reports that he is a kshatriya and was born in the Gotama clan.” Edward Weber
Weber states under the caption, “Buddha and the Dalits” in his monograph:
“The standpoint which caste a Buddha should belong to has not been revised in Buddhism up to the present day. It is dogmatised in the Lalitavistara in the following way: a Bodhisattva can by no means come from a lower or even mixed caste: “After all Bodhisattvas were not born in despised lineage, among pariahs, in families of pipe or cart makers, or mixed castes.”25
Instead, in perfect harmony with the Great Sermon, it was said that: “The Bodhisattvas appear only in two kinds of lineage, the one of the brahmanas and of the warriors (kshatriya).”26
In which of the two high castes they were born depended on the fact which of the two had the better reputation at that particular moment. “When the Brahmins are especially respected on earth, they were born in a lineage of Brahmins, when the warriors play a greater role, they appear in a noble family.”27
According to Buddha, at his time the kshatriyas were above the now impure brahmanas. That is why, only a kshatriya can have the Buddha-ship. “Today the nobility has priority in the world, therefore the Bodhisattvas were born in a noble family.”28
Worldly reputation determines the Buddhas’ caste, not the moral qualification of the family or the caste. Lower castes have never had the chance to consider Buddha among them namely because they don’t have a good reputation.
The Bodhisattva explains to the gods that he should be born only in a family of a noble birth and caste. Furthermore the family ought to have procreated only in a direct line and on the man’s side, an adoption is impossible. Otherwise, purity would not be guaranteed. The purity of the family is so essential, that the father-to-be Suddhodana says: “King Suddhodana is pure on the side of the mother and father and was born in a respected family.”29
For the ancient Indian Buddhists like the author of the Lalitavistara the idea that somebody belonging to a lower caste or even a dalit could become a Buddha was absolutely impossible. On the other side, it was no problem for them that Buddhas could come from a brahmanas’ castes. If they had been decisive opponents of the brahmanas, the way modern Buddhism ideology assumes, they would not have left the genealogies of the early Buddhas without a commentary.
The preference of the kshatriyas and the brahmanas in ancient Buddhism leaves no place for doubts: Buddha and the so called impure castes were entirely separated from each other. A Buddha had nothing to deal with the dalits. The dalits were unworthy of Buddha-ship.” More at.
Weber while concluding in his long monograph adds:
“Besides Buddha, the ancient Buddhism of India worshipped the gods, brahmanas and shramanas. It accepted the caste system and introduced it even itself. A Buddha could be either a pure kshatriya or a pure brahmana; however, a person belonging to a mixed or lower caste could never become an enlightened one, and by no means could a dalit become a Buddha.
The more we study the reality of the ancient Indian Buddhism we see that it is so extremely related to its contemporary co-religionists and so far from the thinking, working and feeling of modern Buddhists too. Religious people who are fighting against one and another today are nevertheless more related to one another than to their own strange ancestors.
Therefore, the Ambedkarite Neo-Buddhism belongs to the same modern Indo-genous dharma culture as the Hindu modernism of the Hindutva movement does: both favour the dharma, fight against caste system, propagate nationalism and worship a modernised Buddha as their predominant guru in social affairs. However, that is neither the ancient Buddhism nor the ancient Buddha.”
There are other sources also which points out to this problem as seen below:
“When Ywan Chwang traveled to South India after the period of the Chalukyan Empire, he noticed that the caste system had existed among the Buddhists and Jains.
Buddhism in India, like other religions, has attempted to reform and create a society without classes. Nevertheless, in some parts of India such as Ladakh, with significant historical presence of Buddhists, a caste system existed in a manner similar to caste structure in Tibet. The upper castes belonged to sger gzhis, and were called sgar pa. The priestly caste belonged to monastery, and was called chos-gzhis. Miser was the serf caste. Serfs, the majority of the people, farmed and paid taxes. An individual’s social status and lifelong occupation was destined by birth, closed, and depending on the family one was born into, the individual inherited a tenure document known as khral-rten. Buddhist castes had sub-castes, such as nang gzan, khral pa and dud chung. Buddhist also had castes that were shunned by their community and ostracized, such as hereditary fishermen, butchers and undertakers. The untouchables in Buddhist regions, as in Tibet, were known as Ragyappa, who lived in isolated ghettos, and their occupation was to remove corpses (human or animal) and dispose of sewage.” More at
Understanding the relationship between Buddhism and Shintoism can be confusing for foreigners. A common saying in Japan is, “We live as Shintoists, but die as Buddhists.”
Japan enjoys full religious freedom based on Article 20 of its Constitution. Upper estimates suggest that 84–96 percent of the Japanese population subscribe to Buddhism or Shinto, including a large number of followers of a syncretism of both religions. Due to the syncretic nature of Shinto and Buddhism, most “life” events are handled by Shinto and “death” or “afterlife” events are handled by Buddhism—for example, it is typical in Japan to register or celebrate a birth at a Shinto shrine, while funeral arrangements are generally dictated by Buddhist tradition—although the division is not exclusive and currently there are believed to be only about 4 million Shintos though exact figure is hard to determine. [As of the most recent census (October 2010), Japan‘s population is 128,057,352; for March 2012 the estimated population is 127,650,000]
In Japan‘s history, social strata based on inherited position rather than personal merits, was rigid and highly formalized. At the top were the Emperor and Court nobles (kuge), together with the Shogun and daimyo. Below them the population was divided into four classes in a system known as mibunsei. These were: samurai, peasants, craftsmen and merchants. Only the samurai class was allowed to bear arms. A samurai had a right to kill any peasants and other craftsmen and merchants whom he felt were disrespectful. Craftsmen produced products, being the third, and the last merchants were thought to be as the meanest class because they did not produce any products. The castes were further sub-divided; for example, the peasant caste was labeled as furiuri, tanagari, mizunomi-byakusho amongst others. The castes and sub-classes, as in Europe, were from the same race, religion and culture.
Howell, in his review of Japanese society notes that if a Western power had colonized Japan in the 19th century, they would have discovered and imposed a rigid four-caste hierarchy in Japan (as they did in India, yet blame Hindus – Author).
