Together, these panelists adopt a textual approach that uncovers both the construction of caste in premodern Buddhist texts and the ways that later Buddhists engaged with the literary tradition. Panelist 1 re-examines the characterization of the Buddhist tradition’s stance toward caste by placing early Buddhist texts within the historical context of the development of Brahmanical caste ideology. Panelist 2 analyzes the production of caste categories in Mahāyāna Sutras through discourses about smell, meat-eating, and purity. The next two panelists consider how modern South Asian thinkers engaged with the premodern Buddhist textual tradition. Panelist 3 positions B.R. Ambedkar as a philologist, whose engagement with Pali and Sanskrit literature was guided by his anti-caste work. Panelist 4 broadens the focus from Ambedkar to also include Anagarika Dharmapala and Dharmanand Kosambi, illustrating how caste remained an integral component of all three modernist subcontinental Buddhist reformers.
This paper argues that the seemingly ambivalent attitude of the early Buddhist tradition toward caste is in fact an artifact of a modern scholarly misunderstanding of the history of the caste system. The prevailing assumption has been that the caste system was of hoary antiquity by the time of the Buddha, and that therefore “the Buddha,” if he spoke about caste at all, must have taken a stand one way or the other about it. I will argue instead that the beginnings of caste ideology were coalescing among reactionary Brahmans at the same time as the early Buddhist texts were being composed. By reading Tipiṭaka texts alongside roughly contemporaneous Brahmanical text, we gain a clearer picture of how Buddhist rhetorical strategies against conservative and reactionary Brahmans contributed to the shape of an emerging caste ideology.
Because smell is often used in a metaphorical sense, one might be inclined to read instances of fragrant virtue as just that—a metaphor. However, olfaction, as it is described within the earliest Buddhist texts to argue for vegetarianism, breaks down our cleanly divided modern categories of literal and metaphorical. Smell is used within these sūtras, and within premodern South Asian texts more generally, as “a way of knowing things about the world. People can use smells in order to tell whether a particular source of smell is pure or impure…low caste or high caste” (McHugh, 2012, 90). In this way, what a smell implies about one’s identity is of paramount importance. This paper explores how smell is used within Mahāyāna sūtras as a marker of caste. In particular, the paper contends that the sociological concept of “odorphobia” can help illustrate how malodor signifies low-caste stature within these Buddhist texts.
The paper reads B.R. Ambedkar as a philologist through his engagement with Pali and Sanskrit towards the making of Buddhist texts. By tracing a genealogy of key sacred texts, the essay specifically focuses on how liturgical languages engage with caste hierarchy. The object of analysis in the paper is the category of caste and how it continues to function from antiquity to the mid-twentieth century. I historicize Ambedkar’s engagement with language (Choudhury, 2018; Bronkhorst, 2019) and read it with other philological interpretations of early Buddhism (Norman, 2006), alongside recent scholarship on Ambedkar (eds. Jondhale and Beltz, 2004; eds. Rathore and Verma, 2011). This long historical thread culminates in a (casteless?) The Buddha and His Dhamma (Ambedkar, 1957) based on which I argue that Ambedkar reformulates the idea of what it means to be sacred through his decades-long engagement with Buddhism.
Caste figured little in studies of Buddhist traditions across Asia because caste seemingly had little effect on Buddhist communities outside the subcontinent. Yet, as perhaps the identifying, if not defining, feature of South Asian societies, caste proved an inescapable phenomenon for modernist subcontinental Buddhist thinkers such as Anagarika Dharmapala (1864-1933), Dharmanand Kosambi (1876-1947), and BR Ambedkar (1891-1956). While the semantic ambiguity of jāti allows the linguistic term to become mapped onto various forms of exclusion and difference, we must not forget that caste mattered in the primary social circles of these three thinkers. This paper explores the various ways in which they hoped to build a strong South Asian Buddhist community by positioning the religion around, or beyond, caste discourses. Despite their respective efforts to distance themselves from its practice and its reach, caste remained an integral component in their various social calculations and interactions.