Thread by @Indumakalktchi

Have you been told that Gautama Buddha was a great social reformer? Did they tell you that he stood against the “oppressive” caste system? Were you also taught that Buddhism was an egalitarian movement that rose against the tyranny of the Brahmins? Yes?

Well, I have some news for you, you decide if it is good or bad. What you’ve been told about the Buddha is patently untrue.

A popular meme of 20th-century caste politics in India is the image of Gautama Buddha as some kind of a social reformer.

Bhimrao Ambedkar, the man who was instrumental in popularizing this rather misinformed narrative, once said,

“The rise of Buddhism in India was as significant as the French Revolution”.

However, a study of the Buddhist source texts reveals that Buddhism was an elitist enterprise created for the pursuit of spiritual enlightenment and was not concerned in the least with any kind of social change.

Buddhism has for long been painted in contrast with Hinduism as if it were something radically different and new. In order to achieve this contrast, a lot of commonly understood words have been given a new meaning.

For example,
Ambedkarites often claim that the term Ārya, figuring in such Buddhist terminology as catvāri-ārya-satyāni and ārya-astāngika-mārga had a general psychological-ethical meaning- “noble”, a character trait independent of any specific culture,

religious tradition or social class. However, what was noble in those days was the same as what was later called Vedic, in the sense of being civilized with reference to observing Vedic norms and customs.

Therefore, Buddha conceived of his ideas as ‘restored-Vedic’ rather than ‘anti-Vedic’ quite like how Arya Samajis in the 19th century claimed to ‘reform’ Hinduism by going back to the Vedas.

Far from inventing a new path, the Buddha frequently appealed to the “Ancient Way”. When a minister of the Magadha kingdom asked him the secret of the strength of the republican states, his recipe consisted of “sticking to ancient laws and traditions”

and “maintaining sacred sites” and “honoring ancient rituals”. Contrary to the radical views of those who have turned him into an icon of their brand of politics, the Buddha’s view of the good society was close to Confucian and Brahmanical conservatism.

What about caste then, you may ask? Well, let’s have a look at what the Buddhist text Mahāvibhāsā says:
“What the noble ones say is the truth, what the other say is not true. […] They are called noble truths because they are possessed by those who own

the wealth and assets of the noble ones, […] because they are possessed by those who are conceived in the womb of a noble person.”

Another text, Lalitvistara says: “After all Bodhisattvas were not born in despised lineage, among pariahs,

in families of pipe or cart makers, or mixed castes.”

This is in perfect harmony with the Buddha’s ‘Great Sermon’, in which he says, “The Bodhisattvas appear only in two kinds of lineage, one of the brahmans and of the Kshatriyas.”

Not surprisingly, about 80% of the men recruited in the Sangha during Gautama’s lifetime were upper caste and more than 40% were Brahmins. The Buddha himself was a Ksatriya, son of the head of the Sākya tribe.

His patrons, who built his monasteries, included the Kshatriyas of the nether Ganga region. Buddha prophesied that his successor would be born in a Brahmin family. Upon his death, the Buddha’s ashes were claimed by his followers purely on the logic of caste:

“He was a Kshatriya and we are Kshatriyas, so we are entitled to his ashes”, they said.

Clearly, his followers, after learning Buddhism from the Buddha for forty-five years, were not in the least hesitant to display their caste. Hang on, this gets even more interesting.

While Manu is a vilified figure in Ambedkarite circles, Buddhist scriptures celebrate the Buddha’s birth in the Solar lineage, as a relative of Rāma, thus claiming to be a direct descendant of Manu. In the Buddhist retelling of the Rāmāyana,

the Buddha also claims to be a reincarnation of Rama and likens himself to Lord Visnu. The later portrayal of Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu was in fact just a reciprocation of the sentiments first expressed by the great sage himself.

Ambedkar declared in a radio broadcast,

“My Social Philosophy may be said to be enshrined in three words: Liberty, Equality and Fraternity... I have derived them from the teachings of my Master, the Buddha.”

If Ambedkar had studied Buddhist texts more thoroughly, he would have discovered that his master had little to do with these modern ideals. Gautama had refused to recruit women monks for years, citing that nuns would shorten the lifespan of the Sangha by 500 years.

After years of persuasion, he gave it a nod on the condition that even the most seasoned nun was subordinate to the most junior monk.

Nothing in Buddhist history justifies the mythical image of Buddhism as a movement for social reform.

It endorsed the prevalent social mores of every new land it spread to, whether it was Chinese imperial- bureaucracy or Japanese feudalism or indeed, the Hindu varna-jaati system. And as far as Buddha’s personal life is concerned,

he remained till his last moment on the earth, what would several centuries later be called Hindu. Indeed, the Buddha was every inch a Hindu.

This is Koenraad Elst, author, orientalist and historian, for Upword.

Source : @upword_