DeVos and Wagatsuma observe that a systematic and extensive caste system was part of the Japanese society.
Japan, like China and Korea, had its own untouchable caste, shunned and ostracized, historically referred to by the insulting term Eta, now called Burakumin. While modern law has officially abolished the class hierarchy, there are reports of discrimination against the Buraku or Burakumin underclasses.”
The Burakumin are descendants of outcast communities of the feudal era, which mainly comprised those with occupations considered “tainted” with death or ritual impurity (such as executioners, undertakers, workers in slaughterhouses, butchers or tanners), and traditionally lived in their own secluded hamlets and ghettos. They are one of the main minority groups in Japan along with the Ainu of Hokkaid?.
They were legally liberated in 1871 with the abolition of the feudal caste system. However, this did not put a stop to social discrimination and their lower living standards, because Japanese family registration was fixed to ancestral home address until recently, which allowed people to deduce their Burakumin membership. The Burakumin were one of several groups discriminated against within Japanese society.
According to a survey conducted by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government in 2003, 76% of Tokyo residents would not change their view of a close neighbor whom they discovered to be a burakumin; 4.9% of respondents, on the other hand, would actively avoid a burakumin neighbor. There is still a stigma attached to being a resident of certain areas traditionally associated with the burakumin and some lingering discrimination in matters such as marriage and employment. Read at. Neither laws nor mere shallow attempts at reformation can change the minds and hearts of the people who are mere slaves of the conventional taboos. It did not succeed in Indian model and the Hindus have been ostracised for it globally because they are not able to counter the blasphemous pre-empted strategic verbosity of hideous vested interests.
The Sachar Committee report of 2006 revealed that scheduled castes and tribes of India are not limited to the religion of Hinduism. The 61st round Survey of the NSSO found that almost nine-tenths of the Buddhists, one-third of the Sikhs, and one-third of the Christians in India belonged to the notified scheduled castes or tribes of the Constitution: In Buddhism, scheduled castes are 89.50% and scheduled tribe 07.40%. Peruse at:
According to the 2001 census there are 7.95 million Buddhists in India out of a population of 1 billion, making it the country’s fifth-largest religion. These Buddhists include a number of groups. There are scattered survivors of the period when Buddhism flourished in India such as the Baruas of Assam, Chakmas of Bengal, the Saraks of Orissa and the Himalayan Buddhists of North-East India; there are also ethnic overlaps from Nepal, Thailand and Burma, such as Tamangs and Sherpas there are converts who have been influenced by the Maha Bodhi Society, the Dalai Lama and so on; and there are refugee Tibetan Buddhists in different settlements. Finally there are the followers of Dr. Ambedkar, who constitute over 90% India’s Buddhists. Dr Ambedkar was the unquestioned leader of the dalits – people considered ‘untouchable’ under the Hindu caste system. He converted to Buddhism on 14 October 1956 with about 300,000 of his followers. All belonged to his lower Mahar caste in Maharastra.
David Holmes aka Anagarika Tevijjo argues on Buddhism and Caste System on Theravada Dhamma Blog:
“There is, however, a philosophical theory of `racism” held by some of the religious teachers in the Buddha’s time which is mentioned and criticised in the Buddhist texts. It is associated with two teachers both of whom denied free will to man. One was Purana Kassapa, who denied man’s capacity for moral action in virtue of the fact that he had no free will. The other was Makkhali Gosala, who denied both free will and causation and argued that beings were miraculously saved (ahetu appaccaya satta visujjhanti) or doomed. They argued that human beings belonged to one or another of six species (abhi jati)[18] or specific types; in virtue of which they had certain genetic constitutions, physical traits and habits and psychological natures which they were incapable of altering by their own will or effort. The six types were designated by six colours. They were the black species (kanhabhi jati), the blue species, the red species, the yellow species, the white species and the pure white species. Whether these colours denoted differences in their physical complexions is not clear,[19] but that they were genetically different physical and psychological types is what is implied by the classification.
To the black species belonged the butchers, fowlers, hunters, fishermen, dacoits, and executioners and all those who adopt a cruel mode of living. They were, incidentally, among the lowest castes and their complexion was on the whole the darkest. The other five specific types differed in virtue of their degree of wickedness or saintliness, which was not in their power to alter. The pure white species were reckoned to be the perfect saints, though their saintliness was considered to be natural to them as much as their physical constitutions, and was in no way achieved by any effort of will on their part. In the opinion of these typologists, human beings who suffered pain in this life were so born to suffer as a result of their inheriting certain physical constitutions and psychological natures. [20]
He further argues, *Caste names were merely conventional designations signifying occupational differences and, since men were free to change their occupations, these diffe-rences had no hereditary or genetical basis*. As Asvaghosa says, *The distinctions between Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras are founded merely on the observance of diverse rites and the practice of different professions.[21] One who engages in trade comes to be known as a merchant, one who indulges in military pursuits is known as a soldier, and one who administers the country a king. It was not by birth that one becomes merchant, soldier or king but by the actions that one performs or the job one does.*
To spice it up he adds flavour into it, *The Hindu conception of society was static and was 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).*
This is a usual apology by most opponents to advance their image over Hinduism by tongue-in-cheek phenomenon. Compare his beginning of the observation in this quote with the subsequent assertions, the glare of dichotomy in his concept on Buddhism is quite obvious. Nonetheless this assertion is indicative of the fact that castes in Buddhism is extant and is no different from the philosophy expounded in the ancient holy Hindu scriptures like Geeta. Ref. Slok 4:13 where it is clearly laid down that according to *Triguna* there have been four divisions of society to systematise the work. In Slok 3:8 again it is exhorted that one must do his decided *Karma* instead of doing nothing. There are unlimited references in various other Hindu scriptures which are uncomparable. Here under is some brief indication about the Vedic descriptions and their purpose which is detailed in the relevant texts.
The Four Varnas Brahadaranyaka Upanishad
Stories and episodes (30)
The four orders of human beings, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra seems to be quite ancient.
