The Buddha Talks to a
Brahmin Supremacist
Krishnan Venkatesh FEB
09, 2017 tricycle
How
a Buddhist teaching on dismantling the superiority of the brahmin
class can help us take on racism.
The belief that a group of people can be born
superior to all other groups has been around for a very long time,
and even existed during the time of the Buddha. For 3,000 years,
society in South Asia has been dominated by the caste system,
according to which a person is born into one of four major castes
(varna), or social stations: laborers, merchants, warriors, and
brahmins. According to the earliest Hindu scriptures,
brahmins—scholars and priests—were the highest caste and viewed as
morally and spiritually superior to the others; indeed, they are
called “brahmins” because according to one of the hymns of the Rg
Veda, they were born from the mouth of Brahman [God].
In the Pali Canon, the Buddha has many
conversations with brahmins who, clearly provoked by his ideas of
radical equality, routinely approached him to argue and learn. Late
in the Middle Length Discourses, we meet a group of 500 brahmins
who live in the town of Savatthi, where the Buddha is staying at
the time. When they hear that the Buddha has been teaching that all
the castes are equally “pure,” they are outraged, and decide to
send a smart young brahmin to go and debate him.
In the following conversation between the Buddha
and the proud brahmin Assalayana (after whom the Assalayana Sutta
is named), the Buddha offers some ways to address the obdurate
belief in superiority of caste, race, or any other birth
group.
Master Gotama, the brahmins say, ‘Brahmins are
the superior caste; any other caste is inferior. Only brahmins are
the fair caste; any other caste is dark. Only brahmins are pure,
not non-brahmins. Only brahmins are the sons and offspring of
Brahma: born of his mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs
of Brahma.’ What does Master Gotama have to say with regard to
that?
The Buddha begins to dismantle Assalayana’s
notions of superiority by noting that we all enter the world the
same way:
But, Assalayana, the brahmins’ brahmin-women are
plainly seen having their periods, becoming pregnant, giving birth,
and nursing [their children]. And yet the brahmins, being born
through the birth canal, say, “Brahmins are the superior caste . .
.”
The Buddha grounds this initial discussion in
physical reality, as it is difficult to argue that people who give
birth the same way are fundamentally different. Besides, how
delightful is it that a creature who emerges from the nether end of
its mother can entertain fantasies about its own transcendent
superiority! We see from this exchange that the Buddha has a wry
sense of humor as well as a comedian’s gift for drawing out the
absurd.
The Buddha then proceeds to ask questions that
he already knows Assalayana’s answers to. First, whether a person
is a brahmin, a warrior, a merchant, or a laborer, if he does bad
things, can he expect to suffer bad consequences? And if he does
good things, can he expect to be rewarded with good consequences?
Surely, replies Assalayana. Good people are good people, and bad
people are bad people, no matter what they come from, and all can
be expected to suffer the appropriate consequences. Even a brahmin
supremacist has to admit to knowing some brahmins who are terrible
people and some farm laborers who are wise and noble.
Next, the Buddha asks whether brahmins,
warriors, merchants, and workers have the same relationship to
their bodies and to the physical world. When anybody from any caste
goes down to the river to bathe, do they not all scrub their skin
and then rinse with water? And when they start a fire using logs,
kindling, and a lighter, do they not all produce fire and heat, and
smoke that makes everyone cough? Using the same materials and
techniques, every human being will produce the same fire; thus
notions of caste superiority have no basis whatsoever in the
physical nature of the world.
At this point, in case Assalayana doesn’t
believe that the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology have any
bearing on the issue of ethical supremacy, the Buddha swerves back
to the question of merit within the same caste. Between two brahmin
brothers, is it possible for one to be worthier than the other—for
example, the hard-working, respectful brother, versus the lazy,
slanderous one? That is, when we’re dealing only with brahmins, it
is clear that merit has nothing to do with birth; at least, we
behave as if the more virtuous brother has deserved more
respect.
To his credit, at this point in the conversation
Assalayana has already understood the weakness of his prejudices.
The brahmin student Assalayana sat silent, abashed, his shoulders
drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words. He is too
intelligent not to see that when he thinks about it, the
supremacist posture turns out to be an embarrassment to the
intelligence. The Buddha then delivers an amusing coup de grâce by
retelling the legend of the ancient Hindu sage Devala the Dark’s
challenge to seven arrogant brahmins:
But do you know, masters, if the mother who bore
you went only with a brahmin, and not with a
non-brahmin?
No, master.
And do you know if the mothers of the mother who
bore you—back seven generations of mothers—went only with brahmins,
and not with non-brahmins?
No, master.
And do you know if the father who sired you went
only with a brahmin woman, and not with a non-brahmin
woman?
No, master.
And do you know if the fathers of the father who
bore you—back seven generations of fathers—went only with brahmin
women, and not with non-brahmin women?
No, master.
We know next to nothing about the sexual
behavior of our parents, let alone our ancestors; about some things
there is just no knowing. If we do not know the circumstances of
our conception and the conceptions of those who conceived us, we
have no right to claim superiority because of birth.
That being the case, do you know who you are?
the Buddha asks.
That being the case, master, we don’t know who
we are.
Assalayana has learned something, as have we:
how a Buddha dispels an inveterate, vehemently held prejudice by
calmly asking what it is based on. Throughout all of this, the
Buddha has expressed no irritation, anger, or indignation. He is
engaging with Assalayana on Assalayana’s own terms, using images
and vocabulary from ordinary life. He treats Assalayana with
respect, trusting his intelligence and knowing that the young man
is smart enough to put two and two together for himself. If the
Buddha had asked leading questions, Assalayana would have been put
on the defensive and potentially found ways to argue back. Instead,
the Buddha appears to be genuinely interested in what Assalayana
will say, but he also knows what a reasonable response to the
questions will be because the Buddha himself—having been born in
the warrior caste—has thought them through.
Did the Assalayana Sutta shake the caste system
to its foundations and transform Indian society? No. Even today,
the matrimonial pages of South Asian newspapers will specify not
only castes but sub-castes and sub-sub-castes, and fairness of
complexion is still explicitly preferred.
But still, for today’s practitioners, this
Buddhist sutta illustrates a tactic we might use against racist
sentiment: it demonstrates a method of unraveling deep-rooted
prejudice by asking questions that activate intelligent reflection.
In these times in which racism is openly espoused both in-person
and online, this persistent form of questioning might serve as one
of the more trustworthy tools we can use against it.