Why Buddhism don't use the caste system?
Answers
Buddha was from the Kshatriya family, and throughout his life, he felt proud of his birth in the kshatriya family. He was regarded by his fellow kshatriya rulers, and shown reverence for the same.
It is a present day trend to show that Buddha did not believe in the caste system. That is as per the neo Buddhist school of Buddhism, started by Ambedkar. The government and the education department also do not want to bring the truth out.
The Tripitaka literature of Buddhism, written within one year of the demise of Buddhism states that Buddha believed in the caste system, and there is evidence to prove the same.
The Dhamma and Sangha was open to all, but so is hindu religion. Buddha has stated in the “Avi Doore Nidaan Katha”, one of the Jatak Attha katha, part of the Khuddak Nikaaya, of the Sutta pitaka, that a Buddha is never born in the caste of either a Vaishya or a Shudra. He further states that a Buddha is born always either in a Brahmin family or in the highly placed Kshatriya family. That is why, according to the “Buddha Vamsa Pali”, another book of the same Khuddak Nikaaya, Buddha states that out of the total 25 Buddhas happened to take birth so far ( 28 as per some other traditions), 22 were born in the kshatriya family, and the rest of the three in the Brahmin family.
Even when Buddha was born as a Bodhisatwa during these 24 previous births, in the days of earlier Buddhas, he was born either as a brahmin, well learned in the three vedas, or in the family of the kshatriya kings. Just once was he born as a lion. But never as a Vaishya or a shudra.
There are 550 and odd Jataka Katha, where Buddha was born as Bodhisatwa. Out of these, he was not born as a shudra even for five times, out of 550 times. More than being born as a shudra, he was born as an animal or bird. But why not as a shudra? As per the neo Buddhists, the shudras were the dominating caste even in those days, and by proportion, Buddha should have been born in a shudra family at least 500 times out of 550 times. But that is not the case.
There is a concept of “Brahmin shraman” in the Buddhist literature of the tripitakas and even the later literature. This term means that a person who is a brahmin as well as a Buddhist monk, should be called by this term. This shows the influence of the brahmins with Buddha. But contrary to the same, there is no term in the vast Buddhist literature as the “Shudra shraman” , “Kshatriya shraman” or even a “vaishya shraman”.
The followers of Buddha, as stated in the tripitaka, are either brahmin scholars, who had embraced Buddhism, or are the kshatriya princes, mostly the relatives of Buddha. There are a few vaishyas also, but they are neither monks, nor seen in the inner circle of Buddha. They are just the rich men of the cities, the bankers and the traders, who feed the monks. Then there are no shudras in the sangha, that were found worth mentioning in the tripitakas, or who were considered fit to lead the religion. There seems a vacuum in the higher reaches of Buddhism for the shudras.
The Ambattha sutta of Buddhism, a part of the Sutta pitaka, is a dialogue between a brahmin student and Buddha. It turns vulgar and crude at a few places. But the dialogue in this sutta is concerned about the superiority of Kshatriya over the brahmin. Buddha tries his best to propagate his views that a kshatriya is always better and highly placed than a brahmin. But he does not state that all the four varnas are the same and equal. He even does not mention either the Vaishya or the shudra varna during the discussion. To prove that he was a great man, Buddha seems eager to show his 32 signs of being a “Maha purush” or a great man. These signs are as per the definition given by the brahmins in their books of astrology.
There is one Brahma jaal sutta, where Buddha assails many professions carried out during his days. Most of these professions are the ones adopted by the shudras for their livelihood even now.
The Mahaparinibban sutta also does not mention whether the shudras also were given a part of the ashes and remains of Buddha after cremation. It was divided between the high caste hindu followers of Buddha. He had even made a wish that he should be cremated like a king, an emperor, and not like a common man.
There are many such evidences to bring out the bias of Buddha against the lower castes of hindus. But the same are confined to the tripitakas. These are seldom read by the people. Only those Jataka tales are taught in the schools as part of the curricula, that show Buddha in a secular and anti caste light. The neo Buddhists have adopted Buddhist religion on this premise only that Buddha did not believe in caste system. If they read the tripitaka, they may feel disillusioned, and may even blame Ambedkar to have led them from one caste based religion to just another such one.
Explanation:
The first being to investigate that the Buddha somehow criticized caste as an institution; and, the second, that in the 20th century many low-caste Hindus, under the influence of Ambedkarite teachings rediscovered and converted to Buddhism in order to escape caste discrimination.