The Rg Veda mentions the division.
Here is an explanation of that system given in an allegorical manner. It is said here that society is complete and perfect on account of the existence of all these four divisions but much more so on account of the law which binds all and which all ought to obey. More at: and at:
However one will argue that how does it differ from the puritanical original Hinduism as expounded in her scriptures? It doesn’t differ in the least bit. It only got corrupted over the period by the zealots and circumstances. Older it got, worst it became for multitudes of reasons. More at. It further continues:
Section B:
The RSS Sarsanghchalak Prof. Rajendra Singh extols Babasaheb Ambedkar in the following words: “In 1935, because of the highly discriminatory treatment meted out to the Dalits, he announced that though he was born a Hindu, he would never die as one. This caused a lot of commotion in the country, and it is rumoured that he was offered millions of Rupees by the Nizam if he brought the Dalits to the fold of Islam, and similarly by the Christian missionaries. (…) He gave a very important message to the Dalits before embracing Buddhism. He said that he was embracing Buddhism because it promised equality to all and was a path of this very soil with many common features and thereby not taking the Dalits against the culture of this country.”
We shall like to think so but our research on this aspect does not support Ambedkar’s view of equality to all castes in Buddhism; we have seen it in the preceding paragraphs here as well as we shall try to devolve further on this point. Has Ambedkar read and evolved his thesis of Buddhism on full distillation of the ideology or mere individual hatred perhaps generated via his personal earlier ostracization during the sensitive stage of self-conscious adulthood? It is a matter for debate and discussion. Whereas I am against any kind of alienation based on caste, race, creed, colour, gender, religion, language, or such diversity; despite my personal bitter experiences while passing through the same formative years both at home and abroad, I do not consider that a change of religious identity could alone solve the problem. A dazzling example is Babu Jagjivan Ramji and his most successful high profile daughter viz Ms Meira Kumar the present speaker of India. Ms Mayavati feels that she will change her religion after she gets her Government at the centre. Her argument is contentious but I am highly sceptical of her own credentials in conversion because her track record so far only shows her love for the sculptures and wasteful indulgence in corrupt practices more than the vivacious poor dalits vis a vis Manuwadis. She remains to prove herself a messiah of the oft repeated her dalit clans or is it only another dirty political power game? Let us examine some more views:
Jeevan Kulkarni argues; “…Most of them have decidedly proved that Buddha had never discarded caste system”.
Kulkarni calls Western authorities to the witness stand. Sir W.W. Hunter has written: “It would be a mistake to suppose that Buddhism and Jainism were directed from the outset consciously in opposition to the caste system. Caste, in fact, at the time of the rise of Buddhism was only beginning to develop; and in later days, when Buddhism commenced its missionary careers, it took caste with it into regions where upto that time the institution had not penetrated.” This is a profound truth revealed by Kulkarni smashing the acrimonious belief against Hinduism.
Prof. T.W. Rhys-Davids has given details about caste practices in over 100 Buddhist communities.
The eminent historian D.D. Kosambi pointed out that in the recruitment of monks, the candidate’s social position was not entirely disregarded: “…runaway slaves, savage tribesmen, escaped criminals, the chronically ill and the indebted as well as aboriginal Nagas were denied admission into the order.”
Where slavery existed, Buddhism did not abolish it. The Buddha never ordered the masters to set the slaves free, nor the slaves to revolt against their masters. Buddhist monasteries continued the labour arrangements existing in society at large. In his study on slavery in ancient India, the Marxist historian Dev Raj Chanana noticed the stark contrast between the actual history of Buddhist social practice and the more “progressive” picture given by modern writers, who fail to register the existence of serfdom in connection with the Buddhist monasteries:
“On reading the modern works concerning the Buddhist order in India one gains the impression that no slave labour was employed in the monasteries. One would be inclined to believe that all the work, even in the big monasteries like [those] of Kosambi or Rajagriha, was carried out by the monks themselves. However, a study of Pali literature shows clearly that the situation was otherwise.”
From the beginning, Buddhism shared the disdain for manual labour expressed by certain Brahminical and ancient Greek sources, which held that philosophical pursuits required a freedom from labour tasks. According to Chanana, this attitude to labour had not always existed in India to the same extent: “This attitude to manual work as an imposition is in contrast with the view expressed in an earlier epoch, in the Rigveda, where there is no expression of any dislike of manual work. This is, in part at least, due to the absence of the division of labour as seen in the well-known verse describing various jobs, intellectual and manual, undertaken by members of one and the same family.” In the case of Buddhism, however, “we must not forget that the Buddha, anxious to free his monks of material preoccupations, had forbidden almost all manual labour to them.”
To the slaves, Buddhism gave the same justification of their condition as is always scornfully attributed to Hinduism. (cf. slave practices in Africa, Europe and Americas – Author) Chanana summarizes: “On the other hand he advised the slaves to bear patiently with their lot and explained the same as follows. If a person is born a slave, it is the consequence of some bad acts of an earlier life and the best way for him is to submit willingly to his lot. He should submit to all sorts of treatment at the hands of his master and should never allow any feeling of revenge to grow within himself, even if the other should try to kill him. In such cases, a change of destiny is promised to the slave in the next birth. (…).”
So, the same allegation of using the karma doctrine as an opium for the people to keep them happy in their submission has been levelled against the Buddha as well as against Puranic Hinduism: “That he derived his conclusion from the widely accepted belief in the theory of karma, of the retribution of acts, need not be stressed again and again. To him and his followers birth in a particular group was the consequence of certain good or evil acts. Since the retribution was believed to be inexorable, unvarying, like the working of a machine, he could not but advocate complete submission to one’s destiny (…) we may agree that the Buddha (from what we learn about him in the Tipitaka) sincerely believed in [karma]. But even from this angle it is clear that disobedience on the part of a slave or servant was considered as an evil act. The same view was held of bad treatment on the part of a master.”
It is giving a Buddhist license for slavery.
