Equality was Buddha’s message

2560th Buddha Purnima today

This is a religion for one To come and practice but not Just to come and believe Buddha

Historic Marxism which propagated to be cautious about religion under very famous Maxim “religion is the opium of the people”. Moreover, it is very important to be aware about hegemonic impact of religion on the subaltern groups. In Gandhian understanding all religions are equal have same essence. Unlike, repudiating religion under materialist as well as Gandhian understanding Dr Ambedkar took a mid-path. People need religion but all religions are not equal in terms of establishing social norms based on equality.

Some religion propagates inequality in terms of intra-societal relations. That’s why cultures which are stated to be the defining feature of a nation and community is heavily influenced by religion that dominates people. However, it is very important to scrutinise religions for their social engagement. The working class subaltern people possess their own hidden liberative cultures. In India, structural position of caste defines the cultural moorings of the people. From the ancient period, India has been the home for two opposite conflicting cultures i.e. Brahmanism and Shramanism (Pali Shamanism). Shramanism is the culture of working and lower class bahujans.

Now in the present context the subaltern groups have been trying to extract and extricate their liberative cultures with the help of oral traditions under the respective caste cultures like Madiga culture, Mala culture, Lambada culture, Gond culture and so on. The historical fact is that somewhere remotely all these traditions are part of the larger Shramana tradition of ancient India. Shramanism, which is present in all the working caste people’s lives, has long time ago lost its way to the hegemonic Brahmanic tradition, while extracting the original working caste liberative shramana tradition, the intellectuals need not celebrate each and every aspect of their respective caste cultures that has been handed down by the ancestors of these castes.

Here, the leaders and the intellectuals have to be very careful in terms of separating the hegemonising Brahmanic culture, which may have been imbibed in the historical process and it is important only to extricate the liberative aspect of the respective caste cultures. For instance, among the Lambadas, bride price was in practice and dowry is a recent entry because of influence and imitation of the larger caste Hindu society. The bride price culture must be retained and can do away with the dowry system, which is creating problems in gender relations. When we think of Indian culture, it has become fashionable from the time of colonialism only to celebrate the version of Brahminism as the national culture, which was re-vitalised during that period, leaving aside the greatest humanitarian Shramanic culture.

Samanas were ascetics, renouncers, recluse and hermits. In Dr B R Ambedkar’s opinion shramanism which has originated from the word ‘samo’ means tranquillity or toil or fatigue. The main schools in shramanism are Ajivikas, who were rational fatalists Lokayatas, were proto-materialists, Sankhya which was an empirical philosophy. Jainism and Buddhism are the other main philosophical part of shramanism. These philosophies are historic roots of the anti-caste movements in ancient period. This is the heterodox tradition of resistance for equality.

Shramanas were drawn from various castes and philosophy and learning was open to all debates were usually fierce. It denied the authority of Vedas and Brahmins. Thus, shramanism was open, inclusive and egalitarian. On the other hand, the conflicting Brahmanism claimed its superiority based on birth, it believed in theory of karma. Brahmins unlike Shramanas, were householder elites drawn mainly from the upper three varnas. Education was secretive and confined to only to these varnas and it passed through guru-shishya tradition and practiced within the caste hierarchy. Thus the brahmanic tradition was exclusive, elitist and exploitative.

Religion shapes the civil societal relations through the notion of “divine governance”. It is important to know the religion promotes or demotes basic human rights of oppressed people. Buddhism being a part of shramanic culture has always been a source of promotion of basic rights of the most oppressed lower caste people and women through its emphasis on trinity of “liberty-equality-fraternity. Sidddhartha, who became Buddha, never claimed to be god or his/ her messenger. Rather his philosophy emphasises on human sociality and morality.

It seeks life-affirmation at the level of rational/ human nature-the attainment of mental spiritual control over one’s instincts and direction of one’s life towards the noble ideals of knowledge-enlightenment through one’s own efforts. One is master of one’s own making and Enlightenment is not a gift from without but within “Atta Deepa Bhava” (Be light unto yourself). Deriving social in Buddhism is humans themselves in the aspect of rationality. Justification for the life has to be searched within human beings and in their own nature not outside of him/ her Buddha had himself said, “Monks, you should not accept my words only after examining them, not out of reverence”.

Thus, Buddha made humans master and author for themselves. The social in Buddhism is not only a rational but also moral. To achieve moral one has to follow not the path shown by the shastras but a righteous path to achieve the ‘ought’ from ‘is’. The social is also universal in Buddhism. Morality is universal morality, it is singular and similar applied to all human beings equally without distinction of caste, class and gender. Thus, the ascriptive distinction (like varna distinction) is not to be the basis for discrimination and treatment. The social not only rational, moral, universal but it is also praxis. Buddha’s constant emphasis was on prajna combined with karuna and samata.

He wanted to evolve a new society based on “bahujana hitaya-bahujana sukaya”. Dr Ambedkar called caste a system “graded inequality,” with following characteristics: an endless hierarchy of one caste or sub-caste over another; strict endogamy, meaning no inter-marriage among castes and sub-castes; dietary restrictions no sharing of food and water among castes based on notions of caste purity/ impurity; physical segregation among castes in villages, limited access to education; designated occupations according to caste; and restricted access to temples and rituals on the basis of caste. Buddha attacked through his discourses and conversations, the caste system, social inequality and brahmanical supremacy. Buddha proclaimed: “Not by birth one becomes an out caste, Not by birth one becomes a Brahmin, By deeds one becomes an out caste”.

In his philosophy there is no place, for superiority claimed based on birth, but every human being is recognised with equal essence. He supported the ‘lower castes, the weak and the despised in two ways, ideologically by taking a position against caste; and second the practical level, by admitting persons of all castes and creeds including the untouchables and women in his sangha. Khuddaka nikaya mentions many persons of lower caste as important part of Buddhism. Upali, the author of vinaya pitika was a barber. Punna punnika were slave girls. Sunita was a pukkusa, one of the lower tribe. Nanda was formerly a cowherd and Dhania a potter.

Thus, the subaltern groups have to retrieve their liberative tradition from shramanic Buddhism that is centred on social virtues like knowledge, compassion, justice and inclusion. While doing so the subaltern groups have to be cautious to eliminate appropriately the hegemonic cultural practices from their retrieving projects. It could be the right way to extricate the long lost shramanism in this country and could be a right tribute to the enlightened master Gautama.The writer is officiating Head, Department of Social Exclusion Studies, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad

By Dr Venkatesh Nayak