The Philosophies of Buddha: Rejecting the Caste and the Self

Posted: February 21st, 2020

Name:

Tutor:

Course:

Date:

The Philosophies of Buddha: Rejecting the Caste and the Self

The Indian society is rife with religious euphemisms. In this case, the caste structure and the idea of the Atman offer rational examples. Accordingly, the caste system has consistently dominated the Indian community over time. The conventional fourfold system of priests, administrators and soldiers, agriculturalists, merchants, and workers was seen as a divine rule based on its presumed stance as God’s creation. Following God’s original intentions, the caste system was developed with particular functions. As an outcome, individuals conceived into the disparate castes possess definite biologically inherited facilities, which fit them in order to carry out the caste’s functions as their natural obligations. The historical responsibilities of Arjuna due to his birth in the caste of Kshatriya are a perfect illustration of the caste’s influence on modern Indian society. Similar to the caste system, the idea of the Atman is a notion expressed in Buddhism. In this respect, both concepts constitute a central part of what constitutes Buddhism as well as the framework of the Indian community.

The philosophical significance of Arjuna’s position within the warrior caste emphasizes on living the perfect way without necessarily alienating oneself from the society, social or family obligations. Accordingly, the conflict in the Bhagavad-Gita centers on two cousins. These comprise the Pandavas as well as the Kauravas. Accordingly, both clans fight in order to compete for the throne. Due to the nature of the conflict, Arjuna takes his place as the leader and archer of the Pandavas: an affiliate of the warrior caste. Throughout the plot, Arjuna realizes that it is not worth spilling the blood of his kin and loved ones for the sake of controlling the empire. Because of this, Arjuna withdraws from the struggle and inclines towards inaction rather than claim responsibility for the demise of his loved ones. In this respect, his pacifism draws attention to the philosophical role that Arjuna assumes in the Gita.

The decision to withdraw from the battle is further expressed via the conversation between Vishnu and Arjuna. Based on the Gita, Vishnu (who is Krishna) observes Arjuna as he quits. Drawn to his actions, he coaxes Arjuna into assuming his role as a warrior. After all, his attachment to the warrior caste spiritually and biologically allows him to engage with the enemy by taking part in the conflict. Despite this, Arjuna expresses his dissent with the battle due to the ramifications it will impose on his family as well as himself on a personal and spiritual life. Nonetheless, the conversation that continues between Krishna and Arjuna reveals the significance of the story, particularly in respect to Arjuna’s role as a member of the Kshatriya. Apparently, the importance of Arjuna’s warrior role places emphasis on the significance of the caste structure and the positive consequences that it accords to one who assumes his or her inherited role to the best of his or her abilities.

Indeed, due to Krishna’s conversation with Arjuna, it is evident that morality is not subject to change irrespective of caste. Because of his role as a warrior, Arjuna was inclined to participate in the war. This is due to the duties and obligations that the caste accords to him. Furthermore, the source of immorality does not necessarily lie in the course of action that an individual commits. Instead, immorality becomes evident if the respective individual expresses desires, passions, and intentions that determine the actions that he or she performs. Hence, with Arjuna, his role, which weighed heavy on his heart, would only be immoral if he expressed malevolent desires, intentions, and passions. Hence, despite the destruction that would be imposed on his loved ones, Arjuna’s involvement in the armed struggle between the Pandavas and the Kauravas was moral. As such, his morality would not be compromised even if he were part of the Brahmin since the respective aspect is determined by the aspects behind the actions.

Regardless of the caste system’s endorsement by Krishna as illustrated by the conversation between him and Arjuna, the Buddha expressed rejection against the respective framework. The significance of his rejection is centered on the need for rationality. For the Buddha, the caste system exhibited behaviors that went against the moral aspects of the structure in the first place. For instance, the Buddha criticized the caste framework based on the superiority complex of the priests, the irrational nature of the system’s theological foundations, and the rejection imposed by the system especially on the Sangha people as well as outcasts. Additionally, the criticism of the caste structure by the Buddha placed emphasis on other aspects that were relevant in determining one’s position within a certain caste rather than birth. As such, for the Buddha, behavior was seen as an imperative dimension in ascertaining one’s position in a caste order rather than conception.

Apart from Krishna’s emphasis on obeying the caste and the Buddha’s rejection of it, the latter also criticized Krishna’s accentuation regarding the ātman. In the conversation with Arjuna, Krishna convinces Arjuna to take part in the war due to the eternal nature of the ātman. Hence, since the ātman is everlasting, it would actually be wrong for a person to assume that he or she can murder another person. This is because of the validation surrounding the concept of reincarnation. On the other hand, the Buddha argued for the anātman due to its stance against selfishness as well connection to the five skandhas, which argue for rejection of the self. The rejection of the ātman by the Buddha developed a new philosophy aimed at expunging self-centeredness as well as a devalued stance against another person’s life, consequently rejecting Hinduism in the end.