“Everywhere it integrated itself into the existing social and political set-up, from bureaucratic centralism in China to feudal militarism in Japan. There is no known case of any of these branches of Buddhism calling for social reform, let alone for a social revolution as far-reaching as the abolition of caste would have meant in India. After centuries of profound impact of Buddhism, Tibetan society was in such a state that the Chinese Communists could claim in 1950 (with exaggeration, but not without a kernel of truth) that 95% of the Tibetans were living in slavery. Buddhism does not seem to have made Tibet’s traditional feudalism any more egalitarian than it had been in the pre-Buddhist past.”
On caste divisions it is stated again, “Coming to the specific form of inequality which is the caste system, in a survey of the Buddhist canon, we do find a number of references to this subject. These instances show that Buddhism was not meant as a social revolution, even when it was critical of caste inequality. Thus, in a list of parables from the Pali Canon, we find the well-known simile: “Whether kindled by a priest, a warrior, a trader or a serf, from whatsoever type of fuel, a fire will emit light and heat; even so, all men, regardless of caste, are equally capable of the highest spiritual attainment.” This merely says that the spiritual dimension is common to all, not that the differentiation of men into castes or even the secular inequality between these castes should be abolished.” It does not even lay any concern on account of caste.
There are more similar references given about castes as related to Buddha and Buddhism.
“A case could be made that this appropriation of spirituality by the Brahmin caste is what the Buddha criticizes in the Prakriti story and elsewhere. What he objects to is not the existing social system on the basis of caste, but precisely the improper extension of caste division to the spiritual sphere, beyond the worldly sphere where social distinctions belong. We may add that Sri Lankan Buddhists, who have a long history of fighting predominantly Hindu Tamils, and hence a strong sense of separateness from Hinduism, observe their own caste distinctions.
Buddhism’s lack of interest in social reform was implicitly admitted by Dr. Ambedkar himself, when as Law Minister he defended the inclusion of Buddhists in the category of citizens to whom the Hindu Code Bill would apply. He declared: “When the Buddha differed from the Vedic Brahmins, he did so only in matters of creed, but left the Hindu legal framework intact. He did not propound a separate law for his followers. The same was the case with Mahavir and the ten Sikh Gurus.” That should clinch the issue, it continued.
In the conclusion Elst states, “The neo-Buddhists are not Hindus, because they say so. Indeed, whereas all the other groups considered developed their identities naturally, in a pursuit of Liberation or simply in response to natural and cultural circumstances, only to discover later that this identity might be described as non-Hindu, the neo-Buddhists were first of all motivated by the desire to break with Hinduism. The most politicized among them, all while flaunting the label “Buddhist”, actually refuse to practise Buddhism: because it distracts from the political struggle, and perhaps also because the Buddhist discipline is too obviously similar to the lifestyle of the hated Brahmins in its religious aspect.” More at:
Let us continue our quest further:
“…The most interesting of these arguments is that one could have been high caste, low caste or outcaste in one’s former life or that one might be in the next life, and that one’s future is conditioned by one’s behaviour in this life (i.e. kamma), not by which caste one belongs to.
Despite the Buddha’s repudiation of caste, less extreme variations of the system exist in most Buddhist countries. For example, the paya kyun of Burma are the descendants of monastery slaves, and the buraku of Japan and the ragyapa of Tibet, were originally degraded because they worked as fishermen, scavengers or butchers. These groups are marginalized by their respective societies. Sri Lanka’s monastic sects are all divided along caste lines. Since the 1950’s, millions of low caste and outcaste people in India, following the example of their leader Dr. Ambedkar, have converted to Buddhism to escape the indignities of the Hindu caste system.” As exemplified in “Buddhism and the Race Question, J.N. Jayatilleke, 1958.” More at:
Koenraad Elst further expresses about Castes in Buddhism, “The Buddha also didn’t believe in gender equality. For long he refused to recruit women into his monastic order, saying that nuns would shorten its life-span by five hundred years. At long last he relented when his mother was widowed and other relatives, nobly-born Kshatriyas like the Buddha himself, insisted. Nepotism wasn’t alien to him either. But he made this institution of female monastics conditional upon the acceptance that even the most seasoned nun was subordinate to even the dullest and most junior monk. Some Theravada countries have even re-abolished the women’s monastic order, and it is only under Western feminist influence that Thailand is gradually reaccepting nuns.”
Buddhist monk Jivaka wrote: “In India the movement started by Ambedkar was not Buddhism but a campaign for social reform under the name Buddhism, and he has promulgated the idea that bhikkhus are for the purpose of social service. But his book ‘The Buddha and His Dharma’ is misnamed for he preaches non-Dharma as Dharma, even sweeping away the four Aryan Truths as a later addition by scholar-monks, maintaining that the Buddha distinguished between killing for a good reason and purely want only, and saying that He did not ban the former; and to cap it all he writes that the Dharma is a social system and that a man quite alone would not need it (…) Hence the so-called New Buddhists or better named, Ambedkarists, surround bhikkhus aggressively and tell them what they should do and abuse them if they are not actively engaged in social work or preaching reform. The result is seen in the acts of violence they have committed, the rioting that has taken place in Nagpur and Jabbulpur and other places. For Ambedkar entered on his new religion with hate in his heart (against Hindus – Author) and his followers are still nourishing and fanning the flames of hate in the uneducated masses they lead.” I am in agreement with Jivaka on this gross observation.
At any rate, nothing in Buddhist history justifies the modern romance of Buddhism as a movement for social reform. Everywhere it went, Buddhism accepted the social mores prevalent in that country, be it Chinese imperial-centralistic bureaucracy, Japanese militaristic feudalism, or indeed Hindu caste society. Buddhism even accepted the religious mores of the people (a rare exception is the abolition of a widow’s burial along with her husband in Mongol society effected by the third Dalai Lama), it only recruited monks from among them and made these do the Buddhist practices. In “caste-ridden India”, the Buddhist emperor A?oka dared to go against the existing mores when he prohibited animal-slaughter on specific days, but even he made no move to abolish caste.
