Mahavira and Buddha : Caste

Some such background existed in North India from the time of
the Epics onwards to the early Buddhist period. It was ever
changing politically and economically, and the processes of
synthesis and amalgamation, as well as the specialization of
labour, were taking place. In the realm of ideas there was continuous
growth and often conflict. The early Upanishads had
been followed by the development of thought and activity in
many directions; they were themselves a reaction against priestcraft
and ritualism. Men's minds had rebelled against much that
they saw, and out of that rebellion had grown these early Upanishads
as well as, a little later, the strong current of materialism,
and Jainism and Buddhism, and the attempt to synthesize
various forms of belief in the Bhagavad Gita. Out of all this again
grew the six systems of Indian philosophy. Yet behind all this
mental conflict and rebellion lay a vivid and growing national
life.
Both Jainism and Buddhism were breakaways from the Vedic
religion and its offshoots, though in a sense they had grown out
of it. They deny the authority of the Vedas and, most fundamental
of all matters, they deny or say nothing about the existence
of a first cause. Both lay emphasis on non-violence and build up
organizations of celibate monks and priests. There is a certain
realism and rationalism in their approach, though inevitably
this does not carry us very far in our dealings with the invisible
world. One of the fundamental doctrines of Jainism is that truth
is relative to our standpoints. It is a rigorous ethical and nontranscendental
system, laying a special emphasis on the ascetic
aspect of life and thought.
119
Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, and Buddha were contem-poraries, and both came from the Kshatriya warrior class. Buddha died at the age of eighty, in 544 B.C., and the Buddhist era begins then. (This is the traditional date. Historians give a later date 487 B.C., but are now inclined to accept the tradi-tional date as more correct.) It is an odd coincidence that I am writing this on the Buddhist New Year's Day, 2488—the day of the full moon of the month of Vaisakha—the Vaisakhi Purnima, as it is called. It is stated in Buddhist literature that Buddha was born on this full moon day of Vaisakha (May-June); that he attained enlightenment and finally died also on the same day of the year. Buddha had the courage to attack popular religion, supersti-tion, ceremonial, and priestcraft, and all the vested interests that clung to them. He condemned also the metaphysical and theo-logical outlook, miracles, revelations, and dealings with the super-natural. His appeal was to logic, reason, and experience; his emphasis was on ethics, and his method was one of psychological analysis, a psychology without a soul. His whole approach comes like the breath of the fresh wind from the mountains after the stale air of metaphysical speculation. Buddha did not attack caste directly, yet in his own order he did not recognize it, and there is no doubt that his whole attitude and activity weakened the caste system. Probably caste was very fluid in his day and for some centuries later. It is obvi-ous that a caste-ridden pommunity could not indulge in foreign trade or other foreign adventures, and yet for fifteen hundred years or more after Buddha, trade was developing between India and neighbouring countries, and Indian colonies flourished. Foreign elements continued to stream into India from the north-west and were absorbed. It is interesting to observe this process of absorption which worked at both ends. New castes were formed at the bottom of the scale, and any successful invading element became trans-formed soon into Kshatriyas or the ruling class. Coins of the period just before and after the beginning of the Christian era show this rapid change in the course of two or three generations. The first ruler has a foreign name. His son or grandson appears with a Sanskrit name and is crowned according to the traditional rites meant for Kshatriyas. Many of the Rajput Kshatriya clans date back to the Shaka of Scythian invasions which began about the second century B.C. or from the later invasion of the White Huns. All these accepted the faith and institutions of the country and then tried to affiliate themselves to the famous heroes of the Epics. Thus the Kshatriya group depended on status and occupation rather than on descent,
120
and so it was much easier for foreigners to be incorporated into it.
It is curious and significant that throughout the long span of
Indian history there have been repeated warnings given by great
men against priestcraft and the rigidity of the caste system, and
powerful movements have risen against them; yet slowly, imperceptibly,
almost, it seems, as if it were the inevitable course
of destiny, caste has grown and spread and seized every aspect
of Indian life in its strangling grip. Rebels against caste have
drawn many followers, and yet in course of time their group
has itself become a caste. Jainism, a rebel against the parent
religion and in many ways utterly different from it, was yet
tolerant to caste and adapted itself to it; and so it survives and
continues in India, almost as an offshoot of Hinduism. Buddhism,
not adapting itself to caste, and more independent in its
thought and outlook, ultimately passes away from India, though
it influences India and Hinduism profoundly. Christianity comes
here eighteen hundred years ago and settles down and gradually
develops its own castes. The Moslem social structure in India,
in spite of its vigorous denunciation of all such barriers within the
community, is also partly affected.
In our own period numerous movements to break the tyranny
of caste have arisen among the middle classes and they have
made a difference, but not a vital one, so far as the masses are
concerned. Their method was usually one of direct attack. Then
Gandhi came and tackled the problem, after the immemorial
Indian fashion, in an indirect way, and his eyes were on the
masses. He has been direct enough, aggressive enough, persistent
enough, but without challenging the original basic functional
theory underlying the four main castes. He has attacked the rank
undergrowth and overgrowth, knowing well that he was undermining
the whole caste structure thereby.* He has already
shaken the foundations and the masses have been powerfully
affected. For them the whole structure holds or breaks altogether.
But an even greater power than he is at work: the conditions
of modern life—and it seems that at last this hoary and
tenacious relic of past times must die.
But while we struggle with caste in India (which, in its origin,
*Gandhiji's references to caste have been progressively stronger and more pointed, and he
has made it repeatedly clear that caste as a whole and as it exists must be eliminated. Referring
to the constructive programme which he has placed before the nation, he says: '/( has
undoubtedly independence, political, social and economic, as its aim. It is a moral, non-violent
revolution in all the departments of life of a big nation, at the end of which caste and untouchability
and such other superstitions must vanish, differences between Hindu ahd Muslim
become things of the past, enmity against Englishmen or Europeans must be wholly forgotten
And again quite recently: 'The caste system, as we know, is an anachronism. It must go if
both Hinduism and India are to live and grow from day to day.'
27
was based on colour), new and overbearing castes have arisen in
the west with doctrines of racial exclusiveness, sometimes clothed
in political and economic terms, and even speaking in the
language of democracy.
Before the Buddha, seven hundred years before Christ, a great
Indian, the sage and lawgiver Yagnavalkya, is reported to have
said: 'It is not our religion, still less the colour of our skin, that
produces virtue; virtue must be practised. Therefore, let no one
do to others what he would not have done to himself.'