The Buddha as an Exponent of Egalitarianism

 

Sumanapal Bhikkhu

The word egalitarianism means an ideal which believes in equal rights, benefits and opportunities for all citizens. Discrimination is opposite of egalitarianism. It means making a distinction against a person or thing based on the group, class, category they belong to, rather than basing any action on individual merit. When the Buddha was born the Indian society was divided into classes, viz. Brhāmin, Kaṣtriya, Vaisya and Śudra. The Buddha tried to free the society from this evil practice. He believed that caste system was an example of discrimination and therefore should be done away with. He taught us that prejudice is a product of ignorance. Again, the belief that we are better that other in any way originates from craving or fear. The Buddha was of the opinion such an attitude to others is a reflection of our ignorance and this mentality is the cause of our suffering known as dukkha.

The Buddha has advised us to practice equanimity or Upekkha which helps us to treat everyone equally in society. He made great efforts to create such an atmosphere in society. In the eyes of the Buddha there is no fundamental difference between human beings. So, we should treat everyone with justice and fairness. In Mahayana Buddhism we find the concept of Buddha nature which means that every human being has the potential to become a Buddha. The attainment of enlightenment does not in any way depend on culture, race or background. In it there is no distinction.

The Buddhists try to follow the five precepts in their daily lives. The first precept is not to harm any living beings. It implies that Buddhist try not to cause intentional harm to anyone.

The fourth precept is refraining from false speech. The Buddhists try not to use speech negatively i.e., indulging in harsh and idle speech. They believe that if unfair criticism and discrimination is made by speech it will become an example of bad action which will result in bad outcome.

In the Sutta Nipāta we find a debate regarding caste and what makes a person superior to another in which two Brāhmin disciples participated. Since they themselves could not resolve the dispute, they went to the Buddha and asked his help. The two disputants were Bharadvaja and Vaseṭṭha. The former claims, that a Brāhmin is superior by virtue of his birth alone and Vaseṭṭha says that only meritorious action can make a person Brāhmin. The Buddha replies that unlike in the case of grasses, trees, worms, moths, fish, beasts, birds, and so on human beings cannot be distinguished on distinguishing characteristics of species. Occupations such as cow herder, farmer, archer, or soldier do not make men Brāhmins. Neither do rank or status. Nor can a man be deemed as Brāhmin based on birth to a particular mother. Brāhmins try to prove that they are superior as they are fair and handsome but a little empirical research will establish that such an assertion is baseless. The term Āriyan and non-Āriyan is frequently found in Buddhist literature but they do not have the racial sense usually attached to them. The racial sense of inequality is associated with the word Āriyan but as opposed to this the Buddha used the term Āriyan in the sense of noble or spiritual.

Āriyan quest in the Buddhist terminology is synonymous with spiritual quest defined as the quest of quest of one subject to birth, decay and death, having realized the evil consequences of craving and attachment and sought the secure and immortal heaven of nibbāna. During the Buddha’s time there were two teachers in India who believed that humans lacked free will. One was Puraṇa Kāshypa and the other was Makkhali Gośhāla. Both believed that human beings belonged to one of the six species mentioned below: specific types with predetermined constitutions, physical traits, habits and mentality that cannot be altered by them in any way.

The six categories were designated as six colors. They were the black species, the blue species, the red species, the yellow species the white species and the pure white species.

To the black species belonged the butchers, fowlers, and hunters. Fishermen, dacoits, and executioners, all of whom earned their living through a cruel mode they belonged to the lowest class and had the darkest complexion. But the Buddha on the other hand believed that humans have free will and the capacity for becoming moral or immoral, happy or unhappy, by transforming positively or negatively. There are six classes of beings, namely the evil who will remain evil, the evil who become good, the evil who transcend good and evil and attain nibbāna, the good who become evil, the good who remain good and the good who transcend good and evil and attain nibbāna by exercising their free will. So, the emphasis is not on how humans are born but, on their attitude, and conduct. Regardless of their innate physiological and psychological characteristics they have the choice to make an effort to change, hopefully for the best and not for the worst.