In a report to his Government in 1992, the Sri Lankan High Commissioner to India, Mr. Neville Kanakaratne, noted the “regrettable fact” that a great majority of Indian Buddhists were members of the Scheduled Castes who converted under Dr. Ambedkar’s leadership in order to assert their political rights “rather than through honest self-persuasion and conviction”. By contrast, the effort by the Mahabodhi Society to spread Buddhism through proper information and teaching had achieved “very little”, according to the Sri Lankan High Commissioner.
Buddhism wasn’t more casteist than what went before. It didn’t bring caste to India anymore than the Muslims or the Britons did. Caste is an ancient Indian institution of which the Buddha was a part. But he, its personal beneficiary, didn’t think of changing it, just as his followers in other countries didn’t think of changing the prevailing system.” Elst continues.
A less controversial but essentially similar Buddhist presence is the Vipassana association of the Burmese master Sayagyi U Ba Khin as represented by S.N. Goenka. As I have been able to see for myself, this tradition of Buddhist meditation has struck firm roots in Ambedkar’s own Maharashtra, mainly through its Vipassana International Academy in Dhammagiri near Jalgaon where 10-day courses for laymen are offered. This way, a process of rapprochement between traditional Buddhists and Ambedkarite neo-Buddhists is already visible, so that we are probably witnessing the genesis of a genuine new Indian Buddhism. (It is Elst’s personal opinion)
However, the exercise can also be tried on the Buddha. Indeed, one V.N. Utpat wrote a booklet Riddles of Buddha and Ambedkar in reply. It points out that the Buddha’s conception was even more illegitimate …: his mother was visited at night by a white elephant. Heartless as the Buddha was, he left his wife and child behind without asking their opinion, to set out on his selfish quest for personal liberation. By giving up his throne, he also robbed his own son of the inheritance of the throne, and when later his son came to ask him for his rightful inheritance, the Buddha cynically offered him initiation into his miserable monk order. And so on: people (including the human being Siddhartha Gautama the Shakyamuni) have to make choices in life, and in their decisions there will always be a dark side available for foul mouths to pick on (very well observed by Elst who perhaps is no exception to the rule). More at:
Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati and her followers will embrace Buddhism after the BSP gains an absolute majority at the Centre, reported in The Hindu, Oct 17, 2006 with caption – “Prominent Indian female politician to embrace Buddhism”
Ms. Mayawati announced this on Monday at the conclusion of the seventh day rites of party founder Kanshi Ram which were conducted according to Buddhist traditions at her New Delhi residence.
“It was Manyavar’s dream to see the BSP in power at the Centre, and in the States, before the 50th anniversary of Babasaheb’s conversion. Unfortunately, that did not happen,” she said.
What was the connection between political power and religious conversion? The BSP chief said power was essential to spread any faith.
“It is not about me becoming a Buddhist. I could do it today but it would be just me. We have to spread the faith for which absolute majority at the Centre is a pre-requisite.” Peruse at:
Hence Mayavatiji again refers to social transformation more than religion or egalitarianism in Buddhism. One wonders, could she have not tried it within her current milieu which have given her sufficient power in UP instead of indulging in building personal fanciful sculptures and wasting the taxpayers’ money wantonly without any fruitful returns. If she is looking for similar opportunity at centre, I am afraid, she better not get the desired “power or mispower”. In her pursuit for power, she has crossed all barriers of principled politics by dilly-dallying from attracting the different castes for her vote bank including her most hated Manuwadis. One wonders: Is this what she wants or expects from Buddhism after power grab? Thus is Buddhism an instrument for grabbing power or is it an ideology that has pulled her and her cohorts?
Let us examine another side of the spreading hate cult among the Arihants:
Japanese-born Surai Sasai emerged as an important Buddhist leader in India. Sasai came to India in 1966 and met Nichidatsu Fuji, whom he helped with the Peace Pagoda at Rajgir. He fell out with Fuji, however, and started home, but, by his own account, was stopped by a dream in which a figure resembling Nagarjuna appeared and said, “Go to Nagpur”. In Nagpur, he met Wamanrao Godbole, the person who had organized the conversion ceremony for Dr. Ambedkar in 1956. … In 1987 a court case to deport him on the grounds that he had overstayed his visa was dismissed, and he was granted Indian citizenship. Sasai is one of the main leaders of the campaign to free the Mahabodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya from Hindu control.” More at:
It is sad to learn that these foreign born current itinerant ignorant young Buddhists who care less for the historical roots of their faith and indulge in chauvinism and perhaps even attempt to exhibit extrovert loyalty to the surrounding people for an oneman upship posture but unmindful of the fact that their patron Saint never advocated such violence and hatred. Is he true to his faith? Perhaps doubtful!
Ipso facto the custom is aboriginal. The Hindu priests in Bodh Gaya shrine are right from the inception when there was no other Bodhisattva and Buddha himself must have been building his empire of followers from among Hindus. There were only Hindus at that time to help him and to lean on. Any forceful eviction of these priests will amount to an act of blasphemy and disrespect to Lord Buddha himself or the ancestry of his followers. This custom is as old as the Buddhism itself and it must have been endorsed by their ancestors with full ascendency. At the same time it is bound to taint and corrupt their image of a peaceful and non-violent ideology. It does not make Buddhism a very peaceful religion!
Man’s quest for security and lasting happiness never ceases, but it is never quenched by soft pandering to his desires as a result of which he is continually in a state of flux. What brought men together was the realization of their common lot and their common humanity. All men of whatever race were subject to disease, decay and death. All men were likewise impelled by the desires within them—the desire for sense-gratification, the desire for life or personal immortality, and the desire for domination over death. But deep within this fathom-long body, says the Buddha, is the final goal we all seek and it is only by discovering this eternal peace and happiness within us that we realize the highest that we are capable of.
Unlike the Dalai Lama, who emphasizes the closeness of Hinduism and Buddhism before his Indian hosts, the Ambedkarite tendency in Buddhism is overtly anti-Hindu and tries to maximize the separateness of Buddhism, asserts Koenraad Elst.
Section C:
Various Buddhist Schools Vis a Vis hidden class or caste divisions:
Buddhism has several divisions now which differ vastly in their practices and remain isolated on this count. There is also some variation in the different accounts e.g. some say that Buddhism has only two major divisions e.g. Theravada and Mahayana. While others divide it into further subgroups like Vajrayana and Hinayana apart from the recent Ambedkarite group representing the Dalit sections in India after the advocacy by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. There are further subgroups in each of these branches which are classes or castes are a matter for discussion but they do represent various distinct sections.
There is another section that has emerged recently in India called Vipassana on the lines of Sayagyi U ba Khin of Myanmar as taught by the Guruji Sri S. N. Goenka at Dhammagiri, Igatpuri in Maharashtra. Thus it is noticeable that with the passage of time, any ideology is also bound to create diversity since it is the very human nature to differ among them selves. This leads to strong irreconcilable differing subgroups that depend upon the mass appeal and acceptance. It assumes more materialistic outlook than spiritual one over the passage of time and then the things start going wrong. Another human weakness that leads to disaster is its faltering weaknesses like ego, anger, greed, passion, jealousy, hatred and etc which sway the opinions of various individuals and create differing strong subgroups; whether in castes, classes or races. Ultimately all lead to the same divisions and diversity.
In perusing the various available literatures on Buddhism, it is again highly misleading, e.g. “while describing the Shramana (Sanskrit ?rama?a; P?li sama?a) movement was a non-Vedic movement parallel to Vedic Hinduism in ancient India. The Shramana tradition gave rise to Jainism, Buddhism, and Yoga, and was responsible for the related concepts of sa?s?ra (the cycle of birth and death) and moksha (liberation from that cycle).”
It may be noted here that ‘Yoga’ is very much a technique intimately linked with Vedas and other Hindu scriptures. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism all have a similarity on one count that they propound the ultimate aim of their teachings as the “Liberation” of the soul from the worldly misery and sufferings which this universe is comprised of. There are differing opinions on the various practices and methods. If these differing methods will not exist, then there is no need for existence of these differing various groups. Why these differing groups? A deeper unbiased analysis may depict that either it is human ignorance or their materialistic greed or other weaknesses. Unfortunately the masses in any or every community are like a flock of sheeps which move in herds, led by the front leader. They hardly seem to have their individual say. Thus the so called human societies behave no different in this respect. Another human aspect of sensibility is a sentimental phenomenon which help create a mass movement; political, religious, sports, games, nationalism, or otherwise. All these factors work in tandem to divide et impera. In such matters, the individuals hardly seem to have their choice. There are extraneous factors also with their vested interests in creating further diversity e.g.:
“The British employed the Roman principle of divide et impera to enslave colonial peoples. The US has taken up the tradition. “Our endeavour,” remarked Lieutenant-Colonel Coke, Commandant of Moradabad during the middle of the nineteenth century, “should be to uphold in full force the (for us fortunate) separation which exists between the different religions and races, not to endeavour to amalgamate them. Divide et impera should be the principle of Indian government (13).” Lord Elphinstone, Governer of Bombay, seconded the motion. “Divide et impera was the old Romon motto, and it should be ours (14).” It continues further:
“Adumbrating US imperial tactics in Iraq, the British devised a system of separate electorates in India and separate representation by religion, caste and ethnicity. Sound familiar? “The effect of this electoral policy,” observed one commentator, was “to give the sharpest possible stimulus to communal antagonism (15).” Prior to British rule in India there was no trace of the type of Hindu-Muslim conflict that later emerged under British rule (16).
“There is no natural inevitable difficulty from the cohabiting of differing races or religions in one country (17).” Muslim and Hindu lived side-by-side peacefully until the British arrived in India; Sunni and Shiite commingled peacefully before the US imposed its occupation on the country. “The difficulties arise from social-political conditions. They arise, in particular, whenever a reactionary regime is endeavouring to maintain itself against the popular movement (18).”
In the USSR, diverse religions and races lived together amicably. Germans and Jews lived together peacefully under Germany’s Weimar Republic. It wasn’t until the Nazis emphasized national identity to weaken growing working class consciousness that systematic persecution of Jews began.
The strategy is simple. The last thing an occupying power wants is for the people it’s dominating to recognize their common situation and interests. Were they to do that, they might mobilize their energies to fight their common enemy. So the occupied countries are organized by their occupiers along color, religious and ethnic fault-lines. Iraqis mustn’t think of themselves as Iraqis, but as Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, locked in a struggle with each other for access to resources.” More at:
The Buddha (meaning “the awakened one” in Sanskrit and P?li). Buddha derives its etymology from the root word ‘dhi’ which means knowledge and wisdom. It is related to his enlightenment.
Buddhism is a religion indigenous to the Indian subcontinent that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs, and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha (meaning “the awakened one” in Sanskrit and P?li). The Buddha lived and taught in the eastern part of Indian subcontinent sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE. He is recognized by Buddhists as an awakened or enlightened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end suffering (dukkha) through eliminating ignorance (avidy?), craving (ta?h?), and hatred, by way of understanding and seeing dependent origination (prat?tyasamutp?da) and non-self (an?tman), and thus attain the highest happiness, nirv??a (nirvana). Although Buddhism is known as the Buddha Dharma, the Buddha referred to his teachings as the Arya Ast?nga M?rga, Brahmay?na, Dhammavin?ya, and Jinas?sanam. (Cf. Patanjali’s Ashtanga Sutras)
Two major branches of Buddhism are recognized: Theravada (“The School of the Elders”) and Mahayana (“The Great Vehicle”). Theravada has a widespread following in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. Mahayana is found throughout East Asia and includes the traditions of Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Shingon, Tiantai (Tendai) and Shinnyo-en. In some classifications, Vajrayana—practiced mainly in Tibet and Mongolia, and adjacent parts of China and Russia—is recognized as a third branch, while others classify it as a part of Mahayana. There are other categorisations of these three Vehicles or Yanas. More at:
Theravada, Sanskrit: ????????? sthavirav?da, ; literally, “the Teaching of the Elders” or “the Ancient Teaching,” is the oldest surviving Buddhist school. It was founded in India. It is relatively conservative, and generally closer to early Buddhism than the other existing Buddhist traditions. For many centuries, it has been the predominant religion of Sri Lanka (now about 70% of the population) and most of continental Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand). Theravada is also practiced by minorities in parts of southwest China (mainly by the Shan and Tai ethnic groups), Vietnam (by the Khmer Krom), Bangladesh (by the ethnic groups of Baruas, Chakma, Magh, and Tanchangya), Malaysia and Indonesia, while recently gaining popularity in Singapore and the Western world. Today, Theravada Buddhists, otherwise known as Theravadins, number over 150 million worldwide, and during the past few decades Theravada Buddhism has begun to take root in the West and in the Buddhist revival in India.