The Madhura Sutta and Assvalāyana Sutta it says that, by the Brahmin people, “Brahmins are the highest caste, those of any other caste are inferior; brahmins are the fairest caste, those of any other caste are dark; only brahmins are purified, not non-brahmins; brahmins alone are the sons of Brahma, the offspring of Brahma, born of his mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.”

The Buddha was totally against this inhuman view. And he excluded this caste system within the Vasala Sutta (Sutta Nipāta); Vāseṭtha Sutta, Madhura Sutta, Assvalāyana Sutta, Kanakatţhal Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya) Soṇodaṇda Sutta (Dīgha Nikāya), Dhammapada (Brāhmaṇ Vagga) etc.

 

The life of the Buddha is an illustration of the ideal of equality. People from all walks of life came under his protection. In the pre-Buddhist society, the status of women was low. A daughter was nothing but a source of anxiety to her parents; for it was a source of disgrace for them if they had remained unmarried. Even if they were married the expenditure involved in the marriage virtually ruined them financially. Women were not entitled to participate in the funeral rites of her parents and the distress of the parents with only girl children was unmitigated.

It was generally believed that the performance of funeral rites was essential for a person's life after death', he usually married in order to gain this end. Hence, the role of woman in society was principally that of a child bearer and she remained completely subservient to her husband and parents. She did not play any role in public activities and after her husband's death she became a possession of her father or son. Her life could become somewhat an exception if she could become the mother of many sons. The Manusmriti devoted the 9^th chapter entirely to laws pertaining to women states that, “Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age. A woman never fit for independence.”

The Buddhist epoch brought about a change in society. Women began to gain more equality and freedom. Increasing emancipation of women brought about erosion on the base male domination. It was impossible for men influenced by the teaching of the Buddha not to favorably respond to that change. They became more aware of the similarities between men and women. The Buddha taught the Dhamma to both the householder and their wife. Again, women achieved outstanding success in many fields by virtue of their intelligence and diligence. This turned the tide and consequently women were acknowledged as capable of playing a constructive and significant part in society. As a result of this the birth of a girl child no longer remained an occasion of despair. Now they enjoyed a large amount of freedom. Princesses and woman of a high degree enjoyed some voice in the matter of choosing their husbands. Under the influence of Buddhism women appeared as an individual with some degree of command over her own life. In this way woman as spinster, wife and widow came to be regarded as an integral part of the society.

An original element of Buddhism is that its converts were drawn from all castes. Membership of it was not a hereditary privilege of one caste and therefore preaching had to be undertaken deliberately. There are numerous examples in which we find Buddhist nuns making converts. Laywomen also were also helpful in the spread of the Buddha's teachings. For example, it is said that Culla Suvadda, Anāthapindaka's daughter awakened in her mother-in-law a desire to see the Buddha by extolling his virtues. The influence of the queens who were converts to Buddhism was so great that their role can be considered to be invaluable in the spread of the teaching. Women are treated as Mātugāma (society of mother), and women are not maidservants to their husbands, they are best friends (Paramsakhā) of their husbands. Buddhism would not have become the force that it did without the part played by the women of contemporary society.

King Udena was converted by his wife Sāmāvati, who herself had been converted by Khujuttara, one of her female maid-servant; and King Pasendi was converted by his queen Mallikā.

Due to his egalitarian outlook the Buddha found acceptance in all quarters of life. Kings like Biṃbisāra, Ajātasatthu and Pasendi, trader like Anāthapiṇdaka, physician like Jivaka were enchanted by his personality and teachings. Even a so-called fallen woman like Amvapāli, robber like Aṅgulimāla, sweeper Sunita, barbar Upāli received His protection. All this became possible due to the Buddha's impartial outlook.

On the whole, when compared to other major religions from the outset women have played an important role in Buddhism both in the capacity as a lay disciples as well as almswoman. Gradually they influenced the Order and the society wherever Buddhism took roots. Unlike other major religions marriage in Buddhism is a purely secular matter. In the Sigālovāda sutta marriage is described as a reciprocal one with mutual obligations and as there is no creator in Buddhism undue importance is not attached to the sacredness of the human body. Above all the mere fact that women were included in the teachings and practices were something unique if we remember that all these took place 2500 years ago in a patriarchal society where women had very few rights in fields of education and religion.