According to its own accounts, the Therav?da school is fundamentally derived from the Vibhajjav?da (or “doctrine of analysis”) grouping which was a division of the Sthavira (“Elders”) stream. (The Sthavira were in turn a breakaway group from the majority Mah?s??ghika during the Second Buddhist council.) (Sanskrit “Sthavira” and the Pali “Thera”) Theravadin accounts of its own origins mention that it received the teachings that were agreed upon the Third Buddhist Council, around 250 BCE, and these teachings were known as the Vibhajjavada. The Vibhajjav?dins in turn split into four groups: the Mah???saka, K??yap?ya, Dharmaguptaka, and the T?mraparn?ya (which means “the Sri Lankan lineage”).
According to the P?li chronicles of the Sinhalese tradition, Buddhism was first brought to Sri Lanka by Arahant Mahinda, who is believed to have been the son of the Mauryan emperor Asoka, in the third century BCE, as a part of the dhammaduta (missionary) activities of the Asokan era. In Sri Lanka, Arahant Mahinda established the Mah?vih?ra Monastery of Anuradhapura.
Over much of the early history of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, three subdivisions of Therav?da existed in Sri Lanka, consisting of the monks of the Mah?vih?ra, Abhayagiri Vih?ra, and the Jetavana Vih?ra. According to A.K. Warder, the Indian Mah???saka sect also established itself in Sri Lanka alongside the Therav?da, into which they were later absorbed. Northern regions of Sri Lanka also seem to have been ceded to sects from India at certain times.
Traditionally, Theravada Buddhism has observed a distinction between the practices suitable for a lay person and the practices undertaken by ordained monks (in ancient times, there was a separate body of practices for nuns). While the possibility of significant attainment by laymen is not entirely disregarded by the Theravada, it generally occupies a position of less prominence than in the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions, with monastic life being hailed as a superior method of achieving Nirvana. The view that Theravada, unlike other Buddhist schools, is primarily a monastic tradition has, however, been disputed. More at:
Mah?y?na (Sanskrit: ?????? mah?y?na, literally the “Great Vehicle”) is one of the two main existing branches of Buddhism and a term for classification of Buddhist philosophies and practice. Mah?y?na Buddhism originated in India, and is associated with the oldest historical sect of Buddhism, the Mah?s??ghika.
The Mah?y?na tradition is the larger of the two major traditions of Buddhism existing today, the other being that of the Therav?da school. According to the teachings of Mah?y?na traditions, “Mah?y?na” also refers to the path of seeking complete enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings, also called “Bodhisattvay?na”, or the “Bodhisattva Vehicle.
In the course of its history, Mah?y?na Buddhism spread from India to various other Asian countries such as China, Japan, Vietnam, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan, and Mongolia. Major traditions of Mah?y?na Buddhism today include Zen/Chán, Pure Land, Tiantai, and Nichiren, as well as the Esoteric Buddhist traditions of Shingon, Tendai and Tibetan Buddhism.
According to Jan Nattier, the term Mah?y?na (“Great Vehicle”) was originally an honorary synonym for Bodhisattvay?na (“Bodhisattva Vehicle”) — the vehicle of a bodhisattva seeking buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings. The term Mah?y?na was therefore formed independently at an early date as a synonym for the path and the teachings of the bodhisattvas. Since it was simply an honorary term for Bodhisattvay?na, the creation of the term Mah?y?na and its application to Bodhisattvay?na did not represent a significant turning point in the development of a Mah?y?na tradition.
The earliest Mah?y?na texts often use the term Mah?y?na as a synonym for Bodhisattvay?na, but the term H?nay?na is comparatively rare in the earliest sources. The presumed dichotomy between Mah?y?na and H?nay?na can be deceptive, as the two terms were not actually formed in relation to one another in the same era. More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana
Vajray?na Buddhism (Devanagari: ???????; Tibetan: ??????????????, rdo rje theg pa;) is also known as Tantric Buddhism, Tantray?na, Mantray?na, Secret Mantra, Esoteric Buddhism and the Diamond Vehicle. Vajrayana is a complex and multifaceted system of Buddhist thought and practice which evolved over several centuries.
According to Vajrayana scriptures Vajrayana refers to one of three vehicles or routes to enlightenment, the other two being the Hinayana and Mahayana.
Its main scriptures are called Tantras. A distinctive feature of Vajrayana Buddhism is ritual, which are Skillful Means (Upaya). They are being used as a substitute or alternative for the earlier abstract meditations.
Although the first tantric Buddhist texts appeared in India in the 3rd century and continued to appear until the 12th century, scholars such as Hirakawa Akira believe that the Vajrayana probably came into existence in the 6th or 7th century, while the term Vajrayana first came into evidence in the 8th century. Prior to the Vajrayana developed the Mantrayana, and after the Vajrayana the Sahajayana and Kalachakrayana developed.
The period of Indian Vajrayana Buddhism has been classified as the fifth or final period of Indian Buddhism. The literature of Vajrayana is absent from the oldest Buddhist literature of the Pali Canon and the Agamas. More at:
H?nay?na (??????) is a Sanskrit and P?li term literally meaning: (H?na = mean or lowly, y?na = vehicle) the “Inferior Vehicle”, “Deficient Vehicle”, the “Abandoned Vehicle”, or the “Defective Vehicle”. The term appeared around the 1st or 2nd century.
H?nay?na is contrasted with Mah?y?na, which means the “Great (Mah?) Vehicle.” There are a variety of interpretations as to who or what the term “H?nay?na” refers to. The Chinese monk Yijing who visited India in the 7th century distinguishes Mah?y?na from H?nay?na as follows:
Both adopt one and the same Vinaya, and they have in common the prohibitions of the five offenses, and also the practice of the Four Noble Truths. Those who venerate the bodhisattvas and read the Mah?y?na s?tras are called the Mah?y?nists, while those who do not perform these are called the H?nay?nists.
According to Jan Nattier, it is most likely that the term H?nay?na post-dates the term Mah?y?na, and was only added at a later date due to antagonism and conflict between bodhisattvas and ?r?vakas. The sequence of terms then began with Bodhisattvay?na, which was given the epithet Mah?y?na (“Great Vehicle”). It was only later, after attitudes toward the bodhisattvas and their teachings had become more critical, that the term H?nay?na was created as a back-formation, contrasting with the already-established term Mah?y?na. The earliest Mah?y?na texts often use the term Mah?y?na as an epithet and synonym for Bodhisattvay?na, but the term H?nay?na is comparatively rare in early texts, and is usually not found at all in the earliest translations. Therefore, the often-perceived symmetry between Mah?y?na and H?nay?na can be deceptive, as the terms were not actually coined in relation to one another in the same era.
Although the 18-20 early schools of Buddhism are sometimes loosely classified as H?nay?na in modern times, this is not necessarily accurate. There is no evidence that Mah?y?na ever referred to a separate formal school of Buddhism, but rather that it existed as a certain set of ideals, and later doctrines, for bodhisattvas. More at:
From analysing and perusing the above descriptions which only reflect the tip of the iceberg or even perhaps less than that; it is amply clear that given sufficient time and allowed to spread as the “Sanatana Dharma”, all these various diversities will either evolve themselves or will be made to result into various diverse classes wherefrom it may or will be difficult to classify them in no other terms than what Hinduism has been subjected to suffer the blames of casteism. Then these same adversaries will start criticising on one hand while busy in manipulating them for their vested interests on one or the other accounts as the modern day Hinduism is made to suffer as medieval, Idolators, heathens, pagans, polytheists, phallic or cow worshipers, primitive religion, superstitious soul searching religion, monstrous cult, barbarians and whatever else they could innovate to denigrate it and make a laughing stalk. It is a vast topic in its own right. Indian peninsula has witnessed a lot of various kinds of overseas visitors, rapacious cheaters, and profligates.
ajay says
March 21, 2013 at 11:17 amfor brotherhood of Hindu, implementation of congregational prayer is essential. Kindly read article on hinduministry.wordpress.com
Jimmy chauhan says
February 15, 2016 at 12:32 pmALL ryt so buddhism didnt preached anti casteism!!Bt our subject is that there is nothing like endogamous occupational caste system in myanmar,thailand,singapore,combodia,laos,vietnam,malaysia,nindonesia!!well,in indonesia there is small state with a population of 42 lakh(only hindu community in south east asia)so from these 42 lakh balinese hindus thete are 95% sudras,all else are brahmin n kshatriya!!Bt why dont anyone else another than this small minority there have an endogamous caste system??n u were talking about japan n china!!ok in chinese class system which was in practice socially from 16th century AD to 1949!Than maoists destroyed that brutally!in that social system there were scholars at top n then farmers at second or peasants due to produtive value n it was not about wealth or income or property inheritance!it was about prestige n productivity of profession n than craftsman at third n than merchants at 4th bcoz they wete cnsidred less productive n mean but they were rich than upper mentioned CLASSES or gps not castes!!at last were soldiers due to thier destrutive ness they were at last or lowest stratum!!N this system was in practice only for 350 yrs!n their was no any UNTOUCHABLE!! N if u can see this class system(may be little closed but not fully) is thousand times different than our hindu caste system which divides us in 6400parts n it is in practice from past 3000 yrs n their is great amount of shudras(obc n sc) masses oppressd?!!n u talked about japanese,so i can explain that below noble class(samurai,damyo,shogun etc) were commoners class(farmers,traders,craftsman) n their were a little minority hatred people like burrukumin n hokaido n ainu!which were hunter gatherers or nomadic 1000yrs before n nw worked as butcherers etc,so they were hated commynity or class yes!!n their are still more than 30 lakh burukumins all over japan whom face little discrimination in employement n marriage issues!!Bt u cant compare this to indian caste system n its magnitude at all,clarify me if am wrong!
Rahul marchande says
April 10, 2016 at 6:08 amBuddhism doesn’t have any caste and never discriminated anyone on the basis of any form of discrimination.
If I talk about foreign countries like China or japan. Mostly they were tribal and follow their own way of worshipping to Buddha. In ancient India most kings not belongs from Kshatriya clan like Maurya and Nanda clan. Due to Aryan settle in India the caste system came into existence and got worse.
uday kumar udar says
October 5, 2016 at 9:40 amGood
Its me says
October 13, 2016 at 9:53 amBuddha never preached I m high caste or low caste person…he said anyone can attain enlightenment if u follow my path….how come he is a kshtriya or brahmin but never speaks of worshipping Hindu dieties…..or if he is one then why not India is not a Buddhist country
Its me says
October 13, 2016 at 10:10 amI m not against religion with due respect to all religious practices… Its a personal matter ! But for your info Buddhism had been demolished in India .Can u give me a valid reason why were so many monks slaughtered n nalanda university burned if it favoured high caste Hindus…its good people would have become aware of the fact how Buddhism favoured high classes and not preached equality..The truth is Aryans,moghuls,British AL invaded India and demolished the original dharma of India then.Whatever it is past now people should just forget history and give up caste discrimination. India has got a long way to go…we should think less of our benefits and think of out country.I feel
Hari says
March 5, 2017 at 12:31 amBudhism was cause of casteism in India, but nobody is ready to accept that. if you look at budha an his follower 80% are brahmans and rest is kshatriyas and vaishnavas shudra was never a part of it. budha teachings are alien for most of people. people joined it only because social power. if we look at all the budhist countries we could easily see there is caste.